carbon footprint

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Private Climate Policy > carbon footprint > Page 2

Page 2 of 5

06-06-2019 06:44
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: Well, CO2 doesn't hold back all the heat that the sun gives to us, only a small percentage, but enough to cause a gradual increase in temp Wikipedia's coverage of stephan boltzman talks about greenhouse effect and gives a link to help understand. If you're going to consider Stefan-Boltzmann then check out refraction. Snow is highly reflective while sand isn't. Sand also gets warmer than snow as a result. Does that make a difference or the amount of green space VS asphalt? Just things to consider because they all refract absorbed solar radiation differently. I don't know if it makes any difference. To me it's all the same P = eбAT^4 or P = eбA(T^4 - T^4c). The 2nd one denotes the change in temperature T in Kelvin over time. Not sure why time isn't a constant when all it does is absorb and emit. Maybe itn or IBdaMann can explain it to you. It's like if you want to weld steel or aluminum. Ask a welder about that online or just search for the difference in welding them. That might give you one explanation of why heat radiates differently from different things. They also say that white refracted light stays in our atmosphere longer than brown refracted light. Snow/sand or dirt.
06-06-2019 06:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: Well, CO2 doesn't hold back all the heat that the sun gives to us, only a small percentage, but enough to cause a gradual increase in temp None. Zip. Zero. Nada. keepit wrote: Wikipedia's coverage of stephan boltzman talks about greenhouse effect and gives a link to help understand. Wikipedia discarded on sight. They are not a valid reference for anything to do with science or 'global warming' (whatever THAT is!). The Stefan-Boltzmann law prevents the so-called 'greenhouse' effect from being possible. There is no lid. There is no way to stop energy from leaving Earth as light. CO2 emits light just like the surface does. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 07:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: ItN, I didn't say CO2 stops the flow of heat back into outer space. It slows the flow of heat back into outer space allowing the temp to rise melting the ice. No, it does not. I'll teach you some physics. The flow of earth's thermal radiation into space is called its "radiance." The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the earth's radiance and the earth's temperature necessarily move in the same direction. This should make sense to you. If the temperature increases then the radiance increases. If the temperature decreases then the radiance decreases. Simple. Straightforward. Intuitive. Yet you would have us believe that the earth's temperature is increasing with a corresponding reduction in radiance. Anyone who understands Black Body science will immediately call BS on you. Either you will have to prove that the current body of science is in error or you will simply become a science denier, specifically of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Also, as Into the Night mentioned, your claims that the earth's temperature is somehow increasing requires you to identify the additional energy that is causing that temperature increase. Here's some more science for you; temperature cannot increase without additional energy. If your answer is "there is no additional energy but there is more greenhouse gas!" then you are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. Now that you know this you either need to explain from where you believe this required additional energy comes or you will simply become a science denier, specifically of the laws of thermodynamics. OK, let's see. I need to understand this. Your first paragraph say that radiance and temp move in the same direction and that sounds fine to me. Then why do you deny it? keepit wrote: Your second paragraph throws me. As i see it the temp is going up because the radiance back into outerspace is blocked or slowed by the greenhouse gases. That is reducing radiance while temperature is going up. That is not possible. You have also locked yourself in another paradox. Which is it, dude? keepit wrote: Sure the radiance is going up but it is slowed by the atmospheric CO2. Then it's going down, not up. You can't slow radiance. It has no speed. I will assume you mean you are reducing radiance. It can't go up and down at the same time, dude! keepit wrote: Because the inbound wavelengths (visible and others) aren't slowed by CO2 but the outbound infrared is slowed by the CO2, the buildup of temp occurs. Again, you are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no term for frequency in the equation. All frequencies of light are considered. keepit wrote: It's a pretty simple point of disagreement. Yes it is. Denying science is a pretty simple thing to do. keepit wrote: I forgot to mention that the energy that the CO2 absorbs is partly emitted downward warming the earth and water. WRONG. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't heat a warmer substance (the surface) with a colder gas (CO2). You might as well try to make hot coffee with ice. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 07:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: keepit wrote: Well, CO2 doesn't hold back all the heat that the sun gives to us, only a small percentage, but enough to cause a gradual increase in temp Wikipedia's coverage of stephan boltzman talks about greenhouse effect and gives a link to help understand. If you're going to consider Stefan-Boltzmann then check out refraction. The theory has nothing to do with refraction. James___ wrote: Snow is highly reflective while sand isn't. Sand is highly reflective. James___ wrote: Sand also gets warmer than snow as a result. No, sand isn't warmer. James___ wrote: Does that make a difference or the amount of green space VS asphalt? Yes. Emissivity changes radically in the space of inches. The total emissivity of Earth is unknown. James___ wrote: Just things to consider because they all refract absorbed solar radiation differently. Word salad. James___ wrote: I don't know if it makes any difference. To me it's all the same P = eбAT^4 or P = eбA(T^4 - T^4c). The 2nd one denotes the change in temperature T in Kelvin over time. Not sure why time isn't a constant when all it does is absorb and emit. Maybe itn or IBdaMann can explain it to you. There is no point explaining your word salads. James___ wrote: It's like if you want to weld steel or aluminum. Ask a welder about that online or just search for the difference in welding them. That might give you one explanation of why heat radiates differently from different things. It doesn't. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is independent of the material. James___ wrote: They also say that white refracted light stays in our atmosphere longer than brown refracted light. Snow/sand or dirt. There is no brown light. Light is light. There is no such thing as white refracted light. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 13:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:OK, let's see. I need to understand this. Kudos. keepit wrote:Your first paragraph say that radiance and temp move in the same direction and that sounds fine to me. Correct. Kudos. keepit wrote:Your second paragraph throws me. As i see it the temp is going up because the radiance back into outerspace is blocked or slowed by the greenhouse gases. Nope. By saying radiance is "blocked" or "slowed" you are saying "reduced." The only way for radiance to be reduced is for the temperature to decrease. You cannot have the earth's temperature increasing with a corresponding decrease in radiance. keepit wrote: Sure the radiance is going up but it is slowed by the atmospheric CO2. Nope. Nothing slows light to less than the speed of light. The next time someone tries to tell you that CO2 has magical properties that increases Earth's temperature THAT is the time to become dubious and to insist on explanations, not so much when you are discussing how Stefan-Boltzmann says temperature and radiance move in the same direction. keepit wrote: Because the inbound wavelengths (visible and others) aren't slowed by CO2 but the outbound infrared is slowed by the CO2, the buildup of temp occurs. It's pretty funny how you allowed yourself to be convinced that some light could be slowed to less than the speed of light. keepit wrote:I forgot to mention that the energy that the CO2 absorbs is partly emitted downward warming the earth and water. It doesn't matter. You are committing the egregious error of trying to subdivide the atomic unit, i.e. the "body". The earth is a body in thermal equilibrium. The atmosphere and hydrosphere are included in the earth and are not separate from it. It doesn't matter that there are some photons moving in a particular direction in the atmosphere or in the hydrosphere. The earth as a whole, energy in equals energy out. The moment you contradict that, you are violating thermodynamics. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of science acceptance vs. science denial. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

06-06-2019 16:36
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Well, if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust? Watch out for the Wikipedia police. Seriously, Wikipedia has been extremely useful and accurate to my knowledge. I would personally never be a Wikipedia denier. I wasn't trying to say something slowed the speed of light. The CO2 absorbs the infrared coming off the earth raising the CO2's kinetic energy. The CO2 then radiates infrared in all directions and so the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2. This takes a little time. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat onto the earth and the temp goes up. Heat coming in minus a smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp. I read the Wikipedia account of the Stefan Boltzmann thing and its reference to greenhouse gasses. It uses the term thermal insulator. Oh boy, here come the insults, false accusations, and name calling, etc. Edited on 06-06-2019 16:40
06-06-2019 18:01
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: Well, if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust? Watch out for the Wikipedia police. Seriously, Wikipedia has been extremely useful and accurate to my knowledge. I would personally never be a Wikipedia denier. I wasn't trying to say something slowed the speed of light. The CO2 absorbs the infrared coming off the earth raising the CO2's kinetic energy. The CO2 then radiates infrared in all directions and so the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2. This takes a little time. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat onto the earth and the temp goes up. Heat coming in minus a smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp. I read the Wikipedia account of the Stefan Boltzmann thing and its reference to greenhouse gasses. It uses the term thermal insulator. Oh boy, here come the insults, false accusations, and name calling, etc. About the speed of light, it's frequency is what is considered having an effect of it staying in the atmosphere longer. Some people would say that means it has slowed and since it doesn't, it cannot stay in the atmosphere longer. This isn't from wikipedia, it's from San Jose State University in San Jose, California. The greenhouse effect occurs when the heated surface of the Earth radiates infrared (long wavelength) radiation which greenhouse gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb and heat the air which in turn radiates infrared radiation upward and downward where it is reabsorbed and reradiated. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/atmostemp2.htm This goes back to what I posted to you about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. When solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth, it is radiated in different wavelengths E = hf http://energywavetheory.com/equations/ehf/ where quoting that webpage; Planck's relation (E=hf) is a result of a transverse wave, from the vibration of a particle due to a difference in wave amplitude. The guys in this forum don't understand this stuff. They'll take it personally but they've never studied physics and it shows. What scientists haven't discussed to my knowledge is how does CO2 affect the (quoting the web page again) the vibration of a particle due to a difference in wave amplitude. This effect would change the wavelengths that smaller (lighter) molecules absorb and emit. This would allow for a cumulative effect. I would've liked to have seen actual physical experiments to show specific relationships which is what should be done but hasn't. Kind of why there's a debate over the science. So far it's been based mostly on logarithms which aren't based on physical observation. p.s., white light like that refracted by snow readily leaves the atmosphere. Longer wavelengths are more likely to interact with atmospheric gases meaning it's energy can stay in the atmosphere longer because it's adsorbed by atmospheric gases but not because it's speed has changed. Edited on 06-06-2019 18:04
06-06-2019 18:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote: Well, if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust? No, the phrase is "If you trust Wikipedia then you can probably be duped by anybody." keepit wrote: I wasn't trying to say something slowed the speed of light. You used the word "slowed" multiple times. keepit wrote: The CO2 absorbs the infrared coming off the earth raising the CO2's kinetic energy. Nope. Not that it matters but CO2 absorbs all IR with sufficient energy, per Planck's law, regardless of its direction. I'll teach you some physics. The absorption of thermal radiation results in an increase in thermal energy, not in kinetic energy. If you are trusting Wikipedia's claim that kinetic energy is thusly increased then you can probably be duped by anyone. keepit wrote: The CO2 then radiates infrared in all directions and so the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2. Nope. That cannot happen. Planck's law (and the built-in 2nd law of thermodynamics) explains why. The IR emitted by the CO2 does not have sufficient energy to be absorbed by the warmer surface. You should pay attention to Into the Night when he mentions that you cannot have a cooler atmosphere warming a warmer surface. Also, your wording is not correct when you write "the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2." The atmosphere is the earth as well. So is the hydrosphere. You meant to write that IR bounces back and forth among the earth. All of the earth is the "body" in question. You don't get to subdivide it and pretend you somehow get different results. keepit wrote: This takes a little time. Zero time. Absorption is instantaneous. Emission is instantaneous. The rate of emission is determined by ... would you care to take a guess? Answer: Stefan-Boltzmann. keepit wrote: Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat onto the earth ... This is the input portion of the equilibrium. The earth's thermal radiation to space is the output. The two are equal. There is no atmospheric gas that has magickal superpowers to change that. I know, I know, you read in Wikipedia that there are, in fact, mystical magickal "greenhouse gases" with exactly those kinds of superpowers. Did you fall for it? keepit wrote: and the temp goes up. ... not in a thermal equilibrium. keepit wrote: Heat coming in minus a smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp. Just so we are clear, you have decided to officially become a science denier. That's perfectly fine; you are under no obligation to accept science. You were presented with Stefan-Boltzmann (on several occasions) and you are perfectly aware that 1) temperature cannot increase without additional energy and 2) that radiance and temperature necessarily move in the same direction ... yet you insist that the earth somehow behaves differently, with " smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp", i.e. radiance and temperature moving in opposite directions. Again, just so we are clear. You are now officially a science denier. keepit wrote: I read the Wikipedia account of the Stefan Boltzmann thing and its reference to greenhouse gasses. It uses the term thermal insulator. Did you fall for it? There's a reason Wikipedia is summarily dismissed as any sort of reference. keepit wrote:Oh boy, here come the insults, false accusations, and name calling, etc. Well, if you insist ... You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny ... and you think Thomas Jefferson was a communist. Will that work? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-06-2019 18:30
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	James, My sentiments exactly. Edited on 06-06-2019 18:30
06-06-2019 18:34
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	IBDaMann, Thanks for your reply but "not exactly".
06-06-2019 18:51
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: Well, if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust? No, the phrase is "If you trust Wikipedia then you can probably be duped by anybody." Wikipedia isn't fake news. keepit wrote: I wasn't trying to say something slowed the speed of light. You used the word "slowed" multiple times. I was referring to heat transfer when i used the word slowed. keepit wrote: The CO2 absorbs the infrared coming off the earth raising the CO2's kinetic energy. Nope. Not that it matters but CO2 absorbs all IR with sufficient energy, per Planck's law, regardless of its direction. Agreed. I'll teach you some physics. The absorption of thermal radiation results in an increase in thermal energy, not in kinetic energy. If you are trusting Wikipedia's claim that kinetic energy is thusly increased then you can probably be duped by anyone. I read in Wikipedia that thermal energy is kinetic energy. keepit wrote: The CO2 then radiates infrared in all directions and so the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2. Nope. That cannot happen. Planck's law (and the built-in 2nd law of thermodynamics) explains why. The IR emitted by the CO2 does not have sufficient energy to be absorbed by the warmer surface. You should pay attention to Into the Night when he mentions that you cannot have a cooler atmosphere warming a warmer surface. I still think the infrared energy is absorbed by the earth. Also, your wording is not correct when you write "the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2." The atmosphere is the earth as well. So is the hydrosphere. You meant to write that IR bounces back and forth among the earth. All of the earth is the "body" in question. You don't get to subdivide it and pretend you somehow get different results. I understand the earth and the atmosphere can be considered as one body. keepit wrote: This takes a little time. Zero time. Absorption is instantaneous. Emission is instantaneous. The rate of emission is determined by ... would you care to take a guess? Answer: Stefan-Boltzmann. keepit wrote: Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat onto the earth ... This is the input portion of the equilibrium. The earth's thermal radiation to space is the output. The two are equal. There is no atmospheric gas that has magickal superpowers to change that. I know, I know, you read in Wikipedia that there are, in fact, mystical magickal "greenhouse gases" with exactly those kinds of superpowers. Did you fall for it Yes,i fell for it. The temperature on earth has varied much over many years. keepit wrote: and the temp goes up. ... not in a thermal equilibrium. There isn't thermal equilibrium over time. The temp has gone up and down. keepit wrote: Heat coming in minus a smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp. Just so we are clear, you have decided to officially become a science denier. No, i haven't. I believe for the very most part the science in wikipedia. You don't. That's perfectly fine; you are under no obligation to accept science. You were presented with Stefan-Boltzmann (on several occasions) and you are perfectly aware that 1) temperature cannot increase without additional energy The additional energy is the energy the sun keeps pouring onto the earth. and 2) that radiance and temperature necessarily move in the same direction ... yet you insist that the earth somehow behaves differently, with " smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp", i.e. radiance and temperature moving in opposite directions. Are you referring to the direction of radiance or the amount of radiance? Also, are you referring to the direction of heat flow or the amount of heat flow? Again, just so we are clear. You are now officially a science denier. No,i'm not. keepit wrote: I read the Wikipedia account of the Stefan Boltzmann thing and its reference to greenhouse gasses. It uses the term thermal insulator. Did you fall for it? Yes. There's a reason Wikipedia is summarily dismissed as any sort of reference. I don't know anyone that dismisses wikipedia. keepit wrote:Oh boy, here come the insults, false accusations, and name calling, etc. Well, if you insist ... You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny ... and you think Thomas Jefferson was a communist. Not quite but very funny. I like your sense of humor. Will that work?
06-06-2019 18:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: Well, if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust? The theory of science itself. It is the ONLY authoritative reference to a theory of science. keepit wrote: Watch out for the Wikipedia police. No, you just can't use it as a reference with several people here. Wikipedia articles are too often incomplete, badly written, or just outright wrong. keepit wrote: Seriously, Wikipedia has been extremely useful and accurate to my knowledge. How do you know? You are looking in Wikipedia because you haven't the knowledge. keepit wrote: I would personally never be a Wikipedia denier. I would, and I am. keepit wrote: I wasn't trying to say something slowed the speed of light. Yes you were. keepit wrote: The CO2 absorbs the infrared coming off the earth raising the CO2's kinetic energy. Thermal energy, but otherwise correct. keepit wrote: The CO2 then radiates infrared in all directions and so the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2. This takes a little time. WRONG. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas! The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work. It's like saying a ball dropped from a height will bounce higher than the height you dropped it from. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. keepit wrote: Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat onto the earth and the temp goes up. The higher the temperature, the more radiance you get, and the more energy leaves the Earth. keepit wrote: Heat coming in minus a smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp. keepit wrote: WRONG. You are reducing radiance and raising the temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. keepit wrote: I read the Wikipedia account of the Stefan Boltzmann thing and its reference to greenhouse gasses. It uses the term thermal insulator. There is no thermal insulator in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Again: radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 Do you see a thermal insulator in there anywhere? keepit wrote: Oh boy, here come the insults, false accusations, and name calling, etc. Feeling paranoid? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 19:03
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Well, if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust? The theory of science itself. It is the ONLY authoritative reference to a theory of science. keepit wrote: Watch out for the Wikipedia police. No, you just can't use it as a reference with several people here. Wikipedia articles are too often incomplete, badly written, or just outright wrong. keepit wrote: Seriously, Wikipedia has been extremely useful and accurate to my knowledge. How do you know? You are looking in Wikipedia because you haven't the knowledge. keepit wrote: I would personally never be a Wikipedia denier. I would, and I am. keepit wrote: I wasn't trying to say something slowed the speed of light. Yes you were. keepit wrote: The CO2 absorbs the infrared coming off the earth raising the CO2's kinetic energy. Thermal energy, but otherwise correct. keepit wrote: The CO2 then radiates infrared in all directions and so the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2. This takes a little time. WRONG. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas! The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work. It's like saying a ball dropped from a height will bounce higher than the height you dropped it from. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. keepit wrote: Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat onto the earth and the temp goes up. The higher the temperature, the more radiance you get, and the more energy leaves the Earth. keepit wrote: Heat coming in minus a smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp. keepit wrote: WRONG. You are reducing radiance and raising the temperature at the same time. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. keepit wrote: I read the Wikipedia account of the Stefan Boltzmann thing and its reference to greenhouse gasses. It uses the term thermal insulator. There is no thermal insulator in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Again: radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 Do you see a thermal insulator in there anywhere? Thermal insulator is sued in one of the links in the SB article. I think it was the "greenhouse gas " link. keepit wrote: Oh boy, here come the insults, false accusations, and name calling, etc. Feeling paranoid? No.
06-06-2019 19:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: keepit wrote: Well, if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust? Watch out for the Wikipedia police. Seriously, Wikipedia has been extremely useful and accurate to my knowledge. I would personally never be a Wikipedia denier. I wasn't trying to say something slowed the speed of light. The CO2 absorbs the infrared coming off the earth raising the CO2's kinetic energy. The CO2 then radiates infrared in all directions and so the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2. This takes a little time. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat onto the earth and the temp goes up. Heat coming in minus a smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp. I read the Wikipedia account of the Stefan Boltzmann thing and its reference to greenhouse gasses. It uses the term thermal insulator. Oh boy, here come the insults, false accusations, and name calling, etc. About the speed of light, it's frequency is what is considered having an effect of it staying in the atmosphere longer. Frequency does not change the speed of light. James___ wrote: Some people would say that means it has slowed and since it doesn't, it cannot stay in the atmosphere longer. This isn't from wikipedia, it's from San Jose State University in San Jose, California. No, it's from you. James___ wrote: The greenhouse effect occurs when the heated surface of the Earth radiates infrared (long wavelength) radiation which greenhouse gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb and heat the air which in turn radiates infrared radiation upward and downward where it is reabsorbed and reradiated. ...deleted Holy University Link... [/quote] Not possible. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. A university professor can't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics either. James___ wrote: This goes back to what I posted to you about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. When solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth, it is radiated in different wavelengths E = hf http://energywavetheory.com/equations/ehf/ where quoting that webpage; Planck's relation (E=hf) is a result of a transverse wave, from the vibration of a particle due to a difference in wave amplitude. Mostly word salad. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for frequency. It is all frequencies combined. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law equation and in this way deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. James___ wrote: The guys in this forum don't understand this stuff. What about: radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 eludes you? James___ wrote: They'll take it personally but they've never studied physics and it shows. This from the guy that wants to operate on himself. Inversion fallacy. James___ wrote: What scientists haven't discussed to my knowledge is how does CO2 affect the (quoting the web page again) the vibration of a particle due to a difference in wave amplitude. They have, but not here. James___ wrote: This effect would change the wavelengths that smaller (lighter) molecules absorb and emit. This would allow for a cumulative effect. I would've liked to have seen actual physical experiments to show specific relationships which is what should be done but hasn't. Kind of why there's a debate over the science. So far it's been based mostly on logarithms which aren't based on physical observation. Word salad discarded. Meaningless buzzwords. James___ wrote: p.s., white light like that refracted by snow readily leaves the atmosphere. Longer wavelengths are more likely to interact with atmospheric gases meaning it's energy can stay in the atmosphere longer because it's adsorbed by atmospheric gases but not because it's speed has changed. Frequency does not change the speed of light. Redefinition fallacy (refract <-> reflect). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 19:20
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	ITN, I'm pretty sure James was making a metaphor about operating on himself. A person would probably go into shock. Some statements aren't meant to be interpreted literally.

06-06-2019 19:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: ITN, I'm pretty sure James was making a metaphor about operating on himself. A person would probably go into shock. Some statements aren't meant to be interpreted literally. It was a literal statement. Harvey55 had told me that I should be thankful for what doctors have done to me unless I think I can do better. That is why I made the comment. What hospital would let someone operate on themself? There isn't one. itn and ibdamann will take things out of context just to create conflict. They're not here to actually discuss anything. But then I also said I'll be going to another country to have surgery if possible. President Trump said that Australia has better healthcare than the US. These people in here support President Trump. Then if I go to Australia to have surgery because they have better healthcare than the US, then I would be supporting President Trump. Edited on 06-06-2019 19:40
06-06-2019 19:44
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Photoelectric effect. The frequency determines whether or not an electron is ejected from a molecule. The intensity doesn't.
06-06-2019 19:48
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	The medium (air, water, space) determines the speed of light. Some astrophysicists are attempting to prove that differing frequencies have very slightly different speeds of light.
06-06-2019 20:01
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	The frequency (infrared) has an effect on how long the temperature increases. For example, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It has the effect of holding heat in and keeping the temperature up for a while. Everyone knows this. You can look outside to verify clouds. You can't just look outside to verify CO2 and that is why the CO2 situation is not clear. No pun intended. Edited on 06-06-2019 20:12
06-06-2019 20:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: Well, if you can't trust Wikipedia, who can you trust? No, the phrase is "If you trust Wikipedia then you can probably be duped by anybody." Wikipedia isn't fake news. keepit wrote: I wasn't trying to say something slowed the speed of light. IBdaMann wrote: You used the word "slowed" multiple times. I was referring to heat transfer when i used the word slowed. keepit wrote: The CO2 absorbs the infrared coming off the earth raising the CO2's kinetic energy. IBdaMann wrote: Nope. Not that it matters but CO2 absorbs all IR with sufficient energy, per Planck's law, regardless of its direction. Agreed. IBdaMann wrote: I'll teach you some physics. The absorption of thermal radiation results in an increase in thermal energy, not in kinetic energy. If you are trusting Wikipedia's claim that kinetic energy is thusly increased then you can probably be duped by anyone. I read in Wikipedia that thermal energy is kinetic energy. IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: The CO2 then radiates infrared in all directions and so the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2. Nope. That cannot happen. Planck's law (and the built-in 2nd law of thermodynamics) explains why. The IR emitted by the CO2 does not have sufficient energy to be absorbed by the warmer surface. You should pay attention to Into the Night when he mentions that you cannot have a cooler atmosphere warming a warmer surface. I still think the infrared energy is absorbed by the earth. IBdaMann wrote: Also, your wording is not correct when you write "the infrared bounces back and forth between the earth and the CO2." The atmosphere is the earth as well. So is the hydrosphere. You meant to write that IR bounces back and forth among the earth. All of the earth is the "body" in question. You don't get to subdivide it and pretend you somehow get different results. I understand the earth and the atmosphere can be considered as one body. IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: This takes a little time. Zero time. Absorption is instantaneous. Emission is instantaneous. The rate of emission is determined by ... would you care to take a guess? Answer: Stefan-Boltzmann. keepit wrote: Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat onto the earth ... This is the input portion of the equilibrium. The earth's thermal radiation to space is the output. The two are equal. There is no atmospheric gas that has magickal superpowers to change that. I know, I know, you read in Wikipedia that there are, in fact, mystical magickal "greenhouse gases" with exactly those kinds of superpowers. Did you fall for it Yes,i fell for it. The temperature on earth has varied much over many years. IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: and the temp goes up. ... not in a thermal equilibrium. There isn't thermal equilibrium over time. The temp has gone up and down. IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: Heat coming in minus a smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp. Just so we are clear, you have decided to officially become a science denier. No, i haven't. I believe for the very most part the science in wikipedia. You don't. IBdaMann wrote: That's perfectly fine; you are under no obligation to accept science. You were presented with Stefan-Boltzmann (on several occasions) and you are perfectly aware that 1) temperature cannot increase without additional energy The additional energy is the energy the sun keeps pouring onto the earth. IBdaMann wrote: and 2) that radiance and temperature necessarily move in the same direction ... yet you insist that the earth somehow behaves differently, with " smaller amount of heat going out equals an increase in temp", i.e. radiance and temperature moving in opposite directions. Are you referring to the direction of radiance or the amount of radiance? Also, are you referring to the direction of heat flow or the amount of heat flow? IBdaMann wrote: Again, just so we are clear. You are now officially a science denier. No,i'm not. IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote: I read the Wikipedia account of the Stefan Boltzmann thing and its reference to greenhouse gasses. It uses the term thermal insulator. Did you fall for it? Yes. IBdaMann wrote: There's a reason Wikipedia is summarily dismissed as any sort of reference. I don't know anyone that dismisses wikipedia. IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote:Oh boy, here come the insults, false accusations, and name calling, etc. Well, if you insist ... You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny ... and you think Thomas Jefferson was a communist. Not quite but very funny. I like your sense of humor. Will that work? Reposted with more correct quoting. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 20:17
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	ITN, Not trying to put you on the spot but this "Theory of science" that you mentioned. Where did you find it? Not from CalTech or Harvard or Princeton or Stanfordi'm guessing. Not that went to any of those places. I wish i would have. I'm home schooled.
06-06-2019 20:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: ITN, I'm pretty sure James was making a metaphor about operating on himself. No, hewasn't. keepit wrote: A person would probably go into shock. Quite right. keepit wrote: Some statements aren't meant to be interpreted literally. He intended literal meaning. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 20:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: Photoelectric effect. The frequency determines whether or not an electron is ejected from a molecule. The intensity doesn't. Light is not electrons. Electrons have no intensity in an atom. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 20:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: The medium (air, water, space) determines the speed of light. But frequency doesn't. keepit wrote: Some astrophysicists are attempting to prove that differing frequencies have very slightly different speeds of light. Frequency does not change the speed of light. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 20:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote: The medium (air, water, space) determines the speed of light. Some astrophysicists are attempting to prove that differing frequencies have very slightly different speeds of light. Yes, but the speed of light through water, say, is still the speed of light through water. You can't get light to go through water any more slowly than at the speed of light through water. The speed of light through our atmosphere is independent of the amount of CO2. Do you really hate science this much that you won't even consider it? Some scientifically illiterate yahoo writes something in Wikipedia and you treat it as gospel, but science you won't ever lend the benefit of your scientifically illiterate doubt. At some point you have to realize that the problem is on your end, and the problem is that you are gullible and you somehow get a good feeling from allowing yourself to be manipulated. Doubly so if it's Wikipedia. Enjoy. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-06-2019 20:25
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	I don't hate science. I love science. And i am enjoying the back and forth.
06-06-2019 20:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: The frequency (infrared) has an effect on how long the temperature increases. Nope. Absorption is instaneous. The photon is utterly destroyed and its energy is converted to thermal energy. Radiance is also instantaneous. For black body radiance, that is conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. A new photon is generated that has nothing to do with the frequency of any that were absorbed. keepit wrote: For example, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. keepit wrote: It has the effect of holding heat in It is not possible to hold or trap heat. keepit wrote: and keeping the temperature up for a while. It is not possible to hold or trap thermal energy. There is always heat. keepit wrote: Everyone knows this. Argument from randU fallacy, and a denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. keepit wrote: You can look outside to verify clouds. I happen to have some low cumulus clouds and a higher level of stratus clouds at the moment in view. There also appears to be a layer of cirrus clouds above that, but I can't be sure due to obscuration. The freezing layer looks to be quite high (above 10,000 ft). All in all, it looks like a good day for students to practice instrument flight. Boeing field, an airport near here is reporting: KBFI 061653Z 18006KT 10SM BKN022 12/06 A3000 RMK AO2 SLP157 T01220056 keepit wrote: You can't just look outside to verify CO2 and that is why the CO2 situation is not clear. No pun intended. No, you just deny science. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 20:36
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Parrot, "Warming the earth" is your phrase. "Holding heat in" is mine.
06-06-2019 20:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote: Parrot, "Warming the earth" is your phrase. "Holding heat in" is mine. What does that mean? Do you know what "heat" is? What meaning could "holding heat" possibly have if thermal energy pours freely out of all matter per Stefan-Boltzmann? I'm dying to know. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-06-2019 21:15
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	keepit wrote: The frequency (infrared) has an effect on how long the temperature increases. For example, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It has the effect of holding heat in and keeping the temperature up for a while. Everyone knows this. You can look outside to verify clouds. You can't just look outside to verify CO2 and that is why the CO2 situation is not clear. No pun intended. Clouds do a lot of other things... Here in Florida, it gets a little hot during the summer. When clouds pass between you and the sun, it's a very noticeable change in temperature, sweet relief, if only for a moment. When it rains, it's cool, well luke warm anyway, definitely not hot, like when the sun was shining. What happened to the heat? Not as much makes it to the surface. The rain isn't burning hot. All that thermal energy had to go some place.

06-06-2019 21:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: ITN, Not trying to put you on the spot but this "Theory of science" that you mentioned. Where did you find it? There are four theories of science that you are denying: * The 1st law of thermodynamics. * The 2nd law of thermodynamics. * The Stefan-Boltzmann law. * Kirchoff's law. keepit wrote: Not from CalTech or Harvard or Princeton or Stanfordi'm guessing. They did not create these theories. Certain departments in these institutions deny them just as you do. Where they come from is irrelevant. The theories themselves exist. They have not yet been falsified. You can't just discard them without denying science. keepit wrote: Not that went to any of those places. I wish i would have. Why? keepit wrote: I'm home schooled. But according to a federal government curriculum, a lot of which is flat wrong. Such as the 'greenhouse gas' model they taught you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 21:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: I don't hate science. I love science. And i am enjoying the back and forth. You are denying science. Specifically, you are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and Kirchoff's law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 21:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: Parrot, "Warming the earth" is your phrase. "Holding heat in" is mine. Warming the Earth is a phrase from the Church of Global Warming. It is the phrase YOU are using. 'Holding heat in' is a phrase from the Church of Global Warming. It is not possible to hold or trap heat. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 21:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	HarveyH55 wrote: keepit wrote: The frequency (infrared) has an effect on how long the temperature increases. For example, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It has the effect of holding heat in and keeping the temperature up for a while. Everyone knows this. You can look outside to verify clouds. You can't just look outside to verify CO2 and that is why the CO2 situation is not clear. No pun intended. Clouds do a lot of other things... Here in Florida, it gets a little hot during the summer. When clouds pass between you and the sun, it's a very noticeable change in temperature, sweet relief, if only for a moment. When it rains, it's cool, well luke warm anyway, definitely not hot, like when the sun was shining. What happened to the heat? Not as much makes it to the surface. The rain isn't burning hot. All that thermal energy had to go some place. Convective heating. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 22:10
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Parrot, "Warming the earth" is your phrase. "Holding heat in" is mine. Warming the Earth is a phrase from the Church of Global Warming. It is the phrase YOU are using. 'Holding heat in' is a phrase from the Church of Global Warming. It is not possible to hold or trap heat. itn and ibdamann refuse to acknowledge Boltzmann's ideal gas law which is KE = 3/2kT. They say that atmospheric gases do not have heat content. Yet they'll spew ad nauseum the Stefan-Boltzmann equation without understanding it. Edited on 06-06-2019 22:21
06-06-2019 22:30
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	I just looked up Kirchoff's law. What i saw was that it applied to electricity.
06-06-2019 22:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: I just looked up Kirchoff's law. What i saw was that it applied to electricity. It applies to all energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 22:38
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	I just looked up SB law and Black body radiation in my Phillips Astronomy Encyclopedia. It uses the phrase "idealized black body". The earth isn't an idealized black body. Look what happened on Venus.
06-06-2019 22:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Parrot, "Warming the earth" is your phrase. "Holding heat in" is mine. Warming the Earth is a phrase from the Church of Global Warming. It is the phrase YOU are using. 'Holding heat in' is a phrase from the Church of Global Warming. It is not possible to hold or trap heat. itn and ibdamann refuse to acknowledge Boltzmann's ideal gas law which is KE = 3/2kT. They say that atmospheric gases do not have heat content. Yet they'll spew ad nauseum the Stefan-Boltzmann equation without understanding it. The ideal gas law is not Boltzmann's law. It is a combination of of other laws by combining Boyle's law, Charles's law, Avogadro's law, and Gay-Lussac's law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2019 22:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: I just looked up SB law and Black body radiation in my Phillips Astronomy Encyclopedia. It uses the phrase "idealized black body". The earth isn't an idealized black body. Look what happened on Venus. This confusion is common. The ideal black body is a reference point, not the law itself. It is the point where emissivity is 100%. There is no such thing as an ideal black body in the real world. There is also no such thing as an ideal white body (where emissivity = 0%) in the world either. All real bodies are gray bodies (where emissivity is less than 100% and greater than 0%). You are attempting to eliminate the emissivity constant from the equation, thus denying the law. What happened to Venus? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 2 of 5

Join the debate carbon footprint:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems	841	26-04-2024 23:06
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers	1	06-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon	30	06-07-2023 23:51
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands	96	23-06-2023 14:49
Biden wants to force 'carbon capture'	8	21-06-2023 12:55