Parliament must declare a climate emergency – not ignore it

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Parliament must declare a climate emergency – not ignore it > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

11-03-2019 18:46
Jeffvw ★☆☆☆☆ (84)	IBdaMann wrote: Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I'll give you a clue: there is absolutely no parameter for atmospheric composition in the determination of the earth's average global temperature. I'll let you figure out what that means. That you don't understand the science at all. You are now officially a science denier. Enlighten us on which parameter is the "change in CO2" parameter. Jeffvw wrote: Take for example the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere and latent heat. Take for example that you still have not defined Global Warming. You have not shown how water vapor is any more relevant than peanut butter. Science please. Wait, you are a science denier so I suppose you are trying to avoid it. Jeffvw wrote: It has a massive impact on earth's average global temperature. I have the blackbody temperature equation right in front of me at the moment. Which parameter is the one you are talking about exactly? Jeffvw wrote: Have you noticed any difference between a cloudy day and a dry sunny day in terms of temperature? I'm beginning to think that this stupid question is the last refuge of the brain-dead. Wait a minute. You weren't being hunted by Rick Grimes were you? Here's the evidence that the atmosphere impacts the temperature of the earth. Total incoming radiation from the sun must equal total outgoing radiation from the earth. This means that the area colored in blue must equal the area colored in red for the whole planet. Note that the earth receives all of its radiation during the day and loses radiation 7x24. That is why the areas don't match exactly since it is a snapshot of the daytime. A planet without an atmosphere would lose energy across the entire spectrum that is close to the theoretical black body spectrum at a given temperature. In this example, it would look similar to the area under the blue curve. Since there is an atmosphere, there is a lot of radiation that is not escaping from the surface because it is absorbed by the atmospheric water vapor and CO2. That is why there is very little radiation escaping from the wavelengths that H2O and CO2 absorb. To compensate, the planet warms up enough that the windows that are allowing energy to escape, increase in intensity enough to balance out with the incoming energy. Note that weather has a significant impact on how much radiation comes in and how much escapes. A cloudy day will prevent a lot of radiation from coming in and also from escaping. A very dry, cloudless day with low humidity will allow lots of energy to come in during the day, but will also allow a lot more energy to escape at night than normal. The atmosphere has a huge impact on temperatures. Hopefully your extensive training in physics allows you to understand this. If not, there is no use having further discussions.
11-03-2019 19:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Jeffvw wrote: Here's the evidence that the atmosphere impacts the temperature of the earth. If you were scientifically literate then you would seize fame and fortune by proving the science wrong with your observations that violate the science, and you would accept your Nobel Prize in physics, and you would rake in the cash on the lecture circuit. The science says that the planet's radiance varies per its temperature. You say otherwise. How is the science wrong? Oh, and let me be the first to congratulate you on your impending Nobel Prize! Jeffvw wrote: Total incoming radiation from the sun must equal total outgoing radiation from the earth. Not quite. Total incoming radiation that is absorbed by the earth must equal the earth's total radiation. Jeffvw wrote: A planet without an atmosphere would lose energy across the entire spectrum that is close to the theoretical black body spectrum at a given temperature. Nope. Whether or not a planet has an atmosphere does not factor into the equation. It just doesn't matter. The planet's radiance is dependent upon its temperature. Jeffvw wrote: Since there is an atmosphere, there is a lot of radiation that is not escaping from the surface because it is absorbed by the atmospheric water vapor and CO2. This is egregiously erroneous. You should stop pretending you understand the material. If you want to adhere to science, treat the entire planet as one body ... a body that happens to have an atmosphere, a hydrosphere and a terrestrial surface, but one body in space. The moment you try to subdivide the atomic unit (the body) which is the planet in this case, you can't help but run into pitfalls. Jeffvw wrote: That is why there is very little radiation escaping from the wavelengths that H2O and CO2 absorb. The H2O and the CO2 also radiate per their temperature. The specific wavelengths are immaterial. All that matters is that the same quantity of energy radiates away as the quantity absorbed. Remember, the 1st LoT tells us that energy can change form all day, all night, all week ... and that includes changing wavelengths. What you are claiming, however, is that somehow energy is destroyed by your mystical magical CO2 and H2O, thus reducing radiance ... and yet strangely, energy is somehow created which increases the earth's temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. At what point do you claim that CO2 and H2O create energy such that temperature can increase? Hint: your whole premise is a violation of the 1st LoT. I know, I know, you want to knee-jerk the response that "No one is claiming that energy is being created." Fine. How are you claiming that temperature increases without additional energy? Jeffvw wrote: Note that weather has a significant impact on how much radiation comes in and how much escapes. A cloudy day will prevent a lot of radiation from coming in and also from escaping. Nope. Science tells us that weather has no impact. Don't try to subdivide the atomic unit. Jeffvw wrote: A very dry, cloudless day with low humidity will allow lots of energy to come in during the day, but will also allow a lot more energy to escape at night than normal. The atmosphere has a huge impact on temperatures. Did you just shift goalposts from temperature (singular), i.e "average global temperature," to temperatures (plural), i.e. varying temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere? 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
11-03-2019 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I'll give you a clue: there is absolutely no parameter for atmospheric composition in the determination of the earth's average global temperature. I'll let you figure out what that means. That you don't understand the science at all. You are now officially a science denier. Enlighten us on which parameter is the "change in CO2" parameter. Jeffvw wrote: Take for example the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere and latent heat. Take for example that you still have not defined Global Warming. You have not shown how water vapor is any more relevant than peanut butter. Science please. Wait, you are a science denier so I suppose you are trying to avoid it. Jeffvw wrote: It has a massive impact on earth's average global temperature. I have the blackbody temperature equation right in front of me at the moment. Which parameter is the one you are talking about exactly? Jeffvw wrote: Have you noticed any difference between a cloudy day and a dry sunny day in terms of temperature? I'm beginning to think that this stupid question is the last refuge of the brain-dead. Wait a minute. You weren't being hunted by Rick Grimes were you? Here's the evidence that the atmosphere impacts the temperature of the earth. Total incoming radiation from the sun must equal total outgoing radiation from the earth. This means that the area colored in blue must equal the area colored in red for the whole planet. Note that the earth receives all of its radiation during the day and loses radiation 7x24. That is why the areas don't match exactly since it is a snapshot of the daytime. You are failing to account for the radiance of the atmosphere. You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Jeffvw wrote: A planet without an atmosphere would lose energy across the entire spectrum that is close to the theoretical black body spectrum at a given temperature. In this example, it would look similar to the area under the blue curve. The presence of an atmosphere or the lack of it makes no difference to average temperatures. Jeffvw wrote: Since there is an atmosphere, there is a lot of radiation that is not escaping from the surface You cannot trap light. You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase it's temperature at the same time. Jeffvw wrote: because it is absorbed by the atmospheric water vapor and CO2. Makes no difference. Both of these still radiate into space. Jeffvw wrote: That is why there is very little radiation escaping from the wavelengths that H2O and CO2 absorb. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for frequency. Radiance is over all frequencies. Jeffvw wrote: To compensate, the planet warms up enough that the windows that are allowing energy to escape, increase in intensity enough to balance out with the incoming energy. There is no sequence. You cannot suspend the Stefan-Boltzmann for even a moment. Jeffvw wrote: Note that weather has a significant impact on how much radiation comes in and how much escapes. If it doesn't come in, it need not escape. Jeffvw wrote: A cloudy day will prevent a lot of radiation from coming in and also from escaping. But the average temperature remains the same. You are moving the goalposts around again. Jeffvw wrote: The atmosphere has a huge impact on temperatures. Not on average temperature. Only on temperature spread from night to day. You are comparing apples and celery. False equivalence fallacy. Jeffvw wrote: Hopefully your extensive training in physics allows you to understand this. If not, there is no use having further discussions. Argument of the stick fallacy. 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
12-03-2019 19:10
Jeffvw ★☆☆☆☆ (84)	Into the Night wrote: The presence of an atmosphere or the lack of it makes no difference to average temperatures. As far as I can tell, this unique opinion is shared only by yourself and IBdaMann. I did some research and can find no scientists that believe this. There is also the fact that planets with atmospheres are almost always hotter than they are predicted to be using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Here's a table showing predictions compared with actual temperatures. Note that there is a strong correlation with the atmospheric pressure. The higher the atmospheric pressure, the larger the difference between theoretical and observed temperatures. Mercury with no atmosphere is 3 K hotter than predicted. Mars with a very thin atmosphere is 6 K hotter than predicted. Earth with a thicker atmosphere is 33 K hotter than predicted. Venus, with a much thicker atmosphere is 503 K hotter than predicted. Your theory that 'The presence of an atmosphere or the lack of it makes no difference to average temperatures' does not hold up well to the data.
12-03-2019 20:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Jeffvw wrote: Into the Night wrote: The presence of an atmosphere or the lack of it makes no difference to average temperatures. As far as I can tell, this unique opinion is shared only by yourself and IBdaMann. I did some research and can find no scientists that believe this. Oddly enough, most scientists actually think the Stefan-Boltzmann law is valid. Jeffvw wrote: There is also the fact that planets with atmospheres are almost always hotter than they are predicted to be using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Here's a table showing predictions compared with actual temperatures. Predictions of temperature mean nothing. They are guesses only. It is not possible to measure the temperature of any planet. At best all you have is a temperature measured by one or two spacecraft that landed on that planet. That is not the temperature of a planet. Jeffvw wrote: Note that there is a strong correlation with the atmospheric pressure. The higher the atmospheric pressure, the larger the difference between theoretical and observed temperatures. Correlating random numbers produces a random result. Jeffvw wrote: Mercury with no atmosphere is 3 K hotter than predicted. The temperature of Mercury is unknown. We do know that high temperatures occur there though, as measured by a couple of spacecraft that landed on it. Jeffvw wrote: Mars with a very thin atmosphere is 6 K hotter than predicted. The temperature of Mars is unknown. We do know that a few spacecraft have landed and reported back surface temperatures of their location. That is not the temperature of Mars. Jeffvw wrote: Earth with a thicker atmosphere is 33 K hotter than predicted. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth. Predicting it is pointless. Jeffvw wrote: Venus, with a much thicker atmosphere is 503 K hotter than predicted. Predicting this too is pointless. Just goes to show how wrong Carl Sagan was (who made this prediction). Jeffvw wrote: Your theory that 'The presence of an atmosphere or the lack of it makes no difference to average temperatures' does not hold up well to the data. What data? A couple of surface temperature readings? That is not the temperature of the planet. 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

12-03-2019 20:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Jeffvw wrote: As far as I can tell, this unique opinion is shared only by yourself and IBdaMann. I'm tempted to make a comment regarding how well you can tell something, but the fact remains that only a scientifically illiterate moron would seek opinions on matters of science. If you are being told what the science is, then no one's opinion matters. If you refuse to accept the science, that makes you a science denier. Jeffvw wrote: There is also the fact that planets with atmospheres are almost always hotter than they are predicted to be using the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would claim that the average planetary temperature of a planet has somehow been accurately measured. Jeffvw wrote: Here's a table showing predictions compared with actual temperatures. ... and make that a GULLIBLE scientifically illiterate moron. Apparently, you will believe absolutely anything if you read it on the internet unless it is actual science, which you will deny until your dying day. You should be moderately embarrassed. Jeffvw wrote: Note that there is a strong correlation with the atmospheric pressure. P L E A S E ! The greater the amount of atmosphere the higher the atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere and the greater the temperatures (plural) will be at the bottom of the atmosphere. Am I the first person to tell you this? There's still no correlation to the planet's average planetary temperature. You need Into the Night to sit you down and explain data validity to you. I'd do it myself but he has more extensive experience with actual sensor tolerances than I do. You also need a lesson in statistics. Do that and you won't be so gullible. Btw, what were the margins of error for those "actual temperature" values that you mentioned? I notice that you made no mention of those. Why not? 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
12-03-2019 21:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Am I the first person to tell you this? There's still no correlation to the planet's average planetary temperature. You need Into the Night to sit you down and explain data validity to you. I'd do it myself but he has more extensive experience with actual sensor tolerances than I do. You also need a lesson in statistics. Do that and you won't be so gullible. Btw, what were the margins of error for those "actual temperature" values that you mentioned? I notice that you made no mention of those. Why not? No, you're not the first person to tell him that. I find that most people that discuss averages as statistics these days have no clue even what the margin of error is, much less how how it's calculated, even though it's a required part of the resulting summary. They also don't seem to understand the need for raw (not cooked) data to be available. It's also the reason that polls mean nothing (except one...the vote). 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 12-03-2019 21:22
13-03-2019 03:22
Jeffvw ★☆☆☆☆ (84)	IBdaMann wrote: P L E A S E ! The greater the amount of atmosphere the higher the atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere and the greater the temperatures (plural) will be at the bottom of the atmosphere. Am I the first person to tell you this? There's still no correlation to the planet's average planetary temperature. I'm confused. You admit that temperatures are greater at the bottom of a thick atmosphere, yet state again that there is no correlation of the existence of an atmosphere to average planetary temperatures. Are you saying that this average higher temperature at the bottom of a thick atmosphere would be the same as the average surface temperature of a similar planet without an atmosphere?
13-03-2019 03:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote: P L E A S E ! The greater the amount of atmosphere the higher the atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere and the greater the temperatures (plural) will be at the bottom of the atmosphere. Am I the first person to tell you this? There's still no correlation to the planet's average planetary temperature. I'm confused. You admit that temperatures are greater at the bottom of a thick atmosphere, yet state again that there is no correlation of the existence of an atmosphere to average planetary temperatures. Are you saying that this average higher temperature at the bottom of a thick atmosphere would be the same as the average surface temperature of a similar planet without an atmosphere? My oven reached 450 deg F yesterday while I was cooking a pizza. Is that the temperature of the Earth? My refrigerator stays a nice cool 40 deg F. Is that the temperature of the Earth? Why then should some point at the base of an atmosphere on the surface be the temperature of the Earth? What is that anyway? There are sunny spots, burning deserts, ice cold mountain tops, polar sheets of ice, and Florida Everglade swamps. ALL of these are at the base of Earth's atmosphere. Are any of them the temperature of the Earth? Let's say two alien spacecraft arrive (unnoticed). One lands on a mountain top and the other lands in a Florida swamp. They each report back to their makers the temperature. Does each alien world then consider what their spacecraft read to be Earth's temperature? Why is this a completely invalid concept? Why should any spacecraft we send to any other planet be different? 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 13-03-2019 03:42
13-03-2019 04:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Jeffvw wrote:Are you saying that this average higher temperature at the bottom of a thick atmosphere would be the same as the average surface temperature of a similar planet without an atmosphere? That is exactly what I am saying, assuming equivalent emissivities. I will extend to you the courtesy of a little science lesson and you can even pretend that you already knew it. Do not try to subdivide the atomic unit, which in this case is the "body," as in "black body science." Let's say you have four bodies, all with equivalent emissivities, as such: 1. a baseball with a faux-leather cover 2. a 110-volt lamp 3. an earth-sized planet with your choice of an atmosphere, your choice of a hydrosphere and some sort of otherwise solid surface 4. a moon-sized moon with no atmosphere and your choice of cratering ... and you put all four bodies in equidistant orbit around your choice of a star. OK, drum roll please. While temperatures will be uneven across their surfaces, all four bodies will have the exact same average temperatures which will be referred to as the body's temperature. This is per Stefan-Boltzmann OK, next drum roll. All four bodies will have the same average radiance per square unit of surface area. Also, the radiance will be on the order of the body's temperature raised to the fourth power. This is per Stefan-Boltzmann You're welcome. 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
13-03-2019 16:41
Jeffvw ★☆☆☆☆ (84)	IBdaMann wrote: Jeffvw wrote:Are you saying that this average higher temperature at the bottom of a thick atmosphere would be the same as the average surface temperature of a similar planet without an atmosphere? That is exactly what I am saying, assuming equivalent emissivities. I will extend to you the courtesy of a little science lesson and you can even pretend that you already knew it. Do not try to subdivide the atomic unit, which in this case is the "body," as in "black body science." Let's say you have four bodies, all with equivalent emissivities, as such: 1. a baseball with a faux-leather cover 2. a 110-volt lamp 3. an earth-sized planet with your choice of an atmosphere, your choice of a hydrosphere and some sort of otherwise solid surface 4. a moon-sized moon with no atmosphere and your choice of cratering ... and you put all four bodies in equidistant orbit around your choice of a star. OK, drum roll please. While temperatures will be uneven across their surfaces, all four bodies will have the exact same average temperatures which will be referred to as the body's temperature. This is per Stefan-Boltzmann OK, next drum roll. All four bodies will have the same average radiance per square unit of surface area. Also, the radiance will be on the order of the body's temperature raised to the fourth power. This is per Stefan-Boltzmann You're welcome. Your example is not accurate for the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere. It is accurate for the average top of atmosphere temperature readings, but our discussion is not about top of atmosphere, but surface readings. Take the example of Venus. Top of atmosphere readings average between 220 and 260 K, which correlates to the energy leaving the planet and equals the energy being received from the sun given the atmosphere's emissivity. Surface temperatures are over 500 K hotter. This has been observed by many probes and is amazingly consistent across the entire planet. It is difficult to get a measurement error that is that high. The atmosphere impacts surface temperatures a lot, especially with a thick, opaque atmosphere. Earth has a somewhat thick atmosphere that is partially opaque. This is why earth's surface temperatures are higher than its top of atmosphere readings. Atmosphere's impact average surface temperatures.
13-03-2019 17:55
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Jeffvw wrote:Are you saying that this average higher temperature at the bottom of a thick atmosphere would be the same as the average surface temperature of a similar planet without an atmosphere? That is exactly what I am saying, assuming equivalent emissivities. I will extend to you the courtesy of a little science lesson and you can even pretend that you already knew it. Do not try to subdivide the atomic unit, which in this case is the "body," as in "black body science." Let's say you have four bodies, all with equivalent emissivities, as such: 1. a baseball with a faux-leather cover 2. a 110-volt lamp 3. an earth-sized planet with your choice of an atmosphere, your choice of a hydrosphere and some sort of otherwise solid surface 4. a moon-sized moon with no atmosphere and your choice of cratering ... and you put all four bodies in equidistant orbit around your choice of a star. OK, drum roll please. While temperatures will be uneven across their surfaces, all four bodies will have the exact same average temperatures which will be referred to as the body's temperature. This is per Stefan-Boltzmann OK, next drum roll. All four bodies will have the same average radiance per square unit of surface area. Also, the radiance will be on the order of the body's temperature raised to the fourth power. This is per Stefan-Boltzmann You're welcome. Your example is not accurate for the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere. It is accurate for the average top of atmosphere temperature readings, but our discussion is not about top of atmosphere, but surface readings. Take the example of Venus. Top of atmosphere readings average between 220 and 260 K, which correlates to the energy leaving the planet and equals the energy being received from the sun given the atmosphere's emissivity. Surface temperatures are over 500 K hotter. This has been observed by many probes and is amazingly consistent across the entire planet. It is difficult to get a measurement error that is that high. The atmosphere impacts surface temperatures a lot, especially with a thick, opaque atmosphere. Earth has a somewhat thick atmosphere that is partially opaque. This is why earth's surface temperatures are higher than its top of atmosphere readings. Atmosphere's impact average surface temperatures. Correlation is not necessarily causation.
13-03-2019 18:01
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I'll give you a clue: there is absolutely no parameter for atmospheric composition in the determination of the earth's average global temperature. I'll let you figure out what that means. That you don't understand the science at all. You are now officially a science denier. Enlighten us on which parameter is the "change in CO2" parameter. Jeffvw wrote: Take for example the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere and latent heat. Take for example that you still have not defined Global Warming. You have not shown how water vapor is any more relevant than peanut butter. Science please. Wait, you are a science denier so I suppose you are trying to avoid it. Jeffvw wrote: It has a massive impact on earth's average global temperature. I have the blackbody temperature equation right in front of me at the moment. Which parameter is the one you are talking about exactly? Jeffvw wrote: Have you noticed any difference between a cloudy day and a dry sunny day in terms of temperature? I'm beginning to think that this stupid question is the last refuge of the brain-dead. Wait a minute. You weren't being hunted by Rick Grimes were you? Here's the evidence that the atmosphere impacts the temperature of the earth. Total incoming radiation from the sun must equal total outgoing radiation from the earth. This means that the area colored in blue must equal the area colored in red for the whole planet. Note that the earth receives all of its radiation during the day and loses radiation 7x24. That is why the areas don't match exactly since it is a snapshot of the daytime. A planet without an atmosphere would lose energy across the entire spectrum that is close to the theoretical black body spectrum at a given temperature. In this example, it would look similar to the area under the blue curve. Since there is an atmosphere, there is a lot of radiation that is not escaping from the surface because it is absorbed by the atmospheric water vapor and CO2. That is why there is very little radiation escaping from the wavelengths that H2O and CO2 absorb. To compensate, the planet warms up enough that the windows that are allowing energy to escape, increase in intensity enough to balance out with the incoming energy. Note that weather has a significant impact on how much radiation comes in and how much escapes. A cloudy day will prevent a lot of radiation from coming in and also from escaping. A very dry, cloudless day with low humidity will allow lots of energy to come in during the day, but will also allow a lot more energy to escape at night than normal. The atmosphere has a huge impact on temperatures. Hopefully your extensive training in physics allows you to understand this. If not, there is no use having further discussions. Clouds scatter and reflect light, not absorb light. Big difference.
13-03-2019 20:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Jeffvw wrote: Your example is not accurate for the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere. You are now officially a science denier. You are welcome to post the science and point out where I err. Jeffvw wrote: Take the example of Venus. Sure. What is Venus' average planetary temperature? What other body is at equal distance from the sun and what is its average temperature? Jeffvw wrote: The atmosphere impacts surface temperatures a lot, especially with a thick, opaque atmosphere. You aren't going to find many people who will argue that an atmosphere doesn't affect the temperature at the bottom of that atmosphere. Jeffvw wrote: Atmosphere's impact average surface temperatures. Stay focused on average planetary temperature. Any given surface temperature is irrelevant. 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
13-03-2019 21:41
Jeffvw ★☆☆☆☆ (84)	IBdaMann wrote: Jeffvw wrote: Your example is not accurate for the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere. You are now officially a science denier. You are welcome to post the science and point out where I err. Jeffvw wrote: Take the example of Venus. Sure. What is Venus' average planetary temperature? What other body is at equal distance from the sun and what is its average temperature? Jeffvw wrote: The atmosphere impacts surface temperatures a lot, especially with a thick, opaque atmosphere. You aren't going to find many people who will argue that an atmosphere doesn't affect the temperature at the bottom of that atmosphere. Jeffvw wrote: Atmosphere's impact average surface temperatures. Stay focused on average planetary temperature. Any given surface temperature is irrelevant. The whole point of the discussion is average planetary surface temperature. The average temperatures at the bottom of an atmosphere are higher than at the top of the atmosphere. Why do you keep changing the subject? I've already stated that top of atmosphere temperatures are as you would expect. The atmosphere impacts planetary surface temperatures. Someone living on earth could care less that the average temperature at the top of the atmosphere is 33 K colder than at the surface. What they care about is surface temperatures. This discussion is about the atmosphere's impact on surface temperatures. I'm still confused about your stand on the issue. Does the atmosphere impact surface temperatures?

13-03-2019 23:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Jeffvw wrote: Your example is not accurate for the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere. You are now officially a science denier. You are welcome to post the science and point out where I err. Jeffvw wrote: Take the example of Venus. Sure. What is Venus' average planetary temperature? What other body is at equal distance from the sun and what is its average temperature? Jeffvw wrote: The atmosphere impacts surface temperatures a lot, especially with a thick, opaque atmosphere. You aren't going to find many people who will argue that an atmosphere doesn't affect the temperature at the bottom of that atmosphere. Jeffvw wrote: Atmosphere's impact average surface temperatures. Stay focused on average planetary temperature. Any given surface temperature is irrelevant. The whole point of the discussion is average planetary surface temperature. The average temperatures at the bottom of an atmosphere are higher than at the top of the atmosphere. Why do you keep changing the subject? I've already stated that top of atmosphere temperatures are as you would expect. The atmosphere impacts planetary surface temperatures. Someone living on earth could care less that the average temperature at the top of the atmosphere is 33 K colder than at the surface. What they care about is surface temperatures. This discussion is about the atmosphere's impact on surface temperatures. I'm still confused about your stand on the issue. Does the atmosphere impact surface temperatures? An atmosphere doesn't have a temperature at it's base if it's not there. An atmosphere that DOES exist is heated by the surface of the planet. The denser the atmosphere, the easier it is for it to be heated by the surface. This is true for all rocky planets. Atmospheres can also be heated by the Sun, just like the surface is. They are much thinner than the surface though, so for rocky planets, the surface temperature is basically what heats the atmosphere. A thick atmosphere is not only more easily heated by the Sun, it has better thermal conductivity with the surface itself, which is still hotter than the atmosphere. Gas giants like Jupiter are a giant unknown. We have sent probes into Jupiters atmosphere, but they were crushed by the incredible pressures there before anything like a surface was found. It may not have a surface, but we simply don't know. For the depth into the atmosphere the probe lasted, though, temperatures were increasing. This makes sense. Thicker atmospheres are more easily heated by the Sun. There is more 'surface area' per volume of air that is receiving the same sunlight. Now. Here's where you REALLY screw up. Given the same atmosphere, and the same sunlight, you are attempting to add additional energy simply by changing the composition of that atmosphere. It is still the same average atmospheric pressure at the surface regardless of it's composition, so you are still trying to create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. This is the kind of pitfall you run into by not taking the Earth's entirety as a body. Kirchofff's law works for all energy. The sum of each node of energy combined (any part of a planet), equals the total energy of the entire system (the entire Earth). If you add energy to the atmosphere without taking it from the surface, and discount the energy from the Sun to add it, you ARE adding to the energy of the total Earth by not using the Sun. In other words, you ARE violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. It involves the entire Earth, not just the base of the atmosphere. It doesn't come for free, dude. You are essentially attempting to use CO2 to create a perpetual motion machine of the first order. If it were possible to do this using CO2, you've solved the energy problem! Let's make more CO2! Wups. That won't work. As this 'additional' energy is 'trapped', there is nothing to prevent it from 'trapping' more. And more. And more. And more. That process will only stop at a catastrophic moment (the Earth is vaporized and therefore there is no more Earth to warm). Turns out that's the problem with a perpetual motion machine! 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 14-03-2019 00:17
14-03-2019 05:21
Jeffvw ★☆☆☆☆ (84)	Into the Night wrote: Now. Here's where you REALLY screw up. Given the same atmosphere, and the same sunlight, you are attempting to add additional energy simply by changing the composition of that atmosphere. It is still the same average atmospheric pressure at the surface regardless of it's composition, so you are still trying to create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. This is the kind of pitfall you run into by not taking the Earth's entirety as a body. I am not ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy in still equals energy out. Changing the composition can change the opacity at certain wavelengths. If a certain wavelength is blocked, other wavelengths must increase a little bit to compensate. A slight increase in temperature is what makes that happen. This is why Venus is so much hotter at the surface than would be expected. Its clouds block almost all radiation coming from the surface keeping it hot enough to balance the radiation coming in with that escaping. The T^4 relationship from the Stefan-Boltzmann law makes sure that energy balance is achieved with only a very slight increase in temperature. A doubling of CO2 concentrations has very little impact on global temperatures; the relationship is logarithmic since current concentrations are already saturated. Run away temperature increase is impossible.
14-03-2019 16:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Jeffvw wrote: I am not ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy in still equals energy out. You are confusing "equilibrium" with "1st LoT." Jeffvw wrote: Changing the composition can change the opacity at certain wavelengths. If a certain wavelength is blocked, other wavelengths must increase a little bit to compensate. A slight increase in temperature is what makes that happen. Nope. Physics is not on your side. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. If you are claiming that the temperature of a body has increased then you have implicitly stated that the body has more energy than before the temperature increase. You can't get around this. If you are claiming that the temperature has increased then you must account for that additional energy without violating physics. If you are claiming that temperature has increased without additional energy then you are either discussing a miracle or a violation of physics (which are actually synonymous). Jeffvw wrote: This is why Venus is so much hotter at the surface than would be expected. Venus' surface is exactly as hot as is expected. Jeffvw wrote: The T^4 relationship from the Stefan-Boltzmann law makes sure that energy balance is achieved with only a very slight increase in temperature. Nope. See above. Assumptions are built into blackbody science to enforce adherence to the laws of thermodynamics. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Again, it is worth repeating that if you are claiming that the temperature has increased then you must account for the additional energy that caused that temperature increase without violating physics. Jeffvw wrote: A doubling of CO2 concentrations has very little impact on global temperatures; I told you to stay focused on the planet's average temperature and to abandon pretending to address the spectrum of "surface temperatures" (plural) lest you render your statements meaningless. Did you listen? NOOOOOO! Ergo what you just wrote above is completely meaningless. Jeffvw wrote: the relationship is logarithmic since current concentrations are already saturated. Run away temperature increase is impossible. There is no relationship, much less a logarithmic one. Remember, you have zero Global Warming science. You can't even define it scientifically, i.e. falsifiably and without ambiguity. Btw ... what on earth do you believe you mean by "[CO2] concentrations are already saturated." 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
14-03-2019 18:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Jeffvw wrote: Into the Night wrote: Now. Here's where you REALLY screw up. Given the same atmosphere, and the same sunlight, you are attempting to add additional energy simply by changing the composition of that atmosphere. It is still the same average atmospheric pressure at the surface regardless of it's composition, so you are still trying to create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. This is the kind of pitfall you run into by not taking the Earth's entirety as a body. I am not ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy in still equals energy out. Changing the composition can change the opacity at certain wavelengths. If a certain wavelength is blocked, other wavelengths must increase a little bit to compensate. Sorry, dude. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or the 1st law of thermodynamics. Jeffvw wrote: A slight increase in temperature is what makes that happen. There is no sequence. You can't suspend these laws for even one moment. They operate all the time. Jeffvw wrote: This is why Venus is so much hotter at the surface than would be expected It is not possible to measure the temperature of Venus. The only one that expected a particular temperature smoked too much dope (Carl Sagan).. Speculations by anyone, including dope smokers, are meaningless. Jeffvw wrote: Its clouds block almost all radiation coming from the surface keeping it hot enough to balance the radiation coming in with that escaping. WRONG. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't reduce the radiance of a planet and increase its temperature at the same time. You are also denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. An atmosphere does not warm a planet, nor does it warm itself. You are still creating additional energy from nothing. Jeffvw wrote: The T^4 relationship from the Stefan-Boltzmann law makes sure that energy balance is achieved with only a very slight increase in temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have anything to do with 'energy balance', nor does it cause a temperature change. Jeffvw wrote: A doubling of CO2 concentrations has very little impact on global temperatures; the relationship is logarithmic since current concentrations are already saturated. It has none, zip, zero,nada, zilch. CO2 does not create additional energy. You can't reduce the radiance and increase the temperature at the same time. Jeffvw wrote: Run away temperature increase is impossible. You are suggesting a perpetual motion machine of the first order. Such things ALWAYS cause a runaway effect. You are being irrational. You first claim a little CO2 warms a planet, then you claim that after you add more CO2, it doesn't??? 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
14-03-2019 20:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Into the Night wrote: You are also denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. An atmosphere does not warm a planet, Normally, a cooler atmosphere warming a warmer surface is a violation of the 2nd LoT, but if the atmosphere is generating energy via "forcings," "feedbacks" and "climate variability" then yes, the 1st LoT is being raped. Into the Night wrote: You are suggesting a perpetual motion machine of the first order. Such things ALWAYS cause a runaway effect. When I read his comment I was tempted to leave a note in my post indicating that you should probably address this point, after all, it has been a while since I read one of your treatises on the perpetual motion problem. But then I thought, naaah, ... it's coming. Into the Night wont' need any prodding. 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
14-03-2019 21:27
Jeffvw ★☆☆☆☆ (84)	IBdaMann wrote: Btw ... what on earth do you believe you mean by "[CO2] concentrations are already saturated." I mean that CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing all of the radiation from the surface that it can at certain wavelengths. Adding more CO2 will not allow it to absorb more energy at those wavelengths. Look at the following snapshot from space looking at the radiation spectrum coming from earth: This is looking at the surface of the earth where the temperature is 294 K on a day with relatively low humidity and very few clouds. The red line shows what the radiation would look like with no atmosphere at that temperature. The blue area represents the actual radiation going out to space. CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the 600 to 700 wave number range. You will notice that not as much radiation is escaping in that range. If you were to draw an ideal blackbody emission line of 220 K it would cross the 600 to 700 wave number range very close to where the blue dips to in that range. This tells scientists that the CO2 is closer to 220 K where it is emitting radiation to space. This tells us that some radiation is escaping to space directly from the surface (where flux is close to the theoretical red line), but other radiation is escaping to space from the top of the atmosphere (in the CO2 case, well below the theoretical red line) and some is likely escaping at a lower elevation in the atmosphere where the H2O concentration drops off. If you were to take the same snapshot on a cloudy day, you would see almost no radiation escaping directly from the surface and much of it coming from the cloud tops at the temperature of the cloud tops. Going back to what will happen with higher CO2 concentrations is that you will simply see that the radiation escaping to space from CO2 will occur at a higher elevation in the atmosphere (since the critical partial pressure will now occur at a slightly higher elevation) and will likely be escaping at a slightly lower temperature, which means that total radiation escaping is slightly less. In order to get a balance, the surface will need to slightly warm so that the total amount of radiation escaping to space stays the same.
14-03-2019 23:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Btw ... what on earth do you believe you mean by "[CO2] concentrations are already saturated." I mean that CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing all of the radiation from the surface that it can at certain wavelengths. Adding more CO2 will not allow it to absorb more energy at those wavelengths. Look at the following snapshot from space looking at the radiation spectrum coming from earth: This is looking at the surface of the earth where the temperature is 294 K on a day with relatively low humidity and very few clouds. The red line shows what the radiation would look like with no atmosphere at that temperature. The blue area represents the actual radiation going out to space. CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the 600 to 700 wave number range. You will notice that not as much radiation is escaping in that range. Irrelevant. The Planck Radiation curve is a relative strength of individual frequencies of light. It has nothing to do with the overall intensity of the radiance. THAT is answered by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't use Planck's law to cancel out the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Jeffvw wrote: If you were to draw an ideal blackbody emission line of 220 K it would cross the 600 to 700 wave number range very close to where the blue dips to in that range. This tells scientists that the CO2 is closer to 220 K where it is emitting radiation to space. This tells us that some radiation is escaping to space directly from the surface (where flux is close to the theoretical red line), but other radiation is escaping to space from the top of the atmosphere (in the CO2 case, well below the theoretical red line) and some is likely escaping at a lower elevation in the atmosphere where the H2O concentration drops off. If you were to take the same snapshot on a cloudy day, you would see almost no radiation escaping directly from the surface and much of it coming from the cloud tops at the temperature of the cloud tops. Going back to what will happen with higher CO2 concentrations is that you will simply see that the radiation escaping to space from CO2 will occur at a higher elevation in the atmosphere (since the critical partial pressure will now occur at a slightly higher elevation) and will likely be escaping at a slightly lower temperature, which means that total radiation escaping is slightly less. In order to get a balance, the surface will need to slightly warm so that the total amount of radiation escaping to space stays the same. WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't 'balance' anything. It is simply a statement of relationship between temperature and radiance. You are completely failing to understand the concept of radiation intensity. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. You are trying to add one. Mostly you are trying to equivocate frequency with amplitude. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is all about amplitude of all frequencies combined. It is about the intensity of radiance, not it's color. It doesn't care about the color. ALL frequencies are included. This is also Wake's problem not understanding this. 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 14-03-2019 23:07
14-03-2019 23:16
Jeffvw ★☆☆☆☆ (84)	Into the Night wrote: Sorry, dude. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or the 1st law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total radiation coming from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature. A black body emits radiation according to Planck's law, meaning that it has a spectrum (of frequencies) that is determined by the temperature alone. Here's an example of what the range looks like at different temperatures: You will note that higher temperatures put out much more energy than lower temperatures and cover different parts of the spectrum.
14-03-2019 23:57
Jeffvw ★☆☆☆☆ (84)	Into the Night wrote: Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Btw ... what on earth do you believe you mean by "[CO2] concentrations are already saturated." I mean that CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing all of the radiation from the surface that it can at certain wavelengths. Adding more CO2 will not allow it to absorb more energy at those wavelengths. Look at the following snapshot from space looking at the radiation spectrum coming from earth: This is looking at the surface of the earth where the temperature is 294 K on a day with relatively low humidity and very few clouds. The red line shows what the radiation would look like with no atmosphere at that temperature. The blue area represents the actual radiation going out to space. CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the 600 to 700 wave number range. You will notice that not as much radiation is escaping in that range. Irrelevant. The Planck Radiation curve is a relative strength of individual frequencies of light. It has nothing to do with the overall intensity of the radiance. THAT is answered by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't use Planck's law to cancel out the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Jeffvw wrote: If you were to draw an ideal blackbody emission line of 220 K it would cross the 600 to 700 wave number range very close to where the blue dips to in that range. This tells scientists that the CO2 is closer to 220 K where it is emitting radiation to space. This tells us that some radiation is escaping to space directly from the surface (where flux is close to the theoretical red line), but other radiation is escaping to space from the top of the atmosphere (in the CO2 case, well below the theoretical red line) and some is likely escaping at a lower elevation in the atmosphere where the H2O concentration drops off. If you were to take the same snapshot on a cloudy day, you would see almost no radiation escaping directly from the surface and much of it coming from the cloud tops at the temperature of the cloud tops. Going back to what will happen with higher CO2 concentrations is that you will simply see that the radiation escaping to space from CO2 will occur at a higher elevation in the atmosphere (since the critical partial pressure will now occur at a slightly higher elevation) and will likely be escaping at a slightly lower temperature, which means that total radiation escaping is slightly less. In order to get a balance, the surface will need to slightly warm so that the total amount of radiation escaping to space stays the same. WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't 'balance' anything. It is simply a statement of relationship between temperature and radiance. You are completely failing to understand the concept of radiation intensity. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. You are trying to add one. Mostly you are trying to equivocate frequency with amplitude. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is all about amplitude of all frequencies combined. It is about the intensity of radiance, not it's color. It doesn't care about the color. ALL frequencies are included. This is also Wake's problem not understanding this. You are not understanding how I am applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Remember that it assumes that the thermal source is in a vacuum. If you measure an object with a spectrometer, you will get something that looks like an ideal blackbody. If I put a screen in front of the object that blocks 10% of the radiance, then the spectrometer will measure 10% less intensity (likely across all wavelengths if the screen is totally opaque). If you had a closed loop controller between the object and the spectrometer trying to maintain the same total measured intensity, it would increase the temperature enough to increase the measured intensity by 10%. The object would need to get hotter in order for spectrometer to read the same as it did without the screen. Now instead of a screen, take a tinted window that blocks out 10% of the wavelengths. So most of the spectrum is at full intensity, but at a certain band, the intensity is zero (at those bands the spectrometer would likely pick up the temperature of the tinted window). If you had a closed loop controller trying to maintain the same total intensity, it would increase the temperature so that total intensity on the other side of the tinted window goes up by 10% to compensate. This is similar in concept to what CO2 does to the atmosphere. The earth must radiate into space as much as it receives. CO2 and significantly more important, H2O, block certain bands. The means that the surface of the earth must warm a little bit to increase overall radiance enough to compensate. A spectrometer from space is actually reading different surfaces at different wavelengths. At some wavelengths it is seeing the surface. At others it is seeing the cloud tops. At others it is seeing the very top of the atmosphere.
14-03-2019 23:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Jeffvw wrote: Into the Night wrote: Sorry, dude. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or the 1st law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total radiation coming from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature. A black body emits radiation according to Planck's law, meaning that it has a spectrum (of frequencies) that is determined by the temperature alone. Here's an example of what the range looks like at different temperatures: You will note that higher temperatures put out much more energy than lower temperatures and cover different parts of the spectrum. You are still confusing frequency with amplitude, and confusing relative amplitudes with absolute ones. 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
15-03-2019 00:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Into the Night wrote: Sorry, dude. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or the 1st law of thermodynamics. Jeffvw wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total radiation coming from a black body is proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature. I really wish you would stay focused and just write "Yes, Into the Night, you are correct, there is no frequency term in either Stefan-Boltzmann or the 1st LoT." Let's put this to rest, shall we? Stefan-Boltzmann states: Radiance = Temp^4 * Emissivity * Boltzmann You can't get much more straightforward. Jeffvw wrote: A black body emits radiation according to Planck's law, Black bodies emit per Planck's, Stefan-Boltzmann, Wein's and Kirchoff's laws. Get familiar. They will answer all your questions, like whether or not Stefan-Boltzmann has a term for frequency. 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
15-03-2019 00:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Jeffvw wrote: Into the Night wrote: Jeffvw wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Btw ... what on earth do you believe you mean by "[CO2] concentrations are already saturated." I mean that CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing all of the radiation from the surface that it can at certain wavelengths. Adding more CO2 will not allow it to absorb more energy at those wavelengths. Look at the following snapshot from space looking at the radiation spectrum coming from earth: This is looking at the surface of the earth where the temperature is 294 K on a day with relatively low humidity and very few clouds. The red line shows what the radiation would look like with no atmosphere at that temperature. The blue area represents the actual radiation going out to space. CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the 600 to 700 wave number range. You will notice that not as much radiation is escaping in that range. Irrelevant. The Planck Radiation curve is a relative strength of individual frequencies of light. It has nothing to do with the overall intensity of the radiance. THAT is answered by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't use Planck's law to cancel out the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Jeffvw wrote: If you were to draw an ideal blackbody emission line of 220 K it would cross the 600 to 700 wave number range very close to where the blue dips to in that range. This tells scientists that the CO2 is closer to 220 K where it is emitting radiation to space. This tells us that some radiation is escaping to space directly from the surface (where flux is close to the theoretical red line), but other radiation is escaping to space from the top of the atmosphere (in the CO2 case, well below the theoretical red line) and some is likely escaping at a lower elevation in the atmosphere where the H2O concentration drops off. If you were to take the same snapshot on a cloudy day, you would see almost no radiation escaping directly from the surface and much of it coming from the cloud tops at the temperature of the cloud tops. Going back to what will happen with higher CO2 concentrations is that you will simply see that the radiation escaping to space from CO2 will occur at a higher elevation in the atmosphere (since the critical partial pressure will now occur at a slightly higher elevation) and will likely be escaping at a slightly lower temperature, which means that total radiation escaping is slightly less. In order to get a balance, the surface will need to slightly warm so that the total amount of radiation escaping to space stays the same. WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't 'balance' anything. It is simply a statement of relationship between temperature and radiance. You are completely failing to understand the concept of radiation intensity. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. You are trying to add one. Mostly you are trying to equivocate frequency with amplitude. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is all about amplitude of all frequencies combined. It is about the intensity of radiance, not it's color. It doesn't care about the color. ALL frequencies are included. This is also Wake's problem not understanding this. You are not understanding how I am applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Remember that it assumes that the thermal source is in a vacuum. WRONG. No such assumption is made or required. There is no such thing as an ideal vacuum, even in space. Jeffvw wrote: If you measure an object with a spectrometer, you will get something that looks like an ideal blackbody. You are AGAIN confusing frequency with amplitude, and confusing relative and absolute amplitude. Jeffvw wrote: If I put a screen in front of the object that blocks 10% of the radiance, then the spectrometer will measure 10% less intensity (likely across all wavelengths if the screen is totally opaque). Aren't you forgetting something? What is warming that object? Why is it above absolute zero? Jeffvw wrote: If you had a closed loop controller between the object and the spectrometer trying to maintain the same total measured intensity, it would increase the temperature enough to increase the measured intensity by 10%. The object would need to get hotter in order for spectrometer to read the same as it did without the screen. A controller requires a power source to manipulate to do this. Simply monitoring the input and doing nothing about it changes nothing. You are trying to create energy out of nothing again, in defiance of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your energy source seems to be this Magick Screen. Jeffvw wrote: Now instead of a screen, take a tinted window that blocks out 10% of the wavelengths. So most of the spectrum is at full intensity, but at a certain band, the intensity is zero (at those bands the spectrometer would likely pick up the temperature of the tinted window). If you had a closed loop controller trying to maintain the same total intensity, it would increase the temperature so that total intensity on the other side of the tinted window goes up by 10% to compensate. This is similar in concept to what CO2 does to the atmosphere. Whether it's a Magick Screen, Magick Tint, or a Magick Holy Gas, it is the same. NONE of them are able to provide additional energy. You are STILL trying to create energy out of nothing, in defiance of the 1st law of thermodynamics (and the energy conservation law its based on). Jeffvw wrote: The earth must radiate into space as much as it receives. With the exception of temporary conversion into potential energy and back again, true. You know, things like flowers and vegetation (or the way even your own eyesight works). Essentially, yes. Earth must radiate as much as is absorbed. Note that radiation that is still received by Earth that is NOT absorbed is just reflected or scattered. Jeffvw wrote: CO2 and significantly more important, H2O, block certain bands. The means that the surface of the earth must warm a little bit to increase overall radiance enough to compensate. WRONG. You are still confusing frequency with amplitude and confusing relative amplitude with an absolute one. You cannot use Planck's law to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Jeffvw wrote: A spectrometer from space is actually reading different surfaces at different wavelengths. At some wavelengths it is seeing the surface. At others it is seeing the cloud tops. At others it is seeing the very top of the atmosphere. There is no 'top' to the atmosphere. It just fades away............. 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
15-03-2019 00:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	IBdaMann wrote: Btw ... what on earth do you believe you mean by "[CO2] concentrations are already saturated." Jeffvw wrote: I mean that CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing all of the radiation from the surface that it can at certain wavelengths. Adding more CO2 will not allow it to absorb more energy at those wavelengths. I'm sorry but that's not a thing. Temperature differential per the 2nd LoT, or thermal energy state per Planck's law, determines whether a photon will be absorbed. There is no such thing as a molecule that is "full" of electromagnetic radiation or that has reached its limit of thermal energy ... especially at everyday temperatures. 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
15-03-2019 01:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Btw ... what on earth do you believe you mean by "[CO2] concentrations are already saturated." Jeffvw wrote: I mean that CO2 in the atmosphere is already absorbing all of the radiation from the surface that it can at certain wavelengths. Adding more CO2 will not allow it to absorb more energy at those wavelengths. I'm sorry but that's not a thing. Temperature differential per the 2nd LoT, or thermal energy state per Planck's law, determines whether a photon will be absorbed. There is no such thing as a molecule that is "full" of electromagnetic radiation or that has reached its limit of thermal energy ... especially at everyday temperatures. I just can't eat another photon...I'm stuffed! 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
15-03-2019 13:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Into the Night wrote: I just can't eat another photon...I'm stuffed! But monsieur, it's wafer thin! 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

15-03-2019 18:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: I just can't eat another photon...I'm stuffed! But monsieur, it's wafer thin! Oh, ok. One more photon...it can't hurt.............BLAM! 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

Page 2 of 2

Join the debate Parliament must declare a climate emergency – not ignore it:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Russia just hacked the US emergency alert system, and in more important news the FBI is	0	01-09-2022 13:50
There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them	133	17-02-2020 07:16
Bernie To Use Executive Fiat To Declare Climate Emergency, Ban Fracking, More	5	01-02-2020 01:04
Global CO2 Emergency Plan (GCEP) needed asap	7	26-01-2020 23:47
EU Parliament Climate Emergency vote	28	02-12-2019 19:15