Remember me
▼ Content

Analysis of Emissions


Analysis of Emissions06-04-2018 17:17
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
I have been insisting for years on virtually all of the man-made global warming sites that there is NO energy present in the wave-lengths that CO2 absorbs.

Many of the True Believer sites have simply banned me from their presence so that they could refer to everyone that doesn't believe their religion as "Deniers".

So as a quick analysis let me hand out my hypothesis:

The Earth is covered 70% with oceans and lakes. A very large proportion of the land is naturally covered with plant life. There is only a very small proportion of bare dirt. The small areas of Desert for example. And only those in warm regions that do not attract ground covers of some sort.

There are only three major absorption bands of CO2 and they are described rather plainly here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

So now that we have an idea of the amount of energy that is absorbed by CO2 we need to have an idea of what sort of energy is emitted by the various surfaces of the Earth:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/node/1906

As you can see, the actual response of the Earth is to have very little energy in the absorption bands of CO2. Again, this means that practically ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth after absorbing the energy emitted from the Sun is absorbed at very low levels of CO2.

And since H2O in it's three phases absorbs almost ALL of the emitted wavelengths of the Earth CO2 would be competing with something that is, on the average, at least 100 times more common than CO2 in the atmosphere.

And to lend to this: most areas in which large amounts of CO2 is generated is around large cities. These tend to be near large bodies of water so that instead of an average humidity of 4% it is more like 40% and CO2 is competing with a material that is 1,000 times more common.

Although you will see it often shown in Energy Balance charts and pictures that radiation accounts for almost all of the energy emissions from the Earth this ignores the fact that the atmosphere catches this almost immediately and converts it from radiated energy to the mechanical energy that moves through the troposphere via conduction and convection.

So the radiated energy that moves at the speed of light is converted to a mechanical energy of conduction which moves very slowly. This is what causes the atmospheric blanket which allows the Earth to have a warm Troposphere that has a surface heat of 18 degrees C, vs the Moon's 100 degree C daytime temperature and -173 degree nights.

This conduction and convection is the true cause of the Greenhouse Effect. So while it is indeed real it is impossible for man to have any sort of effect on this process.
06-04-2018 18:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
I have been insisting for years on virtually all of the man-made global warming sites that there is NO energy present in the wave-lengths that CO2 absorbs.

Really??? There is no energy in light???
Wake wrote:
Many of the True Believer sites have simply banned me from their presence so that they could refer to everyone that doesn't believe their religion as "Deniers".

Are you sure it wasn't because of your violent nature?
Wake wrote:
So as a quick analysis let me hand out my hypothesis:

You are describing a theory, not a hypothesis. Hypothesis stem from an existing theory, not the other way around. Now let's look at your theory:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is covered 70% with oceans and lakes. A very large proportion of the land is naturally covered with plant life. There is only a very small proportion of bare dirt. The small areas of Desert for example. And only those in warm regions that do not attract ground covers of some sort.

So far so good.
Wake wrote:
There are only three major absorption bands of CO2 and they are described rather plainly here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

There are actually a lot of them. Most are below the infrared band. This article concentrates on the IR absorption bands only.
Wake wrote:
So now that we have an idea of the amount of energy that is absorbed by CO2 we need to have an idea of what sort of energy is emitted by the various surfaces of the Earth:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/node/1906

This article does not show that. It only shows comparative (that is relational values) rather than absolute values.
As you can see, the actual response of the Earth is to have very little energy in the absorption bands of CO2.[/quote]
Infrared light is energy. The Earth radiates light primarily from the surface, and all of it in the infrared band. It is not all radiated on the frequencies of CO2 or H2O.
Wake wrote:
Again, this means that practically ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth after absorbing the energy emitted from the Sun is absorbed at very low levels of CO2.

WRONG. ALL of the energy is radiated again by Earth. What is absorbed by CO2 or anything else is radiated by whatever absorbed it. Go read the article you quoted.
Wake wrote:
And since H2O in it's three phases absorbs almost ALL of the emitted wavelengths of the Earth CO2 would be competing with something that is, on the average, at least 100 times more common than CO2 in the atmosphere.

It doesn't. Did you know the oceans radiate infrared light? So does the water vapor in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
And to lend to this: most areas in which large amounts of CO2 is generated is around large cities.

Argument from randU. No one has measured this. It is only assumed.
Wake wrote:
These tend to be near large bodies of water so that instead of an average humidity of 4% it is more like 40% and CO2 is competing with a material that is 1,000 times more common.

Such 'competition' means nothing. It makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
Although you will see it often shown in Energy Balance charts and pictures that radiation accounts for almost all of the energy emissions from the Earth

I really don't give a damn about pictures of made up 'energy budgets'.
Wake wrote:
this ignores the fact that the atmosphere catches this almost immediately and converts it from radiated energy to the mechanical energy that moves through the troposphere via conduction and convection.

WRONG. Most of the Planck radiance comes directly from the surface, including the oceans. A very small amount comes from the atmosphere. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface is hotter and denser than the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
So the radiated energy that moves at the speed of light is converted to a mechanical energy of conduction which moves very slowly.

WRONG. Air is heated primarily by conduction from the surface, not radiance. You also seem to be ignoring convection.
Wake wrote:
This is what causes the atmospheric blanket

The atmosphere does not reduce heat. It is not an insulator. It is not a 'blanket'.
Wake wrote:
which allows the Earth to have a warm Troposphere that has a surface heat of 18 degrees C, vs the Moon's 100 degree C daytime temperature and -173 degree nights.

WRONG. It's because the Earth's atmosphere has mass.
Wake wrote:
This conduction and convection is the true cause of the Greenhouse Effect.

WRONG. Greenhouse 'effect' would need to be caused by reducing heat. Conduction and convection ARE heat. You are also ignoring radiance. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So while it is indeed real

No, it isn't.
Wake wrote:
it is impossible for man to have any sort of effect on this process.

Man can indeed cause convection. Any fire he lights causes convection. Anything he makes warmer or colder can cause changes in the rate of conduction. The use of blankets or other insulating material causes changes in conduction, convection, AND radiance.

As far as the open atmosphere, there is NOTHING to inhibit radiance from the Earth. CO2 won't do it, water won't do it, NOTHING will do it. ALL of it radiates, the surface most of all. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you keep denying.

Your theory has been falsified by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the works of Max Planck, the conservation of energy law, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
12-04-2018 00:27
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
I have been insisting for years on virtually all of the man-made global warming sites that there is NO energy present in the wave-lengths that CO2 absorbs.

Really??? There is no energy in light???
Wake wrote:
Many of the True Believer sites have simply banned me from their presence so that they could refer to everyone that doesn't believe their religion as "Deniers".

Are you sure it wasn't because of your violent nature?
Wake wrote:
So as a quick analysis let me hand out my hypothesis:

You are describing a theory, not a hypothesis. Hypothesis stem from an existing theory, not the other way around. Now let's look at your theory:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is covered 70% with oceans and lakes. A very large proportion of the land is naturally covered with plant life. There is only a very small proportion of bare dirt. The small areas of Desert for example. And only those in warm regions that do not attract ground covers of some sort.

So far so good.
Wake wrote:
There are only three major absorption bands of CO2 and they are described rather plainly here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

There are actually a lot of them. Most are below the infrared band. This article concentrates on the IR absorption bands only.
Wake wrote:
So now that we have an idea of the amount of energy that is absorbed by CO2 we need to have an idea of what sort of energy is emitted by the various surfaces of the Earth:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/node/1906

This article does not show that. It only shows comparative (that is relational values) rather than absolute values.
As you can see, the actual response of the Earth is to have very little energy in the absorption bands of CO2.

Infrared light is energy. The Earth radiates light primarily from the surface, and all of it in the infrared band. It is not all radiated on the frequencies of CO2 or H2O.
Wake wrote:
Again, this means that practically ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth after absorbing the energy emitted from the Sun is absorbed at very low levels of CO2.

WRONG. ALL of the energy is radiated again by Earth. What is absorbed by CO2 or anything else is radiated by whatever absorbed it. Go read the article you quoted.
Wake wrote:
And since H2O in it's three phases absorbs almost ALL of the emitted wavelengths of the Earth CO2 would be competing with something that is, on the average, at least 100 times more common than CO2 in the atmosphere.

It doesn't. Did you know the oceans radiate infrared light? So does the water vapor in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
And to lend to this: most areas in which large amounts of CO2 is generated is around large cities.

Argument from randU. No one has measured this. It is only assumed.
Wake wrote:
These tend to be near large bodies of water so that instead of an average humidity of 4% it is more like 40% and CO2 is competing with a material that is 1,000 times more common.

Such 'competition' means nothing. It makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
Although you will see it often shown in Energy Balance charts and pictures that radiation accounts for almost all of the energy emissions from the Earth

I really don't give a damn about pictures of made up 'energy budgets'.
Wake wrote:
this ignores the fact that the atmosphere catches this almost immediately and converts it from radiated energy to the mechanical energy that moves through the troposphere via conduction and convection.

WRONG. Most of the Planck radiance comes directly from the surface, including the oceans. A very small amount comes from the atmosphere. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface is hotter and denser than the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
So the radiated energy that moves at the speed of light is converted to a mechanical energy of conduction which moves very slowly.

WRONG. Air is heated primarily by conduction from the surface, not radiance. You also seem to be ignoring convection.
Wake wrote:
This is what causes the atmospheric blanket

The atmosphere does not reduce heat. It is not an insulator. It is not a 'blanket'.
Wake wrote:
which allows the Earth to have a warm Troposphere that has a surface heat of 18 degrees C, vs the Moon's 100 degree C daytime temperature and -173 degree nights.

WRONG. It's because the Earth's atmosphere has mass.
Wake wrote:
This conduction and convection is the true cause of the Greenhouse Effect.

WRONG. Greenhouse 'effect' would need to be caused by reducing heat. Conduction and convection ARE heat. You are also ignoring radiance. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So while it is indeed real

No, it isn't.
Wake wrote:
it is impossible for man to have any sort of effect on this process.

Man can indeed cause convection. Any fire he lights causes convection. Anything he makes warmer or colder can cause changes in the rate of conduction. The use of blankets or other insulating material causes changes in conduction, convection, AND radiance.

As far as the open atmosphere, there is NOTHING to inhibit radiance from the Earth. CO2 won't do it, water won't do it, NOTHING will do it. ALL of it radiates, the surface most of all. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you keep denying.

Your theory has been falsified by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the works of Max Planck, the conservation of energy law, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.[/quote]

ITN,
You remind me of a man who rows a boat with one oar just like what Wake does. I bet the two of you are in great shape !
12-04-2018 00:55
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
I have been insisting for years on virtually all of the man-made global warming sites that there is NO energy present in the wave-lengths that CO2 absorbs.

Really??? There is no energy in light???
Wake wrote:
Many of the True Believer sites have simply banned me from their presence so that they could refer to everyone that doesn't believe their religion as "Deniers".

Are you sure it wasn't because of your violent nature?
Wake wrote:
So as a quick analysis let me hand out my hypothesis:

You are describing a theory, not a hypothesis. Hypothesis stem from an existing theory, not the other way around. Now let's look at your theory:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is covered 70% with oceans and lakes. A very large proportion of the land is naturally covered with plant life. There is only a very small proportion of bare dirt. The small areas of Desert for example. And only those in warm regions that do not attract ground covers of some sort.

So far so good.
Wake wrote:
There are only three major absorption bands of CO2 and they are described rather plainly here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

There are actually a lot of them. Most are below the infrared band. This article concentrates on the IR absorption bands only.
Wake wrote:
So now that we have an idea of the amount of energy that is absorbed by CO2 we need to have an idea of what sort of energy is emitted by the various surfaces of the Earth:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/node/1906

This article does not show that. It only shows comparative (that is relational values) rather than absolute values.
As you can see, the actual response of the Earth is to have very little energy in the absorption bands of CO2.

Infrared light is energy. The Earth radiates light primarily from the surface, and all of it in the infrared band. It is not all radiated on the frequencies of CO2 or H2O.
Wake wrote:
Again, this means that practically ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth after absorbing the energy emitted from the Sun is absorbed at very low levels of CO2.

WRONG. ALL of the energy is radiated again by Earth. What is absorbed by CO2 or anything else is radiated by whatever absorbed it. Go read the article you quoted.
Wake wrote:
And since H2O in it's three phases absorbs almost ALL of the emitted wavelengths of the Earth CO2 would be competing with something that is, on the average, at least 100 times more common than CO2 in the atmosphere.

It doesn't. Did you know the oceans radiate infrared light? So does the water vapor in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
And to lend to this: most areas in which large amounts of CO2 is generated is around large cities.

Argument from randU. No one has measured this. It is only assumed.
Wake wrote:
These tend to be near large bodies of water so that instead of an average humidity of 4% it is more like 40% and CO2 is competing with a material that is 1,000 times more common.

Such 'competition' means nothing. It makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
Although you will see it often shown in Energy Balance charts and pictures that radiation accounts for almost all of the energy emissions from the Earth

I really don't give a damn about pictures of made up 'energy budgets'.
Wake wrote:
this ignores the fact that the atmosphere catches this almost immediately and converts it from radiated energy to the mechanical energy that moves through the troposphere via conduction and convection.

WRONG. Most of the Planck radiance comes directly from the surface, including the oceans. A very small amount comes from the atmosphere. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface is hotter and denser than the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
So the radiated energy that moves at the speed of light is converted to a mechanical energy of conduction which moves very slowly.

WRONG. Air is heated primarily by conduction from the surface, not radiance. You also seem to be ignoring convection.
Wake wrote:
This is what causes the atmospheric blanket

The atmosphere does not reduce heat. It is not an insulator. It is not a 'blanket'.
Wake wrote:
which allows the Earth to have a warm Troposphere that has a surface heat of 18 degrees C, vs the Moon's 100 degree C daytime temperature and -173 degree nights.

WRONG. It's because the Earth's atmosphere has mass.
Wake wrote:
This conduction and convection is the true cause of the Greenhouse Effect.

WRONG. Greenhouse 'effect' would need to be caused by reducing heat. Conduction and convection ARE heat. You are also ignoring radiance. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So while it is indeed real

No, it isn't.
Wake wrote:
it is impossible for man to have any sort of effect on this process.

Man can indeed cause convection. Any fire he lights causes convection. Anything he makes warmer or colder can cause changes in the rate of conduction. The use of blankets or other insulating material causes changes in conduction, convection, AND radiance.

As far as the open atmosphere, there is NOTHING to inhibit radiance from the Earth. CO2 won't do it, water won't do it, NOTHING will do it. ALL of it radiates, the surface most of all. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you keep denying.

Your theory has been falsified by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the works of Max Planck, the conservation of energy law, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.


ITN,
You remind me of a man who rows a boat with one oar just like what Wake does. I bet the two of you are in great shape ![/quote]

And the trouble is that you don't know what either of us is saying and so you cannot distinguish who is correct and who isn't.

When he says: "Infrared light is energy. The Earth radiates light primarily from the surface, and all of it in the infrared band. It is not all radiated on the frequencies of CO2 or H2O." he is doing nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing.

Of course not ALL of it is in the frequencies of H20 but nearly all of it is. CO2 on the other hand has three extremely limited and narrow bands. CO2 is 400 PPM and on the average H2O is 4% of the atmosphere or a 100 times more common. Moreover, most large cities - where most fossil fuels are burned - are built directly adjacent to large water resources making water closer to 25% on the average or 600 times more common.

He is talking about "Planck Radiance" when that is nothing that he understands. That inside the troposphere CO2 NEVER reaches the energy levels required for that.

His mindless chattering simply keeps away people that could hold worthwhile conversations with you. While using the word "bulverism" on other people he is a sterling example of the definition himself.

And what is your fight with me? That I correct you and tell you where to look it up yourself. I suggest that you and nightmare belong together.
12-04-2018 17:02
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
I have been insisting for years on virtually all of the man-made global warming sites that there is NO energy present in the wave-lengths that CO2 absorbs.

Really??? There is no energy in light???
Wake wrote:
Many of the True Believer sites have simply banned me from their presence so that they could refer to everyone that doesn't believe their religion as "Deniers".

Are you sure it wasn't because of your violent nature?
Wake wrote:
So as a quick analysis let me hand out my hypothesis:

You are describing a theory, not a hypothesis. Hypothesis stem from an existing theory, not the other way around. Now let's look at your theory:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is covered 70% with oceans and lakes. A very large proportion of the land is naturally covered with plant life. There is only a very small proportion of bare dirt. The small areas of Desert for example. And only those in warm regions that do not attract ground covers of some sort.

So far so good.
Wake wrote:
There are only three major absorption bands of CO2 and they are described rather plainly here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

There are actually a lot of them. Most are below the infrared band. This article concentrates on the IR absorption bands only.
Wake wrote:
So now that we have an idea of the amount of energy that is absorbed by CO2 we need to have an idea of what sort of energy is emitted by the various surfaces of the Earth:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/node/1906

This article does not show that. It only shows comparative (that is relational values) rather than absolute values.
As you can see, the actual response of the Earth is to have very little energy in the absorption bands of CO2.

Infrared light is energy. The Earth radiates light primarily from the surface, and all of it in the infrared band. It is not all radiated on the frequencies of CO2 or H2O.
Wake wrote:
Again, this means that practically ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth after absorbing the energy emitted from the Sun is absorbed at very low levels of CO2.

WRONG. ALL of the energy is radiated again by Earth. What is absorbed by CO2 or anything else is radiated by whatever absorbed it. Go read the article you quoted.
Wake wrote:
And since H2O in it's three phases absorbs almost ALL of the emitted wavelengths of the Earth CO2 would be competing with something that is, on the average, at least 100 times more common than CO2 in the atmosphere.

It doesn't. Did you know the oceans radiate infrared light? So does the water vapor in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
And to lend to this: most areas in which large amounts of CO2 is generated is around large cities.

Argument from randU. No one has measured this. It is only assumed.
Wake wrote:
These tend to be near large bodies of water so that instead of an average humidity of 4% it is more like 40% and CO2 is competing with a material that is 1,000 times more common.

Such 'competition' means nothing. It makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
Although you will see it often shown in Energy Balance charts and pictures that radiation accounts for almost all of the energy emissions from the Earth

I really don't give a damn about pictures of made up 'energy budgets'.
Wake wrote:
this ignores the fact that the atmosphere catches this almost immediately and converts it from radiated energy to the mechanical energy that moves through the troposphere via conduction and convection.

WRONG. Most of the Planck radiance comes directly from the surface, including the oceans. A very small amount comes from the atmosphere. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface is hotter and denser than the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
So the radiated energy that moves at the speed of light is converted to a mechanical energy of conduction which moves very slowly.

WRONG. Air is heated primarily by conduction from the surface, not radiance. You also seem to be ignoring convection.
Wake wrote:
This is what causes the atmospheric blanket

The atmosphere does not reduce heat. It is not an insulator. It is not a 'blanket'.
Wake wrote:
which allows the Earth to have a warm Troposphere that has a surface heat of 18 degrees C, vs the Moon's 100 degree C daytime temperature and -173 degree nights.

WRONG. It's because the Earth's atmosphere has mass.
Wake wrote:
This conduction and convection is the true cause of the Greenhouse Effect.

WRONG. Greenhouse 'effect' would need to be caused by reducing heat. Conduction and convection ARE heat. You are also ignoring radiance. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So while it is indeed real

No, it isn't.
Wake wrote:
it is impossible for man to have any sort of effect on this process.

Man can indeed cause convection. Any fire he lights causes convection. Anything he makes warmer or colder can cause changes in the rate of conduction. The use of blankets or other insulating material causes changes in conduction, convection, AND radiance.

As far as the open atmosphere, there is NOTHING to inhibit radiance from the Earth. CO2 won't do it, water won't do it, NOTHING will do it. ALL of it radiates, the surface most of all. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you keep denying.

Your theory has been falsified by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the works of Max Planck, the conservation of energy law, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

James___ wrote:
ITN,
You remind me of a man who rows a boat with one oar just like what Wake does. I bet the two of you are in great shape !

Wake wrote:
And the trouble is that you don't know what either of us is saying and so you cannot distinguish who is correct and who isn't.

he is doing nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing.



Wake,
You both argue for arguments sake. Why the two of you only have one oar in the water. Our atmosphere is actually a gaseous prism which is to complicated of a thought for either one of you to grasp.
12-04-2018 17:19
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You both argue for arguments sake. Why the two of you only have one oar in the water. Our atmosphere is actually a gaseous prism which is to complicated of a thought for either one of you to grasp.


Is this your latest saying of the month?

I suppose that you could identify a specific case in which the atmosphere acts as a prism. After all we do have rainbows. But in general that is not the case. What causes you to say something like that without explaining it?
12-04-2018 19:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
...deleted malformed postings...
And the trouble is that you don't know what either of us is saying and so you cannot distinguish who is correct and who isn't.

I would agree.
Wake wrote:
When he says: "Infrared light is energy. The Earth radiates light primarily from the surface, and all of it in the infrared band. It is not all radiated on the frequencies of CO2 or H2O." he is doing nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing.

Nope. I am stating what is.
Wake wrote:
Of course not ALL of it is in the frequencies of H20 but nearly all of it is.

WRONG. Nowhere near all of the frequencies emitted by the Earth are absorbed by water.
Wake wrote:
CO2 on the other hand has three extremely limited and narrow bands.

WRONG. CO2 absorbs on MANY more than three limited and narrow bands.
Wake wrote:
CO2 is 400 PPM

Reasonably close, as measured at Mauna Loa only. It is not possible to measure the CO2 content of the atmosphere. It is not uniformly distributed and is changing all the time.
Wake wrote:
and on the average H2O is 4% of the atmosphere or a 100 times more common.

It is not possible to measure the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. It is not uniformly distributed and is moving all the time.
Wake wrote:
Moreover, most large cities - where most fossil fuels are burned

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
Wake wrote:
- are built directly adjacent to large water resources making water closer to 25% on the average or 600 times more common.
Irrelevant to your argument.
Wake wrote:
He is talking about "Planck Radiance" when that is nothing that he understands.

No, it is YOU that doesn't understand the term. Planck radiance is that radiance as a result of the temperature of a substance. It occurs on all frequencies, not just the absorption frequencies of the material.
Wake wrote:
That inside the troposphere CO2 NEVER reaches the energy levels required for that.

WRONG. There is no 'trigger point'. Anything above absolute zero has radiance.
Wake wrote:
His mindless chattering simply keeps away people that could hold worthwhile conversations with you.

He has worthwhile conversations?
Wake wrote:
While using the word "bulverism" on other people he is a sterling example of the definition himself.

Inversion fallacy and fallacy fallacy.
Wake wrote:
And what is your fight with me? That I correct you and tell you where to look it up yourself. I suggest that you and nightmare belong together.

Go read up on the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Go read up on Planck's law. Go read up on Wien's law. You obviously do not understand any of these laws or theories. I also recommend you study the history of these theories and how they came to be as well as how they relate to each other.

You might also go study mathematics, especially in the area of probability and statistical math.


The Parrot Killer
12-04-2018 19:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
I have been insisting for years on virtually all of the man-made global warming sites that there is NO energy present in the wave-lengths that CO2 absorbs.

Really??? There is no energy in light???
Wake wrote:
Many of the True Believer sites have simply banned me from their presence so that they could refer to everyone that doesn't believe their religion as "Deniers".

Are you sure it wasn't because of your violent nature?
Wake wrote:
So as a quick analysis let me hand out my hypothesis:

You are describing a theory, not a hypothesis. Hypothesis stem from an existing theory, not the other way around. Now let's look at your theory:
Wake wrote:
The Earth is covered 70% with oceans and lakes. A very large proportion of the land is naturally covered with plant life. There is only a very small proportion of bare dirt. The small areas of Desert for example. And only those in warm regions that do not attract ground covers of some sort.

So far so good.
Wake wrote:
There are only three major absorption bands of CO2 and they are described rather plainly here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

There are actually a lot of them. Most are below the infrared band. This article concentrates on the IR absorption bands only.
Wake wrote:
So now that we have an idea of the amount of energy that is absorbed by CO2 we need to have an idea of what sort of energy is emitted by the various surfaces of the Earth:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/natureofgeoinfo/node/1906

This article does not show that. It only shows comparative (that is relational values) rather than absolute values.
As you can see, the actual response of the Earth is to have very little energy in the absorption bands of CO2.

Infrared light is energy. The Earth radiates light primarily from the surface, and all of it in the infrared band. It is not all radiated on the frequencies of CO2 or H2O.
Wake wrote:
Again, this means that practically ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth after absorbing the energy emitted from the Sun is absorbed at very low levels of CO2.

WRONG. ALL of the energy is radiated again by Earth. What is absorbed by CO2 or anything else is radiated by whatever absorbed it. Go read the article you quoted.
Wake wrote:
And since H2O in it's three phases absorbs almost ALL of the emitted wavelengths of the Earth CO2 would be competing with something that is, on the average, at least 100 times more common than CO2 in the atmosphere.

It doesn't. Did you know the oceans radiate infrared light? So does the water vapor in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
And to lend to this: most areas in which large amounts of CO2 is generated is around large cities.

Argument from randU. No one has measured this. It is only assumed.
Wake wrote:
These tend to be near large bodies of water so that instead of an average humidity of 4% it is more like 40% and CO2 is competing with a material that is 1,000 times more common.

Such 'competition' means nothing. It makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
Although you will see it often shown in Energy Balance charts and pictures that radiation accounts for almost all of the energy emissions from the Earth

I really don't give a damn about pictures of made up 'energy budgets'.
Wake wrote:
this ignores the fact that the atmosphere catches this almost immediately and converts it from radiated energy to the mechanical energy that moves through the troposphere via conduction and convection.

WRONG. Most of the Planck radiance comes directly from the surface, including the oceans. A very small amount comes from the atmosphere. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface is hotter and denser than the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
So the radiated energy that moves at the speed of light is converted to a mechanical energy of conduction which moves very slowly.

WRONG. Air is heated primarily by conduction from the surface, not radiance. You also seem to be ignoring convection.
Wake wrote:
This is what causes the atmospheric blanket

The atmosphere does not reduce heat. It is not an insulator. It is not a 'blanket'.
Wake wrote:
which allows the Earth to have a warm Troposphere that has a surface heat of 18 degrees C, vs the Moon's 100 degree C daytime temperature and -173 degree nights.

WRONG. It's because the Earth's atmosphere has mass.
Wake wrote:
This conduction and convection is the true cause of the Greenhouse Effect.

WRONG. Greenhouse 'effect' would need to be caused by reducing heat. Conduction and convection ARE heat. You are also ignoring radiance. You are also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So while it is indeed real

No, it isn't.
Wake wrote:
it is impossible for man to have any sort of effect on this process.

Man can indeed cause convection. Any fire he lights causes convection. Anything he makes warmer or colder can cause changes in the rate of conduction. The use of blankets or other insulating material causes changes in conduction, convection, AND radiance.

As far as the open atmosphere, there is NOTHING to inhibit radiance from the Earth. CO2 won't do it, water won't do it, NOTHING will do it. ALL of it radiates, the surface most of all. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you keep denying.

Your theory has been falsified by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the works of Max Planck, the conservation of energy law, and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

James___ wrote:
ITN,
You remind me of a man who rows a boat with one oar just like what Wake does. I bet the two of you are in great shape !

Wake wrote:
And the trouble is that you don't know what either of us is saying and so you cannot distinguish who is correct and who isn't.

he is doing nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing.



Wake,
You both argue for arguments sake. Why the two of you only have one oar in the water. Our atmosphere is actually a gaseous prism which is to complicated of a thought for either one of you to grasp.

Probably because it isn't. It does scatter light, but that is not what a prism does.


The Parrot Killer
12-04-2018 19:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You both argue for arguments sake. Why the two of you only have one oar in the water. Our atmosphere is actually a gaseous prism which is to complicated of a thought for either one of you to grasp.


Is this your latest saying of the month?

I suppose that you could identify a specific case in which the atmosphere acts as a prism. After all we do have rainbows. But in general that is not the case. What causes you to say something like that without explaining it?


Rainbows (and glories) are caused by liquid water IN the atmosphere, not the atmosphere itself.


The Parrot Killer
16-04-2018 17:39
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You both argue for arguments sake. Why the two of you only have one oar in the water. Our atmosphere is actually a gaseous prism which is to complicated of a thought for either one of you to grasp.


Is this your latest saying of the month?

I suppose that you could identify a specific case in which the atmosphere acts as a prism. After all we do have rainbows. But in general that is not the case. What causes you to say something like that without explaining it?


Rainbows (and glories) are caused by liquid water IN the atmosphere, not the atmosphere itself.


...ITN,
..Liquid water in the atmosphere is called rain. It is water vapor that refracts solar radiation so that a rainbow appears.
..@Wake, don't you understand basic science ? It seems that neither you nor ITN does. Molecules have mass. Even gasses. Why would either one of you believe that matter cannot effect solar radiation ? And this might be where scientists have made a basic mistake. In order for a molecule in the atmosphere to effect solar radiation all the solar radiation has to do is to pass through it. This means it doesn't have to be absorbed because after all, a molecule in the atmosphere is not solid matter, there is space between the elements. This does agree with what is accepted in physics.
After all, they believe that solar radiation in the upper atmosphere separates the 3 oxygen molecules in ozone so that O and O2 occur. And if the photon of solar radiation is not strong enough then it does not split molecules. And according to physics ozone requires. This link (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~franzen/public_html/CH437/lec2/prob/ozone_photodis_soln.pdf) explains the energy necessary to break the bond of an O3 molecule (ozone). This means that a photon with a minimum amount of kinetic energy has to pass through the ozone molecule in order for it to break it's bond. And when the photon is not strong enough to break the bond of an O3 molecule then it has the ozone molecule same basic effect as a prism.
..Myself, I would think that 2 people like yourself and ITN would know this. It is rather basic physics.
Edited on 16-04-2018 18:05
16-04-2018 19:23
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Into the Night wrote:
Rainbows (and glories) are caused by liquid water IN the atmosphere, not the atmosphere itself.

James___ wrote:
...ITN,
..Liquid water in the atmosphere is called rain. It is water vapor that refracts solar radiation so that a rainbow appears.

Water vapor is invisible and hence does not refract light. Many people confuse condensation with water vapor. Clouds, fog, and the visible stuff normally coming out of boiling water, breath, and cooling towers is not water vapor but condensate. Condensate is droplets of liquid water or sometimes small ice crystals. Rainbows are caused by small water droplets (condensate) and not by water vapor (the gas phase of water).
16-04-2018 20:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You both argue for arguments sake. Why the two of you only have one oar in the water. Our atmosphere is actually a gaseous prism which is to complicated of a thought for either one of you to grasp.


Is this your latest saying of the month?

I suppose that you could identify a specific case in which the atmosphere acts as a prism. After all we do have rainbows. But in general that is not the case. What causes you to say something like that without explaining it?


Rainbows (and glories) are caused by liquid water IN the atmosphere, not the atmosphere itself.


...ITN,
..Liquid water in the atmosphere is called rain.

WRONG. Liquid water in the atmosphere is called liquid water. It may appear as fog, clouds, rain, or snow.
James___ wrote:
It is water vapor that refracts solar radiation so that a rainbow appears.

WRONG. Water vapor does not refract light.
James___ wrote:
..@Wake, don't you understand basic science ? It seems that neither you nor ITN does.

YOU certainly don't. Go read up on this stuff.
James___ wrote:
Molecules have mass. Even gasses. Why would either one of you believe that matter cannot effect solar radiation ?

Because the only thing that affects solar radiation is Sol, our Sun.
James___ wrote:
And this might be where scientists have made a basic mistake. In order for a molecule in the atmosphere to effect solar radiation all the solar radiation has to do is to pass through it.

Radiation passing through a molecule means no effect. The molecule is effectively transparent. It's not even there as far as electromagnetic radiation is concerned.
James___ wrote:
This means it doesn't have to be absorbed because after all, a molecule in the atmosphere is not solid matter, there is space between the elements. This does agree with what is accepted in physics.

There is space between the molecules for all substances, solid, liquid, or gas. Matter is mostly empty space.
James___ wrote:
After all, they believe that solar radiation in the upper atmosphere separates the 3 oxygen molecules in ozone so that O and O2 occur.

It does. That's what causes the stratopause to be warmer than the tropopause. See the Chapman cycle.
James___ wrote:
And if the photon of solar radiation is not strong enough then it does not split molecules.

True.
James___ wrote:
And according to physics ozone requires.

Incomplete sentence.
James___ wrote:
...deleted redundant Holy Link...
And when the photon is not strong enough to break the bond of an O3 molecule then it has the ozone molecule same basic effect as a prism.

WRONG. That's now how a prism works.
James___ wrote:
..Myself, I would think that 2 people like yourself and ITN would know this.

Why do you deny science?
James___ wrote:
It is rather basic physics.

No, it isn't. What you're describing is not physics at all.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-04-2018 20:51
17-04-2018 00:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You both argue for arguments sake. Why the two of you only have one oar in the water. Our atmosphere is actually a gaseous prism which is to complicated of a thought for either one of you to grasp.


Is this your latest saying of the month?

I suppose that you could identify a specific case in which the atmosphere acts as a prism. After all we do have rainbows. But in general that is not the case. What causes you to say something like that without explaining it?


Rainbows (and glories) are caused by liquid water IN the atmosphere, not the atmosphere itself.


...ITN,
..Liquid water in the atmosphere is called rain. It is water vapor that refracts solar radiation so that a rainbow appears.
..@Wake, don't you understand basic science ? It seems that neither you nor ITN does. Molecules have mass. Even gasses. Why would either one of you believe that matter cannot effect solar radiation ? And this might be where scientists have made a basic mistake. In order for a molecule in the atmosphere to effect solar radiation all the solar radiation has to do is to pass through it. This means it doesn't have to be absorbed because after all, a molecule in the atmosphere is not solid matter, there is space between the elements. This does agree with what is accepted in physics.
After all, they believe that solar radiation in the upper atmosphere separates the 3 oxygen molecules in ozone so that O and O2 occur. And if the photon of solar radiation is not strong enough then it does not split molecules. And according to physics ozone requires. This link (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~franzen/public_html/CH437/lec2/prob/ozone_photodis_soln.pdf) explains the energy necessary to break the bond of an O3 molecule (ozone). This means that a photon with a minimum amount of kinetic energy has to pass through the ozone molecule in order for it to break it's bond. And when the photon is not strong enough to break the bond of an O3 molecule then it has the ozone molecule same basic effect as a prism.
..Myself, I would think that 2 people like yourself and ITN would know this. It is rather basic physics.


James, are you from Mars or something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

Is there something that you don't understand with this?

Or do you continue to think you can invent "science"?

Don't tell me that I don't understand science when you don't even appear to know what science is.
17-04-2018 18:28
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You both argue for arguments sake. Why the two of you only have one oar in the water. Our atmosphere is actually a gaseous prism which is to complicated of a thought for either one of you to grasp.


Is this your latest saying of the month?

I suppose that you could identify a specific case in which the atmosphere acts as a prism. After all we do have rainbows. But in general that is not the case. What causes you to say something like that without explaining it?


Rainbows (and glories) are caused by liquid water IN the atmosphere, not the atmosphere itself.


...ITN,
..Liquid water in the atmosphere is called rain. It is water vapor that refracts solar radiation so that a rainbow appears.
..@Wake, don't you understand basic science ? It seems that neither you nor ITN does. Molecules have mass. Even gasses. Why would either one of you believe that matter cannot effect solar radiation ? And this might be where scientists have made a basic mistake. In order for a molecule in the atmosphere to effect solar radiation all the solar radiation has to do is to pass through it. This means it doesn't have to be absorbed because after all, a molecule in the atmosphere is not solid matter, there is space between the elements. This does agree with what is accepted in physics.
After all, they believe that solar radiation in the upper atmosphere separates the 3 oxygen molecules in ozone so that O and O2 occur. And if the photon of solar radiation is not strong enough then it does not split molecules. And according to physics ozone requires. This link (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~franzen/public_html/CH437/lec2/prob/ozone_photodis_soln.pdf) explains the energy necessary to break the bond of an O3 molecule (ozone). This means that a photon with a minimum amount of kinetic energy has to pass through the ozone molecule in order for it to break it's bond. And when the photon is not strong enough to break the bond of an O3 molecule then it has the ozone molecule same basic effect as a prism.
..Myself, I would think that 2 people like yourself and ITN would know this. It is rather basic physics.


James, are you from Mars or something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

Is there something that you don't understand with this?

Or do you continue to think you can invent "science"?

Don't tell me that I don't understand science when you don't even appear to know what science is.



Wake,
..What is "with this" ? Making a vague comment while attacking me does not demonstrate knowledge of science on your part. IMO you want me to explain what you don't know so you can look like you're teaching me something when you aren't. What I posted is in your "with this" but you don't know why "it is" there.
..Both you and ITN have stated that our atmosphere does not act like a prism when it does. That tends to show what both of you are missing.

..@All,
.Of 340.4 w/m^2 of solar radiation, 77.1 w/m^2 is absorbed by our atmosphere. This is an example of slowing or trapping heat. That's what I posted about, how our atmosphere is affected when solar radiation is passing through it.
.I say this can be tested to show how changing the composition of atmospheric gasses can cause it to absorb more or less heat.
.Look at the graph that is on the webpage Wake posted.
17-04-2018 20:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You both argue for arguments sake. Why the two of you only have one oar in the water. Our atmosphere is actually a gaseous prism which is to complicated of a thought for either one of you to grasp.


Is this your latest saying of the month?

I suppose that you could identify a specific case in which the atmosphere acts as a prism. After all we do have rainbows. But in general that is not the case. What causes you to say something like that without explaining it?


Rainbows (and glories) are caused by liquid water IN the atmosphere, not the atmosphere itself.


...ITN,
..Liquid water in the atmosphere is called rain. It is water vapor that refracts solar radiation so that a rainbow appears.
..@Wake, don't you understand basic science ? It seems that neither you nor ITN does. Molecules have mass. Even gasses. Why would either one of you believe that matter cannot effect solar radiation ? And this might be where scientists have made a basic mistake. In order for a molecule in the atmosphere to effect solar radiation all the solar radiation has to do is to pass through it. This means it doesn't have to be absorbed because after all, a molecule in the atmosphere is not solid matter, there is space between the elements. This does agree with what is accepted in physics.
After all, they believe that solar radiation in the upper atmosphere separates the 3 oxygen molecules in ozone so that O and O2 occur. And if the photon of solar radiation is not strong enough then it does not split molecules. And according to physics ozone requires. This link (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~franzen/public_html/CH437/lec2/prob/ozone_photodis_soln.pdf) explains the energy necessary to break the bond of an O3 molecule (ozone). This means that a photon with a minimum amount of kinetic energy has to pass through the ozone molecule in order for it to break it's bond. And when the photon is not strong enough to break the bond of an O3 molecule then it has the ozone molecule same basic effect as a prism.
..Myself, I would think that 2 people like yourself and ITN would know this. It is rather basic physics.


James, are you from Mars or something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg

Is there something that you don't understand with this?

Or do you continue to think you can invent "science"?

Don't tell me that I don't understand science when you don't even appear to know what science is.



Wake,
..What is "with this" ? Making a vague comment while attacking me does not demonstrate knowledge of science on your part. IMO you want me to explain what you don't know so you can look like you're teaching me something when you aren't. What I posted is in your "with this" but you don't know why "it is" there.
..Both you and ITN have stated that our atmosphere does not act like a prism when it does. That tends to show what both of you are missing.

..@All,
.Of 340.4 w/m^2 of solar radiation, 77.1 w/m^2 is absorbed by our atmosphere. This is an example of slowing or trapping heat. That's what I posted about, how our atmosphere is affected when solar radiation is passing through it.
.I say this can be tested to show how changing the composition of atmospheric gasses can cause it to absorb more or less heat.
.Look at the graph that is on the webpage Wake posted.


The atmosphere does not act like a prism.

Absorption of electromagnetic energy and conversion to thermal energy is not slowing or trapping heat. It is not possible to slow or trap heat.

Heat is not 'absorbed'. Heat simply is. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself. Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance.


The Parrot Killer
17-04-2018 22:08
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Into the Night wrote:
The atmosphere does not act like a prism.


Technically true; N2, O2, CO2, and Ar do not act like a prism, but water droplets in the atmosphere do act like a prism. That is why we see rainbows.
Into the Night wrote:
Absorption of electromagnetic energy and conversion to thermal energy is not slowing or trapping heat. It is not possible to slow or trap heat.

By definition 'heat' is the transfer of thermal energy to or from an object and the transfer of thermal energy can be slowed. A common method is by the use of an insulator. If I want to keep my hot chocolate warm, I can put it in a Thermos and it will slow the transfer of thermal energy (heat) and keep it warm for a longer period than if I put it in a metal cup.

The atmosphere can keep a planet warm in several ways. The most obvious is by its ability to cool the surface of the planet and transfer that thermal energy from the surface to the gases in the atmosphere. This significantly reduces radiative energy loss. Another method is by the insulating properties of clouds. A cloudy night is much warmer than a dry clear night. Clouds can also reduce the amount of radiation warming the earth during the day. Another method is by the latent heat stored and released by H2O. To a far lesser extent, there is also the 'greenhouse' effect, where certain bands of longwave radiation are absorbed and reemitted by H20, CO2 and other gasses.[/quote]

Into the Night wrote:Heat is not 'absorbed'. Heat simply is. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself. Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance.

Heat is transferred and will change the thermal properties of the object it is being transferred to. Heat from the sun warms the earth.

'Heat absorption' is typically a synonym for 'heat transfer'.
18-04-2018 01:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The atmosphere does not act like a prism.


Technically true; N2, O2, CO2, and Ar do not act like a prism, but water droplets in the atmosphere do act like a prism. That is why we see rainbows.

He is referring to the gases in the atmosphere, not the liquid water that happens to be appear from time to time.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Absorption of electromagnetic energy and conversion to thermal energy is not slowing or trapping heat. It is not possible to slow or trap heat.

By definition 'heat' is the transfer of thermal energy to or from an object and the transfer of thermal energy can be slowed.
No, it can't. It is not possible to slow or trap heat.
Jeffvw wrote:
A common method is by the use of an insulator.

Insulators reduce heat.
Jeffvw wrote:
If I want to keep my hot chocolate warm, I can put it in a Thermos and it will slow the transfer of thermal energy (heat) and keep it warm for a longer period than if I put it in a metal cup.

WRONG. This is reducing heat, not slowing it. Insulators (including Thermos jugs) reduce heat by decoupling the two regions.

A greenhouse does the same thing by limiting convective heating.

Jeffvw wrote:
The atmosphere can keep a planet warm in several ways. The most obvious is by its ability to cool the surface of the planet and transfer that thermal energy from the surface to the gases in the atmosphere. This significantly reduces radiative energy loss.

WRONG. Radiance is still the same. All you've done is transferred radiance from the land to the atmosphere.

Most radiance is from the surface itself. It is the warmest, and the densest substance radiating. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Kirchoff's laws.
Jeffvw wrote:
Another method is by the insulating properties of clouds.

Clouds do not insulate. Liquid water is a great conductor of heat.
Jeffvw wrote:
A cloudy night is much warmer than a dry clear night.

Not possible to determine. It is not possible to measure any such thing since it is not possible to recreate exactly the same conditions with and without a cloud.

Clouds, however, ARE liquid water. Water has a high specific heat. A cloud will contain more thermal energy to achieve the same temperature than dry air. It will take much more heat to warm or cool a cloud by one degree than dry air. (scale doesn't matter)
Jeffvw wrote:
Clouds can also reduce the amount of radiation warming the earth during the day.

WRONG. Clouds absorb energy just like the surface does. They are liquid water. It just takes a lot more energy to make a cloud change by one degree than dry air. Even ice clouds have a pretty high specific heat.

It's why we use water for coolant in engines.
Jeffvw wrote:
Another method is by the latent heat stored and released by H2O.

A minor factor.

The biggest reason that an atmosphere slows the rate of temperature change is because it is mass. Mass takes time to heat up and cool down for a given amount of heat applied to it or coming from it. Water particularly so. See information about specific heat.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Heat is not 'absorbed'. Heat simply is. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself. Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance.

Heat is transferred and will change the thermal properties of the object it is being transferred to.

Heat is not 'transferred'. It simply is. It does not change the thermal properties of any substance. The thermal properties (conduction and specific heat value) stay the same, with very few exceptions, such as a state change, or certain minor variations in certain compounds (carbon dioxide is one). These variations are caused by different levels of thermal energy in the substance. Heat adds or subtracts thermal energy in a substance.
Jeffvw wrote:
Heat from the sun warms the earth.

Not quite right. Heat OF the Sun warms the Earth. Sunlight itself IS heat because it is absorbed by the Earth.
Jeffvw wrote:
'Heat absorption' is typically a synonym for 'heat transfer'.

Heat is not 'absorption'. It is simply transfer of thermal energy. Heat itself doesn't transfer.

Sunlight (which has a high amount of thermal energy) is emitted by the Sun and is absorbed by the Earth. Sunlight IS heat, at least that portion that is absorbed. It is heat by radiance in exactly the same way heat from the Earth to space is by radiance.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one region to another. It is not the thermal energy itself. It cannot be slowed by decoupling (insulators) or by reducing the difference of temperature between the two regions. It is reduced instead.

Greater temperature difference mean greater heat (assuming coupling stays the same). Greater coupling means greater heat (assuming the same temperature difference).


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2018 14:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The atmosphere does not act like a prism.


Technically true; N2, O2, CO2, and Ar do not act like a prism, but water droplets in the atmosphere do act like a prism. That is why we see rainbows.
Into the Night wrote:
Absorption of electromagnetic energy and conversion to thermal energy is not slowing or trapping heat. It is not possible to slow or trap heat.

By definition 'heat' is the transfer of thermal energy to or from an object and the transfer of thermal energy can be slowed. A common method is by the use of an insulator. If I want to keep my hot chocolate warm, I can put it in a Thermos and it will slow the transfer of thermal energy (heat) and keep it warm for a longer period than if I put it in a metal cup.

The atmosphere can keep a planet warm in several ways. The most obvious is by its ability to cool the surface of the planet and transfer that thermal energy from the surface to the gases in the atmosphere. This significantly reduces radiative energy loss. Another method is by the insulating properties of clouds. A cloudy night is much warmer than a dry clear night. Clouds can also reduce the amount of radiation warming the earth during the day. Another method is by the latent heat stored and released by H2O. To a far lesser extent, there is also the 'greenhouse' effect, where certain bands of longwave radiation are absorbed and reemitted by H20, CO2 and other gasses.


Into the Night wrote:Heat is not 'absorbed'. Heat simply is. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself. Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance.

Heat is transferred and will change the thermal properties of the object it is being transferred to. Heat from the sun warms the earth.

'Heat absorption' is typically a synonym for 'heat transfer'.[/quote]

I think you are asking a block of wood to think. What's more, by making simple definitions available in any encyclopedia you have just made an enemy of nightmare.
18-04-2018 16:12
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
If I want to keep my hot chocolate warm, I can put it in a Thermos and it will slow the transfer of thermal energy (heat) and keep it warm for a longer period than if I put it in a metal cup.

WRONG. This is reducing heat, not slowing it. Insulators (including Thermos jugs) reduce heat by decoupling the two regions.

This is some serious nickpicking and shows that you are not understanding what I am trying to say.

'Heat' typically has units of joules. It is an amount of energy. Therefore, when talking about total heat, 'reducing' is a better term than 'slowing'.

'Heat transfer rate' is the rate that heat is transferred and is in units of Watts (joules/second). You can tell that I'm talking about a rate when I use the term 'slow'.

A third way of referring to heat is 'heat flux'. This is the rate of heat transfer per unit area. This is usually in terms of Watts/m^2. This is very commonly used when discussing GHG's.

Back to my example, a thermos will 'slow' the rate of heat transfer, but will not necessarily 'reduce' the total amount of heat transferred. Given a long enough time, the total heat transferred will be the same for the thermos and the metal cup.

You seem to be confusing 'heat', 'heat transfer rate', and 'heat flux'. You only seem to recognize 'heat', but not the fact that it can have varying transfer rates and fluxes.
18-04-2018 16:19
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
Into the Night wrote:

Greater temperature difference mean greater heat (assuming coupling stays the same). Greater coupling means greater heat (assuming the same temperature difference).


..ITN,
.Heat is KE*vol. Don't tell me that you don't UNDERSTAND how the Boltzmann constant helps to quantify heat. Of course as you and Wake both said, when a grain of sand absorbs heat it becomes hot. This means that heat has been slowed/trapped by the grain of sand and then is radiated by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
.Since different elements/molecules will have a different specific "gravity", this will effect it's emission. This is because gravity is the opposite of entropy. And temperature difference has nothing to do with heat. Heat is the energy of a volume of something.
.Yet you will correct me when what I stated is correct. This is because it's mainstream physics and is no opinion of my own making. Just what's in the books.
Edited on 18-04-2018 17:18
18-04-2018 17:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
If I want to keep my hot chocolate warm, I can put it in a Thermos and it will slow the transfer of thermal energy (heat) and keep it warm for a longer period than if I put it in a metal cup.

WRONG. This is reducing heat, not slowing it. Insulators (including Thermos jugs) reduce heat by decoupling the two regions.

This is some serious nickpicking and shows that you are not understanding what I am trying to say.

'Heat' typically has units of joules. It is an amount of energy. Therefore, when talking about total heat, 'reducing' is a better term than 'slowing'.

This is thermal energy, not heat.
Jeffvw wrote:
'Heat transfer rate' is the rate that heat is transferred and is in units of Watts (joules/second). You can tell that I'm talking about a rate when I use the term 'slow'.

This is heat.
Jeffvw wrote:
A third way of referring to heat is 'heat flux'. This is the rate of heat transfer per unit area. This is usually in terms of Watts/m^2. This is very commonly used when discussing GHG's.
Same thing over a given area.
[quote]Jeffvw wrote:
Back to my example, a thermos will 'slow' the rate of heat transfer, but will not necessarily 'reduce' the total amount of heat transferred. Given a long enough time, the total heat transferred will be the same for the thermos and the metal cup.

A thermos reduces 'heat transfer rate' as you call it. It does not slow it. Given enough time, the total thermal energy transferred will be the same.
Jeffvw wrote:
You seem to be confusing 'heat', 'heat transfer rate', and 'heat flux'. You only seem to recognize 'heat', but not the fact that it can have varying transfer rates and fluxes.

I make a point of it since the Church of Global Warming seems to think that it's possible to slow or trap 'heat transfer rate' or 'heat flux' (which is just 'heat').

You are trying to describe thermal energy as 'heat'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-04-2018 18:04
18-04-2018 18:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Greater temperature difference mean greater heat (assuming coupling stays the same). Greater coupling means greater heat (assuming the same temperature difference).


..ITN,
.Heat is KE*vol. Don't tell me that you don't UNDERSTAND how the Boltzmann constant helps to quantify heat. Of course as you and Wake both said, when a grain of sand absorbs heat it becomes hot. This means that heat has been slowed/trapped by the grain of sand and then is radiated by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

You cannot slow or trap heat. Constants don't radiate anything, not even the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
James___ wrote:
.Since different elements/molecules will have a different specific "gravity", this will effect it's emission.
Gravity does not effect emission.
James___ wrote:
This is because gravity is the opposite of entropy.
Gravity is not the opposite of entropy. They are unrelated.
James___ wrote:
And temperature difference has nothing to do with heat.
No difference in temperature, no heat.
James___ wrote:
Heat is the energy of a volume of something.
Energy is not the volume of anything. Unrelated terms. Energy is energy, not heat.
James___ wrote:
.Yet you will correct me when what I stated is correct.
You are not correct.
James___ wrote:
This is because it's mainstream physics
There is no such thing as 'mainstream' physics. Science is not consensus, nor does it use consensus.
James___ wrote:
and is no opinion of my own making.
Probably true. You get it from the Church of Global Warming.
James___ wrote:
Just what's in the books.

Books are not a Universal Truth.


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2018 19:18
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Into the Night wrote:
You are trying to describe thermal energy as 'heat'.

No. Thermal energy is the energy in an object in equilibrium that is responsible for its temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

I understand the difference between heat and thermal energy; I'm not sure if you do since I find your discussions confusing.
18-04-2018 19:46
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are trying to describe thermal energy as 'heat'.

No. Thermal energy is the energy in an object in equilibrium that is responsible for its temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

I understand the difference between heat and thermal energy; I'm not sure if you do since I find your discussions confusing.


This is why I finally gave up and put him on ignore.
18-04-2018 19:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are trying to describe thermal energy as 'heat'.

No. Thermal energy is the energy in an object in equilibrium that is responsible for its temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

Correct.
Jeffvw wrote:
I understand the difference between heat and thermal energy;

You just stated it correctly.
Jeffvw wrote:
I'm not sure if you do since I find your discussions confusing.

Why are you confused?


The Parrot Killer
18-04-2018 19:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are trying to describe thermal energy as 'heat'.

No. Thermal energy is the energy in an object in equilibrium that is responsible for its temperature. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

I understand the difference between heat and thermal energy; I'm not sure if you do since I find your discussions confusing.


This is why I finally gave up and put him on ignore.


Good job 'ignoring' me, dope. LOL


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Analysis of Emissions:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 07:12
Poseidon Foundation - offeset carbon footprints emissions using blockchain001-08-2018 16:54
When (if at all) did human co2 emissions begin to affect the climate?915-05-2018 00:30
Estimated cumulative emissions1404-12-2017 23:32
NASA Data Analysis proves that modern temperature rate of increase is NOT unusual2013-05-2017 23:13
Articles
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact