The opposite of DENIALIST....

I have added a screen capture in order to see both side of the prior post's conversation


1706198993027.png





End of screen cap


Your issue ["infamiliarity with the terminology"], not mine.
You would be the one who, for unknown reasons, believe emissivity to be the inverse of albedo. That is demonstrably false
Yes, it is. [the inverse]
From Oxford Dictionary:
albedo: the proportion of the incident light or radiation that is reflected by a surface, typically that of a planet or moon.

From the National Physical Laboratory
Emissivity is defined as the ratio of the energy radiated from a material's surface to that radiated from a perfect emitter, known as a blackbody, at the same temperature and wavelength and under the same viewing conditions.

Emissivity and albedo describe different physical processes: reflection and radiation.
Then you will continue to be wrong.
Not per any facts you have posted.
But aren't "magic greenhouse gases" supposed to make Earth sooooo much WARMER???
Another indication of your science shortcomings. The moon gets very hot under sun because it has no atmosphere to block radiation striking the surface. It gets very cold when the sun is down because it is radiating unchecked to a 2K universe. Atmosphere's modulate those exchanges, particularly in atmosphere's which contain greenhouse gases. Are you rejecting the greenhouse effect? Is that going to be another demonstration of your scientific expertise?
"Greenhouse effect" is the physics-denying doctrine that provides the holy mechanism for Global Warming. Nothing more.
Oh please do explain how the greenhouse effect is "physics-denying".
Yes. Do YOU?

Holy links (especially Wikipedia) are always summarily dismissed on sight.
If you were to look through my conversations you would find that I post lots of links to supporting reference material while my opponents post almost nothing. They've all got excuses for their shortcomings in that regard but I'm pretty sure we all know the reason why: none exist.
It is not possible to accurately measure the emissivity of Earth because it is not possible to accurately measure the temperature of Earth.
Why not?
Yes, you did, and you repeat it again below.

Here, you have repeated it. You haven't added any additional thermal energy under this scenario, yet you're still claiming that Earth has somehow increased in temperature. Where is the additional thermal energy that is required to increase Earth's temperature coming from?
When the weather gets cold, do you add a blanket to your bedlinen? Does it increase the temperature undernearh it? Where does that extra energy come from?
When you have nothing else, resort to insults.
When I run into someone as ignorant as you spouting as much bullshit as you I am driven to give frank review.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top