Remember me
▼ Content

Google And Fake News


Google And Fake News04-04-2018 20:17
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
One of the problems with using Google is that they have a political bias. That is, there are people there that predictably are pro-climate change and they will adapt Google to not show all of the anti-climate change studies that are now pouring out of research houses now that you don't have your research grants pulled by the government for disagreeing with their political strategies.

More and more there does not appear to be any climate change but rather recovery more from the little ice age than anything else. If you have a sustained climate that is warm enough to melt the lower latitude glaciers such as those on Greenland the entire planet will appear to be warming simply because the ice is melting. That doesn't mean that the climate is changing but instead very well means that the same amount of energy falling upon the Earth has long term effects.

I have had several papers sent to me which I read and promptly forgot to save. And using Google they are impossible to find even though I know the subject of the papers.

Take for instance: https://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm

This is a rather harmless site which attempts to note that the Earth's temperature changes can be rather completely predicted with sunspot cycles.

One statement: "Eddy found evidence that the Sun was by no means as constant as astrophysicists supposed. Especially intriguing was evidence suggesting that during the "Little Ice Age" of the 16th-17th centuries, sky-watchers had observed almost no sunspot activity. "

Yet if you do a Google search of "The Discovery of Global Warming" which is the headline, from Google I went down seven pages without discovering this site.

Granted that this is perhaps too general a title and using the subtitle does get you to the correct page. But why would there be seven pages of entirely pro-climate change articles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOZ0irgLwxU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZN2jt2cCU4
04-04-2018 21:17
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
It's true that Google has a political bias, but they also use your browsing history to predict what you are looking for. So if you have a history of clicking on a certain viewpoint, they will mainly give you results that match that viewpoint. If you have a viewpoint that is mainstream, there is almost no chance that you will be given links to opposing viewpoints.

I recently switched to duckduckgo for my searches and since they do not track anything, I get unbiased results. I used the search you suggested on duckduckgo.com and the first result was the one you were looking for.

Avoid google, unless you want their targeted ads and don't want to see any results that conflict with your predicted viewpoint.
04-04-2018 21:31
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Jeffvw wrote:
It's true that Google has a political bias, but they also use your browsing history to predict what you are looking for. So if you have a history of clicking on a certain viewpoint, they will mainly give you results that match that viewpoint. If you have a viewpoint that is mainstream, there is almost no chance that you will be given links to opposing viewpoints.

I recently switched to duckduckgo for my searches and since they do not track anything, I get unbiased results. I used the search you suggested on duckduckgo.com and the first result was the one you were looking for.

Avoid google, unless you want their targeted ads and don't want to see any results that conflict with your predicted viewpoint.


Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA
04-04-2018 21:56
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA


Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.
05-04-2018 15:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Jeffvw wrote:
Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA


Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.


I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.
06-04-2018 17:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA


Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.


I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.


Higher or lower amounts of absorption is not affected by frequency, dude.

It is affected by intensity at the absorption frequencies.

Emission is the same way. Hotter materials still emit on the same frequencies they always do, it's just more intense while any higher frequencies (if any) also begin to emit. The atoms within the molecule also emit on their own, and at many lines of spectra higher than infrared.

That's why a gas (any gas) begins to glow into the visible range when it gets hot enough.

I thought you said you understood a spectroscopy.


The Parrot Killer
06-04-2018 19:22
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA


Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.


I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.


Higher or lower amounts of absorption is not affected by frequency, dude.

It is affected by intensity at the absorption frequencies.

Emission is the same way. Hotter materials still emit on the same frequencies they always do, it's just more intense while any higher frequencies (if any) also begin to emit. The atoms within the molecule also emit on their own, and at many lines of spectra higher than infrared.

That's why a gas (any gas) begins to glow into the visible range when it gets hot enough.

I thought you said you understood a spectroscopy.

Let me answer this. Your answer is partly true, but irrelevant. According to Kirchhoff's laws, luminous dense gases can produce a continuous spectrum. The CO2 we are talking about is neither dense nor luminous, but is rather cold, so it will stick to its absorption bands.

Spectral analysis shows that CO2 is emitting at a relatively constant 220 K. Here's a graph showing the modeled difference between 300 ppm and 600 ppm of CO2:

You see that the CO2 spectra is just under 220 K in both instances. The difference is on the edges where the additional molecules cause more scattering. The theoretical difference works out to about 3.39 W/m^2 or about 1.1 C at a global average temperature.

What's interesting is if you look under any conditions; clouds, deserts, the poles, this holds constant at about 220 K. The spectra that are not blocked by CO2 will reflect the ground (or cloud) temperature whether it be higher or lower than 220 K. Wake's point holds up since the additional CO2 does not increase intensity.
06-04-2018 20:23
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA


Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.


I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.


Higher or lower amounts of absorption is not affected by frequency, dude.

It is affected by intensity at the absorption frequencies.

Emission is the same way. Hotter materials still emit on the same frequencies they always do, it's just more intense while any higher frequencies (if any) also begin to emit. The atoms within the molecule also emit on their own, and at many lines of spectra higher than infrared.

That's why a gas (any gas) begins to glow into the visible range when it gets hot enough.

I thought you said you understood a spectroscopy.

Let me answer this. Your answer is partly true, but irrelevant. According to Kirchhoff's laws, luminous dense gases can produce a continuous spectrum. The CO2 we are talking about is neither dense nor luminous, but is rather cold, so it will stick to its absorption bands.

Spectral analysis shows that CO2 is emitting at a relatively constant 220 K. Here's a graph showing the modeled difference between 300 ppm and 600 ppm of CO2:

You see that the CO2 spectra is just under 220 K in both instances. The difference is on the edges where the additional molecules cause more scattering. The theoretical difference works out to about 3.39 W/m^2 or about 1.1 C at a global average temperature.

What's interesting is if you look under any conditions; clouds, deserts, the poles, this holds constant at about 220 K. The spectra that are not blocked by CO2 will reflect the ground (or cloud) temperature whether it be higher or lower than 220 K. Wake's point holds up since the additional CO2 does not increase intensity.


Nightmare will spend his time looking for any oddity that might establish anything he can present as proof that I am wrong. He is really an anti-scientist of the worst sort. He has no understanding of what you just wrote and I wouldn't be surprised if he were to argue with you. First I tried to explain to him what the Stefan-Boltzmann law was and how it worked but he rejected it outright and continued to use it in a manner that showed that he is completely unaware of what it means. He states that he is an "operational engineer" which would mean that he has to have an understanding of statistical analysis. But it doesn't take much questioning to discover that he doesn't even know what statistical analysis is.

He doesn't appear to be stupid, but he has such a psychological need to be "right" that he will not bother to look anything up. And then if he accidentally reads something that agrees with my analysis he will state that he always knew that and never said otherwise.

Try and get him to understand that weather satellites can directly measure the average global mean temperature and watch him. Try to get him to understand that the precise measure of MGT isn't as important as being able to distinguish changes and watch.
06-04-2018 21:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA


Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.


I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.


Higher or lower amounts of absorption is not affected by frequency, dude.

It is affected by intensity at the absorption frequencies.

Emission is the same way. Hotter materials still emit on the same frequencies they always do, it's just more intense while any higher frequencies (if any) also begin to emit. The atoms within the molecule also emit on their own, and at many lines of spectra higher than infrared.

That's why a gas (any gas) begins to glow into the visible range when it gets hot enough.

I thought you said you understood a spectroscopy.

Let me answer this. Your answer is partly true, but irrelevant. According to Kirchhoff's laws, luminous dense gases can produce a continuous spectrum. The CO2 we are talking about is neither dense nor luminous, but is rather cold, so it will stick to its absorption bands.

Spectral analysis shows that CO2 is emitting at a relatively constant 220 K. Here's a graph showing the modeled difference between 300 ppm and 600 ppm of CO2:

You see that the CO2 spectra is just under 220 K in both instances. The difference is on the edges where the additional molecules cause more scattering. The theoretical difference works out to about 3.39 W/m^2 or about 1.1 C at a global average temperature.

What's interesting is if you look under any conditions; clouds, deserts, the poles, this holds constant at about 220 K. The spectra that are not blocked by CO2 will reflect the ground (or cloud) temperature whether it be higher or lower than 220 K. Wake's point holds up since the additional CO2 does not increase intensity.


It does not decrease it either. Wakes point does not hold up for the reasons I've described.

You are forgetting that while a substance absorbs only one way (through conversion by harmonic absorption) it can emit it two ways (either through harmonic emission or by translational emission, otherwise known as Planck emission).

CO2 will visibly glow just like any other gas when you get it hot enough. That happens at the same temperature REGARDLESS of what the gas is. That is not harmonic emission, that is Planck emission, coming from the translational vibration of the entire molecule (instead of the molecule stretching or bending). This translation vibration is thermal energy.

Either form of emission allows the molecule to lose energy. A molecule may lose energy by conducting it's thermal energy to another molecule. Energy in many molecules can be dissipated (spread out over a larger area) by being convected upwards too.

All the while ALL molecules are emitting light. ALL molecules are above absolute zero.

Remember all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron or a proton around. That can happen as a whole molecule moves, or when a molecule vibrates in a bending or twisting way.


The Parrot Killer
06-04-2018 21:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA


Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.


I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.


Higher or lower amounts of absorption is not affected by frequency, dude.

It is affected by intensity at the absorption frequencies.

Emission is the same way. Hotter materials still emit on the same frequencies they always do, it's just more intense while any higher frequencies (if any) also begin to emit. The atoms within the molecule also emit on their own, and at many lines of spectra higher than infrared.

That's why a gas (any gas) begins to glow into the visible range when it gets hot enough.

I thought you said you understood a spectroscopy.

Let me answer this. Your answer is partly true, but irrelevant. According to Kirchhoff's laws, luminous dense gases can produce a continuous spectrum. The CO2 we are talking about is neither dense nor luminous, but is rather cold, so it will stick to its absorption bands.

Spectral analysis shows that CO2 is emitting at a relatively constant 220 K. Here's a graph showing the modeled difference between 300 ppm and 600 ppm of CO2:

You see that the CO2 spectra is just under 220 K in both instances. The difference is on the edges where the additional molecules cause more scattering. The theoretical difference works out to about 3.39 W/m^2 or about 1.1 C at a global average temperature.

What's interesting is if you look under any conditions; clouds, deserts, the poles, this holds constant at about 220 K. The spectra that are not blocked by CO2 will reflect the ground (or cloud) temperature whether it be higher or lower than 220 K. Wake's point holds up since the additional CO2 does not increase intensity.


Nightmare will spend his time looking for any oddity that might establish anything he can present as proof that I am wrong.

You are odd, that's for sure. I don't have to look far.
Wake wrote:
He is really an anti-scientist of the worst sort.
Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
He has no understanding of what you just wrote
But I do. You and he are ignoring other types of emission.
Wake wrote:
and I wouldn't be surprised if he were to argue with you.

If you present bad science, I will point it out.
Wake wrote:
First I tried to explain to him what the Stefan-Boltzmann law was

No, you tried to rewrite it to suit your own purposes, AFTER you tried to deny it outright. Most of the time you STILL ignore it.
Wake wrote:
and how it worked but he rejected it outright
I will reject any attempt by you or anyone else to rewrite the theory or the law.
Wake wrote:
and continued to use it in a manner that showed that he is completely unaware of what it means.

It means that radiance is proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional to temperature. It means that to do the conversion, you have to know the emissivity of the material, which you don't know.
Wake wrote:
He states that he is an "operational engineer"

I am many things, but I never used that term. I don't bother with stating my credentials on forums. They are meaningless and of no value to the argument itself. You are justifying bulverism now. That's a fallacy, dude.
Wake wrote:
which would mean that he has to have an understanding of statistical analysis.

WRONG. I do, however, have an understanding of statistical mathematics. You don't.
Wake wrote:
But it doesn't take much questioning to discover that he doesn't even know what statistical analysis is.

You are in no position to say.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't appear to be stupid, but he has such a psychological need to be "right" that he will not bother to look anything up.

Psychoquackery dismissed.
Wake wrote:
And then if he accidentally reads something that agrees with my analysis he will state that he always knew that and never said otherwise.

Lie dismissed.
Wake wrote:
Try and get him to understand that weather satellites can directly measure the average global mean temperature and watch him.

No satellite can measure temperature. They measure light and only light. You cannot determine the absolute temperature of any substance that way unless you accurately know the emissivity of that substance. You do not know the emissivity of Earth. It is not possible to determine it either.
Wake wrote:
Try to get him to understand that the precise measure of MGT isn't as important as being able to distinguish changes and watch.

To measure a change, you must be able to measure in the first place.

You can't.


The Parrot Killer
07-04-2018 19:35
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)

It does not decrease it either. Wakes point does not hold up for the reasons I've described.

You are forgetting that while a substance absorbs only one way (through conversion by harmonic absorption) it can emit it two ways (either through harmonic emission or by translational emission, otherwise known as Planck emission).

CO2 will visibly glow just like any other gas when you get it hot enough. That happens at the same temperature REGARDLESS of what the gas is. That is not harmonic emission, that is Planck emission, coming from the translational vibration of the entire molecule (instead of the molecule stretching or bending). This translation vibration is thermal energy.

Either form of emission allows the molecule to lose energy. A molecule may lose energy by conducting it's thermal energy to another molecule. Energy in many molecules can be dissipated (spread out over a larger area) by being convected upwards too.

All the while ALL molecules are emitting light. ALL molecules are above absolute zero.

Remember all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron or a proton around. That can happen as a whole molecule moves, or when a molecule vibrates in a bending or twisting way.

Your points are still irrelevant. CO2 only absorbs long wave radiation from the ground. It will not get any hotter than the ground. Therefore it will not get hot enough to visibly glow.

CO2's role in keeping the planet warm is to simply block a small portion of the long wave radiation that would normally escape into space. The wavelengths that it blocks are 100% blocked at current CO2 concentrations. Higher concentrations will not block any more than 100% in those bands. What higher concentrations do is make the band a tiny bit wider due to more scattering. They also lower the elevation at which 100% of the radiation in this narrow bandgap is blocked. CO2 also emits radiation almost immediately after it absorbs it.

It should also be noted that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. A few percent change in humidity will cancel out a doubling of CO2 concentration.

The way you are writing, you seem to be thinking that the CO2 is intercepting high intensity short wave radiation from the sun similar to O3. Short wave radiation passes straight through CO2 just as is does N2 and O2. CO2 blocks low intensity radiation from the earth and hence cannot get very hot.
07-04-2018 20:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Jeffvw wrote:

It does not decrease it either. Wakes point does not hold up for the reasons I've described.

You are forgetting that while a substance absorbs only one way (through conversion by harmonic absorption) it can emit it two ways (either through harmonic emission or by translational emission, otherwise known as Planck emission).

CO2 will visibly glow just like any other gas when you get it hot enough. That happens at the same temperature REGARDLESS of what the gas is. That is not harmonic emission, that is Planck emission, coming from the translational vibration of the entire molecule (instead of the molecule stretching or bending). This translation vibration is thermal energy.

Either form of emission allows the molecule to lose energy. A molecule may lose energy by conducting it's thermal energy to another molecule. Energy in many molecules can be dissipated (spread out over a larger area) by being convected upwards too.

All the while ALL molecules are emitting light. ALL molecules are above absolute zero.

Remember all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron or a proton around. That can happen as a whole molecule moves, or when a molecule vibrates in a bending or twisting way.

Your points are still irrelevant. CO2 only absorbs long wave radiation from the ground. It will not get any hotter than the ground. Therefore it will not get hot enough to visibly glow.

CO2's role in keeping the planet warm is to simply block a small portion of the long wave radiation that would normally escape into space. The wavelengths that it blocks are 100% blocked at current CO2 concentrations. Higher concentrations will not block any more than 100% in those bands. What higher concentrations do is make the band a tiny bit wider due to more scattering. They also lower the elevation at which 100% of the radiation in this narrow bandgap is blocked. CO2 also emits radiation almost immediately after it absorbs it.

It should also be noted that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. A few percent change in humidity will cancel out a doubling of CO2 concentration.

The way you are writing, you seem to be thinking that the CO2 is intercepting high intensity short wave radiation from the sun similar to O3. Short wave radiation passes straight through CO2 just as is does N2 and O2. CO2 blocks low intensity radiation from the earth and hence cannot get very hot.


I told you nightmare would try to argue with you. He hasn't even a trace of an understanding that the only way to add enough energy to CO2 to cause it to "glow" is to heat it to around 620 degree F.

Of course that's everywhere in the atmosphere. We often see temperatures of gas molecules at the North Pole at 620 degree F (eyes rolling). What do you bet that he doesn't understand why I would pick the North Pole? He without a doubt would think that it is because it is cold there and that somehow I am trying to mock him. Well, I am trying to mock him but not in that manner.
08-04-2018 20:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Jeffvw wrote:

It does not decrease it either. Wakes point does not hold up for the reasons I've described.

You are forgetting that while a substance absorbs only one way (through conversion by harmonic absorption) it can emit it two ways (either through harmonic emission or by translational emission, otherwise known as Planck emission).

CO2 will visibly glow just like any other gas when you get it hot enough. That happens at the same temperature REGARDLESS of what the gas is. That is not harmonic emission, that is Planck emission, coming from the translational vibration of the entire molecule (instead of the molecule stretching or bending). This translation vibration is thermal energy.

Either form of emission allows the molecule to lose energy. A molecule may lose energy by conducting it's thermal energy to another molecule. Energy in many molecules can be dissipated (spread out over a larger area) by being convected upwards too.

All the while ALL molecules are emitting light. ALL molecules are above absolute zero.

Remember all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron or a proton around. That can happen as a whole molecule moves, or when a molecule vibrates in a bending or twisting way.

Your points are still irrelevant.

Nope. Read the post again.
Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 only absorbs long wave radiation from the ground.

Nope. It absorbs infrared light from ALL sources, including the Sun.
Jeffvw wrote:
It will not get any hotter than the ground.

True. Indeed, it's colder than the surface, just like the rest of our atmosphere is.
Jeffvw wrote:
Therefore it will not get hot enough to visibly glow.

Doesn't have to. It already glows in infrared. You can see it with appropriate instrumentation.
Jeffvw wrote:
CO2's role in keeping the planet warm is to simply block a small portion of the long wave radiation that would normally escape into space.

You cannot slow or trap heat. It's not possible. Anything CO2 absorbs becomes part of the radiance of the atmosphere.
Jeffvw wrote:
The wavelengths that it blocks are 100% blocked at current CO2 concentrations. Higher concentrations will not block any more than 100% in those bands.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
Jeffvw wrote:
What higher concentrations do is make the band a tiny bit wider due to more scattering. They also lower the elevation at which 100% of the radiation in this narrow bandgap is blocked.

Makes no difference.
Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 also emits radiation almost immediately after it absorbs it.

True. That does not warm the Earth.
Jeffvw wrote:
It should also be noted that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas.

Water vapor does not have the capability to warm the Earth either. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.
Jeffvw wrote:
A few percent change in humidity will cancel out a doubling of CO2 concentration.

Makes no difference.
Jeffvw wrote:
The way you are writing, you seem to be thinking that the CO2 is intercepting high intensity short wave radiation from the sun similar to O3.

Short wave radiation passes straight through CO2 just as is does N2 and O2.

Go read the post again.
Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 blocks low intensity radiation from the earth and hence cannot get very hot.

It cannot warm the Earth either.

There is a rather inconvenient little theory you are ignoring, known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Yes, CO2 does emit radiance, just like everything else on Earth does. It has less energy, however, then the surface. It is COLDER than the surface. You cannot heat a warmer object using a colder one. You cannot do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.

You are also ignoring another little theory of science, known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law states: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature^4

Where:
radiance is in W emitted per square meter,
SBconstant is a constant that essentially converts the equation to our units of measure,
emissivity is a measured constant between 0 (perfectly white body) to 100% (perfectly black body). All real bodies are 'gray'...some value between 0 and 100%.

It means radiance is proportional to temperature.

By blocking radiance, you are reducing radiance. You are then claiming that this increases temperature. You are stating that radiance and temperature are inversely proportional, in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

If Earth, for any reason, has a reduced radiance, it means it is getting colder, not warmer.

You don't get energy for free. You can't block or trap energy from the Sun. ALL energy from the sun is emitted again by the Earth. The only energy produced by Earth itself is the energy from nuclear fission at our core. NOTHING in the atmosphere produces energy.

You cannot store or trap heat. You cannot store or trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You can reduce heat using an insulation of some sort, but insulation does not add energy in any way. It does not make anything hotter. Putting a coat on a rock or a dead body does not make it warmer.


The Parrot Killer
08-04-2018 20:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:

It does not decrease it either. Wakes point does not hold up for the reasons I've described.

You are forgetting that while a substance absorbs only one way (through conversion by harmonic absorption) it can emit it two ways (either through harmonic emission or by translational emission, otherwise known as Planck emission).

CO2 will visibly glow just like any other gas when you get it hot enough. That happens at the same temperature REGARDLESS of what the gas is. That is not harmonic emission, that is Planck emission, coming from the translational vibration of the entire molecule (instead of the molecule stretching or bending). This translation vibration is thermal energy.

Either form of emission allows the molecule to lose energy. A molecule may lose energy by conducting it's thermal energy to another molecule. Energy in many molecules can be dissipated (spread out over a larger area) by being convected upwards too.

All the while ALL molecules are emitting light. ALL molecules are above absolute zero.

Remember all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron or a proton around. That can happen as a whole molecule moves, or when a molecule vibrates in a bending or twisting way.

Your points are still irrelevant. CO2 only absorbs long wave radiation from the ground. It will not get any hotter than the ground. Therefore it will not get hot enough to visibly glow.

CO2's role in keeping the planet warm is to simply block a small portion of the long wave radiation that would normally escape into space. The wavelengths that it blocks are 100% blocked at current CO2 concentrations. Higher concentrations will not block any more than 100% in those bands. What higher concentrations do is make the band a tiny bit wider due to more scattering. They also lower the elevation at which 100% of the radiation in this narrow bandgap is blocked. CO2 also emits radiation almost immediately after it absorbs it.

It should also be noted that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. A few percent change in humidity will cancel out a doubling of CO2 concentration.

The way you are writing, you seem to be thinking that the CO2 is intercepting high intensity short wave radiation from the sun similar to O3. Short wave radiation passes straight through CO2 just as is does N2 and O2. CO2 blocks low intensity radiation from the earth and hence cannot get very hot.


I told you nightmare would try to argue with you. He hasn't even a trace of an understanding that the only way to add enough energy to CO2 to cause it to "glow" is to heat it to around 620 degree F.

Of course that's everywhere in the atmosphere. We often see temperatures of gas molecules at the North Pole at 620 degree F (eyes rolling). What do you bet that he doesn't understand why I would pick the North Pole? He without a doubt would think that it is because it is cold there and that somehow I am trying to mock him. Well, I am trying to mock him but not in that manner.

Go read the post again, stupid.


The Parrot Killer
09-04-2018 02:08
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
It cannot warm the Earth either.

CO2 does not directly warm the earth. It slows the cooling process. Additional CO2 makes very little difference. The effect is logarithmic.

I still cannot tell what you are arguing.

Do you think CO2 has an effect on temperature? I seriously can't tell if you are a believer that CO2 is the source of all evil, or if you think that it has no impact.
09-04-2018 10:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It cannot warm the Earth either.

CO2 does not directly warm the earth.

I does not directly or indirectly warm the Earth. It can't. No gas or vapor has that capability.
Jeffvw wrote:
It slows the cooling process.

It can't. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas in the atmosphere.
Jeffvw wrote:
Additional CO2 makes very little difference. The effect is logarithmic.

Irrelevant.
Jeffvw wrote:
I still cannot tell what you are arguing.

That no gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Jeffvw wrote:
Do you think CO2 has an effect on temperature?

No. It can't.
Jeffvw wrote:
I seriously can't tell if you are a believer that CO2 is the source of all evil, or if you think that it has no impact.

It has no impact whatsoever.


The Parrot Killer
09-04-2018 14:57
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It cannot warm the Earth either.

CO2 does not directly warm the earth. It slows the cooling process. Additional CO2 makes very little difference. The effect is logarithmic.

I still cannot tell what you are arguing.

Do you think CO2 has an effect on temperature? I seriously can't tell if you are a believer that CO2 is the source of all evil, or if you think that it has no impact.


This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him. No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said. At one point he said he was American Indian. But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

So I finally put him on ignore because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/
09-04-2018 15:51
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 does not directly warm the earth.

I does not directly or indirectly warm the Earth. It can't. No gas or vapor has that capability.

Are you saying the the atmosphere has no impact on planetary temperature? The atmosphere has a large impact. Even an atmosphere with no GHG's brings up average global temperatures by significantly cooling the hot spots by convection. This reduces the outgoing radiation significantly per the Stefan Boltzmann law, which brings up the average temperature.

Look at the Moon as an example. One reason that the average is so much cooler than predicted is because the day time side gets very hot which drastically increased the outgoing radiation (the T^4 relationship). If there were an atmosphere, it would reduce the high temperature by cooling the surface and transferring some of the energy to cooler locations in an attempt to equalize temperatures. Even slight cooling of the high temperature has a large impact on outgoing radiation.
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
It slows the cooling process.

It can't. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas in the atmosphere.

CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation in certain bandwidths. Some of the re-emitted radiation comes back to earth. If you look at a spectrum looking at earth from space, you will see that there is lower intensity coming from those bandwidths. For example, if the surface is 320 K, the thermal spectra will match the profile, except at the bands that are absorbed by CO2 and other GHG's. The CO2 bands match a profile of 220 K, which is much cooler. This is a result of much of the energy being re-radiated back to the earth. This means that the earth warms slightly to compensate.
Into the Night wrote:
It has no impact whatsoever.

Thanks, I'm clear on what you think.
09-04-2018 16:01
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Wake wrote:
This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him. No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said. At one point he said he was American Indian. But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

So I finally put him on ignore because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

I think I finally understand his point of view. He doesn't believe that CO2 (or even water vapor, or anything else) has any impact at all on global temperature. Definitely a unique opinion.
09-04-2018 17:00
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Jeffvw wrote:
Wake wrote:
This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him. No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said. At one point he said he was American Indian. But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

So I finally put him on ignore because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

I think I finally understand his point of view. He doesn't believe that CO2 (or even water vapor, or anything else) has any impact at all on global temperature. Definitely a unique opinion.


Nightare isn't stupid but he refuses to learn. That is certainly unique in my experience. I had many problems with other engineers under my management but it was never that they were afraid that learning something would affect their opinions.

I found it shocking that among his statements were that you couldn't measure the Earth's MGT because all you could measure was "light" and "light isn't temperature". This from a man who cannot stop from talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

If you ask him how we can measure the surface temperature of the Sun he will tell you that it is a blackbody and so you can use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. But somehow he doesn't understand that inasmuch as the Earth has an energy balance of 1:1 that it too is a blackbody and that precisely the same method of measuring the Sun's temperature works equally well for the Earth.

I have simply given up the hope of ever getting him to understand anything because he is anti-science for no other reason than to argue with others.
09-04-2018 17:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It cannot warm the Earth either.

CO2 does not directly warm the earth. It slows the cooling process. Additional CO2 makes very little difference. The effect is logarithmic.

I still cannot tell what you are arguing.

Do you think CO2 has an effect on temperature? I seriously can't tell if you are a believer that CO2 is the source of all evil, or if you think that it has no impact.


This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him.

Science and mathematics isn't idiotic.
Wake wrote:
No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

They say it all the time. You've said it too.
Wake wrote:
Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said.

It is YOU that is quibbling over words. It is YOU that attempts to redefine theories of science. It is YOU that is trying to change the rules of statistical mathematics.
Wake wrote:
At one point he said he was American Indian.

While I have some American Indian blood in me, I don't consider myself an American Indian. I never said I did.
Wake wrote:
But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife
I am and I do.
Wake wrote:
who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.
She didn't need to tell me, but she laughs at your ridiculous position.
Wake wrote:
So I finally put him on ignore
You sure work hard at 'ignoring' me. LOL
Wake wrote:
because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Your problem, borne out of your bulverism, bigotry, and anger.
Wake wrote:
Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

An old joke.


The Parrot Killer
09-04-2018 18:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 does not directly warm the earth.

I does not directly or indirectly warm the Earth. It can't. No gas or vapor has that capability.

Are you saying the the atmosphere has no impact on planetary temperature?

No. It just doesn't warm the Earth.
Jeffvw wrote:
The atmosphere has a large impact.

True, but not to warm or cool the Earth.
Jeffvw wrote:
Even an atmosphere with no GHG's brings up average global temperatures by significantly cooling the hot spots by convection.

?? So the Earth gets hotter by getting cooler???
Jeffvw wrote:
This reduces the outgoing radiation significantly per the Stefan Boltzmann law, which brings up the average temperature.

Wups. The Stefan-Boltzmann law says that radiance is proportional to temperature, not inversely proportional. Try not to redefine the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
Look at the Moon as an example.
Ok.
Jeffvw wrote:
One reason that the average is so much cooler than predicted

No one is predicting the temperature of the Moon. Neither is it possible to measure the temperature of the Moon (or the Earth for that matter).
Jeffvw wrote:
is because the day time side gets very hot which drastically increased the outgoing radiation (the T^4 relationship).
What about the night side?
Jeffvw wrote:
If there were an atmosphere, it would reduce the high temperature by cooling the surface and transferring some of the energy to cooler locations in an attempt to equalize temperatures.

But according to you, cooler = hotter.
Jeffvw wrote:
Even slight cooling of the high temperature has a large impact on outgoing radiation.

True. The relationship is temperature^4.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
It slows the cooling process.

It can't. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas in the atmosphere.

CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation in certain bandwidths.

While true, it also emits on any bandwidth, just like any substance does. You still don't know the difference between harmonic radiance and Planck radiance.
Jeffvw wrote:
Some of the re-emitted radiation comes back to earth.

So what? That can't warm the Earth. You are trying to use what I call the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance.
Jeffvw wrote:
If you look at a spectrum looking at earth from space, you will see that there is lower intensity coming from those bandwidths.

So what? Radiance is not a single frequency.
Jeffvw wrote:
For example, if the surface is 320 K, the thermal spectra will match the profile, except at the bands that are absorbed by CO2 and other GHG's.

It is not 115 deg F everywhere on Earth.
Jeffvw wrote:
The CO2 bands match a profile of 220 K, which is much cooler.

It is not minus 63 deg F everywhere on Earth either.
Jeffvw wrote:
This is a result of much of the energy being re-radiated back to the earth.

You can't heat a warmer substance using a colder one. You can't make hot coffee with an ice cube. You are trying to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Jeffvw wrote:
This means that the earth warms slightly to compensate.

WRONG. The 2nd law of thermodynamics gives a direction to heat. Heat never flows from cold to hot. You can't do it. The Magick Bouncing Photon argument violates both the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It has no impact whatsoever.

Thanks, I'm clear on what you think.

You're welcome.


The Parrot Killer
09-04-2018 18:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Jeffvw wrote:
Wake wrote:
This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him. No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said. At one point he said he was American Indian. But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

So I finally put him on ignore because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

I think I finally understand his point of view. He doesn't believe that CO2 (or even water vapor, or anything else) has any impact at all on global temperature. Definitely a unique opinion.


The only thing an atmosphere does is limit the temperature swing at the surface and provide some absorption of energy from the Sun. An atmosphere has mass. It behaves like any mass. It takes time to change temperature.

The Earth rotates once every 24 hours.

The Moon rotates once every 28 days.

If the daytime on Earth lasted 14 days, how hot do you think our daytime temperatures would get?

If the nighttime on Earth lasted 14 days, how cold do you think our nighttime would get?

The Moon does not have an atmosphere to limit temperature swing either. Neither does the ISS. The Earth does.


The Parrot Killer
09-04-2018 18:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Wake wrote:
This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him. No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said. At one point he said he was American Indian. But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

So I finally put him on ignore because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

I think I finally understand his point of view. He doesn't believe that CO2 (or even water vapor, or anything else) has any impact at all on global temperature. Definitely a unique opinion.


Nightare isn't stupid but he refuses to learn.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
That is certainly unique in my experience.

It IS your experience. Like most in the Church of Global Warming, you refuse to learn.
Wake wrote:
I had many problems with other engineers under my management but it was never that they were afraid that learning something would affect their opinions.

You don't have any engineers under your management. You don't know the first thing about management, very little about engineering, and you deny science and mathematics.
Wake wrote:
I found it shocking that among his statements were that you couldn't measure the Earth's MGT because all you could measure was "light" and "light isn't temperature".

Light isn't temperature. Light isn't thermal energy. You require the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which you deny) to convert that to temperature, but you don't know the emissivity of Earth. That is also not possible to determine.
Wake wrote:
This from a man who cannot stop from talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. You constantly try to rewrite it.
Wake wrote:
If you ask him how we can measure the surface temperature of the Sun

You can't. You can only estimate it. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is not used for this purpose. Wien's law is used.
Wake wrote:
he will tell you that it is a blackbody and so you can use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

No, I won't. You can't use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation because you don't know the emissivity of the Sun.
Wake wrote:
But somehow he doesn't understand that inasmuch as the Earth has an energy balance of 1:1 that it too is a blackbody

Not what makes something follow blackbody math, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
and that precisely the same method of measuring the Sun's temperature

You can't measure the Sun's temperature. You can only estimate it.
Wake wrote:
works equally well for the Earth.

You can't use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to measure Earth's temperature. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.

You can't use Wien's law to measure the temperature of anything. It's only good for a general estimate by using comparisons.
Wake wrote:
I have simply given up the hope of ever getting him to understand anything because he is anti-science for no other reason than to argue with others.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying theories of science. It is YOU that denies and tries to rewrite the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is YOU that denies both probability and statistical mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
09-04-2018 20:09
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
I use Yandex, see what I mean ...

Degeneracy and Fundamentalism of Western Media Control
https://journal-neo.org/2018/04/08/degeneracy-and-fundamentalism-of-western-media-control/
09-04-2018 20:30
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
The only thing an atmosphere does is limit the temperature swing at the surface and provide some absorption of energy from the Sun. An atmosphere has mass. It behaves like any mass. It takes time to change temperature.

The Earth rotates once every 24 hours.

The Moon rotates once every 28 days.

If the daytime on Earth lasted 14 days, how hot do you think our daytime temperatures would get?

If the nighttime on Earth lasted 14 days, how cold do you think our nighttime would get?

The Moon does not have an atmosphere to limit temperature swing either. Neither does the ISS. The Earth does.

The Parrot Killer

For a 14 day daytime earth's peak temperature would be much higher than it is, but would not be as high as the moon's since the earth has an atmosphere to limit temperature swing. Earth's nighttime temperatures would also drop a lot, but not as much as the moons since it has an atmosphere. Earth's average temperatures would drop significantly due to the much higher peak temperatures, but would not be as low as the moon's for the same reasons.

Here's a simple illustration to show how this works. First, we have to agree that total incoming radiation must equal total outgoing radiation.

Take a fictional planet that has an uniform average temperature of 293.15 K. Assuming it is a perfect black-body, it is emitting an average of 419 W/m^2. This means that the radiation received is also 419 W/m^2.

Now, let's take a fictional planet that has an average temperature of 293.15 K, but with one side with a uniform temperature of 93.15 K and the other side with a uniform temperature of 493.15 K. This means that the side at 93.15 K is emitting to space an average of 4.3 W/m^2, and the side at 493.15 is emitting to space an average of 3354 W/m^2. Averaging the two sides together you get 1679.15 W/m^2 that the planet is emitting. This is much higher than the 419 W/m^2 that the planet is receiving; so this cannot be. From a radiation perspective, the planets average temperature equates to 415 K.

You will notice that the average emissions are not even close between the 2 planets. In order to get the two planets to match total emissions, we need to cool the entire planet significantly. To make this simple, I'll assume that the cold side will be 0K and calculate the highest possible temperature on the warm side. That would be twice the average black-body temperature of the uniform planet or 2*419 W/m^2 or 838 W/m^2. This equates to 349 K on one side and 0 K on the other side for an average temperature of 174.5 K.

Given a fixed incoming radiation of 419 W/m^2, the uniform temperature planet would have an average temperature of 293.15 K. The planet with the ultimate extremes in temperature would only average 174.5 K, or a 118.65 K difference.

This is the effect of the T^4 term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This makes average temperatures meaningless.

This is why an atmosphere that limits temperature swings makes a huge difference. That is also why runaway warming is not possible.
09-04-2018 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Jeffvw wrote:
The only thing an atmosphere does is limit the temperature swing at the surface and provide some absorption of energy from the Sun. An atmosphere has mass. It behaves like any mass. It takes time to change temperature.

The Earth rotates once every 24 hours.

The Moon rotates once every 28 days.

If the daytime on Earth lasted 14 days, how hot do you think our daytime temperatures would get?

If the nighttime on Earth lasted 14 days, how cold do you think our nighttime would get?

The Moon does not have an atmosphere to limit temperature swing either. Neither does the ISS. The Earth does.

The Parrot Killer

For a 14 day daytime earth's peak temperature would be much higher than it is,

Ok, but how high?
Jeffvw wrote:
but would not be as high as the moon's since the earth has an atmosphere to limit temperature swing.

The atmosphere on limits the temperature swing per unit of time. It is mass. All mass behaves this way. Give it long enough, and daytime temperatures will equal that of the Moon.
Jeffvw wrote:
Earth's nighttime temperatures would also drop a lot, but not as much as the moons since it has an atmosphere.

Give it long enough, and the nighttime temperatures will equal that of the Moon.
Jeffvw wrote:
Earth's average temperatures would drop significantly due to the much higher peak temperatures, but would not be as low as the moon's for the same reasons.

Hot does not equal cold. Cold does not equal hot.
Jeffvw wrote:
Here's a simple illustration to show how this works. First, we have to agree that total incoming radiation must equal total outgoing radiation.

Works for me.
Jeffvw wrote:
Take a fictional planet that has an uniform average temperature of 293.15 K. Assuming it is a perfect black-body, it is emitting an average of 419 W/m^2. This means that the radiation received is also 419 W/m^2.

So far so good.
Jeffvw wrote:
Now, let's take a fictional planet that has an average temperature of 293.15 K, but with one side with a uniform temperature of 93.15 K and the other side with a uniform temperature of 493.15 K. This means that the side at 93.15 K is emitting to space an average of 4.3 W/m^2, and the side at 493.15 is emitting to space an average of 3354 W/m^2. Averaging the two sides together you get 1679.15 W/m^2 that the planet is emitting. This is much higher than the 419 W/m^2 that the planet is receiving; so this cannot be. From a radiation perspective, the planets average temperature equates to 415 K.

Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.
Jeffvw wrote:
You will notice that the average emissions are not even close between the 2 planets.

Because you made a math error.
Jeffvw wrote:
In order to get the two planets to match total emissions, we need to cool the entire planet significantly.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law says otherwise.
Jeffvw wrote:
To make this simple, I'll assume that the cold side will be 0K and calculate the highest possible temperature on the warm side. That would be twice the average black-body temperature of the uniform planet or 2*419 W/m^2 or 838 W/m^2. This equates to 349 K on one side and 0 K on the other side for an average temperature of 174.5 K.

Given a fixed incoming radiation of 419 W/m^2, the uniform temperature planet would have an average temperature of 293.15 K. The planet with the ultimate extremes in temperature would only average 174.5 K, or a 118.65 K difference.

Again, you failed to account for the exponent being transferred through your averaging. You are just dropping it entirely. That's a math error.
Jeffvw wrote:
This is the effect of the T^4 term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This makes average temperatures meaningless.

Both Kirchoff's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law disagree.
Jeffvw wrote:
This is why an atmosphere that limits temperature swings makes a huge difference.

It only limits the swing per unit of time. You should probably go study what specific heat is all about.
Jeffvw wrote:
That is also why runaway warming is not possible.

Runaway warming is not possible, for not for these reasons.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-04-2018 21:29
09-04-2018 22:00
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.
10-04-2018 00:04
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Jeffvw wrote:
Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.


When he says "math error" that means he doesn't know what he's talking about. Very soon he will resort to using words from his "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart". I saw one in a used book store and opened it up and it had all of his fake terms in it. It was hilarious.

I think that one time I used "math" as short for a trig calculation and he said that it wasn't math - it was trig. He didn't even understand that when I show the work that obviously I know it's trig. He isn't even aware that math is ANY use of numbers to discover patterns.
10-04-2018 04:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Jeffvw wrote:
Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.


Your average temperatures failed to include the 4th power and you equivocated with radiance, which is not to the 4th power.

You should apply Kirchoff's law, which handles situations like this.

The end result is that you should calculate the average temperature of the entire body before calculating the radiance.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-04-2018 04:25
10-04-2018 04:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.


When he says "math error" that means he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I do know what I'm talking about.
Wake wrote:
Very soon he will resort to using words from his "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart". I saw one in a used book store and opened it up and it had all of his fake terms in it. It was hilarious.

If you can't understand the terminology that's your problem. Calling it the 'big book of words' simply shows you don't know the terminology.
Wake wrote:
I think that one time I used "math" as short for a trig calculation and he said that it wasn't math - it was trig.

It wasn't anything.
Wake wrote:
He didn't even understand that when I show the work that obviously I know it's trig.

No, it wasn't anything.
Wake wrote:
He isn't even aware that math is ANY use of numbers to discover patterns.

WRONG. Math is a closed system, based on a primary set of axioms. It is not used to discover patterns. It is a set of rules, stemming from those defining axioms and upwards through formal proofs.


The Parrot Killer
10-04-2018 15:14
Jeffvw
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.


Your average temperatures failed to include the 4th power and you equivocated with radiance, which is not to the 4th power.

No, I said that the blackbody energy flux at 293.15 K (20 degrees C) is 419 W/m^2. You get that by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is P/A = σ * ε * T⁴. In this case σ = 5.670367 * 10⁻⁸ W/m^2 K^4. ε = 1, and T=293.15. Using your favorite calculator or spreadsheet you get 419 W/M^2. I used the same equation for my other numbers.
You should apply Kirchoff's law, which handles situations like this.

I did. Kirchoff's law states that 'any body at thermal equilibrium emits as much heat radiation as it receives at any given wavelength and temperature'. That is why I said that incoming energy flux must equal outgoing energy flux. In my example I said that the total averaged flux (both incoming and outgoing) must equal 419 W/m^2.
The end result is that you should calculate the average temperature of the entire body before calculating the radiance.

You entirely missed the point of my post and example. An average temperature is meaningless for calculating radiance. The only way an average temperature would have any meaning is if there was a linear relationship between energy and temperature. Since there is a T^4 relationship, an average temperature means nothing.
10-04-2018 15:38
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.


Your average temperatures failed to include the 4th power and you equivocated with radiance, which is not to the 4th power.

No, I said that the blackbody energy flux at 293.15 K (20 degrees C) is 419 W/m^2. You get that by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is P/A = σ * ε * T⁴. In this case σ = 5.670367 * 10⁻⁸ W/m^2 K^4. ε = 1, and T=293.15. Using your favorite calculator or spreadsheet you get 419 W/M^2. I used the same equation for my other numbers.
You should apply Kirchoff's law, which handles situations like this.

I did. Kirchoff's law states that 'any body at thermal equilibrium emits as much heat radiation as it receives at any given wavelength and temperature'. That is why I said that incoming energy flux must equal outgoing energy flux. In my example I said that the total averaged flux (both incoming and outgoing) must equal 419 W/m^2.
The end result is that you should calculate the average temperature of the entire body before calculating the radiance.

You entirely missed the point of my post and example. An average temperature is meaningless for calculating radiance. The only way an average temperature would have any meaning is if there was a linear relationship between energy and temperature. Since there is a T^4 relationship, an average temperature means nothing.


Did I not tell you that he would argue with you? And from a position of almost complete ignorance. He has absolutely no understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, Planck's equations, Wein's law etc. He has no understanding of how they are all intertwined.
10-04-2018 19:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.


Your average temperatures failed to include the 4th power and you equivocated with radiance, which is not to the 4th power.

No, I said that the blackbody energy flux at 293.15 K (20 degrees C) is 419 W/m^2. You get that by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is P/A = σ * ε * T⁴. In this case σ = 5.670367 * 10⁻⁸ W/m^2 K^4. ε = 1, and T=293.15. Using your favorite calculator or spreadsheet you get 419 W/M^2. I used the same equation for my other numbers.
You should apply Kirchoff's law, which handles situations like this.

I did. Kirchoff's law states that 'any body at thermal equilibrium emits as much heat radiation as it receives at any given wavelength and temperature'. That is why I said that incoming energy flux must equal outgoing energy flux. In my example I said that the total averaged flux (both incoming and outgoing) must equal 419 W/m^2.
The end result is that you should calculate the average temperature of the entire body before calculating the radiance.

You entirely missed the point of my post and example. An average temperature is meaningless for calculating radiance. The only way an average temperature would have any meaning is if there was a linear relationship between energy and temperature. Since there is a T^4 relationship, an average temperature means nothing.


I see you are pointing out the same math error I was pointing out.

Kirchoff's law is used for summing nodes in a system. In this case, the energy system of Earth. It essentially requires the temperature should be averaged before any radiance calculation.

So we basically agree. Averaging the temperatures and radiance in the way you are suggesting means nothing.


The Parrot Killer
10-04-2018 19:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.


Your average temperatures failed to include the 4th power and you equivocated with radiance, which is not to the 4th power.

No, I said that the blackbody energy flux at 293.15 K (20 degrees C) is 419 W/m^2. You get that by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is P/A = σ * ε * T⁴. In this case σ = 5.670367 * 10⁻⁸ W/m^2 K^4. ε = 1, and T=293.15. Using your favorite calculator or spreadsheet you get 419 W/M^2. I used the same equation for my other numbers.
You should apply Kirchoff's law, which handles situations like this.

I did. Kirchoff's law states that 'any body at thermal equilibrium emits as much heat radiation as it receives at any given wavelength and temperature'. That is why I said that incoming energy flux must equal outgoing energy flux. In my example I said that the total averaged flux (both incoming and outgoing) must equal 419 W/m^2.
The end result is that you should calculate the average temperature of the entire body before calculating the radiance.

You entirely missed the point of my post and example. An average temperature is meaningless for calculating radiance. The only way an average temperature would have any meaning is if there was a linear relationship between energy and temperature. Since there is a T^4 relationship, an average temperature means nothing.


Did I not tell you that he would argue with you? And from a position of almost complete ignorance. He has absolutely no understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, Planck's equations, Wein's law etc. He has no understanding of how they are all intertwined.


Yes I do. It is YOU that has trouble comprehending these laws and what they do. YOU deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You deny Wien's law as well. As far as Planck's law, you are just using it as a buzzword. You don't know what it really does either.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Google And Fake News:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Alan Rusbridger: Climate change must be prominent on our news websites ...020-05-2018 11:59
Incredible News! Climate Change Really *was* Just a Hoax *all along*!1821-08-2017 22:36
News Flashes5320-03-2017 07:40
climate change media stories made me so sick I never google climate change ever again320-02-2016 14:44
▲ 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