Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change


Climate change17-12-2018 00:14
larrymac
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Climate change Theory
since climate change effects plants and crops and "Man". I think "Man" is a symbiotic byproduct of the life process of plants (carbon dioxide and oxygen relationship). Will the melting of glaciers around the world "stabilize" the global climate to make a "New" climate "Norm" for the earth to sustain crops and plants for "Mans"survival. I think the melting of "glaciers" around the world is doing is "stabilizing" the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere ( because oceans absorbs carbon dioxide) and Earth's land and seas temperature.you see before "Man" I think Plants and volcanoes (carbon dioxide and oxygen relationship) was the catalyst to the first climate change (First Ice Age Melting) 50,000 years ago, when the human populations emerge and grew. So once agin, is the melting glaciers helpping the human race once it (the glaciers) stabilize the atmosphere and Earth's lands and seas temperature?
A queston by Larry McCarthy

12/16/2018
17-12-2018 00:43
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
It's all just nature in progress... The glaciers were formed during an ice age, melt slowly, do to the seasonal Climate Change. Sometimes hard winters will add to some of them. We really haven't completely recovered from the last big ice age. Other than the trash and pollution, destruction of our environment and food sources, we don't have much influence over what happens. Pulling carbon out of the ground, and putting it back into the environment, is great for plants, which feed everything. Seems odd, that starving our most basic form of food, would be considered a good idea, by scientists. The human population will continue to grow, at an alarming rate, we do anything and everything to save, and prolong life as well. Not just human lives, but pretty much any critter that doesn't bite or sting. We need to make sure we have enough vegetation to feed every living thing.

Atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm, but plants do much better at levels 3-5 times greater (1200-2000 ppm). I'm not sure what level of CO2 is fatal to plants, but likely considerably more. I don't know how much CO2 would be fatal to humans, usually it's the lack of oxygen, not the CO2.
17-12-2018 04:52
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
larrymac wrote:
I think the melting of "glaciers" around the world is doing is "stabilizing" the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere ( because oceans absorbs carbon dioxide) ......

.....So once agin, is the melting glaciers helpping the human race once it (the glaciers) stabilize the atmosphere and Earth's lands and seas temperature?
A queston by Larry McCarthy
12/16/2018


Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentration?

I wouldn't say that.
Look at the Keeling Curve: CO2 still rising.
See https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

Some of the net coal/petroleum/natural gas CO2 does go into the oceans, explaining the slight pH lowering (acidification.) So, yes CO2 dissolving in our oceans has kept the concentration curve from rising as fast, but not stable, unchanging.

I don't see how melting glaciers significantly affect the amount of CO2 that oceans dissolve. Atmospheric CO2 exchanges with the oceans through the ocean surface, essentially unchanged in historic times. Temperature and the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 both have an effect on dissolved CO2

The "heat of fusion" of melting ice, glacial ice , that 334 joules per gram to cause the solid-liquid phase change, should have a moderating effect on temperature change, but my guess is that it is minuscule in the greater scheme of things.
17-12-2018 14:18
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1284)
Just what we need; another nutter.
Edited on 17-12-2018 14:18
17-12-2018 23:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's all just nature in progress... The glaciers were formed during an ice age, melt slowly, do to the seasonal Climate Change. Sometimes hard winters will add to some of them. We really haven't completely recovered from the last big ice age. Other than the trash and pollution, destruction of our environment and food sources, we don't have much influence over what happens. Pulling carbon out of the ground, and putting it back into the environment, is great for plants, which feed everything. Seems odd, that starving our most basic form of food, would be considered a good idea, by scientists. The human population will continue to grow, at an alarming rate, we do anything and everything to save, and prolong life as well. Not just human lives, but pretty much any critter that doesn't bite or sting. We need to make sure we have enough vegetation to feed every living thing.

Atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm, but plants do much better at levels 3-5 times greater (1200-2000 ppm). I'm not sure what level of CO2 is fatal to plants, but likely considerably more. I don't know how much CO2 would be fatal to humans, usually it's the lack of oxygen, not the CO2.


Kind of, but not quite right.

The human breath cycle depends on the partial pressures of CO2 and oxygen. Too much CO2 prevents the blood from ridding itself of the stuff in the lungs. If the blood can't get rid of the CO2, it can't pick up the oxygen. So it IS suffocation, but at the blood level, not the gas level.

There is no upper limit of CO2 for plants. The more, the better. Plants get the oxygen they need from the water.

For us, most people begin to feel lethargic around 1000ppm. Above 2000ppm, headaches and confusion occur. As you approach 5000ppm, nausea and vomiting can occur. Much above that is fatal.


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2018 23:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
still learning wrote:
larrymac wrote:
I think the melting of "glaciers" around the world is doing is "stabilizing" the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere ( because oceans absorbs carbon dioxide) ......

.....So once agin, is the melting glaciers helpping the human race once it (the glaciers) stabilize the atmosphere and Earth's lands and seas temperature?
A queston by Larry McCarthy
12/16/2018


Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentration?

I wouldn't say that.
Look at the Keeling Curve: CO2 still rising.
See https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

The Keeling curve is the response profile of the instrument, not the data itself.
CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. The few stations we have monitoring it are nowhere near enough to produce a global atmospheric CO2 reading. Further, Scripps is simply reporting the Mauna Loa data. It is already known this data is cooked. It is useless.
still learning wrote:
Some of the net coal/petroleum/natural gas CO2 does go into the oceans, explaining the slight pH lowering (acidification.)

It is not possible to acidify an alkaline. Ocean water is alkaline.
The pH varies in ocean water. It is not possible to measure the pH of the entire ocean.
still learning wrote:
So, yes CO2 dissolving in our oceans has kept the concentration curve from rising as fast, but not stable, unchanging.

CO2 dissolved in water is simply dissolved CO2 (think soda water). It does not change the pH at all.
still learning wrote:
I don't see how melting glaciers significantly affect the amount of CO2 that oceans dissolve. Atmospheric CO2 exchanges with the oceans through the ocean surface, essentially unchanged in historic times. Temperature and the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 both have an effect on dissolved CO2

The amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean tracks that of the CO2 in the air...about 400ppm. Dissolved CO2 does not change the pH at all. About 1% of the dissolved CO2 becomes carbonic acid. That means about 0.004% of the ocean water is carbonic acid, a weak acid. pH is not going to change any significant degree at these concentrations. pH is a logarithmic scale, not a linear one.
still learning wrote:
The "heat of fusion" of melting ice, glacial ice , that 334 joules per gram to cause the solid-liquid phase change, should have a moderating effect on temperature change, but my guess is that it is minuscule in the greater scheme of things.

It is significant if you are talking about melting all the ice on Earth (glaciers are a tiny amount of that ice). How many grams of ice do you think there are on Earth? (There are 443.49237 grams to a U.S. pound, if that helps).

A 20lb sack of ice will weigh 9072 grams. It will require about 3 million joules to melt it.

How many tons do you think just one typical glacier weighs? And glaciers are a tiny fraction of the ice that's on the Earth. Ice is also quite reflective, and won't absorb much energy from the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-12-2018 23:27
18-12-2018 22:20
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
still learning wrote:
larrymac wrote:
I think the melting of "glaciers" around the world is doing is "stabilizing" the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere ( because oceans absorbs carbon dioxide) ......

.....So once agin, is the melting glaciers helpping the human race once it (the glaciers) stabilize the atmosphere and Earth's lands and seas temperature?
A queston by Larry McCarthy
12/16/2018


Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentration?

I wouldn't say that.
Look at the Keeling Curve: CO2 still rising.
See https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

Some of the net coal/petroleum/natural gas CO2 does go into the oceans, explaining the slight pH lowering (acidification.) So, yes CO2 dissolving in our oceans has kept the concentration curve from rising as fast, but not stable, unchanging.

I don't see how melting glaciers significantly affect the amount of CO2 that oceans dissolve. Atmospheric CO2 exchanges with the oceans through the ocean surface, essentially unchanged in historic times. Temperature and the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 both have an effect on dissolved CO2

The "heat of fusion" of melting ice, glacial ice , that 334 joules per gram to cause the solid-liquid phase change, should have a moderating effect on temperature change, but my guess is that it is minuscule in the greater scheme of things.


The melting of glaciers all over the world have been shown by research to have formed DURING the Little Ice Age that occurred between 1700 and 1860. As these glaciers retreat say on Greenland, there is evidence that the land was farmed before 1700. In Alaska a big to-do was made of a glacier retreating from an entire waterway. Scientists investigating ice caves at the foot of the glacier found tree stumps that carbon dated to 1700 or so. So this glacier ALSO formed in the Little Ice Age. Everywhere they look they find that we are not "warming" but rather returning to "normal" temperatures after a very cold period.

CO2 has a VERY narrow and very low frequency spectrum in which it can absorb energy. That area has very little energy in it from sunlight and absorbed energy from higher energy sunlight converted into energy in the 10 um frequency range. So at levels above 200-250 or so depending upon location, ALL of the available energy has been absorbed. Additional amounts of CO2 have no effect whatsoever.

Also we have to add - at 400 ppm of CO2 plants grow about twice as large and faster than at 250 ppm. In greenhouses they use CO2 generators to pump the CO2 up to 1400 ppm at which point a plant that normally grows to about 2 feet in the normal atmosphere will grow to 6 feet or more. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is an absolute boon to mankind where today with a population four or five times as much as it was in 1909, there is almost NO starvation left in the world that isn't caused by wars.

Calculations of the amount of CO2 that man is generating is easily done by simply measuring the amount of coal and petroleum sold. The problem is that this amount is nowhere near the amount it would take for the CO2 in the atmosphere to grow as much as it has.

It turns out that the returning warmth of the oceans after the Little Ice Age is emitting more CO2 than man does by a considerable margin.
19-12-2018 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
larrymac wrote:
I think the melting of "glaciers" around the world is doing is "stabilizing" the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere ( because oceans absorbs carbon dioxide) ......

.....So once agin, is the melting glaciers helpping the human race once it (the glaciers) stabilize the atmosphere and Earth's lands and seas temperature?
A queston by Larry McCarthy
12/16/2018


Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentration?

I wouldn't say that.
Look at the Keeling Curve: CO2 still rising.
See https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

Some of the net coal/petroleum/natural gas CO2 does go into the oceans, explaining the slight pH lowering (acidification.) So, yes CO2 dissolving in our oceans has kept the concentration curve from rising as fast, but not stable, unchanging.

I don't see how melting glaciers significantly affect the amount of CO2 that oceans dissolve. Atmospheric CO2 exchanges with the oceans through the ocean surface, essentially unchanged in historic times. Temperature and the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 both have an effect on dissolved CO2

The "heat of fusion" of melting ice, glacial ice , that 334 joules per gram to cause the solid-liquid phase change, should have a moderating effect on temperature change, but my guess is that it is minuscule in the greater scheme of things.


The melting of glaciers all over the world have been shown by research to have formed DURING the Little Ice Age that occurred between 1700 and 1860. As these glaciers retreat say on Greenland, there is evidence that the land was farmed before 1700. In Alaska a big to-do was made of a glacier retreating from an entire waterway. Scientists investigating ice caves at the foot of the glacier found tree stumps that carbon dated to 1700 or so. So this glacier ALSO formed in the Little Ice Age. Everywhere they look they find that we are not "warming" but rather returning to "normal" temperatures after a very cold period.

CO2 has a VERY narrow and very low frequency spectrum in which it can absorb energy. That area has very little energy in it from sunlight and absorbed energy from higher energy sunlight converted into energy in the 10 um frequency range. So at levels above 200-250 or so depending upon location, ALL of the available energy has been absorbed. Additional amounts of CO2 have no effect whatsoever.

Also we have to add - at 400 ppm of CO2 plants grow about twice as large and faster than at 250 ppm. In greenhouses they use CO2 generators to pump the CO2 up to 1400 ppm at which point a plant that normally grows to about 2 feet in the normal atmosphere will grow to 6 feet or more. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is an absolute boon to mankind where today with a population four or five times as much as it was in 1909, there is almost NO starvation left in the world that isn't caused by wars.

Calculations of the amount of CO2 that man is generating is easily done by simply measuring the amount of coal and petroleum sold. The problem is that this amount is nowhere near the amount it would take for the CO2 in the atmosphere to grow as much as it has.

It turns out that the returning warmth of the oceans after the Little Ice Age is emitting more CO2 than man does by a considerable margin.


CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth, Wake. None...zero...zip...nada.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2018 22:12
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
larrymac wrote:
I think the melting of "glaciers" around the world is doing is "stabilizing" the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere ( because oceans absorbs carbon dioxide) ......

.....So once agin, is the melting glaciers helpping the human race once it (the glaciers) stabilize the atmosphere and Earth's lands and seas temperature?
A queston by Larry McCarthy
12/16/2018


Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentration?

I wouldn't say that.
Look at the Keeling Curve: CO2 still rising.
See https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

Some of the net coal/petroleum/natural gas CO2 does go into the oceans, explaining the slight pH lowering (acidification.) So, yes CO2 dissolving in our oceans has kept the concentration curve from rising as fast, but not stable, unchanging.

I don't see how melting glaciers significantly affect the amount of CO2 that oceans dissolve. Atmospheric CO2 exchanges with the oceans through the ocean surface, essentially unchanged in historic times. Temperature and the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 both have an effect on dissolved CO2

The "heat of fusion" of melting ice, glacial ice , that 334 joules per gram to cause the solid-liquid phase change, should have a moderating effect on temperature change, but my guess is that it is minuscule in the greater scheme of things.


The melting of glaciers all over the world have been shown by research to have formed DURING the Little Ice Age that occurred between 1700 and 1860. As these glaciers retreat say on Greenland, there is evidence that the land was farmed before 1700. In Alaska a big to-do was made of a glacier retreating from an entire waterway. Scientists investigating ice caves at the foot of the glacier found tree stumps that carbon dated to 1700 or so. So this glacier ALSO formed in the Little Ice Age. Everywhere they look they find that we are not "warming" but rather returning to "normal" temperatures after a very cold period.

CO2 has a VERY narrow and very low frequency spectrum in which it can absorb energy. That area has very little energy in it from sunlight and absorbed energy from higher energy sunlight converted into energy in the 10 um frequency range. So at levels above 200-250 or so depending upon location, ALL of the available energy has been absorbed. Additional amounts of CO2 have no effect whatsoever.

Also we have to add - at 400 ppm of CO2 plants grow about twice as large and faster than at 250 ppm. In greenhouses they use CO2 generators to pump the CO2 up to 1400 ppm at which point a plant that normally grows to about 2 feet in the normal atmosphere will grow to 6 feet or more. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is an absolute boon to mankind where today with a population four or five times as much as it was in 1909, there is almost NO starvation left in the world that isn't caused by wars.

Calculations of the amount of CO2 that man is generating is easily done by simply measuring the amount of coal and petroleum sold. The problem is that this amount is nowhere near the amount it would take for the CO2 in the atmosphere to grow as much as it has.

It turns out that the returning warmth of the oceans after the Little Ice Age is emitting more CO2 than man does by a considerable margin.


CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth, Wake. None...zero...zip...nada.


I suggest you get your head out of its usual location and think for a change. The reason that the Earth has a temperature at all is because energy is retained and slowly disappated rather than like other atmosphere-less planets such as Mercury whose day side is 800 degrees C and night side is -180 degrees C. Or like Venus whose thick atmosphere holds the heat in until the absorbed heat is great enough so that the emissions are great enough to balance the absorption. Because of the extremely thick atmosphere the night side of Venus is almost the same temperature as the day side - about the melting point of lead.

All of the atmospheric gases and particularly H2O vapor slow the disipation of energy into the high stratosphere when it is emitted via radiation. Below that level the heat is moved about by the MUCH slower process of thermal conduction. But in order to obtain the heat for conduct it must first be absorbed from radiant energy from the Sun. This radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and the planetary surface which changes it from the high energy light bands to the lower energy IR bands which can be dissipated through thermal conduction.

This higher frequency MUST be absorbed and we don't need your royal ignorance telling us that it isn't.
20-12-2018 00:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
I suggest you get your head out of its usual location and think for a change. The reason that the Earth has a temperature at all is because energy is retained and slowly disappated rather than like other atmosphere-less planets such as Mercury whose day side is 800 degrees C and night side is -180 degrees C. Or like Venus whose thick atmosphere holds the heat in until the absorbed heat is great enough so that the emissions are great enough to balance the absorption. Because of the extremely thick atmosphere the night side of Venus is almost the same temperature as the day side - about the melting point of lead.

Earth has a temperature. We just have no way to measure it.
Mercury has a temperature. We just have no way to measure it.
Venus has a temperature. We just have no way to measure it.

All bodies in space have a temperature, Wake.
Wake wrote:
All of the atmospheric gases and particularly H2O vapor slow the disipation of energy into the high stratosphere

You cannot store or trap heat, Wake. You cannot store or trap thermal energy either. There is always heat.
Wake wrote:
when it is emitted via radiation.

You cannot slow the speed of light that far either, Wake.

Most of the Earth's radiance is directly from the surface, not the atmosphere. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
Wake wrote:
Below that level the heat is moved about by the MUCH slower process of thermal conduction.

Nope. Heat is moved in the atmosphere by radiance, by conduction, and by convection. None of this stops the surface from radiating heat into space.
Wake wrote:
This radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and the planetary surface which changes it from the high energy light bands to the lower energy IR bands which can be dissipated through thermal conduction.

Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
This higher frequency MUST be absorbed

Nope. It can be reflected, just like any frequency of light can. It can pass right through, just like any frequency of light can.

Absorption of visible light does not cause conversion to thermal energy, Wake. It causes chemical changes instead. Absorption of UV light and higher causes chemical changes or even direct ionization. It does not convert to thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
and we don't need your royal ignorance telling us that it isn't.

Never said it wasn't. Try to pay attention.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-12-2018 00:06
20-12-2018 20:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.
20-12-2018 21:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-12-2018 21:11
20-12-2018 22:05
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


Yes because according to you, visible light isn't energy. You are moron and you will never be anything more because you actually think of yourself as brilliant.
20-12-2018 22:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


Yes because according to you, visible light isn't energy.
It is energy, Wake. But it doesn't warm the Earth much. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead.
Wake wrote:
You are moron and you will never be anything more because you actually think of yourself as brilliant.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You have already demonstrated what you know, Wake. It's a lot less than you think it is.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-12-2018 22:16
20-12-2018 23:06
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


Yes because according to you, visible light isn't energy.
It is energy, Wake. But it doesn't warm the Earth much. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead.
Wake wrote:
You are moron and you will never be anything more because you actually think of yourself as brilliant.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You have already demonstrated what you know, Wake. It's a lot less than you think it is.



Tell us all about these "chemical reactions". This ought to be a good one.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=48HBfUwP&id=D3ACAF6DBCBAFC34F6648236E953C799C4A296AA&thid=OIP.48HBfUwPmU625iF8Ins7EQHaFO&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hydrogenambassadors.com%2fbackground%2fimages%2fbackground%2fearths-energy-balance.gif&exph=424&expw=600&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=608010661439933350&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

Damn, try as I might I only see that 0.1% of the Sun's energy going into photosynthesis. But I'm sure that yo have a really good answer.

Funny that you've never bothered to actually read things.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=tyAyQf9Y&id=932B4D856EF991A745D27632533568A8F412994C&thid=OIP.tyAyQf9YlyS6J9j6xaq_FAHaFx&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fshare.nanjing-school.com%2Fdpgeography%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2FEarths-Energy-Balance-Diag-2au65q7.jpg&exph=612&expw=786&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=607991196643495421&selectedindex=1&ajaxhist=0&vt=0
Edited on 20-12-2018 23:10
21-12-2018 03:41
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


Yes because according to you, visible light isn't energy.
It is energy, Wake. But it doesn't warm the Earth much. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead.
Wake wrote:
You are moron and you will never be anything more because you actually think of yourself as brilliant.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You have already demonstrated what you know, Wake. It's a lot less than you think it is.



Tell us all about these "chemical reactions". This ought to be a good one.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=48HBfUwP&id=D3ACAF6DBCBAFC34F6648236E953C799C4A296AA&thid=OIP.48HBfUwPmU625iF8Ins7EQHaFO&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hydrogenambassadors.com%2fbackground%2fimages%2fbackground%2fearths-energy-balance.gif&exph=424&expw=600&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=608010661439933350&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

Damn, try as I might I only see that 0.1% of the Sun's energy going into photosynthesis. But I'm sure that yo have a really good answer.

Funny that you've never bothered to actually read things.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=tyAyQf9Y&id=932B4D856EF991A745D27632533568A8F412994C&thid=OIP.tyAyQf9YlyS6J9j6xaq_FAHaFx&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fshare.nanjing-school.com%2Fdpgeography%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2FEarths-Energy-Balance-Diag-2au65q7.jpg&exph=612&expw=786&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=607991196643495421&selectedindex=1&ajaxhist=0&vt=0


Only 0.1% goes to photosynthesis? Seems like one of those 'Climatology' derived statistics. How would you measure that, where, and when? Would that number increase, as the biomass increases, do to a warmer climate, and increased CO2? You do understand, that most plants don't want excessive solar energy? Leaf structure and color, help limit the amount of light used in photosynthesis. A plant may only use 0.1%, but that's probably only what it needs, or uses. More isn't always better, photosynthesis is more than sunlight, that's just one minor part, plant needs CO2, water and some other soil-based ingredients to make the magic happen. That 0.1% sounds impressively valuable, by itself, but if you think too long, it really means nothing. How much electricity is delivered (available) to your home? A lot more than you care to use. You try to keep your usage minimal, or get good value, for your use, since you get a bill for it. You do have plenty available, enough to light a city, but you only use a tiny fraction, just what you need, same with plants.
21-12-2018 05:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


Yes because according to you, visible light isn't energy.
It is energy, Wake. But it doesn't warm the Earth much. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead.
Wake wrote:
You are moron and you will never be anything more because you actually think of yourself as brilliant.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You have already demonstrated what you know, Wake. It's a lot less than you think it is.



Tell us all about these "chemical reactions". This ought to be a good one.

...deleted Holy Link...
Damn, try as I might I only see that 0.1% of the Sun's energy going into photosynthesis. But I'm sure that yo have a really good answer.

Funny that you've never bothered to actually read things.

...deleted Holy Link...

It is not possible to measure the amount of the Sun's energy going into photosynthesis.

Did you forget about things like the ozone layer, getting a tan, aging of plastics, discoloring of paint, your own eyesight? What a moron.


The Parrot Killer
21-12-2018 05:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


Yes because according to you, visible light isn't energy.
It is energy, Wake. But it doesn't warm the Earth much. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead.
Wake wrote:
You are moron and you will never be anything more because you actually think of yourself as brilliant.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You have already demonstrated what you know, Wake. It's a lot less than you think it is.



Tell us all about these "chemical reactions". This ought to be a good one.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=48HBfUwP&id=D3ACAF6DBCBAFC34F6648236E953C799C4A296AA&thid=OIP.48HBfUwPmU625iF8Ins7EQHaFO&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hydrogenambassadors.com%2fbackground%2fimages%2fbackground%2fearths-energy-balance.gif&exph=424&expw=600&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=608010661439933350&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

Damn, try as I might I only see that 0.1% of the Sun's energy going into photosynthesis. But I'm sure that yo have a really good answer.

Funny that you've never bothered to actually read things.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=tyAyQf9Y&id=932B4D856EF991A745D27632533568A8F412994C&thid=OIP.tyAyQf9YlyS6J9j6xaq_FAHaFx&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fshare.nanjing-school.com%2Fdpgeography%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2FEarths-Energy-Balance-Diag-2au65q7.jpg&exph=612&expw=786&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=607991196643495421&selectedindex=1&ajaxhist=0&vt=0


Only 0.1% goes to photosynthesis? Seems like one of those 'Climatology' derived statistics.
Good catch. That's exactly what it is.
HarveyH55 wrote:
How would you measure that, where, and when?
Obviously, you can't.


The Parrot Killer
21-12-2018 17:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


Yes because according to you, visible light isn't energy.
It is energy, Wake. But it doesn't warm the Earth much. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead.
Wake wrote:
You are moron and you will never be anything more because you actually think of yourself as brilliant.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You have already demonstrated what you know, Wake. It's a lot less than you think it is.



Tell us all about these "chemical reactions". This ought to be a good one.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=48HBfUwP&id=D3ACAF6DBCBAFC34F6648236E953C799C4A296AA&thid=OIP.48HBfUwPmU625iF8Ins7EQHaFO&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hydrogenambassadors.com%2fbackground%2fimages%2fbackground%2fearths-energy-balance.gif&exph=424&expw=600&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=608010661439933350&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

Damn, try as I might I only see that 0.1% of the Sun's energy going into photosynthesis. But I'm sure that yo have a really good answer.

Funny that you've never bothered to actually read things.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=tyAyQf9Y&id=932B4D856EF991A745D27632533568A8F412994C&thid=OIP.tyAyQf9YlyS6J9j6xaq_FAHaFx&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fshare.nanjing-school.com%2Fdpgeography%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2FEarths-Energy-Balance-Diag-2au65q7.jpg&exph=612&expw=786&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=607991196643495421&selectedindex=1&ajaxhist=0&vt=0


Only 0.1% goes to photosynthesis? Seems like one of those 'Climatology' derived statistics. How would you measure that, where, and when? Would that number increase, as the biomass increases, do to a warmer climate, and increased CO2? You do understand, that most plants don't want excessive solar energy? Leaf structure and color, help limit the amount of light used in photosynthesis. A plant may only use 0.1%, but that's probably only what it needs, or uses. More isn't always better, photosynthesis is more than sunlight, that's just one minor part, plant needs CO2, water and some other soil-based ingredients to make the magic happen. That 0.1% sounds impressively valuable, by itself, but if you think too long, it really means nothing. How much electricity is delivered (available) to your home? A lot more than you care to use. You try to keep your usage minimal, or get good value, for your use, since you get a bill for it. You do have plenty available, enough to light a city, but you only use a tiny fraction, just what you need, same with plants.


Deriving these sorts of number is quite easy. Despite Nightmare's claims the Stefan-Boltzmann law allows you to know how much energy the Sun is putting upon the Earth at any second. Then measurements of satellites measure each variety of wavelengths leaving the Earth.

We know that there is a 1:1 correlation between energy in and energy out in order for the Earth to hold any mean global temperature. So after you measure all of the incoming and outgoing radiations whatever is missing was absorbed by the Earth via photosynthesis.

Nightmare denies science because he doesn't understand it. He blithers stuff from his "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart" almost continuously now.

He is such a moron he doesn't know that we have known the emission factor of the Earth for more than 100 years and via satellite have refined it down to about 50 decimal points. But since he doesn't know how that is done obviously it doesn't exist.

Sort of like the fact that he doesn't know that the wires coming off of a transformer are referenced only to themselves. So any single wire is harmless as long as the other phase or phases are not connected to something conductive like the ground. His ignorance knows no bounds but he will continue making his ignorant and false claims into eternity.

This does not mean you should ever treat a loose wire carelessly because you never know if the opposing phase has somehow connected to a conductor. Most especially very high voltage transmission lines. The insulators get dust on them and become somewhat conductive to the metal towers and to the ground. But the ground per se isn't a conductor - the wet Earth would be.

But the ignorance of Nightmare and his stupid fear of anything he doesn't understand is pretty funny. You'd think that he didn't know that they do not turn off transmission lines to repair them. If one of the three phases is broken in some manner the other two still deliver two phase power.
21-12-2018 17:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


Yes because according to you, visible light isn't energy.
It is energy, Wake. But it doesn't warm the Earth much. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead.
Wake wrote:
You are moron and you will never be anything more because you actually think of yourself as brilliant.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You have already demonstrated what you know, Wake. It's a lot less than you think it is.



Tell us all about these "chemical reactions". This ought to be a good one.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=48HBfUwP&id=D3ACAF6DBCBAFC34F6648236E953C799C4A296AA&thid=OIP.48HBfUwPmU625iF8Ins7EQHaFO&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hydrogenambassadors.com%2fbackground%2fimages%2fbackground%2fearths-energy-balance.gif&exph=424&expw=600&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=608010661439933350&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

Damn, try as I might I only see that 0.1% of the Sun's energy going into photosynthesis. But I'm sure that yo have a really good answer.

Funny that you've never bothered to actually read things.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=tyAyQf9Y&id=932B4D856EF991A745D27632533568A8F412994C&thid=OIP.tyAyQf9YlyS6J9j6xaq_FAHaFx&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fshare.nanjing-school.com%2Fdpgeography%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2FEarths-Energy-Balance-Diag-2au65q7.jpg&exph=612&expw=786&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=607991196643495421&selectedindex=1&ajaxhist=0&vt=0


Only 0.1% goes to photosynthesis? Seems like one of those 'Climatology' derived statistics. How would you measure that, where, and when? Would that number increase, as the biomass increases, do to a warmer climate, and increased CO2? You do understand, that most plants don't want excessive solar energy? Leaf structure and color, help limit the amount of light used in photosynthesis. A plant may only use 0.1%, but that's probably only what it needs, or uses. More isn't always better, photosynthesis is more than sunlight, that's just one minor part, plant needs CO2, water and some other soil-based ingredients to make the magic happen. That 0.1% sounds impressively valuable, by itself, but if you think too long, it really means nothing. How much electricity is delivered (available) to your home? A lot more than you care to use. You try to keep your usage minimal, or get good value, for your use, since you get a bill for it. You do have plenty available, enough to light a city, but you only use a tiny fraction, just what you need, same with plants.


Deriving these sorts of number is quite easy. Despite Nightmare's claims the Stefan-Boltzmann law allows you to know how much energy the Sun is putting upon the Earth at any second. Then measurements of satellites measure each variety of wavelengths leaving the Earth.

We know that there is a 1:1 correlation between energy in and energy out in order for the Earth to hold any mean global temperature. So after you measure all of the incoming and outgoing radiations whatever is missing was absorbed by the Earth via photosynthesis.

Nightmare denies science because he doesn't understand it. He blithers stuff from his "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart" almost continuously now.

He is such a moron he doesn't know that we have known the emission factor of the Earth for more than 100 years and via satellite have refined it down to about 50 decimal points. But since he doesn't know how that is done obviously it doesn't exist.

Sort of like the fact that he doesn't know that the wires coming off of a transformer are referenced only to themselves. So any single wire is harmless as long as the other phase or phases are not connected to something conductive like the ground. His ignorance knows no bounds but he will continue making his ignorant and false claims into eternity.

This does not mean you should ever treat a loose wire carelessly because you never know if the opposing phase has somehow connected to a conductor. Most especially very high voltage transmission lines. The insulators get dust on them and become somewhat conductive to the metal towers and to the ground. But the ground per se isn't a conductor - the wet Earth would be.

But the ignorance of Nightmare and his stupid fear of anything he doesn't understand is pretty funny. You'd think that he didn't know that they do not turn off transmission lines to repair them. If one of the three phases is broken in some manner the other two still deliver two phase power.
21-12-2018 17:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you are so whacked out there's no sense in even talking to you. Apparently you've never sat out in the sunshine to get warm.


I have and enjoy it. It is infrared light from the Sun that warms the Earth (and you), Wake. Not visible light. Most of the energy coming from the Sun is infrared light.


Yes because according to you, visible light isn't energy.
It is energy, Wake. But it doesn't warm the Earth much. Absorption of visible light generally causes chemical reactions instead.
Wake wrote:
You are moron and you will never be anything more because you actually think of yourself as brilliant.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You have already demonstrated what you know, Wake. It's a lot less than you think it is.



Tell us all about these "chemical reactions". This ought to be a good one.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=48HBfUwP&id=D3ACAF6DBCBAFC34F6648236E953C799C4A296AA&thid=OIP.48HBfUwPmU625iF8Ins7EQHaFO&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hydrogenambassadors.com%2fbackground%2fimages%2fbackground%2fearths-energy-balance.gif&exph=424&expw=600&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=608010661439933350&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

Damn, try as I might I only see that 0.1% of the Sun's energy going into photosynthesis. But I'm sure that yo have a really good answer.

Funny that you've never bothered to actually read things.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=tyAyQf9Y&id=932B4D856EF991A745D27632533568A8F412994C&thid=OIP.tyAyQf9YlyS6J9j6xaq_FAHaFx&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fshare.nanjing-school.com%2Fdpgeography%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2FEarths-Energy-Balance-Diag-2au65q7.jpg&exph=612&expw=786&q=Energy+Balance+of+the+Earth&simid=607991196643495421&selectedindex=1&ajaxhist=0&vt=0


Only 0.1% goes to photosynthesis? Seems like one of those 'Climatology' derived statistics. How would you measure that, where, and when? Would that number increase, as the biomass increases, do to a warmer climate, and increased CO2? You do understand, that most plants don't want excessive solar energy? Leaf structure and color, help limit the amount of light used in photosynthesis. A plant may only use 0.1%, but that's probably only what it needs, or uses. More isn't always better, photosynthesis is more than sunlight, that's just one minor part, plant needs CO2, water and some other soil-based ingredients to make the magic happen. That 0.1% sounds impressively valuable, by itself, but if you think too long, it really means nothing. How much electricity is delivered (available) to your home? A lot more than you care to use. You try to keep your usage minimal, or get good value, for your use, since you get a bill for it. You do have plenty available, enough to light a city, but you only use a tiny fraction, just what you need, same with plants.


Deriving these sorts of number is quite easy. Despite Nightmare's claims the Stefan-Boltzmann law allows you to know how much energy the Sun is putting upon the Earth at any second. Then measurements of satellites measure each variety of wavelengths leaving the Earth.

We know that there is a 1:1 correlation between energy in and energy out in order for the Earth to hold any mean global temperature. So after you measure all of the incoming and outgoing radiations whatever is missing was absorbed by the Earth via photosynthesis.

Nightmare denies science because he doesn't understand it. He blithers stuff from his "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart" almost continuously now.

He is such a moron he doesn't know that we have known the emission factor of the Earth for more than 100 years and via satellite have refined it down to about 50 decimal points. But since he doesn't know how that is done obviously it doesn't exist.

Sort of like the fact that he doesn't know that the wires coming off of a transformer are referenced only to themselves. So any single wire is harmless as long as the other phase or phases are not connected to something conductive like the ground. His ignorance knows no bounds but he will continue making his ignorant and false claims into eternity.

This does not mean you should ever treat a loose wire carelessly because you never know if the opposing phase has somehow connected to a conductor. Most especially very high voltage transmission lines. The insulators get dust on them and become somewhat conductive to the metal towers and to the ground. But the ground per se isn't a conductor - the wet Earth would be.

But the ignorance of Nightmare and his stupid fear of anything he doesn't understand is pretty funny. You'd think that he didn't know that they do not turn off transmission lines to repair them. If one of the three phases is broken in some manner the other two still deliver two phase power.
21-12-2018 19:23
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Yes, they can, and do sometimes cut the power, while doing most repairs. It's very dangerous work, and they take every precaution. You can get away with live repairs, and some people do, sometimes it doesn't goes so well either. The voltage up the pole, is lethal, and quick, no room for even a small mistake. Crazy to risk live repairs, if you don't have to. I work with electronics, but occasionally I have to work with line voltage, like house wiring, lights, switches, outlets, ceiling fans, appliances. Never my favorite projects, but the work needs to get done, have the tools and knowledge, and licenced electricians are expensive. I don't like working with people either, how I usually get bit. At least one leg of a 220vac can give you a very unpleasant shock, just brushing up against an exposed wire (experienced), must worse than 110vac.

Stefan-Boltzmann law is outside my learning, did look it up once, since it seems to be used daily here... Didn't really study it, but seems that on paper, they were talking about a dark body, which doesn't exist, sort of the ideal surface, a reference they defined, so they could work with less than ideal surfaces. Nothing is 'ideal' outside the lab, or the textbooks, so it's not really 100% accurate, or the last word, just a fair representation, close enough to argue about. Not really the sort of stuff I work with, or much interested in, like quantum physics...
21-12-2018 20:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
Deriving these sorts of number is quite easy.

Not possible.
Wake wrote:
Despite Nightmare's claims the Stefan-Boltzmann law allows you to know how much energy the Sun is putting upon the Earth at any second.

But you don't know how much is reflected vs emitted.
Wake wrote:
Then measurements of satellites measure each variety of wavelengths leaving the Earth.

Still doesn't tell you how much is reflected or how much is emitted.
Wake wrote:
We know that there is a 1:1 correlation between energy in and energy out in order for the Earth to hold any mean global temperature. So after you measure all of the incoming and outgoing radiations whatever is missing was absorbed by the Earth via photosynthesis.

Not what you are measuring with the satellites, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare denies science because he doesn't understand it. He blithers stuff from his "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart" almost continuously now.

No, you just deny science, Wake.
Wake wrote:
He is such a moron he doesn't know that we have known the emission factor of the Earth for more than 100 years

The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Wake wrote:
and via satellite have refined it down to about 50 decimal points.

Satellites are incapable of determining Earth's emissivity.
Wake wrote:
But since he doesn't know how that is done obviously it doesn't exist.

It isn't done. It isn't possible.
Wake wrote:
Sort of like the fact that he doesn't know that the wires coming off of a transformer are referenced only to themselves.

WRONG. They are referenced to Earth ground.
Wake wrote:
So any single wire is harmless as long as the other phase or phases are not connected to something conductive like the ground.

WRONG. DEADLY WRONG. Stop telling people that down wires are safe, Wake. Never approach a downed wired!
Wake wrote:
His ignorance knows no bounds but he will continue making his ignorant and false claims into eternity.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
This does not mean you should ever treat a loose wire carelessly because you never know if the opposing phase has somehow connected to a conductor.

Irrelevant. Never approach a downed wire!
Wake wrote:
Most especially very high voltage transmission lines.

They are referenced to Earth ground too, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The insulators get dust on them and become somewhat conductive to the metal towers and to the ground.

Dust is not conductive, Wake.
Wake wrote:
But the ground per se isn't a conductor - the wet Earth would be.

Yes it is. It doesn't have to be wet. Never approach a downed wire!
Wake wrote:
But the ignorance of Nightmare and his stupid fear of anything he doesn't understand is pretty funny. You'd think that he didn't know that they do not turn off transmission lines to repair them.

Sometimes they do, Wake. Usually they don't. They don't need to for minor repairs because of the special equipment they use.
Wake wrote:
If one of the three phases is broken in some manner the other two still deliver two phase power.

Nope. All three trip out at once, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
21-12-2018 21:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yes, they can, and do sometimes cut the power, while doing most repairs. It's very dangerous work, and they take every precaution. You can get away with live repairs, and some people do, sometimes it doesn't goes so well either.

Yup. You've got it right. They are particularly cautious about high tension lines.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The voltage up the pole, is lethal, and quick, no room for even a small mistake.

Most distribution poles carry about 2400v.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Crazy to risk live repairs, if you don't have to.

Power company feels the same way. Even trimming trees around power lines while keeping them live is very risky work.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I work with electronics, but occasionally I have to work with line voltage, like house wiring, lights, switches, outlets, ceiling fans, appliances. Never my favorite projects, but the work needs to get done, have the tools and knowledge, and licenced electricians are expensive.

I have no problem working on house wiring. Properly done, it's safe and easy. Mostly it's the ladderwork and the rework that's the pain.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't like working with people either, how I usually get bit. At least one leg of a 220vac can give you a very unpleasant shock, just brushing up against an exposed wire (experienced), must worse than 110vac.

The idea is to use lockout tags when you are working with someone else. That prevents someone from throwing a switch without the understanding that he will kill someone if he does.
Some lockout tags physically lock out the switch.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann law is outside my learning, did look it up once, since it seems to be used daily here... Didn't really study it, but seems that on paper, they were talking about a dark body, which doesn't exist, sort of the ideal surface, a reference they defined, so they could work with less than ideal surfaces. Nothing is 'ideal' outside the lab, or the textbooks, so it's not really 100% accurate, or the last word, just a fair representation, close enough to argue about. Not really the sort of stuff I work with, or much interested in, like quantum physics...

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not about ideal surfaces. The ideal surfaces are only a reference point, not the equation itself.

The law is:
radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
Where radiance is the light radiated per square meter, the SBconstant is a constant of nature (basically converting the equation to our units of measurement), and temperature is in deg Kelvin.

Basically, what the theory says is that any surface will emit light. The higher the temperature, the more light it will emit. It also says that whatever it emits is the same as whatever it can absorb. Surfaces also reflect light. That light is not emitted or absorbed.

The issue in question here is the value for emissivity. This is a measured constant. It describes how well a surface reflects light, and is expressed as a percentage between two ideals.

The ideal emissive surface absorbs all light and emits all light. None is reflected by the surface. This is the ideal 'black' surface that you read about. It does not exist in nature. It is a reference point for the emissivity value of 1 (100%). Emissivity is the same as absorptivity. This also means the surface ideally absorbs all light as well. None is reflected.

The ideal reflective surface doesn't absorb any light. It doesn't emit any either. This is the ideal 'white' surface. It does not absorb or emit any light. All light coming from the surface is reflected light. This is the reference point for the emissivity value of 0 (0%). Nothing is absorbed, nothing is emitted. Everything is reflected. Again, this kind of surface does not exist in nature. It is only a reference point.

All real surfaces (including Earth itself) fall somewhere between 0% emissivity and 100% emissivity. This is the ratio of how much light is absorbed and emitted vs how much light is simply reflected.

To measure emissivity, you must first know accurately the temperature of the surface. You shine light on it and measure the temperature change. You compare this to the ideal values between ideally black and ideally white (this step is called 'normalizing' the value) using the same source of light. The result is a number between 0% and 100%. This is also known as a 'gray body'. All naturally occurring bodies are gray bodies.

We do not know the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth. It has one, but we don't know what it is. For the purposes of the 'greenhouse' effect argument, that doesn't matter. It is a constant value.

The 'greenhouse' effect model attempts to trap thermal energy. This necessarily means reducing the radiance of Earth, since that means you must keep radiant energy from leaving Earth for this to work. At the same time, the 'greenhouse' effect attempts to increase the temperature of Earth (by combining this trapped energy with incoming sunlight being absorbed).

This means temperature and radiance are inversely proportional. One is decreasing while the other is increasing.

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this is not possible. Radiance and temperature are proportional to each other, not inversely proportional. Everything else in the equation stays the same. It doesn't matter what the actual emissivity of Earth really is. It is a measured constant (even though we can't actually measure it!).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is colorblind. It can be derived from Planck's law by combining all frequencies of light. As a result, emissivity is also colorblind.

As a side note, emissivity and absorptivity is the same number. Albedo is the inverse of that number.

Thus, the Stefan-Boltzmann law prevents the 'greenhouse' effect model from being possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the planet. If a gas or vapor somehow changes the emissivity (it doesn't), that only means the while Earth emits less light (the claim of the 'greenhouse' effect), it also absorbs less light. Anything blocking emission of radiant light from Earth will also prevent it from absorbing light in the first place! Earth will be colder, not warmer.


The Parrot Killer
25-12-2018 00:32
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yes, they can, and do sometimes cut the power, while doing most repairs. It's very dangerous work, and they take every precaution. You can get away with live repairs, and some people do, sometimes it doesn't goes so well either. The voltage up the pole, is lethal, and quick, no room for even a small mistake. Crazy to risk live repairs, if you don't have to. I work with electronics, but occasionally I have to work with line voltage, like house wiring, lights, switches, outlets, ceiling fans, appliances. Never my favorite projects, but the work needs to get done, have the tools and knowledge, and licenced electricians are expensive. I don't like working with people either, how I usually get bit. At least one leg of a 220vac can give you a very unpleasant shock, just brushing up against an exposed wire (experienced), must worse than 110vac.

Stefan-Boltzmann law is outside my learning, did look it up once, since it seems to be used daily here... Didn't really study it, but seems that on paper, they were talking about a dark body, which doesn't exist, sort of the ideal surface, a reference they defined, so they could work with less than ideal surfaces. Nothing is 'ideal' outside the lab, or the textbooks, so it's not really 100% accurate, or the last word, just a fair representation, close enough to argue about. Not really the sort of stuff I work with, or much interested in, like quantum physics...


In the San Francisco Examiner this morning I believe the residents of the wine country were complaining because PG&E was cutting power in dangerous winds and when repairs wee required. The PUC ordered them to only do so under the gravest conditions. So, no, they don't cut power on three phase high power lines. They certainly only cut power to extremely small areas in cities where they are repairing lines. I think ONE time in the last 5 years they cut power and they commonly repair power lines on my street since although it is a residential street with "no trucks allowed" signs even double semi's come down this street since they seem to think it a short cut. These trucks often catch overhead power lines hung low for residential housing and tear them out by the roots.
25-12-2018 00:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3894)
Into the Night wrote:
Thus, the Stefan-Boltzmann law prevents the 'greenhouse' effect model from being possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the planet. If a gas or vapor somehow changes the emissivity (it doesn't), that only means the while Earth emits less light (the claim of the 'greenhouse' effect), it also absorbs less light. Anything blocking emission of radiant light from Earth will also prevent it from absorbing light in the first place! Earth will be colder, not warmer.


Nobody ever claimed that the gas being warmer warmed the Earth. But you being dumber did.
25-12-2018 02:15
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yes, they can, and do sometimes cut the power, while doing most repairs. It's very dangerous work, and they take every precaution. You can get away with live repairs, and some people do, sometimes it doesn't goes so well either. The voltage up the pole, is lethal, and quick, no room for even a small mistake. Crazy to risk live repairs, if you don't have to. I work with electronics, but occasionally I have to work with line voltage, like house wiring, lights, switches, outlets, ceiling fans, appliances. Never my favorite projects, but the work needs to get done, have the tools and knowledge, and licenced electricians are expensive. I don't like working with people either, how I usually get bit. At least one leg of a 220vac can give you a very unpleasant shock, just brushing up against an exposed wire (experienced), must worse than 110vac.

Stefan-Boltzmann law is outside my learning, did look it up once, since it seems to be used daily here... Didn't really study it, but seems that on paper, they were talking about a dark body, which doesn't exist, sort of the ideal surface, a reference they defined, so they could work with less than ideal surfaces. Nothing is 'ideal' outside the lab, or the textbooks, so it's not really 100% accurate, or the last word, just a fair representation, close enough to argue about. Not really the sort of stuff I work with, or much interested in, like quantum physics...


In the San Francisco Examiner this morning I believe the residents of the wine country were complaining because PG&E was cutting power in dangerous winds and when repairs wee required. The PUC ordered them to only do so under the gravest conditions. So, no, they don't cut power on three phase high power lines. They certainly only cut power to extremely small areas in cities where they are repairing lines. I think ONE time in the last 5 years they cut power and they commonly repair power lines on my street since although it is a residential street with "no trucks allowed" signs even double semi's come down this street since they seem to think it a short cut. These trucks often catch overhead power lines hung low for residential housing and tear them out by the roots.


California is almost like a foreign country... They will cut power to do most work, they don't need to effect large areas in most cases. Usually doesn't take long, most don't even notice. When you see a transformer on a pole, you'll also see some huge circuit breakers. These protect the lines and transformer (homes and business), if something goes wrong. Also, allows them to cut power is small areas to do work. No way they can order anyone to take deadly risks, when unnecessary, well maybe in California...

In residential areas, they aren't power poles, they are utility poles, also carry telephone, and cable tv. Power Lines are on top, 30 feet. It should be pretty much standard everywhere, since it was established as 'safe' from the beginning. Live repair can be done, just not typically encouraged.
25-12-2018 03:00
James___
★★★☆☆
(955)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yes, they can, and do sometimes cut the power, while doing most repairs. It's very dangerous work, and they take every precaution. You can get away with live repairs, and some people do, sometimes it doesn't goes so well either. The voltage up the pole, is lethal, and quick, no room for even a small mistake. Crazy to risk live repairs, if you don't have to. I work with electronics, but occasionally I have to work with line voltage, like house wiring, lights, switches, outlets, ceiling fans, appliances. Never my favorite projects, but the work needs to get done, have the tools and knowledge, and licenced electricians are expensive. I don't like working with people either, how I usually get bit. At least one leg of a 220vac can give you a very unpleasant shock, just brushing up against an exposed wire (experienced), must worse than 110vac.

Stefan-Boltzmann law is outside my learning, did look it up once, since it seems to be used daily here... Didn't really study it, but seems that on paper, they were talking about a dark body, which doesn't exist, sort of the ideal surface, a reference they defined, so they could work with less than ideal surfaces. Nothing is 'ideal' outside the lab, or the textbooks, so it's not really 100% accurate, or the last word, just a fair representation, close enough to argue about. Not really the sort of stuff I work with, or much interested in, like quantum physics...


In the San Francisco Examiner this morning I believe the residents of the wine country were complaining because PG&E was cutting power in dangerous winds and when repairs wee required. The PUC ordered them to only do so under the gravest conditions. So, no, they don't cut power on three phase high power lines. They certainly only cut power to extremely small areas in cities where they are repairing lines. I think ONE time in the last 5 years they cut power and they commonly repair power lines on my street since although it is a residential street with "no trucks allowed" signs even double semi's come down this street since they seem to think it a short cut. These trucks often catch overhead power lines hung low for residential housing and tear them out by the roots.


California is almost like a foreign country... They will cut power to do most work, they don't need to effect large areas in most cases. Usually doesn't take long, most don't even notice. When you see a transformer on a pole, you'll also see some huge circuit breakers. These protect the lines and transformer (homes and business), if something goes wrong. Also, allows them to cut power is small areas to do work. No way they can order anyone to take deadly risks, when unnecessary, well maybe in California...

In residential areas, they aren't power poles, they are utility poles, also carry telephone, and cable tv. Power Lines are on top, 30 feet. It should be pretty much standard everywhere, since it was established as 'safe' from the beginning. Live repair can be done, just not typically encouraged.



Harvey, to quote you;
Also, allows them to cut power is small areas to do work.

Americans would say "to cut power in a small area". You said "is" a small area.
If you don't understand basic grammar how could you know something more complex?
As for live line repair, it does seem that it's quite common.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live-line_working

I would think that any American would know that electricity requires a grounding source before it can flow. I guess you missed that lesson.

You are right Harvey. What ever Americans do is good. Just like American Christians molesting children in church. All people in this link are innocent because they are American Christians. Find no fault with them Harvey.
They are doing the Lord's work and who is to say what that work requires. I know you agree with this because as you said yourself, Americans don't care what happens to other people. Just not their problem. Tomorrow is Christmas Harvey, please keep spreading the love that Americans have for others. Tell people that Americans do good, always.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=ddc&hsimp=yhs-linuxmint&type=__alt__ddc_linuxmint_com&p=kids+molested+in+church

Harvey, this is your America. Who cares what happens to someone who is not you? I've actually asked Norwegians to help me for this same reason, Americans only care about themselves. I think the kids in the link might regret that that is the attitude of the country they live in.
Edited on 25-12-2018 03:14
25-12-2018 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yes, they can, and do sometimes cut the power, while doing most repairs. It's very dangerous work, and they take every precaution. You can get away with live repairs, and some people do, sometimes it doesn't goes so well either. The voltage up the pole, is lethal, and quick, no room for even a small mistake. Crazy to risk live repairs, if you don't have to. I work with electronics, but occasionally I have to work with line voltage, like house wiring, lights, switches, outlets, ceiling fans, appliances. Never my favorite projects, but the work needs to get done, have the tools and knowledge, and licenced electricians are expensive. I don't like working with people either, how I usually get bit. At least one leg of a 220vac can give you a very unpleasant shock, just brushing up against an exposed wire (experienced), must worse than 110vac.

Stefan-Boltzmann law is outside my learning, did look it up once, since it seems to be used daily here... Didn't really study it, but seems that on paper, they were talking about a dark body, which doesn't exist, sort of the ideal surface, a reference they defined, so they could work with less than ideal surfaces. Nothing is 'ideal' outside the lab, or the textbooks, so it's not really 100% accurate, or the last word, just a fair representation, close enough to argue about. Not really the sort of stuff I work with, or much interested in, like quantum physics...


In the San Francisco Examiner this morning I believe the residents of the wine country were complaining because PG&E was cutting power in dangerous winds and when repairs wee required. The PUC ordered them to only do so under the gravest conditions. So, no, they don't cut power on three phase high power lines. They certainly only cut power to extremely small areas in cities where they are repairing lines. I think ONE time in the last 5 years they cut power and they commonly repair power lines on my street since although it is a residential street with "no trucks allowed" signs even double semi's come down this street since they seem to think it a short cut. These trucks often catch overhead power lines hung low for residential housing and tear them out by the roots.


They cut power more often than you think to work on lines. Let 'em complain.


The Parrot Killer
25-12-2018 19:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Thus, the Stefan-Boltzmann law prevents the 'greenhouse' effect model from being possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the planet. If a gas or vapor somehow changes the emissivity (it doesn't), that only means the while Earth emits less light (the claim of the 'greenhouse' effect), it also absorbs less light. Anything blocking emission of radiant light from Earth will also prevent it from absorbing light in the first place! Earth will be colder, not warmer.


Nobody ever claimed that the gas being warmer warmed the Earth. But you being dumber did.


I never claimed that either, Wake. You are trying to heat the warmer surface with a colder gas. Not possible.


The Parrot Killer
25-12-2018 19:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6962)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Yes, they can, and do sometimes cut the power, while doing most repairs. It's very dangerous work, and they take every precaution. You can get away with live repairs, and some people do, sometimes it doesn't goes so well either. The voltage up the pole, is lethal, and quick, no room for even a small mistake. Crazy to risk live repairs, if you don't have to. I work with electronics, but occasionally I have to work with line voltage, like house wiring, lights, switches, outlets, ceiling fans, appliances. Never my favorite projects, but the work needs to get done, have the tools and knowledge, and licenced electricians are expensive. I don't like working with people either, how I usually get bit. At least one leg of a 220vac can give you a very unpleasant shock, just brushing up against an exposed wire (experienced), must worse than 110vac.

Stefan-Boltzmann law is outside my learning, did look it up once, since it seems to be used daily here... Didn't really study it, but seems that on paper, they were talking about a dark body, which doesn't exist, sort of the ideal surface, a reference they defined, so they could work with less than ideal surfaces. Nothing is 'ideal' outside the lab, or the textbooks, so it's not really 100% accurate, or the last word, just a fair representation, close enough to argue about. Not really the sort of stuff I work with, or much interested in, like quantum physics...


In the San Francisco Examiner this morning I believe the residents of the wine country were complaining because PG&E was cutting power in dangerous winds and when repairs wee required. The PUC ordered them to only do so under the gravest conditions. So, no, they don't cut power on three phase high power lines. They certainly only cut power to extremely small areas in cities where they are repairing lines. I think ONE time in the last 5 years they cut power and they commonly repair power lines on my street since although it is a residential street with "no trucks allowed" signs even double semi's come down this street since they seem to think it a short cut. These trucks often catch overhead power lines hung low for residential housing and tear them out by the roots.


California is almost like a foreign country... They will cut power to do most work, they don't need to effect large areas in most cases. Usually doesn't take long, most don't even notice. When you see a transformer on a pole, you'll also see some huge circuit breakers. These protect the lines and transformer (homes and business), if something goes wrong. Also, allows them to cut power is small areas to do work. No way they can order anyone to take deadly risks, when unnecessary, well maybe in California...

In residential areas, they aren't power poles, they are utility poles, also carry telephone, and cable tv. Power Lines are on top, 30 feet. It should be pretty much standard everywhere, since it was established as 'safe' from the beginning. Live repair can be done, just not typically encouraged.



Harvey, to quote you;
Also, allows them to cut power is small areas to do work.

Americans would say "to cut power in a small area". You said "is" a small area.

That is what he said. He is right. When they cut power to work on lines, they try to minimize the number of customers affected.
James___ wrote:
If you don't understand basic grammar how could you know something more complex?
It is basic grammar, James.
James___ wrote:
As for live line repair, it does seem that it's quite common.
...deleted Holy Link...

Wikipedia is not a source. Yes, live line repair is fairly common, but they will (and have to) cut power for working on the lines, depending on the work to be done.
James___ wrote:
I would think that any American would know that electricity requires a grounding source before it can flow. I guess you missed that lesson.
...deleted irrelevant condescending comment...

No, it doesn't. It only requires a wire of a different voltage to act as a return wire. In AC, all wires are supply and return wires. Ground is not a source. It's a reference point.

Power companies use Earth ground as the reference point. The reason is so that exposed contacts like cases, electrical boxes, etc. tie to what you are standing on, protecting you from electrocution. Also, such a reference point is required whenever you are talking about voltages in general. A voltage is a difference of potential. One is the voltage being referenced, the other is Earth ground.


The Parrot Killer
26-12-2018 01:35
HarveyH55
★★☆☆☆
(390)
Earth ground was selected as the reference, so you don't have to run an extra wire, which could become damaged, and leave everything beyond that point unprotected, and unsafe. Just need to insert a metal pole in the dirt, and run a wire from there. Every place using the electric service, is independently protected. That ground wire use to be the only protection, and still is a very good idea. Your body provides some resistance, but electricity will take the path of least resistance to ground. You might still feel a little tingle, or get shocked, but the ground wire will take the bulk, save you considerable grief, and those you'd have left to bury you. Sure, there are a lot of ways to work around live wires, and not get hurt, but it doesn't a good example for those who don't understand how it works. Small mistake, is deadly, and it's not smart to take those risks, when you don't have to. Unlikely the customers are going to die, from a short power outage. Those at risk, would have a backup plan, would hurt to test occasionally. Can't really put a price tag on a human life, and we don't intend to have 'accidents', that's why we try to avoid as much risk as possible and practical. If I can't physically remove a device from the power wires, and can only rely on the circuit breakers, I'll still check with my meter, and work, just like it's live. Can't always trust house wiring to be done right, or wasn't DIY in some places (like my house). I hate getting shocked, even just a little tingle, but I don't freak out, panic, or anything else. I never lose sight of how dangerous it can be. Mostly just let loose some inappropriate language, and finish what I was doing. I've got a hunch I'll end up installing an in wall oven for my mother. My brother pulled the old one out years ago, he should have to install the one he dug up for her... It's 220 VAC, no plug, the labels on the breakers are faded, old house, don't think they were ever accurate, from prior experience. The wall space is all wood, oven is all metal, no insulation. I've no experience with them, and don't like 220...




Join the debate Climate change:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact