Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[Koondense]

You're avoiding the questions with ad hominem + strawman.
Classic troll.


If you're asking stuff for a year and in that time never provided an answer, sorry dude, you got way too much attention for nothing.


Show us the numbers. Where can we find confirmation of your statements except in your previous posts?

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

I DID provide you the answer multiple times. That's what's even more ridiculous about you peoples' positions.

You're avoiding the questions with ad hominem + strawman.
Classic troll.


If you're asking stuff for a year and in that time never provided an answer, sorry dude, you got way too much attention for nothing.


Show us the numbers. Where can we find confirmation of your statements except in your previous posts?

Here's your leaders admitting how much energy the atmosphere refracts to space.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/EnergyBalance/images/reflected_radiation.jpg

Here's your leaders telling you that 29% loss,

makes more than 100% of available energy leave the planet.

https://goo.gl/vHv4H3

Here, the charts showing you which gases perform the vast majority of that energy loss

cooling

of the planet 29%.

The Green House Gases. Ozone does some of the cooling and Oxygen some, dust does some. The VAST majority about 23%, are the GHGs and the other 6% are what the others send to space to never join Earth's physical hence mathematical surface temperature calculations.

https://goo.gl/9EoYG8

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

Stop your denial of what you're seeing and face it. You're being told the very atmosphere and indeed the very GASES, refracting about 30% of the sun's energy to space, never to join Earth's systems

are making MORE than 100% available sunlight energy leave the planet.

Since you all seem to be in a state of perpetual ignorance to the point you can't name the law of physics you're all confident you're experts in, here's a hint:

there's no such thing as light blocking insulation making 29% less light go into something,

make more than 100% come out,

by virtue of not letting the 29% go in.

There is a law. If 29% less energy goes in, 29% less goes out. Full stop, no negotiation.

The INSTANT you purport otherwise you're engaged in transparent Conservation-of-Energy violation.

Which is why you who believed in it are hiding and screeching and cursing - but never addressing what you're being clearly taught.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

One search ''how much energy does the Atmosphere reflect to space?''

https://goo.gl/GxhWfo

The very first return:

"The atmosphere and the surface of the Earth together absorb 71 percent of incoming solar radiation, so together, they must radiate that much energy back to space for the planet's average temperature to remain stable."

The Dunning-Kruger Association wasn't able to type those words into a search and read them?

Of course they weren't. It was all such complicated signts and all.

Complete lack of curiosity about apparently very real disagreements in technical figures
is another sign people know they are practicing deceit.

Crazy emotions, pretense at being concerned for the planet yet not bothering to even look up the most fundamental parameters of their own stories.

Screeching, cursing, hate-filled drivel, accompanied by ignorance so appalling not a person in the group can even name the law of physics they're talking about - evidence something is very very wrong with the mindset of those doing it.

Yet another sign people are knowingly practicing deceit is constant generalizations, - refusing to address technical information clearly showing their stories

are poorly camouflaged
transparent fraud.

It's perfectly plain you're being told the very atmospheric gases kicking nearly 30% of the sun's energy to space

are making more than 100% of available sunlight come out of the very planet surface they make 29% less go into.

Every word of it's fakery which is why the only people who will endorse it are government employees whose jobs depend on it,

and people so ignorant of the thing they can't name the law of physics they're talking about.

All this name calling that you've done, it's to hide the fact you refuse to teach yourself about it

because you don't want to learn how easily and how transparently you've been lied to: and told it's your duty to spit on anyone who won't agree with you that 29% less energy in

means more than 100% out.

 

[Koondense]

You seem to have unresolved issues with people, not my problem.
I suggest you one thing, since you seem to target specific people to make it easy for you to mock their intelligence.

Make an account on physicsforums. com
Make a thread in which you explain your views in detail(so we can finally get your point)
Post a link of the thread in this thread.

That's about it, let us learn the truth.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/EnergyBalance

Yet more of the information not one of you had the adulthood to look up when told of it's existence, zero intellectual curiosity, zero concern for anything but spewing hate at the people who try to educate you about it.

The very same people in here hiding from the murderous global pot's like heroin scam, foisted on you

by the very same people,
darkening your understanding of even whether less energy into something makes more than 100% come out,
by making 29% less go in.

It says right there on NASA's own site: "The atmosphere and the surface of the Earth together absorb 71 percent of incoming solar radiation, so together, they must radiate that much energy back to space for the planet's average temperature to remain stable."

And yet all over the church's teachings you see ''The very same gases making nearly 30% less energy go into the planet are making more come out than if there was no atmosphere and the planet received full, 100% sunlight.'' 33 degrees hotter than if the planet received 100% energy.

Than if there was no cold light blocking bath, making 29% never go into it.

Dunning-Kruger?

You guys just get out your calculators and figure out exactly how enough energy goes into a rock to make it 33 degrees hotter than if it received 100% full energy.

By making 29% less go in.

We can compare work. Me, most of the civilized world and the laws of thermodynamics say 29% less in better damned well be 29% less out or somebody's perpetrating crass, transparent, fraud so transparent people would have to turn off their brains and go into zombie mode to believe it.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

You have unresolved issues with your claims, those are your problem.

You seem to have unresolved issues with people, not my problem.
I suggest you one thing, since you seem to target specific people to make it easy for you to mock their intelligence.

Make an account on physicsforums. com
Make a thread in which you explain your views in detail(so we can finally get your point)
Post a link of the thread in this thread.

That's about it, let us learn the truth.

29% less energy in, can't be more than 100% out

and you got caught thinking it can. You just learned the truth about that.

Which is why the last thing you'll do is man up and address the evidence.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

And so you'll name-call & hide, too humiliated and embarrassed to admit you got caught telling people the very same cold light blocking atmosphere making 29% less energy go into the planet

makes more than 100% come out,

by making the 29% less go in.

 

[Koondense]

Waiting for the link of the thread on physicsforums.com.


Still insulting me eh?

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

You're not waiting on anything, you decided to hide. You said show you the source of my statements I did.

Waiting for the link of the thread on physicsforums.com.


Still insulting me eh?

You're hiding. That's the insult you're wearing away from this, you turned tail and fled the debate, hilariously.

After pretending to come out and stick up for the team,

you got one whiff of your own teachings and collapsed, unable to mount a single sentence in defense of them.

Practicing that avoidance behavior, that is so signature to knowing you can't defend what you say.

 

[Koondense]

Again, stop saying what other people do. You're just showing your delusional state.
I don't have time for your issues with reality, so can you please take them to another more suitable site? I'm waiting for the link.


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance
https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/index.html
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf


Take your time.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

You got the link. The one where NASA admits 29% of total sunlight energy never warm Earth. The one where the university just verified what N.A.S.A. has no choice but admit. The GHGs cool the planet about 23% and the atmosphere in toto cools it 29, causing the planet to account for about 71% of the Sun's energy.

You're not going to jedi-mind trick your way out of this. Everybody knows what you've seen, when you asked to see it, and now you're just rambling about mythical threads that don't exist and expressing discomfort someone knows what you've been telling people you believe.

Again, stop saying what other people do. You're just showing your delusional state.
I don't have time for your issues with reality, so can you please take them to another more suitable site? I'm waiting for the link.


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance
https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/index.html
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf


Take your time.

You came in and said ''show me where you get that the Atmosphere cools the planet 29%. I showed you.

You didn't really have the courage to deny they also tell you the GHGs make the planet give off more than 100% of total available energy,

but I showed you page after page of ''The gases making 29% less energy go into Earth, make more than 100% of available energy come out of Earth, till it's 33 degrees warmer than if it were warmed with all 100%.''

And you're just in full avoidance meltdown about it.

 

[Koondense]

You came in and said ''show me where you get that the Atmosphere cools the planet 29%. I showed you.

You didn't really have the courage to deny they also tell you the GHGs make the planet give off more than 100% of total available energy,

but I showed you page after page of ''The gases making 29% less energy warm Earth, make more than 100% of available energy come out of Earth, till it's 33 degrees warmer than if Earth's system received 100% of available sunlight.''

I didn't say that. I said show us confirmation for your statements.
You provided some links but failed to explain how they support your claims. If you think we're got time to spend for finding support for your claims, you're wrong. It's your job and you're not doing it properly. If you were doing it properly I would not be here explaining it to you.
The not yet existing thread on physicsforums was an intention to guide you towards a community with which you can chat about your theories, those people are much more suited for the topic you want to discuss, also the level of climate related knowledge there will be higher than on a cannabis forum. You should know that.



Still bothers me why do you persist here, on a cannabis forum, and show mockery/disrespect for people who don't agree with you.



And I'm saying this the last time, don't ever say what another person is doing, you have no idea.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

More circling and chirping to try to get back some cred. Everyone else saw what you did, and they know you had the opportunity to see it.

I didn't say that. I said show us confirmation for your statements.
You provided some links but failed to explain how they support your claims. If you think we're got time to spend for finding support for your claims, you're wrong. It's your job and you're not doing it properly. If you were doing it properly I would not be here explaining it to you.
The not yet existing thread on physicsforums was an intention to guide you towards a community with which you can chat about your theories, those people are much more suited for the topic you want to discuss, also the level of climate related knowledge there will be higher than on a cannabis forum. You should know that.



Still bothers me why do you persist here, on a cannabis forum, and show mockery/disrespect for people who don't agree with you.



And I'm saying this the last time, don't ever say what another person is doing, you have no idea.

Stop trying to Jedi-Topper your way into some kind of dominance.

You came into a thread going since 2011 this morning, and opened a conversation with a request for some evidence.

You got that evidence on the understanding you'd act like an adult and have some dialog that didn't involve you utterly avoiding your church's teachings.

Whenever you feel like you can discuss it the thread's been here since 2011 so it's not like somebody won't be around.

 

[Koondense]

You have NO IDEA when I came in this thread, as you have NO IDEA how to behave on a forum. What dominance, you think this is a game of dominance? You have no idea.

Still repeating the same words, church and stuff...go away with this please.


It's obvious that debating with you is pointless, it's not the lack of knowledge it's lack of patience for dealing with such silly behaviour.


What about my links, no reply on the facts there? It's strange there has to be a debate about what's settled for quite some time.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

I didn't look at your links, all the other ones you provided, said the Atmosphere is a magic heater.

That the temperature of the planet is 33 degrees hotter than if there were no atmosphere and the planet was getting 100% sunlight.

I'll go check your links and see if they claim a magical gassiness makes the planet warmer, than 71% energy would make it.

Surely you didn't link to that right? Because I just showed you NASA admits the planet's cooled 29% by the Atmosphere.

You have NO IDEA when I came in this thread, as you have NO IDEA how to behave on a forum. What dominance, you think this is a game of dominance? You have no idea.

Still repeating the same words, church and stuff...go away with this please.


It's obvious that debating with you is pointless, it's not the lack of knowledge it's lack of patience for dealing with such silly behaviour.


What about my links, no reply on the facts there? It's strange there has to be a debate about what's settled for quite some time.

And why aren't you able to discuss the principles in the links? That's what a debate is.

It's when you present your information and you accompany it with an explanation in your own words.

Just putting up links without an explanation isn't a debate that's called spamming.

Generally that's what I consider it when people put up links saying magic makes a cold bath a heater, but they don't have the courage to discuss their beliefs.

I'm gonna go look at your links & if they say a magical gassiness made a cold bath a heater you're gonna need to explain how 29% less energy in makes more than 100% come back out.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

...
Two questions:
What is the calculated night time temperature for an earth like planet but without atmosphere?
What are the measured values?

The moon?
260F (127c) during the day, -280F (-173c) at night.

Mercury?
801F during the day & -279F at night.

Oh will you look at that, at night time they're the same.

So no atmosphere means what???

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

I see on your one link there, NASA fully admitting the truth the planet is cooled by the atmosphere 29%.

"The atmosphere and the surface of the Earth together absorb 71 percent of incoming solar radiation, so together, they must radiate that much energy back to space for the planet’s average temperature to remain stable. "

Then they present you with a picture of more energy coming out of the Earth than going in and tell you this: "The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere."

That's of course utter falsehood. The presence of the GHGs creates MOST of that 29% COOLING.

So it's your fraudulent document, you explain to us how 29% less in makes more than 100% come back out.

You just presented me with documentation NASA admits 29% less energy in,

then turns around and says the VERY SAME GASES make MORE than 100% come back out.

So it's up to you, to explain where all this energy comes from.

First 29% less go in.

Then more comes out than if 100% went in.

The VERY first document you showed me, in case you're still not with it, is the one I showed you back. It's your own document.

Telling you 29% less energy in

makes more than 100% come back out.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance

This one.

So - explain it to us.

First, 29% LESS goes IN.
Then, because of the magical gassiness
more than 100% comes back out.

Tell us how that happens in your world.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

FG-840 debating style is the same way someone going to jail debates. If you can't answer the question, attack the person asking it.

 

[Yamaha FG-840]

You claimed you're a heat dissipation specialist so you know what no atmosphere means.

The slowest possible cooling and the highest physically possible temperature, by rule of thermodynamic law.

The moon?
260F (127c) during the day, -280F (-173c) at night.

Mercury?
801F during the day & -279F at night.

Oh will you look at that, at night time they're the same.

So no atmosphere means what???

If you actually heat tested electronic equipment you know less and less atmosphere cools less and less, until atmospheric cooling is zero, and final radiating temperature is at maximum for energy in.

Kinda seems odd you're not cognizant of that. The definition of no atmosphere conditions, is the highest possible temperature for the energy warming the mass.

Maybe that's what you're reminding him, that no-atmosphere conditions mean as hot as an object can get for the energy warming it. It pretty much better be

or you're in direct, open contravention of thermodynamic law so basic, it's a test question in even beginner mass-energy classes