Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 makes Earth much cooler than the Moon because it blocks the Sun's IR


CO2 makes Earth much cooler than the Moon because it blocks the Sun's IR07-02-2016 06:42
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
I thought this makes a lot of sense. Or else Earth would be so hot water would boil when there is sunlight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV5MFDH8bV4
Edited on 07-02-2016 06:43
07-02-2016 08:04
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
72 crackpot science denial spam threads started in about 6 weeks since you joined. That must be a record.

You've already posted this one before. Are you recycling now?


07-02-2016 08:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote:
72 crackpot science denial spam threads started in about 6 weeks since you joined. That must be a record.

You've already posted this one before. Are you recycling now?

412 crackpot science-denial posts since you joined. Par for the course for warmizombies.

You've already posted empty ad hominems before. Are you recycling now?


.


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
07-02-2016 14:48
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Ceist wrote:
72 crackpot science denial spam threads started in about 6 weeks since you joined. That must be a record.

You've already posted this one before. Are you recycling now?


You are foolish enough to believe what Obama tells you, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Obama has been spewing that nonsense since 2009 when he took office.

And says who I denial science? Science is about observation of the universe. Science is about observation, not theory. There is no science without observation.
Edited on 07-02-2016 14:49
07-02-2016 15:23
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Ceist wrote:
72 crackpot science denial spam threads started in about 6 weeks since you joined. That must be a record.

You've already posted this one before. Are you recycling now?


You are foolish enough to believe what Obama tells you, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Obama has been spewing that nonsense since 2009 when he took office.

And says who I denial science? Science is about observation of the universe. Science is about observation, not theory. There is no science without observation.


Why would I listen to Obama about science?

1. I'm Australian.
2. Obama isn't a scientist.
3. The observation that CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas goes back to the 1800's, not 2009.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

4. I read the scientific literature and listen to what scientists who do the research have to say, not what politicians say or nutters on conspiracy blogs and forums say.


As for you denying science: I've observed you doing it in pretty much every one of your wacky posts.




Edited on 07-02-2016 15:25
07-02-2016 18:41
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Ceist wrote:
3. The observation that CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas goes back to the 1800's, not 2009.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm


Wrong. CO2 was not referred to as a greenhouse gas until recent years. CO2 was known to absorb IR since the 1850s. But no one, not even Arrhenius, referred to CO2 as a greenhouse gas back then. CO2 absorbs IR both ways, both incoming solar IR and outgoing Earth IR. It is not equivalent to a greenhouse glass which lets light in but prevents heat out.
Edited on 07-02-2016 18:43
08-02-2016 23:32
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I thought this makes a lot of sense.


I.
I've been thinking about this a bit the last two days. The argument is that CO2 in the atmosphere would block infrared in both directions.

It is an argument of logic, not one of "science", which is a word mis- and abused by both "sides" often here on the forum.

The commentator in the video is setting up a hypothesis: That Co2 in the atmosphere would block sunlight in the form of infrared light from reaching the Earth's surface, cooling it down (i.e. keeping it cooler).

(what he says in 12 minutes is something that could be done in 30 seconds, so I almost quit watching before he got to any conclusion, just because it was so utterly boring!! That too has nothing to do with science:-/

His line of argumentation concerning Co2 was okay. His line of argumentation concerning the Moon was just wrong. That will be put in my next response:-)

So here's the deal: The sun sends us on the average 1361W/m2 energy, of which 22.9% is blocked (absorbed, scattered and reflected) before it hits the ground, so that 1050W/m2 makes it straight through the atmosphere. Another 70W/m2 makes it to the surface by scattered light, meaning only 14% *of the energy* of light is kept from the surface. Much of that is UV or higher wavelengths, while most visible and IR makes it through.

Yes, the surprising part to me is that more than 50% of the *energy* of the sunlight reaching the surface is in the IR spectrum.

Now I'll pose his question: Why wouldn't Co2 block the incoming IR just as much as the outgoing?

Back to the science: Observing Venus indicates that that's not the way it works. Otherwise the surface there would have a lot of heat blocked out, not the other way around (like it really is).
09-02-2016 00:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Hank Samler wrote:
Now I'll pose his question: Why wouldn't Co2 block the incoming IR just as much as the outgoing?

Because it's not as simple as that. The IR radiation from the sun is in the near IR part of the spectrum, extending to about 3 um, while the IR radiation from the Earth is in the mid and far IR range from about 3 um onwards. CO2 absorbs mostly in the mid IR range rather than the near IR. This graph is quite informative:

09-02-2016 01:27
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Surface Detail wrote:
Hank Samler wrote:
Now I'll pose his question: Why wouldn't Co2 block the incoming IR just as much as the outgoing?

Because it's not as simple as that. The IR radiation from the sun is in the near IR part of the spectrum, extending to about 3 um, while the IR radiation from the Earth is in the mid and far IR range from about 3 um onwards. CO2 absorbs mostly in the mid IR range rather than the near IR. This graph is quite informative:



That graph looks like propaganda to me. If CO2 really does increase temperature of Earth, the world should be warmer not cooler. New York City is well below seasonal despite much more CO2.
09-02-2016 04:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
That graph looks like propaganda to me. If CO2 really does increase temperature of Earth, the world should be warmer not cooler. New York City is well below seasonal despite much more CO2.

Tai Hai, proper discussion involves a little more than simply writing the first thing that pops into your head. Actually providing some sort of evidence for your claims would be good.
1) Why do you think the graph looks like propaganda? What is wrong with it?
2) The Earth isn't cooler than the moon on average.
3) According to my internet, the current temperature in New York City is 0 C (32 F). Is this really exceptional for a February evening? And why should the temperature in NYC be any more special than the temperature elsewhere?
09-02-2016 05:25
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai, proper discussion involves a little more than simply writing the first thing that pops into your head. Actually providing some sort of evidence for your claims would be good.
1) Why do you think the graph looks like propaganda? What is wrong with it?
2) The Earth isn't cooler than the moon on average.
3) According to my internet, the current temperature in New York City is 0 C (32 F). Is this really exceptional for a February evening? And why should the temperature in NYC be any more special than the temperature elsewhere?


The layman does not trust scientists in this era of profit and greed. Scientists are paid off by big corporations to say all these chemicals spewed by corporations are safe. All these detergents. All these stuffs. They are NOT safe. They are harmful and cause autism. Why should people trust climate scientists when they can feel temperature with their own skins? Whom can you trust more than yourself?

As for NYC, it's definitely below seasonal. NYC is moderated by the ocean. Right now it may not be that bad. But in a few days it's going to get dangerously cold in NYC. Trump is going to scream WHERE IS GLOBAL WARMING again

Edited on 09-02-2016 05:25
09-02-2016 21:20
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
That graph looks like propaganda to me.


Actually, that is just what I was looking for - at least it heads in the right direction:-)
09-02-2016 21:33
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
..Or else Earth would be so hot, water would boil when there is sunlight.


II
The commentator's presentation of the moon is just plain wacky.

First of all, water in space is not found in a liquid state. Either it is frozen or evaporates, just like we experience with Co2 on the Earth. Only in an atmosphere like ours can water form in the liquid phase. And even there: some of the ice or snow that melts goes straight to its gasious phase as water vapor in the air.

But even if all Earth's water evaporated (becoming vapor in the air) straight up, Earth still wouldn't loose its water. Why? Again because of the atmosphere. Partially because it's just there but mostly because of the temperature variations in the different layers in the atmosphere. There is hardly a water molecule that makes it out of the troposphere. It's just so cold around the Tropopause, that water returns to one of its heavy states before it even nearly has a chance to get into or past it. That is why one is always looking down at the clouds from intercontinental flights: Even a number of kilometers below the 'pause, most the water has condensed out. If the surface of our planet was 100°C hotter, water would not leave the troposphere but hang around as permanent clouds.

Conclusion: Water would not leave the Earth because of some other (much higher) surface temperature!

Next Point: The temperature on the Moon only gets that hot during and because of its 14 earthday day. On the (14 day long) night side, it is bitter cold. If the Earth took 28 of its present days to make one rotation, it would get blistering hot on the sunny side as well and bitter cold on its dark side). The water cycle would then look different: Water would evaporate on one side of the Earth and continuously rain/snow on the other side. Fast developing glaciers? You bet!

Back to the Moon: Its surface is on the average about 45°C colder than the Earth's!!! (And this, even though there is no Co2 to block out the IR light;-) And this even though the Moon's surface has a lower Albedo (0.3 Earth vs. 0.15Moon), absorbing much more of the sun's energy.

Boy, that commentator sure got the Earth/Moon thing wrong.

So what's the difference between the Earth and the Moon? The Earth has a better way of storing the sun's energy:
- water and the oceans can absorb a lot of the sun's energy
- water can change its state (into liquid and expecially vapor/steam) to store a load of energy
- life can use it to build complex organic molecules (taking the inert Co2 out of the air and splitting water as well), making wood and waste O2 and even storing the energy millions of years in the form of fossil fuels
- create winds
- move water (in the form of vapor) to higher grounds, where they rain down..
- and finally use it to heat up the atmosphere.

Now, a lot of these processes are not a one-time event. Meaning, energy can't be created or lost, just change its form. Wind will help evaporate water, which will rise in the atmosphere and condense (giving off heat) to gain potential/gravitational energy, running our water mills and electric turbines.

Many of these processes end up giving off heat, so that in the end, the earth's surface temperature is much warmer than the Moon's.

Again: The difference is in the Earth's storage capacity -- or rather the Moon's lack of it.
09-02-2016 22:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Hank Samler wrote:Again: The difference is in the Earth's storage capacity -- or rather the Moon's lack of it.

The earth can neither "store" nor "trap" energy any more than a spaghetti strainer "stores" or "traps" water.




.


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
09-02-2016 23:35
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:The earth can neither "store" nor "trap" energy any more than a spaghetti strainer "stores" or "traps" water.


What do you call fossil fuels? I would call them 500 Million years of stored energy from the sun.

With all the energy in every photon reaching the earth, something needs to happen. Energy can neither be created (outside of e=mc2, of course) nor destroyed, right?

If the Albedo of the Earth is 0.3, what happens to the other 70% ? The energy gets passed on (to create the energy through photosynthesis, for instance, so that we have something to eat) in some way or another.
09-02-2016 23:45
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Hank Samler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The earth can neither "store" nor "trap" energy any more than a spaghetti strainer "stores" or "traps" water.


What do you call fossil fuels? I would call them 500 Million years of stored energy from the sun.

With all the energy in every photon reaching the earth, something needs to happen. Energy can neither be created (outside of e=mc2, of course) nor destroyed, right?

If the Albedo of the Earth is 0.3, what happens to the other 70% ? The energy gets passed on (to create the energy through photosynthesis, for instance, so that we have something to eat) in some way or another.


Chemical energy is energy that bind atoms together in molecules. They are not necessarily from the Sun's energy. Take water for example. The chemical energy in water is not from the Sun's energy.

Actually, all of the universe's energy comes from the big bang.
Edited on 09-02-2016 23:47
10-02-2016 13:50
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
IBdaMann wrote:
The earth can neither "store" nor "trap" energy any more than a spaghetti strainer "stores" or "traps" water.


Okay.
I'm willing to play.

First of all, I think I understand what you're trying to say:
If 1361W/m2 reach the earth and its atmosphere at a constant rate --

Wait, sorry. I need to be a bit more general here:

On the average, the sun is shining with 171 billion watts of energy on the Earth, 24hrs a day, every day.

In order to keep the Earth at a generally constant temperature, 171 billion watts of energy need to constantly be leaving the earth as well.

The surface area of the Earth is 502 million km2, meaning that *on the average* each m2 needs to emit 341W/m2. Day side and night side, poles and equator, etc..

Incoming = Outgoing, just like with your sieve.

Would you agree with that?




Join the debate CO2 makes Earth much cooler than the Moon because it blocks the Sun's IR:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 and Some transparency3510-12-2018 01:46
Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?16105-12-2018 03:22
CO2 is causing ozone depletion, cause of climate change?1126-11-2018 22:53
Climate change is unavoidable, so is a warmer or cooler climate more desireable?6223-10-2018 02:16
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 09:12
Articles
Ban Ki-Moon: Address to the UN Climate Change Conference
▲ 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