Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change is unavoidable, so is a warmer or cooler climate more desireable?



Page 2 of 2<12
06-06-2016 20:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
MK001 wrote:
So the description below of the simple process is absolutely false then?

"The CO2 lets sunlight (shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere. The earth absorbs sunlight, warms then reradiates heat (infrared or longwave radiation). The outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb. We also expect to see more infrared radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths."

Its not really a magic gas is it! it is just following a process that must obviously lead to more infrared radiation returning to earth than if it was not there?


Yes. This simple process is absolutely false. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It also violates the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of a non-energy source.

You cannot warm the surface of the Earth with a colder gas. You are still trying to make it a Magick Gas. You might as well try to make hot coffee by putting ice in it. The Magick One Way Reflective Mirror Gas argument, which is what you are trying to make, is absolutely wrong.

It is based on a confusion between electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. They are not the same.


The Parrot Killer
06-06-2016 20:34
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Now you are confusing me! Infrared energy does not have a thermal component until it hits something it is an electromagnetic wave. So the supposed temperature of the gas is irrelavent it aborbs and then re-radiates IR some of which goes back to earth and irradiates what it hits hence warming it. Simple. It violates no law it is just redirecting energy.
06-06-2016 21:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
MK001 wrote:
Now you are confusing me! Infrared energy does not have a thermal component until it hits something it is an electromagnetic wave. So the supposed temperature of the gas is irrelavent it aborbs and then re-radiates IR some of which goes back to earth and irradiates what it hits hence warming it. Simple. It violates no law it is just redirecting energy.


You are confused because you are still confusing electromagnetic energy with thermal energy.
The temperature of the gas is not only relevant, it is a core part of the process.

You are now describing an energy trap. Such traps retain some amount of energy, and more is added to the trap (even a miniscule amount). The trap must therefore catastrophically destroy itself.

Such traps are a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You cannot 'redirect' energy by attempting to heat a warmer surface with a colder substance. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't make carbon dioxide warmer than the surface by using energy from the surface. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-06-2016 21:04
06-06-2016 21:29
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
You are still mixing heating and emitting. The absorbed IR excites the CO2 molecule which then re-emits the IR in all directions until it reaches a calm state. So still nothing to do with violating Laws of thermodymamics.
Thoughjts
06-06-2016 23:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
MK001 wrote:
You are still mixing heating and emitting. The absorbed IR excites the CO2 molecule which then re-emits the IR in all directions until it reaches a calm state. So still nothing to do with violating Laws of thermodymamics.
Thoughjts


It YOU that is mixing the two. If and when carbon dioxide absorbs any infrared light, it is all converted to thermal energy.

The frequency of light is changed.

The amplitude of light is severely diminished.

The laws of thermodynamics apply equally well to electromagnetic energy as it does to thermal energy due to the conservation of energy law.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using colder air!
You cannot 'light up' a bright light by using a dimmer source.

You are trying to do the equivalent of powering a major city by using a guy on a bicycle.


The Parrot Killer
07-06-2016 18:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
MK001 wrote: So the supposed temperature of the gas is irrelavent it aborbs and then re-radiates IR some of which goes back to earth and irradiates what it hits hence warming it. Simple. It violates no law it is just redirecting energy.

1. Your violation of physics is not resolved by you simply inserting the words "it violates no law".

2. You specifically have temperature increasing. Take a moment and acknowledge that fact. You assert temperature increases. This absolutely requires additional energy unless you wish to violate physics. Yet you have no additional energy entering the system. You only have energy changing form, which according to the 1st LoT means no additional energy is created by your gas. How does the temperature therefore increase (as you assert) without any additional energy? Oh, we already covered that! By your magickal violation of physics.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
13-06-2016 07:49
rahul
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising.

public health issue
13-06-2016 09:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
rahul wrote:
Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising.

...deleted link to propaganda...


What rising global temperatures? It is not possible to measure global temperatures!

What data are you using to show precip changes? There is no data for world precip patterns.

What is your data concerning floods, droughts, or torrential rain? There is no data for such world events.

What data are you using for ice caps? After all, ice caps melt and refreeze all the time.

What data are you using for sea level? I know of no instrumentation to even measure world sea level.


The Parrot Killer
16-06-2016 17:59
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Ibdaman

I am just trying to understand why you keep talking about magic properties when what I want to know is why you cannot accept the absorbtion and reradiation of IR by CO2 happens! it is nothing to do with temperature.

If you can tell me what the temperature of an IR wave travelling through space is I will concede your point, otherwise you don't really have a point.
16-06-2016 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
MK001 wrote:
Ibdaman

I am just trying to understand why you keep talking about magic properties when what I want to know is why you cannot accept the absorbtion and reradiation of IR by CO2 happens! it is nothing to do with temperature.

If you can tell me what the temperature of an IR wave travelling through space is I will concede your point, otherwise you don't really have a point.


Most gases, and carbon dioxide is no exception, absorb certain frequencies of light on occasion. In the case of carbon dioxide, about 1% of it will actually absorb anything. The rest is unaffected.

When light is absorbed, it is converted into thermal energy (a slight increase in temperature). Thermal energy and electromagnetic energy are two separate things, but they are both forms of energy.

This slightly warmer molecule will lose its energy to surrounding matter (the rest of the atmosphere). As a whole, this thermal rises along with any other warmer air and cools. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action.

According to the Mauna Loa station, they currently see about 0.04% of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide. About one percent of THAT (or about 0.004%) is involved with heating the remaining 99.996% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide adds very little warmth to anything, and what it does add is simply vented upward with the rest.

As for heating the surface, the surface is already warmer than the atmosphere (generating most of the heat that warms the atmosphere already). Since you cannot heat a warmer substance with a colder one, the effect of carbon dioxide on the surface is nil. It is again the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says this.

Electromagnetic energy in and of itself has no temperature, but a relationship between the warmth of a substance and the electromagnetic radiation it does emit can be found using Planck's Law. According to this law, what the substance is doesn't matter. Only the temperature of it matters. This is why you often hear of some light emitting device as having a 'temperature'. It is not a true temperature, but an indication of the temperature of a substance emitting that color light.

It is why when something becomes hot enough to glow, it always glows red, and always at the same temperature. Infrared is also a 'glow', but we can't see it.

The Earth has an infrared 'glow' made up of the overall temperature of the Earth and its atmosphere. Since temperature varies throughout the Earth and its atmosphere, this glow is somewhat broadband in color. Carbon dioxide, having no remarkable electromagnetic or thermal properties, is simply part of this overall 'glow'.

So you see carbon dioxide absorption has everything to do with temperature, just not in the way the climate alarmists describe.

I do not use the term magic. I use the term magick, in the full sense of the meaning Crowley's works.

For carbon dioxide to retain heat (the Magick Blanket theory), would be to ignore the effects of dispersion of thermal energy into the atmosphere and to ignore the vertical movement of air, in short it would have to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

For carbon dioxide to reflect energy (the Magick Mirror theory), would be to ignore the effects of what absorption does to carbon dioxide, and to attempt to heat the warmer surface with a colder substance. This not only violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but also Planck's Law.

For carbon dioxide to somehow make the surface hotter (the Magick Spaceheater theory), would require a non-energy substance to add energy to the atmosphere (remember energy is both electromagnetic and thermal energy combined). This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

For further reference to the use of the word 'magick', see Aleister Crowley's works where he differentiates the word 'magic' (a trick where it is a known trick, done for entertainment purposes), and 'magick' (a mysterious force).


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2016 06:07
StephenS20
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Global warming could eventually lead to the ice age occurring sooner. So, the two can't necessarily be split into separate scenarios, although it seems that way. Melting ice could ultimately trigger "ice age" like situations in some areas, as ice melts slowing ocean currents, resulting in less heating from the gulf stream in some areas. Whether this would occur and how quickly it would happen remains to be seen. Eventually though, yes another ice age is likely to occur at some point. However, it could be thousands of years before it does. I say why mess up the thousands of years that we have of a very human friendly climate.
04-09-2016 07:02
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
ITN, have you read John Tyndall's 1861 paper "on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours"? Would you care to present your reasons for why it is faulty?
04-09-2016 08:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
Leafsdude wrote:
ITN, have you read John Tyndall's 1861 paper "on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours"? Would you care to present your reasons for why it is faulty?


His analysis confused the opacity of a gas with it's absorptivity at certain IR wavelengths.

He also jumped to the conclusion of the Global Warming argument as a non-sequitur, not realizing he crossed into a circular argument.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2016 21:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote:
ITN, have you read John Tyndall's 1861 paper "on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours"? Would you care to present your reasons for why it is faulty?

Can I get in on this?

You know how sometimes people make mistakes that are later corrected?

Tyndall did a lot of great work, and he also did work that was off a bit. Some his published work got an "A" for effort but wasn't quite right and was discarded by the scientific method.

Unfortunately Tyndal couldn't travel back in time and unpublish it. The document you cited will forever exist for people like yourself to find. There is sadly nothing anywhere in the document declaring it OBE.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-09-2016 01:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:
ITN, have you read John Tyndall's 1861 paper "on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours"? Would you care to present your reasons for why it is faulty?


His analysis confused the opacity of a gas with it's absorptivity at certain IR wavelengths.

Perhaps you can explain the difference between opacity and absorptivity to us, and point out where Tyndall confused the two.
07-09-2016 01:55
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
His analysis confused the opacity of a gas with it's absorptivity at certain IR wavelengths.


Just like Surface Detail, I'd like to know what the difference between opacity and absorptivity is.

He also jumped to the conclusion of the Global Warming argument as a non-sequitur, not realizing he crossed into a circular argument.


Actually, not once does Tyndall ever mention global warming or climate change or even some vague term that one could translate as either. His tests were simply created to explain why the Earth did not share the same daily temperature swings as were observed on the moon, an observation that was well-known well before his experiments. He simply was the first to produce an experiment that gave plausible reasons.

You have to go to Arrhenius a good 3-4 decades later to find when Tyndall's tests were linked to climate change, which happened, if not when he was dead, definitely not too long prior.

Can I get in on this?

You know how sometimes people make mistakes that are later corrected?


When and where was Tyndall's experiment corrected?


The rest of the context from IBdaMann's quote:

"Raw data does not show accurate trends. As many deniers like to state, using raw data would not account for effects like the Urban Heat Island effect or El Nino's and La Nina's (though the latter can and does show up even when the data is modified) as well as basic noise from normal, natural changes in yearly weather patterns. This is why climatologists use anomalous temperature events rather than actual temperatures, as they've proven to be more accurate at showing trends."
Edited on 07-09-2016 02:43
07-09-2016 04:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:
ITN, have you read John Tyndall's 1861 paper "on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours"? Would you care to present your reasons for why it is faulty?


His analysis confused the opacity of a gas with it's absorptivity at certain IR wavelengths.

Perhaps you can explain the difference between opacity and absorptivity to us, and point out where Tyndall confused the two.


Opacity can reflect light. Absorption is just absorption.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2016 04:31
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
What reason do you have to believe Tyndall tested for opacity and not for absorptivity?
07-09-2016 05:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5578)
Leafsdude wrote:
What reason do you have to believe Tyndall tested for opacity and not for absorptivity?


You might try reading the paper you quote.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2016 20:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote: Actually, not once does Tyndall ever mention global warming or climate change or even some vague term that one could translate as either.


Sorry, ...

John Tyndall's Bakerian Lecture, Read February 7, 1861: DE SAUSSURE, FOURIER, M. POUILLET, and Mr. HOPEINS regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.


Leafsdude wrote: When and where was Tyndall's experiment corrected?

Tyndall had more than one experiment. The data/observations are immortalized.

His erroneous conclusions (re: above) however, got such papers discarded. No big deal. You win some and you lose some. He won a lot more in other areas than he lost on "climate."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-04-2018 20:07
hannsmith
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
antialiased wrote:
Why do most people believe that global warming is bad?

Let me explain. I take it as given that homo sapiens have contributed to climate change. It also should be accepted that earth is currently in an ice age (icehouse phase). Additionally, due to positions of land masses and other factors, it seems likely that the interglacial period we are in would end in a glacial period (colder temperatures). I also take it as accepted that the climate is constantly changing and that the icehouse state is the exception, not the norm for earth. And finally, that the climate is in a constant state of flux and change is inevitable (we are not yet advanced enough to control the climate precisely enough to maintain the current climate).

Therefore, why should humanity want it to get colder instead of warmer?

We have to pick one, assuming we have the ability to influence the climate state. Either will have positive and negative implications for species currently alive. However, from the geological record, it would seem that greenhouse earth may be more conductive to rapid species expansion and evolution. This seems like the sort of question that isn't being discussed and I am making my first post in this forum precisely because I would like some rational reason to believe that icehouse earth is better than greenhouse earth. Thank you in advance for your time and comments.



MY RESPONSE:
I'm glad that you agree that climate change is a very real and present issue, but I think the audience needs more evidence for claims about the existence of climate change and our current icehouse phase to make it more effective. If you could expand on some of your claims that are more controversial I think it would strengthen your overall conclusion. The current research I've seen on oceanic warming trends has seen a negative impact on marine species and the extinction of other species in our ecosystems, could you explain what sources have given evidence that there will be expansion among some species? Is it only true for land species? I'd love to hear more about our geological records and the movement of land masses in indicating not only a trend toward the icehouse phase, but also how the greenhouse phase has been more survivable in our past. Which organizations record land mass movements and what methods are climate scientists using? Are they examining fossilization or strata to come to conclusions about past climate changes? I believe that there is a false dilemma in stating that our planet will either cool or warm to such a dramatic degree, necessitating that we must pick whether to encourage the icehouse phase or the greenhouse phase with our practices. Does our planet have any mechanisms to return to equilibrium and how or why are they not effective? I agree that humans have impacted our current climate a great deal, but I'm not sure whether our actions now could prompt any reversal. A policy change to accommodate climate change is unfortunately not a position that everyone holds, so I think one of the main issues is that people can dismiss some of the claims in your argument that support our need for one, and then we won't be able to actually discuss whether greenhouse or icehouse has more positive or negative effects. I'm also curious to know if you've encountered people who have been promoting cooling trends towards the glacial phase over warming, and what claims they've been making. Perhaps they only mean cooling to a degree to combat the effects of global warming, because I would hope both camps of the climate change debate wouldn't want either extremes of planet warming or cooling. Thanks so much for your time!
10-04-2018 15:32
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
hannsmith wrote:
antialiased wrote:
Why do most people believe that global warming is bad?

Let me explain. I take it as given that homo sapiens have contributed to climate change. It also should be accepted that earth is currently in an ice age (icehouse phase). Additionally, due to positions of land masses and other factors, it seems likely that the interglacial period we are in would end in a glacial period (colder temperatures). I also take it as accepted that the climate is constantly changing and that the icehouse state is the exception, not the norm for earth. And finally, that the climate is in a constant state of flux and change is inevitable (we are not yet advanced enough to control the climate precisely enough to maintain the current climate).

Therefore, why should humanity want it to get colder instead of warmer?

We have to pick one, assuming we have the ability to influence the climate state. Either will have positive and negative implications for species currently alive. However, from the geological record, it would seem that greenhouse earth may be more conductive to rapid species expansion and evolution. This seems like the sort of question that isn't being discussed and I am making my first post in this forum precisely because I would like some rational reason to believe that icehouse earth is better than greenhouse earth. Thank you in advance for your time and comments.



MY RESPONSE:
I'm glad that you agree that climate change is a very real and present issue, but I think the audience needs more evidence for claims about the existence of climate change and our current icehouse phase to make it more effective. If you could expand on some of your claims that are more controversial I think it would strengthen your overall conclusion. The current research I've seen on oceanic warming trends has seen a negative impact on marine species and the extinction of other species in our ecosystems, could you explain what sources have given evidence that there will be expansion among some species? Is it only true for land species? I'd love to hear more about our geological records and the movement of land masses in indicating not only a trend toward the icehouse phase, but also how the greenhouse phase has been more survivable in our past. Which organizations record land mass movements and what methods are climate scientists using? Are they examining fossilization or strata to come to conclusions about past climate changes? I believe that there is a false dilemma in stating that our planet will either cool or warm to such a dramatic degree, necessitating that we must pick whether to encourage the icehouse phase or the greenhouse phase with our practices. Does our planet have any mechanisms to return to equilibrium and how or why are they not effective? I agree that humans have impacted our current climate a great deal, but I'm not sure whether our actions now could prompt any reversal. A policy change to accommodate climate change is unfortunately not a position that everyone holds, so I think one of the main issues is that people can dismiss some of the claims in your argument that support our need for one, and then we won't be able to actually discuss whether greenhouse or icehouse has more positive or negative effects. I'm also curious to know if you've encountered people who have been promoting cooling trends towards the glacial phase over warming, and what claims they've been making. Perhaps they only mean cooling to a degree to combat the effects of global warming, because I would hope both camps of the climate change debate wouldn't want either extremes of planet warming or cooling. Thanks so much for your time!


1. There doesn't appear to be any climate change other than recovery from the little ice age.
2. Man has absolutely NO effect on this.
3. We are not in an "icehouse" period whatever that is but instead an interglacial period of an ice age. Man has been in this ice age since homo sapiens appeared upon Earth.
4. CO2 has no effect of retaining or rather slowing the egress of heat from the Earth at levels above 200-250 parts per million.
5. The only "greenhouse gas" is H2O in its three phases. And it not only covers the entire spectrum (vs CO2's three very narrow absorption bands) but is a minimum of 100 times more common in the atmosphere.
6. One of the advantages of the coming out of the little ice age is the increases in rain around the Sahara which is increasing farm production there. And the reduction of the glaciers on Greenland that is melting off of previously farmed areas there.
7. All of this information is easily available to people to care to look. Apparently you haven't.

If you are interest watch this hour long video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Climate change is unavoidable, so is a warmer or cooler climate more desireable?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
No one cares even if 97% of climate scientists think more CO2 causes warmer weather. Because of Galileo.2421-03-2017 15:40
there is no proof past climate was significantly warmer when CO2 was much more327-02-2017 03:06
warmer is always better2207-12-2016 10:57
But how can Global WARMING make some places cooler? Or similarly, droughts AND torrential rains?809-10-2016 21:25
the only way to know if more CO2 causes warmer climate is to do the experiment on Earth504-03-2016 03:42
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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