human contribution by the numbers

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > human contribution by the numbers

Page 1 of 2

human contribution by the numbers02-12-2015 05:10
hotandcold ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	As near as I can tell from what I can glean from the mountain of propaganda, it seems to boil down to just a few numbers. 1. The problem with global warming began at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The year 1750 seems to be the general consensus as to when this all started. 2. In the year 1750 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is estimated to have been 280 Parts Per Million (PPM). As a percentage, CO2 was then 0.028% of the atmosphere. 3. It appears to be accepted that since the year 1880, the earth has warmed globally 0.5 degrees. Just so we are talking about the same time period, let's extrapolate that back to the year 1750 and make a guess that the earth warmed 0.5 degrees in that time period also, making a total of 1 degree rise in global temperature. 4. This year, CO2 content climbed to 400 PPM or 0.04% of the atmosphere. So, since 1750, CO2 has increased 120 PPM. 5. It is estimated that the atmosphere contains about 750 Billion tons of CO2, of which 29 Billion tons are man caused. So, approximately 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. 6. Therefore, since 1750, man has contributed about 5 PPM and Nature has contributed about 115 PPM. 7. If man caused CO2 accounts for 4% of the CO2, then we can only take credit for 4% of the 1 degree temperature rise since 1750 which is 0.04 degrees. 8. So, in the last 250 years the sum total of all human activity managed to raise the temperature 0.04 degrees. Here's to our next 0.04 degrees in the next 250 years. And that is what all this fuss is about!
02-12-2015 05:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	hotandcold wrote: As near as I can tell from what I can glean from the mountain of propaganda, it seems to boil down to just a few numbers. 1. The problem with global warming began at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The year 1750 seems to be the general consensus as to when this all started. 2. In the year 1750 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is estimated to have been 280 Parts Per Million (PPM). As a percentage, CO2 was then 0.028% of the atmosphere. 3. It appears to be accepted that since the year 1880, the earth has warmed globally 0.5 degrees. Just so we are talking about the same time period, let's extrapolate that back to the year 1750 and make a guess that the earth warmed 0.5 degrees in that time period also, making a total of 1 degree rise in global temperature. 4. This year, CO2 content climbed to 400 PPM or 0.04% of the atmosphere. So, since 1750, CO2 has increased 120 PPM. 5. It is estimated that the atmosphere contains about 750 Billion tons of CO2, of which 29 Billion tons are man caused. So, approximately 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. 6. Therefore, since 1750, man has contributed about 5 PPM and Nature has contributed about 115 PPM. 7. If man caused CO2 accounts for 4% of the CO2, then we can only take credit for 4% of the 1 degree temperature rise since 1750 which is 0.04 degrees. 8. So, in the last 250 years the sum total of all human activity managed to raise the temperature 0.04 degrees. Here's to our next 0.04 degrees in the next 250 years. And that is what all this fuss is about! Now consider this: for decades, numbers have been systematically fudged to get that 1-degree of warming. What would a rational person conclude is really going on? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2015 05:43
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	hotandcold wrote: .... 6. Therefore, since 1750, man has contributed about 5 PPM and Nature has contributed about 115 PPM..... So, to what natural process do you attribute the 115 ppm increase?
02-12-2015 12:16
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	still learning wrote: hotandcold wrote: .... 6. Therefore, since 1750, man has contributed about 5 PPM and Nature has contributed about 115 PPM..... So, to what natural process do you attribute the 115 ppm increase? I think he has his numbers wrong but.... If the world warms a bit the oceans will release CO2. This is because cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. Heat up a glass of coke and watch it fizz out. If the world's oceans cool a bit then they have a very powerful capacity to absorb lots of CO2. That is a very bad time for plants on the land. The cooling would produce a lot of drought and the drought of CO2 would also greatly reduce there fertility.
02-12-2015 13:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Tim the plumber wrote:If the world warms a bit the oceans will release CO2. This is an intriguing prediction. Is there some formula of which you are aware that determines the CO2 content of water based on its temperature? Does water suck in CO2 in the Arctic and then expel it as it flows south and warms? Does salinity or pH factor in? Tim the plumber wrote: This is because cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. Heat up a glass of coke and watch it fizz out. I didn't have any Coke but I greatly heated some sea water. It never fizzed out. Tim the plumber wrote:If the world's oceans cool a bit then they have a very powerful capacity to absorb lots of CO2. So really cold water at the poles is sucking in the CO2? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

02-12-2015 13:41
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=CO2+concentrations+in+sea+water+by+temperature&biw=1280&bih=913&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ4pWzir3JAhUCBBoKHZ9cB6wQsAQIIw#imgrc=ra5etYAxNWlHQM%3A I couldn't get the thing to copy and paste but yes there is a graph of temperature vs CO2 solubility. And yes the southern ocean absorbs CO2 and takes it deep down to the lower levels of the oceans. this happens where the cold water below 4 degrees c mixes with warmer water from the North at more than 4c. Once the magic 4c is reached water is at maximum density and drops to the ocean depths. It also happens in the Northern oceans but to a far lesser extent. The Southern ocean is very fast, big and always stormy. This process is also what keeps oxygen going down to the depths. Yes fizzing might have been a bit of an exageration but you get the idea. Edited on 02-12-2015 13:41
02-12-2015 14:41
hotandcold ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	Which numbers do you think are incorrect? Because I got all those numbers from websites that are pro global warming. The 120 PPM since 1750 came from epa.gov. The ratio of nature caused to man caused CO2 750PPM/29PPM came from skepticalscience.com which is a web site trying to debunk all the anti global warming sites. The 1 degree since 1750 I extrapolated as I mentioned. But you won't have a problem finding the 0.5 degree warming since 1880. So, the 0.04 degree man made global warming since 1750 is just very simple math using numbers from pro warming web sites. CO2 has increased 40% since 1750, but the atmosphere has only warmed 1 degree. Where is the call to alarm? Whether the sea takes in or gives up CO2 is really irrelevant. You missed the point of my posting. Human activity has contributed next to nothing to global warming. Whether the earth cools or warms is out of our hands. We are just along for the ride and nature is in the drivers seat. Edited on 02-12-2015 14:46
02-12-2015 14:45
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	hotandcold wrote: As near as I can tell from what I can glean from the mountain of propaganda, it seems to boil down to just a few numbers. 1. The problem with global warming began at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The year 1750 seems to be the general consensus as to when this all started. 2. In the year 1750 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is estimated to have been 280 Parts Per Million (PPM). As a percentage, CO2 was then 0.028% of the atmosphere. 3. It appears to be accepted that since the year 1880, the earth has warmed globally 0.5 degrees. Just so we are talking about the same time period, let's extrapolate that back to the year 1750 and make a guess that the earth warmed 0.5 degrees in that time period also, making a total of 1 degree rise in global temperature. 4. This year, CO2 content climbed to 400 PPM or 0.04% of the atmosphere. So, since 1750, CO2 has increased 120 PPM. 5. It is estimated that the atmosphere contains about 750 Billion tons of CO2, of which 29 Billion tons are man caused. So, approximately 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. 6. Therefore, since 1750, man has contributed about 5 PPM and Nature has contributed about 115 PPM. 7. If man caused CO2 accounts for 4% of the CO2, then we can only take credit for 4% of the 1 degree temperature rise since 1750 which is 0.04 degrees. 8. So, in the last 250 years the sum total of all human activity managed to raise the temperature 0.04 degrees. Here's to our next 0.04 degrees in the next 250 years. And that is what all this fuss is about! You've got your numbers wrong. In particular, 29 billion tons is not the cumulative amount of CO2 emitted by human activity; it is the annual amount. Or rather, was the annual amount about a decade ago - it's now risen to about 36 billion tons per year. About half of these emissions accumulate on the atmosphere, and about a quarter each are currently absorbed by land sinks and the oceans. If it were not for these sinks, the atmospheric CO2 concentration would have risen much more.
02-12-2015 14:55
hotandcold ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	So, if what you say is true, then man has contributed over 150 Billion tons of CO2 in just he past 10 years. Let's say the 10 before than was another 140 Billion. The ten before that 130 Billion and so forth back to the year 1750. If that is true, then the CO2 content would be far more than the 750 Billion tons it is today, and the CO2 content would certainly have risen more than 120 PPM since the year 1750. So, I don't think your numbers are correct. Regardless, CO2 is a puny 0.04% of the atmosphere. Hardly any global warming discussions even mention water vapor which is the primary green house gas. And it is also the most widely variable. The fact that the global warming discussion has centralized on CO2 emissions is a sure indicator that the whole thing is a fraud. Edited on 02-12-2015 15:10
02-12-2015 15:21
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	hotandcold wrote: So, if what you say is true, then man has contributed over 150 Billion tons of CO2 in just he past 10 years. Let's say the 10 before than was another 140 Billion. The ten before that 130 Billion and so forth back to the year 1750. If that is true, then the CO2 content would be far more than the 750 Billion tons it is today, and the CO2 content would certainly have risen more than 120 PPM since the year 1750. So, I don't think your numbers are correct. Regardless, CO2 is a puny 0.04% of the atmosphere. Hardly any global warming discussions even mention water vapor which is the primary green house gas. And it is also the most widely variable. The fact that the global warming discussion has centralized on CO2 emissions is a sure indicator that the whole thing is a fraud. Your figure of 750 billion tons for the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is also wrong. The actual figure is about 3,000 billion tons. Also, you have neglected the existence of CO2 sinks. It is widely acknowledged that water vapour is the main greenhouse house - in fact, that is a fundamental part of greenhouse theory. The thing is, though, the concentration of water vapour is a function of temperature. Adding a bit of CO2 raises the temperature a little, which then increases the amount of water vapour and raises the temperature even more. The effect of water vapour is thus to amplify changes in temperature resulting from changes in the concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases.
02-12-2015 16:17
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	hotandcold wrote: Which numbers do you think are incorrect? Because I got all those numbers from websites that are pro global warming. The 120 PPM since 1750 came from epa.gov. The ratio of nature caused to man caused CO2 750PPM/29PPM came from skepticalscience.com which is a web site trying to debunk all the anti global warming sites. The 1 degree since 1750 I extrapolated as I mentioned. But you won't have a problem finding the 0.5 degree warming since 1880. So, the 0.04 degree man made global warming since 1750 is just very simple math using numbers from pro warming web sites. CO2 has increased 40% since 1750, but the atmosphere has only warmed 1 degree. Where is the call to alarm? Whether the sea takes in or gives up CO2 is really irrelevant. You missed the point of my posting. Human activity has contributed next to nothing to global warming. Whether the earth cools or warms is out of our hands. We are just along for the ride and nature is in the drivers seat. Mass of earth's atmosphere; 5.1480 × 10^18 kg x 400ppm = 2 x 10 ^ 12 tonnes Although this site says its 3 not 2. https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/ The best number my breif research into the amount humans produce is 23M tonnes a year, or at least that was the 1990's figure. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/ Edited on 02-12-2015 16:18
02-12-2015 16:22
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Surface Detail wrote:It is widely acknowledged that water vapour is the main greenhouse house - in fact, that is a fundamental part of greenhouse theory. The thing is, though, the concentration of water vapour is a function of temperature. Adding a bit of CO2 raises the temperature a little, which then increases the amount of water vapour and raises the temperature even more. The effect of water vapour is thus to amplify changes in temperature resulting from changes in the concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases. It is more than widely acknowledged it is the central part of the "let's make everybody scared of the GW monster" program. The whole tipping point drivel thing is based on the idea that more CO2 wil raise temperature a bit which will then cause there to be more water vapor about which will cause the temperature to rise a lot which will cause there to be lots mor water vapor........ and on.... This is inspite of the fact that there have been loads of previous periods where the temperature has been a lot higher without this spiral into hell happening. P.S. Skeptical science is crap. It's not scientific, not skeptical and as you have found innumerate. Edited on 02-12-2015 16:23
02-12-2015 16:31
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Tim the plumber wrote: Mass of earth's atmosphere; 5.1480 × 10^18 kg x 400ppm = 2 x 10 ^ 12 tonnes Although this site says its 3 not 2. https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/ It is indeed 3 x 10 ^ 12 tonnes, and the site tells you why. It's because the concentration is given as 400 ppm by volume, whereas we're interested in mass. You forgot to correct for this. The best number my breif research into the amount humans produce is 23M tonnes a year, or at least that was the 1990's figure. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/ Read your source more carefully. It says 23 billion, not million, tonnes per year. Also, that figure is outdated. Nowadays it's more like 36 billion tonnes/year.
02-12-2015 16:40
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Tim the plumber wrote: Surface Detail wrote:It is widely acknowledged that water vapour is the main greenhouse house - in fact, that is a fundamental part of greenhouse theory. The thing is, though, the concentration of water vapour is a function of temperature. Adding a bit of CO2 raises the temperature a little, which then increases the amount of water vapour and raises the temperature even more. The effect of water vapour is thus to amplify changes in temperature resulting from changes in the concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases. It is more than widely acknowledged it is the central part of the "let's make everybody scared of the GW monster" program. The whole tipping point drivel thing is based on the idea that more CO2 wil raise temperature a bit which will then cause there to be more water vapor about which will cause the temperature to rise a lot which will cause there to be lots mor water vapor........ and on.... This is inspite of the fact that there have been loads of previous periods where the temperature has been a lot higher without this spiral into hell happening. P.S. Skeptical science is crap. It's not scientific, not skeptical and as you have found innumerate. So you don't understand feedback mechanisms. Okay. The posters on Skeptical Science seem to be a lot more numerate than the posters on this site. The numbers on their site are fine; it's hardly their fault that hotandcold is getting them confused!
02-12-2015 16:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote:It is widely acknowledged that water vapour is the main greenhouse house Correction: It is widely believed that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. There is no such thing in nature as "greenhouse effect" wherein special magical gases somehow cause an increase in temperature (we can revisit the topic anytime you wish). However, there are many who believe this to be the case, and of those who do, most believe water vapor is the lead grand wizard mack daddy of those magical gases. Expressing a belief in the tooth fairy cannot equate to "acknowledging" its existence. Expressing belief in theological "greenhouse" forces cannot equate to acknowledging existence thereof, regardless of the popularity/ferocity of the belief. Surface Detail wrote:- in fact, that is a fundamental part of greenhouse theory. Correction: It is a fundamental part of your personal "greenhouse effect" theology and of what "greenhouse effect" means to you. Not everyone subscribes to your personal version. In fact, you might be the only person on the planet who thinks "greenhouse effect" both simultaneously increases temperature while it decreases temperature. I would say that your version is rather unique, but the truth is that every single individual's version is unique in a very personal way. Surface Detail wrote: The thing is, though, the concentration of water vapour is a function of temperature. What do you mean by this exactly? I'm intrigued. On a bright, sunny 21C (70F) day, what wil the humidity be? Surface Detail wrote: Adding a bit of CO2 raises the temperature a little, Is this because CO2 violates the 1st LoT or because it violates Planck's law? Surface Detail wrote: which then increases the amount of water vapour and raises the temperature even more. This sounds like a perpetual motion machine! This would be a great time to discuss the 2nd LoT. Surface Detail wrote: The effect of water vapour is thus to amplify changes in temperature resulting from changes in the concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases. So, in your version of "greenhouse effect" ...water vapor is an amplifier to these other magical gases' violations of physics. Intriguing. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

02-12-2015 20:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Tim the plumber wrote: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=CO2+concentrations+in+sea+water+by+temperature&biw=1280&bih=913&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ4pWzir3JAhUCBBoKHZ9cB6wQsAQIIw#imgrc=ra5etYAxNWlHQM%3A I couldn't get the thing to copy and paste but yes there is a graph of temperature vs CO2 solubility. And yes the southern ocean absorbs CO2 and takes it deep down to the lower levels of the oceans. this happens where the cold water below 4 degrees c mixes with warmer water from the North at more than 4c. Once the magic 4c is reached water is at maximum density and drops to the ocean depths. It also happens in the Northern oceans but to a far lesser extent. The Southern ocean is very fast, big and always stormy. This process is also what keeps oxygen going down to the depths. Yes fizzing might have been a bit of an exageration but you get the idea. The oceans do not store CO2 directly. They store as as carbonic acid. This is what supposedly makes the oceans acid, if you believe those who have no sense of proportion. Carbonic acid is so weak most people don't even recognize it as an acid except technically. It is formed in our lungs when we breath, and expelled as carbon dioxide. The ocean does not take it deep down to lower levels. It's density is a tiny amount less than seawater so it basically is distributed throughout shallower depths (like warmer water rising). Oxygen is not involved in this process, except as a component of carbon dioxide. Carbonic acid in the oceans and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follow a state of equilibrium. Like most chemical solubility in water, this equilibrium follows a temperature curve related to the substance being dissolved. In the case of carbon dioxide, this curve is inversely proportional to the temperature of the water. I should point out that the bulk of natural carbon dioxide is volcanic activity and life (or death, in the case of plants). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 02-12-2015 21:01
02-12-2015 21:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: It is widely acknowledged that water vapour is the main greenhouse house - in fact, that is a fundamental part of greenhouse theory. The term 'greenhouse' gas is really a misnomer. While water vapor does have the ability to store energy better than other gases, it does not produce a 'greenhouse' effect. Surface Detail wrote: The thing is, though, the concentration of water vapour is a function of temperature. No, it is not. The concentration possible of water vapor is a function of temperature. The concentration of water vapor is dependent simply on available water. Surface Detail wrote: Adding a bit of CO2 raises the temperature a little, Carbon dioxide cannot raise the temperature any more than water can. Neither are sources of energy. Surface Detail wrote: which then increases the amount of water vapour and raises the temperature even more. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Surface Detail wrote: The effect of water vapour is thus to amplify changes in temperature resulting from changes in the concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases. Utterly wrong. The effect of water vapor (or carbon dioxide for that matter) is to moderate temperature, not increase it. Energy is applied to the atmosphere pulse fashion on the daily cycle. The effect of water vapor or carbon dioxide is to absorb some of that energy during the day cooling the surface, then release it during the night warming the surface. You can see the effect in the temperature swing by comparing any coastal area to a desert area at the same latitude and elevation. Water vapor (or carbon dioxide) does the same thing as atmospheric mass does anyway, but it does it slightly better. It's like adding a 'phantom' mass to the atmosphere, but without the fuss and bother of the extra pressure. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-12-2015 22:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote: The oceans do not store CO2 directly. They store as as carbonic acid. Yes. I am going to call it "carbonic water" to get away from the fear-mongering exaggerations that lead people to think I'm talking about some sort of battery acid. Precipitation passes through the atmosphere and thus decreases in pH...ever so slightly as you have pointed out. Technically, yes, it is an acid at that point and when the now carbonic water falls (or drains) into the ocean (whose pH varies over its vast expanse and depth but averages roughly 8.2) it negligibly, and temporarily, reduces the pH of the ocean. Then the carbonic water eventually evaporates, releasing the CO2 (and the water vapor) into the atmosphere, raising the ocean's pH. It's a cycle. This same cycle has been occurring since there has been an ocean. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2015 22:48
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: It is widely acknowledged that water vapour is the main greenhouse house - in fact, that is a fundamental part of greenhouse theory. The term 'greenhouse' gas is really a misnomer. While water vapor does have the ability to store energy better than other gases, it does not produce a 'greenhouse' effect. Surface Detail wrote: The thing is, though, the concentration of water vapour is a function of temperature. No, it is not. The concentration possible of water vapor is a function of temperature. The concentration of water vapor is dependent simply on available water. Surface Detail wrote: Adding a bit of CO2 raises the temperature a little, Carbon dioxide cannot raise the temperature any more than water can. Neither are sources of energy. Surface Detail wrote: which then increases the amount of water vapour and raises the temperature even more. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Surface Detail wrote: The effect of water vapour is thus to amplify changes in temperature resulting from changes in the concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases. Utterly wrong. The effect of water vapor (or carbon dioxide for that matter) is to moderate temperature, not increase it. Energy is applied to the atmosphere pulse fashion on the daily cycle. The effect of water vapor or carbon dioxide is to absorb some of that energy during the day cooling the surface, then release it during the night warming the surface. You can see the effect in the temperature swing by comparing any coastal area to a desert area at the same latitude and elevation. Water vapor (or carbon dioxide) does the same thing as atmospheric mass does anyway, but it does it slightly better. It's like adding a 'phantom' mass to the atmosphere, but without the fuss and bother of the extra pressure. Obviously all gases have mass and, as you rightly state, their thermal inertia does indeed help to stabilise the temperature at the surface of the Earth. However, in addition to this, gases with molecules containing 3 or more atoms behave in a qualitatively different manner to diatomic and monatomic gases: they are able to absorb and re-radiate infra-red radiation such as that emitted from the surface of the Earth. It is this absorption and re-emission that leads to some of the IR radiation being directed back to the Earth rather being lost to space. This is why such gases have an additional warming effect and why they are known as greenhouse gases. This article published by the American Chemical Society gives a good introduction to the topic: http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html It's well worth a read if you want to improve your understanding of the basic physics underlying the greenhouse effect.
02-12-2015 23:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: It is widely acknowledged that water vapour is the main greenhouse house - in fact, that is a fundamental part of greenhouse theory. The term 'greenhouse' gas is really a misnomer. While water vapor does have the ability to store energy better than other gases, it does not produce a 'greenhouse' effect. Surface Detail wrote: The thing is, though, the concentration of water vapour is a function of temperature. No, it is not. The concentration possible of water vapor is a function of temperature. The concentration of water vapor is dependent simply on available water. Surface Detail wrote: Adding a bit of CO2 raises the temperature a little, Carbon dioxide cannot raise the temperature any more than water can. Neither are sources of energy. Surface Detail wrote: which then increases the amount of water vapour and raises the temperature even more. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Surface Detail wrote: The effect of water vapour is thus to amplify changes in temperature resulting from changes in the concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases. Utterly wrong. The effect of water vapor (or carbon dioxide for that matter) is to moderate temperature, not increase it. Energy is applied to the atmosphere pulse fashion on the daily cycle. The effect of water vapor or carbon dioxide is to absorb some of that energy during the day cooling the surface, then release it during the night warming the surface. You can see the effect in the temperature swing by comparing any coastal area to a desert area at the same latitude and elevation. Water vapor (or carbon dioxide) does the same thing as atmospheric mass does anyway, but it does it slightly better. It's like adding a 'phantom' mass to the atmosphere, but without the fuss and bother of the extra pressure. Obviously all gases have mass and, as you rightly state, their thermal inertia does indeed help to stabilise the temperature at the surface of the Earth. However, in addition to this, gases with molecules containing 3 or more atoms behave in a qualitatively different manner to diatomic and monatomic gases: they are able to absorb and re-radiate infra-red radiation such as that emitted from the surface of the Earth. It is this absorption and re-emission that leads to some of the IR radiation being directed back to the Earth rather being lost to space. This is why such gases have an additional warming effect and why they are known as greenhouse gases. This article published by the American Chemical Society gives a good introduction to the topic: http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html It's well worth a read if you want to improve your understanding of the basic physics underlying the greenhouse effect. Your use of radiation in this way violates Plank's law. It also violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as the first. No mechanism can exist to create energy out of nothing. No mechanism can exist to move energy the wrong way. No mechanism can exist to 'trap' energy without creating the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine that would catastrophically destroy the trap. Energy is not absorbed or radiated in one direction only. The color of emission is determined only by the temperature of the substance, regardless of the substance. Carbon dioxide is not a magick gas that can violate these principles. Neither is water vapor. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-12-2015 23:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: The oceans do not store CO2 directly. They store as as carbonic acid. Yes. I am going to call it "carbonic water" to get away from the fear-mongering exaggerations that lead people to think I'm talking about some sort of battery acid. Precipitation passes through the atmosphere and thus decreases in pH...ever so slightly as you have pointed out. Technically, yes, it is an acid at that point and when the now carbonic water falls (or drains) into the ocean (whose pH varies over its vast expanse and depth but averages roughly 8.2) it negligibly, and temporarily, reduces the pH of the ocean. Then the carbonic water eventually evaporates, releasing the CO2 (and the water vapor) into the atmosphere, raising the ocean's pH. It's a cycle. This same cycle has been occurring since there has been an ocean. . I like it. It would probably make kind of a lousy electrolyte by itself though, because the speed of reaction is so slow the internal resistance of the battery would be quite high. A lemon is a better battery. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-12-2015 00:28
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Your use of radiation in this way violates Plank's law. Planck's Law applies to photons emitted by black bodies, not tenuous gases. It also violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as the first. No, it doesn't. The 2nd LoT applies to net heat flows, not individual photons. No mechanism can exist to create energy out of nothing. Correct. No-one is claiming this. No mechanism can exist to move energy the wrong way. So how do refrigerators exist? No mechanism can exist to 'trap' energy without creating the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine that would catastrophically destroy the trap. Insulation? Clothes? Energy is not absorbed or radiated in one direction only. The color of emission is determined only by the temperature of the substance, regardless of the substance. So a red LED is the same temperature as red-hot iron? Carbon dioxide is not a magick gas that can violate these principles. Neither is water vapor. No, they are not magic. They simply obey the laws of physics. Read the link I gave.
03-12-2015 02:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Your use of radiation in this way violates Plank's law. Planck's Law applies to photons emitted by black bodies, not tenuous gases. Which is a black body substance. Tenuous gas makes no difference. Surface Detail wrote: It also violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as the first. No, it doesn't. The 2nd LoT applies to net heat flows, not individual photons. It doesn't matter if you apply it to one particle or ten. The net aggregate is always the same result. Surface Detail wrote: No mechanism can exist to create energy out of nothing. Correct. No-one is claiming this. You are. Surface Detail wrote: No mechanism can exist to move energy the wrong way. So how do refrigerators exist? By putting more energy into the system to take energy out of another. Energy is still moving from hot to cold, even in a refrigerator. It does so on the condenser coils, as well as the evaporative coils. A pump (energy input) is required to move the heat. Surface Detail wrote: No mechanism can exist to 'trap' energy without creating the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine that would catastrophically destroy the trap. Insulation? Clothes? Insulation (or clothes) do not produce heat. They limit one form of heat transfer by removing convection. Heat loss still takes place, and still increases if the difference in temperature is greater. The open atmosphere is not a blanket. It does not remove convective heat flow. Surface Detail wrote: Energy is not absorbed or radiated in one direction only. The color of emission is determined only by the temperature of the substance, regardless of the substance. So a red LED is the same temperature as red-hot iron? No. An LED lights by electrons falling into lower energy states. It is not the same process. The color of an LED is determined by the band gap of energy between the energized electron and it's natural state within the atom. This is completely dependent on the material used. This method of illumination is found in LEDs, flourescent lighting, lasers, an MRI machine, etc. It requires an electric current to work. Surface Detail wrote: Carbon dioxide is not a magick gas that can violate these principles. Neither is water vapor. No, they are not magic. They simply obey the laws of physics. Read the link I gave. The link you gave is giving carbon dioxide magick properties. So are you. Neither carbon dioxide nor water can warm the Earth without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Neither can radiate or absorb energy directionally. The only thing capable of changing the temperature of the Earth is the sun (the energy source). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-12-2015 02:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law applies to photons emitted by black bodies, not tenuous gases. Planck's law applies to all bodies, whether that body is a planet or a molecule. I get a kick out of Global Warming worshipers trying to explain how the laws of physics somehow "don't apply" in their case. Planck's law applies, always. Surface Detail wrote: No, it doesn't. The 2nd LoT applies to net heat flows, not individual photons. Yes, it absolutely applies to the net heat flow of all individual particles. Surface Detail wrote: No mechanism can exist to move energy the wrong way. So how do refrigerators exist? Semantics. In every step of the refrigeration process, heat is following the 2nd LoT. It's just that work is performed, and thus heat is generated, to successfully perform those steps. In the end, there is less usable energy, per the 2nd LoT. Surface Detail wrote: No mechanism can exist to 'trap' energy without creating the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine that would catastrophically destroy the trap. Insulation? Clothes? More semantic shifting. No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect. Yes, Planck's Law applies right here. It blows a gaping hole in most "greenhouse effect" versions. Surface Detail wrote: So a red LED is the same temperature as red-hot iron? You are guilty of swapping cause for effect. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation, both strength and frequency. As you heat metal, the frequency of the thermal radiation will increase until it rises above the infrared and rises into red, thus glowing red. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 02:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: So a red LED is the same temperature as red-hot iron? You are guilty of swapping cause for effect. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation, both strength and frequency. As you heat metal, the frequency of the thermal radiation will increase until it rises above the infrared and rises into red, thus glowing red. The LED is a bit like twanging the bowstring instead of heating the entire violin. Whenever an electron drops to a lower energy state after being energized for some reason, the fall back to it's lower energy state is what produces the photon. The LED does not radiate as a black body would. Neither do florescent lights or radios. They radiate because you twanged an electron. It requires electrical energy to do it this way. The natural Schottky noise present in all conducting semiconductor junctions provides the twang. The frequency of the twang is dependent on the material (dope) in the junction. One material produces red light, another produces green. Each material is like the tuning of the violin string for a particular frequency. Electrons are point sources of electric fields. If you shake one, the field shakes. That energy moves away from the electron in the form of electromagnet waves, or light. The faster you shake it, the 'bluer' the light. This is why Plank's law works. It take more energy to shake the electron faster. If you have no electric field to do it, the temperature of the substance is what does it, regardless of the substance. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 03-12-2015 02:45
03-12-2015 10:57
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	It's most entertaining to watch you wriggling and contradicting yourself. To take just one of the examples: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Energy is not absorbed or radiated in one direction only. The color of emission is determined only by the temperature of the substance, regardless of the substance. So a red LED is the same temperature as red-hot iron? No. An LED lights by electrons falling into lower energy states. It is not the same process. The color of an LED is determined by the band gap of energy between the energized electron and it's natural state within the atom. This is completely dependent on the material used. This method of illumination is found in LEDs, flourescent lighting, lasers, an MRI machine, etc. It requires an electric current to work. I'm fully aware of how LEDs work. They are just one example of non-thermal emission of radiation that directly contradicts your blanket statement that the colour of emission is determined only by the temperature of a substance. Planck's Law applies specifically to radiation from a blackbody, that is, an idealised material that emits and absorbs at all wavelengths. The atmosphere is most definitely not a blackbody, given that it is quite obviously transparent to some wavelengths and opaque to others. That is why it makes no sense whatsoever to try to apply Planck's Law to the atmosphere. The individual molecules making up the atmosphere are not blackbodies - they absorb and radiate at specific wavelengths. This is why emission and absorption spectra exist. Anyone can rote-learn a few physics formulae from a book, but it takes a proper understanding of physics to determine the situations in which the formulae are applicable.
03-12-2015 18:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote:Anyone can rote-learn a few physics formulae from a book, but it takes a proper understanding of physics to determine the situations in which the formulae are applicable. Please, please, please...go on record officially as stating that to the best of your understanding of physics, Planck's Law only applies to theoretical black bodies and that it does not apply to any actual real bodies in nature, e.g. planets, molecules, etc.. Please draw the line in the sand and make that assertion. We could have this whole thing resolved before lunch. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 18:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	@ Into the Night - Surface Detail has reached the point whereby he realizes he has backed himself into a corner and that his only option is to claim the laws of physics don't apply in his case. Remember that Climate Scientist backed himself into a corner by proposing "greenhouse effect" that violated the 1st LoT and when he finally realized that his underlying dogma was utterly bogus, he did the same thing and tried to declare that the 1st LoT did not apply in his case. His angle was to latch onto the verbiage "in a closed system." Surface Detail's angle is to latch onto the caveat of the model involving a "black body." You and I both know that the laws of physics apply always. There are no situations wherein the laws of physics do not apply. Whenever someone stops presenting his/her case and instead weasels for his case being outside science, s/he is tapping out. Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law applies specifically to radiation from a blackbody, that is, an idealised material that emits and absorbs at all wavelengths. The atmosphere is most definitely not a blackbody, given that it is quite obviously transparent to some wavelengths and opaque to others. That is why it makes no sense whatsoever to try to apply Planck's Law to the atmosphere. The individual molecules making up the atmosphere are not blackbodies - they absorb and radiate at specific wavelengths. This is why emission and absorption spectra exist. Surface Detail wrote:Anyone can rote-learn a few physics formulae from a book, but it takes a proper understanding of physics to determine the situations in which the formulae are applicable. I was just going to tell you that. I'm glad to see that you were able to acknowledge that before you had to be told. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 21:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: It's most entertaining to watch you wriggling and contradicting yourself. To take just one of the examples: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: [quote]Energy is not absorbed or radiated in one direction only. The color of emission is determined only by the temperature of the substance, regardless of the substance. So a red LED is the same temperature as red-hot iron? No. An LED lights by electrons falling into lower energy states. It is not the same process. The color of an LED is determined by the band gap of energy between the energized electron and it's natural state within the atom. This is completely dependent on the material used. This method of illumination is found in LEDs, flourescent lighting, lasers, an MRI machine, etc. It requires an electric current to work. False equivalence. You are comparing two unrelated type of illumination. My statement still applies. It was directed about the atmosphere, which is a black body. It does not run on power lines or batteries. Even electrical storms self-discharge. There is nothing to twang an electron that way. Not even lightning does that. Surface Detail wrote: I'm fully aware of how LEDs work. They are just one example of non-thermal emission of radiation that directly contradicts your blanket statement that the colour of emission is determined only by the temperature of a substance. If you like false equivalences. Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law applies specifically to radiation from a blackbody, that is, an idealised material that emits and absorbs at all wavelengths. The atmosphere is most definitely not a blackbody, given that it is quite obviously transparent to some wavelengths and opaque to others. Wrong it applies to ALL black bodies (non-energy producing materials). It even applies to the LED, whether it's lit or not. Surface Detail wrote: That is why it makes no sense whatsoever to try to apply Planck's Law to the atmosphere. It makes no sense to attempt to limit Plank's law to certain chosen exceptions. It applies everywhere...always...all the time. Surface Detail wrote: The individual molecules making up the atmosphere are not blackbodies - they absorb and radiate at specific wavelengths. This is why emission and absorption spectra exist. Spectra has nothing to do with black body radiation. Spectra occur because of harmonic coupling efficiencies of a frequency of light to an atom in various quantum states. They resonate together. Surface Detail wrote: Anyone can rote-learn a few physics formulae from a book, but it takes a proper understanding of physics to determine the situations in which the formulae are applicable. Q.E.D. You should read your own statement here...very...carefully. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 03-12-2015 21:13
03-12-2015 22:30
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	The Earth's atmosphere is not a blackbody. A blackbody is an idealised material that absorbs all the radiation that falls on it. This is quite obviously not true for the Earth's atmosphere. If it were true, we wouldn't be able to see anything! In fact, there is no such thing as a perfect blackbody in nature (apart from possibly a black hole). Stars come close to being perfect blackbodies due to their highly thermalised photons, but even their emission isn't perfect blackbody radiation. Indeed, it was Joseph von Fraunhofer who noted and catalogued the dips in intensity of solar radiation at certain wavelengths that bear his name. This led to the science of spectroscopy and, famously, to the discovery of helium. Nowadays we can tell a lot about the composition of stars by analysing the deviations from a blackbody spectrum of the radiation they emit. The Earth's emission is analogous to that of the sun, with the approximate blackbody radiation from its surface being modified by its passage through the atmosphere. In the Earth's case, though, the absorption by greenhouse gases in its atmosphere is of course in the IR range rather than, in the case of the much hotter sun, in the visible range. (By the way, Planck's name has a c in it.)

03-12-2015 23:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: The Earth's atmosphere is not a blackbody. For the purposes of Planck's law, it is. Surface Detail wrote: A blackbody is an idealised material that absorbs all the radiation that falls on it. This is quite obviously not true for the Earth's atmosphere. If it were true, we wouldn't be able to see anything! That does not change the application of Planck's law. Surface Detail wrote: In fact, there is no such thing as a perfect blackbody in nature (apart from possibly a black hole). Black holes emit electromagnet radiation, caused by turbulence at the event horizon. Surface Detail wrote: Stars come close to being perfect blackbodies due to their highly thermalised photons, but even their emission isn't perfect blackbody radiation. Indeed, it was Joseph von Fraunhofer who noted and catalogued the dips in intensity of solar radiation at certain wavelengths that bear his name. This led to the science of spectroscopy and, famously, to the discovery of helium. Nowadays we can tell a lot about the composition of stars by analysing the deviations from a blackbody spectrum of the radiation they emit. This still does not cause an exception of Planck's law. Spectra lines from such sources are caused by the resonance of the atoms of that source as they move from one quantum state to another. That effect has nothing to do with black body radiation other than as a comparison, as you say. Surface Detail wrote: The Earth's emission is analogous to that of the sun, with the approximate blackbody radiation from its surface being modified by its passage through the atmosphere. This is where you screw up. The atmosphere has a temperature. At the surface it is the same as the temperature of the surface. The radiation from the atmosphere at the surface is the same as the surface temperature. The color shifts further red due to loss of temperature as you rise in altitude (up to the tropopause). No 'greenhouse' gas changes that at all. The color of emission is the same for all components of the atmosphere since it is not dependent on the composition of any one component. You are making 'greenhouse' gases a magick substance this way. Surface Detail wrote: In the Earth's case, though, the absorption by greenhouse gases in its atmosphere is of course in the IR range rather than, in the case of the much hotter sun, in the visible range. The Earth!....It's all.....glowy! Surface Detail wrote: (By the way, Planck's name has a c in it.) I know. Typo. Durp. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2015 02:13
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Hmm, it would appear that I must further simplify my reasoning. A blackbody, by definition, absorbs all radiation that falls on it. The Earth's atmosphere, quite evidently, does not absorb all radiation that falls on it. Therefore the Earth's atmosphere is not a blackbody. Planck's Law applies only to blackbodies. The Earth's atmosphere is not a blackbody. Therefore Planck's Law does not apply to the Earth's atmosphere. Are you with me so far? (Edit: It's not a typo. You've spelled Planck's name wrongly right throughout the thread. It's been annoying me.) Edited on 04-12-2015 02:39
04-12-2015 07:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote: Hmm, it would appear that I must further simplify my reasoning. A blackbody, by definition, absorbs all radiation that falls on it. The Earth's atmosphere, quite evidently, does not absorb all radiation that falls on it. Therefore the Earth's atmosphere is not a blackbody. Planck's Law applies only to blackbodies. The Earth's atmosphere is not a blackbody. Therefore Planck's Law does not apply to the Earth's atmosphere. Are you with me so far? (Edit: It's not a typo. You've spelled Planck's name wrongly right throughout the thread. It's been annoying me.) Oh, I'm with you. I'll try to simplify this for you so you won't be able to weasel. 1) the earth is a grey body. 2) Planck's law applies to the earth, even though it is a grey body and not a black body. 3) the laws of physics, including Planck's law apply at all times. 4) your attempt to get laws of physics thrown out tips your king. I notice you EVADED stating for the record that, to the best of your understanding of physics, you deny that Planck's law applies to earth. Please state that for the record or address Planck's law (which blows your religion out of the water). At the moment you are down as a "science denier." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-12-2015 20:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: Hmm, it would appear that I must further simplify my reasoning. A blackbody, by definition, absorbs all radiation that falls on it. The Earth's atmosphere, quite evidently, does not absorb all radiation that falls on it. Therefore the Earth's atmosphere is not a blackbody. Planck's Law applies only to blackbodies. The Earth's atmosphere is not a blackbody. Therefore Planck's Law does not apply to the Earth's atmosphere. Are you with me so far? (Edit: It's not a typo. You've spelled Planck's name wrongly right throughout the thread. It's been annoying me.) Grey body or black body, it is the same. Nothing changes about the application of Planck's law...ever. Now, do you want to get fixated on another exception to the laws of physics? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-12-2015 20:54
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	The Earth, like most solid objects, is indeed an approximate blackbody. However, the Earth's atmosphere, being a tenuous gas, is most definitely not anything like a blackbody. This is obvious from the fact that it only absorbs certain wavelengths of the radiation that enters it. Just like the photosphere of the sun, the Earth's atmosphere preferentially absorbs and re-emits certain wavelengths of light. In the case of the sun, the absorption is due to ion excitation and can be seen as dips in the visible part of the approximate blackbody spectrum. In the case of the Earth, which is glowing in the IR rather than the visible, the absorption is due to molecular vibration modes of greenhouse gases; the result of this is that the radiation emitted from the top of the atmosphere has dips in the IR part of the approximate blackbody spectrum. Of course, this scattered radiation from the dips are doesn't just vanish; the missing radiation is that that has been absorbed and re-emitted back down to the Earth's surface. The upshot of this is that the Earth becomes warmer so that its emission spectrum is shifted to higher energies to compensate for the radiation missing from the dips. The greenhouse effect that occurs in the Earth's atmosphere is exactly analogous to the process that occurs in the sun's photosphere that gives rise to the Fraunhofer lines. Edited on 04-12-2015 20:58
04-12-2015 23:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: The Earth, like most solid objects, is indeed an approximate blackbody. However, the Earth's atmosphere, being a tenuous gas, is most definitely not anything like a blackbody. This is obvious from the fact that it only absorbs certain wavelengths of the radiation that enters it. First, the Earth also absorbs certain wavelengths that strike it. Which wavelengths they are depends on the material struck. Second, blackbody (at least you are admitting this much) radiation has nothing to do with absorption. That emission is independent of the substance. It is only dependent on the temperature. You are making a compositional error here, caused by a false equivalence. Surface Detail wrote: Just like the photosphere of the sun, the Earth's atmosphere preferentially absorbs and re-emits certain wavelengths of light. True. And just like the photosphere, the energy emitted has nothing to do with what is absorbed. Surface Detail wrote: In the case of the sun, the absorption is due to ion excitation and can be seen as dips in the visible part of the approximate blackbody spectrum. Wrong. The dips are caused by quantum state changes with the atoms of the photosphere that resonate with certain frequencies of light. Resonance does not trap energy. Surface Detail wrote: In the case of the Earth, which is glowing in the IR rather than the visible, the absorption is due to molecular vibration modes of greenhouse gases; Wrong. It is due to the same reasons as the photosphere in the sun. Molecular vibration modes only serve to allow a substance an ability to absorb and release slightly more energy than simple mass. It acts as if it has a 'phantom' mass that isn't really there, yet resists change of kinetic energy the same as any mass. Surface Detail wrote: the result of this is that the radiation emitted from the top of the atmosphere has dips in the IR part of the approximate blackbody spectrum. True. For the same reason as the sun. Resonance. Surface Detail wrote: Of course, this scattered radiation from the dips are doesn't just vanish; the missing radiation is that that has been absorbed and re-emitted back down to the Earth's surface. Resonance does not store energy. It dissipates through the resistive portion of the mechanism. In this case, the emission of energy on nearby colors. Also, emissions and absorptions are not directional. Nothing radiates back down to the Earth's surface any more than any other direction. Absorption does not come from the Earth, it comes from all directions, including the sun. Surface Detail wrote: The upshot of this is that the Earth becomes warmer so that its emission spectrum is shifted to higher energies to compensate for the radiation missing from the dips. Nothing is shifted to higher energies. If for some reason Earth did warm, the higher energies explain why it loses energy faster, not gain it. Nothing is compensating for any dips. The Earth is the same temperature as before. You are not only violating the 1st law of thermodynamics here (you can't create energy out of nothing), and ignoring the 2nd law (heat flows faster the greater the difference in temperature), you are violating Planck's law again by connecting it to absorption. Surface Detail wrote: The greenhouse effect that occurs in the Earth's atmosphere is exactly analogous to the process that occurs in the sun's photosphere that gives rise to the Fraunhofer lines. The premise is faulty, so the conclusion is also faulty. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-12-2015 23:06
04-12-2015 23:32
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Now that I've drawn your attention to Fraunhofer's lines, do you at least now concede that the spectrum of the radiation emitted from and absorbed by materials may, after all, depend on their composition as well as their temperature?
04-12-2015 23:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: Now that I've drawn your attention to Fraunhofer's lines, do you at least now concede that the spectrum of the radiation emitted from and absorbed by materials may, after all, depend on their composition as well as their temperature? For absorbed, yes. For emitted, no. The only thing that changes is points of resonance that happen to fall within the emitted spectrum. You will see these no matter where the spectrum itself lies. Resonance does not store energy any more than a bell can store energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-12-2015 23:48
05-12-2015 00:22
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: For absorbed, yes. Good. For emitted, no. I have to disagree with you there - think of different coloured fireworks - but no matter. So we've established that the radiation absorbed by a material may depend on the composition of that material. Would you then therefore agree that the degree to which the different wavelengths of the radiation emitted by the Earth's surface are absorbed by the atmosphere may then depend on the composition of the atmosphere?
05-12-2015 01:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: For absorbed, yes. Good. For emitted, no. I have to disagree with you there - think of different coloured fireworks - but no matter. Fireworks are different colors because they burn at different temperatures. I make fireworks as a hobby. This is why it is easier for purple stars to get blown dark than red ones. The burst charge may not be hot enough for long enough to light them. Another way to get the different colors is the same way as an LED, by energizing electrons of certain materials and all using the photon given off as they return to normal. Surface Detail wrote: So we've established that the radiation absorbed by a material may depend on the composition of that material. Would you then therefore agree that the degree to which the different wavelengths of the radiation emitted by the Earth's surface are absorbed by the atmosphere may then depend on the composition of the atmosphere? Not particularly. The Earth and the atmosphere at the surface are the same temperature. They are both emitting the same thing. The Earth is emitting a much narrower spectrum and at lower power than what comes from the sun. Absorption has more to do with the sun, simply because more energy is available from that direction. Absorption is directionless, but the greater energy source is prevalent. Absorption helps to keep the surface cool during the day, not warm. Without that absorption, the daytime surface of the Earth would be almost as hot as the daytime temperature of the moon. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 05-12-2015 01:50

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate human contribution by the numbers:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Speaking of morgues, Harvard is now majoring in selling human body parts	0	15-06-2023 03:18
The Next Big Money Evolution Will Be Printing International Money Via Human Intelligence	0	13-08-2022 06:17
Buzzwords and fake numbers	62	10-07-2022 13:03
After 16-01-2022, I The Savior No Longer Provide Any Human Evolution Content Materials To All	3	07-01-2022 17:36
The Corona Virus COVID Event Is Not About Health, But About Human Development Evolution	1	26-12-2021 17:10