Remember me
▼ Content

This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming



Page 1 of 212>
This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming02-10-2018 01:22
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
The graphs below are good in helping to visualize how tiny human CO2 is compared to the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. The rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It becomes obvious that man-made global warming must be a very small quantity indeed.




Nathan-D
Edited on 02-10-2018 02:11
02-10-2018 09:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
02-10-2018 18:23
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

Water vapor has an even more profound moderating effect due to the heat of fusion since it is constantly changing states. During the day, any residual ice crystals or water droplets change to the vapor state, which uses lots of energy to keep the temperatures from increasing as much as they normally would without water. At night the opposite happens, water vapor condenses to liquid droplets and they in turn become ice crystals. This releases lots of energy and increases low temperatures more than they would be without water available. Consider the large temperature swings in a desert versus the extremely low temperature swings in a rain forest.

Greenhouse gasses have some effect, mainly be slightly reducing outgoing radiation at certain wavelengths.
02-10-2018 20:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

WRONG. Nothing 'moderates' temperatures. Gases and vapors are not intelligent.
Jeffvw wrote:
Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

Convection does NOT reduce radiance of the Earth. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
Water vapor has an even more profound moderating effect due to the heat of fusion since it is constantly changing states.

Water vapor is not constantly changing state.
Jeffvw wrote:
During the day, any residual ice crystals or water droplets change to the vapor state,

WRONG. Otherwise you would not get rain or clouds.
Jeffvw wrote:
which uses lots of energy to keep the temperatures from increasing as much as they normally would without water.

WRONG. Water is simply part of the mass of the atmosphere. It has a higher specific heat than anything else in the atmosphere, but that's all. That is not 'moderating' anything.
Jeffvw wrote:
At night the opposite happens, water vapor condenses to liquid droplets and they in turn become ice crystals.

WRONG. Otherwise you would have no clear nights.
Jeffvw wrote:
This releases lots of energy and increases low temperatures more than they would be without water available.

Again, water doesn't 'moderate' anything. It is not intelligent. It is simply part of the mass of the atmosphere.
Jeffvw wrote:
Consider the large temperature swings in a desert versus the extremely low temperature swings in a rain forest.

I see large temperature swings in both.
Jeffvw wrote:
Greenhouse gasses have some effect,

None.
Jeffvw wrote:
mainly be slightly reducing outgoing radiation at certain wavelengths.

You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. You can't reduce radiance and increase the temperature at the same time. Neither radiance nor emissivity have a frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2018 21:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
One Punch Man wrote:
The graphs below are good in helping to visualize how tiny human CO2 is compared to the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. The rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It becomes obvious that man-made global warming must be a very small quantity indeed.



So your argument is that a small amount of something can't effect things. **** me its an argument aimed at idiots written by idiots. Its not like that this has been considered like forever. Tyndall discusses it;

https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog/page/n8

Whoever wrote this is either to lazy to look into what he is pontificating about or is just being dishonest for whatever reason.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-10-2018 21:23
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Nothing 'moderates' temperatures. Gases and vapors are not intelligent.

What does 'moderating' have to do with intelligent?
Into the Night wrote:
Convection does NOT reduce radiance of the Earth. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Convection reduces surface temperatures which effectively reduces the radiance of the Earth. With no atmosphere, the only source of heat transfer is by radiation. With an atmosphere, heat transfer can also occur by convection. Convection transfers much of the heat to the atmosphere instead of straight into space. The resulting lower surface temperature significantly reduce the amount of radiation that escapes into space. This is perfectly in line with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Into the Night wrote:
Water vapor is not constantly changing state.

Yes it is. Pure water vapor is gaseous H2O and is invisible to the naked eye. It will condense and form small water droplets which commonly manifests itself as clouds and sometimes rain. Water droplets can freeze and can also manifest as clouds and sometimes snow. The reverse can happen. For example, when you see clouds disappearing, it is because the water droplets are changing into water vapor. This is pretty basic stuff.
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Water is simply part of the mass of the atmosphere. It has a higher specific heat than anything else in the atmosphere, but that's all. That is not 'moderating' anything.

Please look up the terms 'Latent Heat', 'Heat of Fusion', and 'Heat of Vaporization'. These are typically orders of magnitude higher than simple 'sensible heat', which is related to 'specific heat'.
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Otherwise you would have no clear nights.

It's all related to humidity levels. On a clear night with high humidity you will see dew or frost.
Into the Night wrote:
I see large temperature swings in both.

Death Valley in June: Average high 110, average low 81. 29 degree delta.
Houston in June: Average high 91, average low 72. 19 degree delta. You will find that this trend is consistent.
02-10-2018 21:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
Jeffvw wrote:
What does 'moderating' have to do with intelligent?


I have often found common english words take up totally different meanings to what us mere mortals understand them to have when ITN is using them to support one of his arguments.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-10-2018 22:46
noutopia
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
CO2 levels have been known to warm the Earth for 200 years nearly, CO2 warming raises water vaper levels, warm air holds more water, are these not facts.
02-10-2018 23:01
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
noutopia wrote:
CO2 levels have been known to warm the Earth for 200 years nearly, CO2 warming raises water vaper levels, warm air holds more water, are these not facts.

And more water vapor forms more clouds, which cools the earth.

In reality, we don't know if the water vapor feedback will be positive or negative, but we do know that if water vapor gets high enough, it will form clouds. A runaway warming is very unlikely.
03-10-2018 01:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Nothing 'moderates' temperatures. Gases and vapors are not intelligent.

What does 'moderating' have to do with intelligent?

'Moderating' anything is an intelligent act. The atmosphere simply has mass. It takes time for it to warm up and cool down, like any mass.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Convection does NOT reduce radiance of the Earth. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Convection reduces surface temperatures which effectively reduces the radiance of the Earth.

Convection does not reduce surface temperatures. Convection only cools the air by dispersing energy over a wider area. The surface is cooled by conduction and by radiance.
Jeffvw wrote:
With no atmosphere, the only source of heat transfer is by radiation.

The only type of heat that goes into space is radiance.
Jeffvw wrote:
With an atmosphere, heat transfer can also occur by convection.

Convection does not go into space.
Jeffvw wrote:
Convection transfers much of the heat to the atmosphere instead of straight into space. The resulting lower surface temperature significantly reduce the amount of radiation that escapes into space. This is perfectly in line with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

WRONG. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law! You are not considering the radiance of the atmosphere itself.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Water vapor is not constantly changing state.

Yes it is. Pure water vapor is gaseous H2O and is invisible to the naked eye. It will condense and form small water droplets which commonly manifests itself as clouds and sometimes rain. Water droplets can freeze and can also manifest as clouds and sometimes snow. The reverse can happen. For example, when you see clouds disappearing, it is because the water droplets are changing into water vapor. This is pretty basic stuff.

That can happen at any time of day, not just at night as you are arguing. It may not happen at any time of day. Liquid water is not water vapor.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Water is simply part of the mass of the atmosphere. It has a higher specific heat than anything else in the atmosphere, but that's all. That is not 'moderating' anything.

Please look up the terms 'Latent Heat', 'Heat of Fusion', and 'Heat of Vaporization'. These are typically orders of magnitude higher than simple 'sensible heat', which is related to 'specific heat'.
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Otherwise you would have no clear nights.

It's all related to humidity levels. On a clear night with high humidity you will see dew or frost.

Humidity itself is related to temperature, dude.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I see large temperature swings in both.

Death Valley in June: Average high 110, average low 81. 29 degree delta.
Houston in June: Average high 91, average low 72. 19 degree delta. You will find that this trend is consistent.

There is no 'trend' in temperature spread. Houston is cooler than Death Valley because it's higher in elevation than Death Valley. It tends to get more consistent temperatures from the Gulf as well. Land cools off and warms up faster than seawater does.

Houston has a generally wider temperature spread than Seattle, which has similar humidity, due to cloud cover blocking sunlight. We get a lot of stratus clouds here, you see, whereas Houston tends to get a lot of cumulus clouds instead.

I realize this particular theory is popular, but unfortunately, it has been falsified. All one needs is one exception. There are days in Death Valley where the temperature changes very little from day to night. There are days in Seattle where the temperature changes quite a lot, even though we have higher humidity than Death Valley.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2018 01:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
spot wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
What does 'moderating' have to do with intelligent?


I have often found common english words take up totally different meanings to what us mere mortals understand them to have when ITN is using them to support one of his arguments.


Maybe you should actually learn the terminology and where words come from. I find etymology to be a fascinating hobby.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2018 01:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
noutopia wrote:
CO2 levels have been known to warm the Earth for 200 years nearly, CO2 warming raises water vaper levels, warm air holds more water, are these not facts.


A fact is not a Universal Truth. Learn what a 'fact' is.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. Poor ole' Arrhenius has been misquoted so many times by the Church of Global Warming, it tends to discard the contributions he DID make to science (and why we won a Nobel prize).

CO2 does not raise humidity.

No, these are not facts. These are arguments.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2018 01:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Jeffvw wrote:
noutopia wrote:
CO2 levels have been known to warm the Earth for 200 years nearly, CO2 warming raises water vaper levels, warm air holds more water, are these not facts.

And more water vapor forms more clouds, which cools the earth.

CO2 does not warm the Earth. It can't. More water vapor does not form clouds.
Jeffvw wrote:
In reality, we don't know if the water vapor feedback will be positive or negative, but we do know that if water vapor gets high enough, it will form clouds.
More water vapor does not form clouds.
Jeffvw wrote:
A runaway warming is very unlikely.

There is no feedback mechanism.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2018 20:58
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:'Moderating' anything is an intelligent act. The atmosphere simply has mass. It takes time for it to warm up and cool down, like any mass.

'Moderating' has multiple definitions. It is common for weather forecasters to look at humidity levels to help them in their predictions of temperatures. Higher humidity equates to lower highs and higher lows.
Into the Night wrote:
Convection does not reduce surface temperatures. Convection only cools the air by dispersing energy over a wider area. The surface is cooled by conduction and by radiance.

The surface is cooled by conduction, radiance, and convection. Radiance has very little impact on air temperatures. Convection heats the air during the day which cools the surface. Since the surface is cooler, it radiates much less to space (proportional to T^4). A good example of convection in nature is a dust devil. Somehow I think you are confusing conduction with convection. Conduction mainly occurs is solids. Convection occurs in fluids (liquids and gasses), where the portion of the fluid that is in contact with the hot surface rises and is replaced by a cooler fluid, which gets heated and again replaced.
Into the Night wrote:
The only type of heat that goes into space is radiance.

True. That is why if the surface is cooled by the atmosphere, much less heat goes into space (again it is proportional to T^4).
Into the Night wrote:
Convection does not go into space.

True, it goes into the atmosphere.
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law! You are not considering the radiance of the atmosphere itself.

I don't think you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The atmosphere is mainly made of up N2 and O2. They are effectively invisible to nearly all of the electromagnetic spectrum that is of interest. They do not radiate heat to space. They are heated and cooled by convection or conduction. The trace amounts of H2O and CO2 can potentially heat or cool the N2 or O2 by collisions and then transfer that heat by radiance, but it would be negligible.
Into the Night wrote:
Humidity itself is related to temperature, dude.

Relative humidity is related to temperature. A better way to think about humidity is dew point. The higher the dew point, the more moisture is in the air. If air temperature drops below the dew point, the water vapor will condense and form dew (or clouds) and that transition will release a lot of latent heat. That is why you have higher low temperatures when it is humid.
Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'trend' in temperature spread. Houston is cooler than Death Valley because it's higher in elevation than Death Valley. It tends to get more consistent temperatures from the Gulf as well. Land cools off and warms up faster than seawater does.

Houston has a generally wider temperature spread than Seattle, which has similar humidity, due to cloud cover blocking sunlight. We get a lot of stratus clouds here, you see, whereas Houston tends to get a lot of cumulus clouds instead.

I realize this particular theory is popular, but unfortunately, it has been falsified. All one needs is one exception. There are days in Death Valley where the temperature changes very little from day to night. There are days in Seattle where the temperature changes quite a lot, even though we have higher humidity than Death Valley.

Of course there is variation due to weather conditions. Weather forecasters always take humidity into account when forecasting temperatures. Please take some time and study 'latent heat'. You clearly don't understand it.
03-10-2018 22:17
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:'Moderating' anything is an intelligent act. The atmosphere simply has mass. It takes time for it to warm up and cool down, like any mass.
Jeffvw wrote:
'Moderating' has multiple definitions. It is common for weather forecasters to look at humidity levels to help them in their predictions of temperatures. Higher humidity equates to lower highs and higher lows.



....@Jeffvw, he's probably doing some extra bong hits and tokes to wrap his mind around this. He seems to prefer "Fuzzy Logic" which is a branch of science.

https://searchenterpriseai.techtarget.com/definition/fuzzy-logic
04-10-2018 11:35
AK_User
☆☆☆☆☆
(25)
One Punch Man wrote:
The graphs below are good in helping to visualize how tiny human CO2 is compared to the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. The rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It becomes obvious that man-made global warming must be a very small quantity indeed.


You might want to read your graphic again. That is 0.04% atmospheric CO2, not 4%. It has not been 4% atmospheric CO2 on this planet for more than 600 million years, thankfully. Otherwise we would be having serious problems right now. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) puts atmospheric CO2 at 3% before it starts causing health problems in humans, which would be 30,000 ppm. We are currently at ~407 ppm.

The pie chart shows the 1% atmospheric water vapor in comparison to the 0.04% CO2. The human CO2 contribution is a very tiny portion of that 0.04%.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. We've had ice ages when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today, and we have had the hottest period on our planet in the last 600 million years when atmospheric CO2 levels were below what they are today.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of all the radiative forcing, where atmospheric CO2 only contributes 3%.

You can also tell that this Climate Change alarmism is politically motivated. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, but since that occurs through evaporation and is not controllable by government, it gets completely ignored. Instead the leftists use atmospheric CO2 as their vehicle to push their Marxist policies. You will note that the only solution they offer is an increase in the size and scope of government combined with massive increase in taxes for something that is barely measurable.

Furthermore, this is not the only time in history when we have experienced warming cycles. The hottest period yet recorded during the current Holocene Interglacial Period occurred 8,200 years ago and is known as the Holocene Maximum. Then there was the Minoan Warming Period 3,300 years ago, the Roman Warming Period 2100 years ago, and the Medieval Warming Period 800 years ago.

It should also be noted that during each of these warming periods humanity made great leaps forward in art and the sciences. Including the current warming period.
Edited on 04-10-2018 12:10
04-10-2018 11:46
AK_User
☆☆☆☆☆
(25)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.
04-10-2018 14:52
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
AK_User wrote:
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
The graphs below are good in helping to visualize how tiny human CO2 is compared to the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. The rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It becomes obvious that man-made global warming must be a very small quantity indeed.

You might want to read your graphic again. That is 0.04% atmospheric CO2, not 4%. It has not been 4% atmospheric CO2 on this planet for more than 600 million years, thankfully. Otherwise we would be having serious problems right now. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) puts atmospheric CO2 at 3% before it starts causing health problems in humans, which would be 30,000 ppm. We are currently at ~407 ppm.

The pie chart shows the 1% atmospheric water vapor in comparison to the 0.04% CO2. The human CO2 contribution is a very tiny portion of that 0.04%.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. We've had ice ages when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today, and we have had the hottest period on our planet in the last 600 million years when atmospheric CO2 levels were below what they are today.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of all the radiative forcing, where atmospheric CO2 only contributes 3%.

I said that CO2 was about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. Not 4% of the total atmosphere, just 4% of the atmospheric greenhouse.


Nathan-D
04-10-2018 17:10
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).
05-10-2018 19:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:'Moderating' anything is an intelligent act. The atmosphere simply has mass. It takes time for it to warm up and cool down, like any mass.

'Moderating' has multiple definitions.

Only one.
Jeffvw wrote:
It is common for weather forecasters to look at humidity levels to help them in their predictions of temperatures. Higher humidity equates to lower highs and higher lows.

No, weather forecasters look at humidity to get some idea on the predicted cloud cover and precipitation chances.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Convection does not reduce surface temperatures. Convection only cools the air by dispersing energy over a wider area. The surface is cooled by conduction and by radiance.

The surface is cooled by conduction, radiance, and convection.

WRONG. The surface is cooled only by conduction and radiance. The surface is not a fluid.
Jeffvw wrote:
Radiance has very little impact on air temperatures.

It has a lot of effect, dude. Gases have radiance, just as solids do.
Jeffvw wrote:
Convection heats the air during the day which cools the surface.

WRONG. Conduction heats the air (and some radiance). Not convection.
Jeffvw wrote:
Since the surface is cooler, it radiates much less to space (proportional to T^4).

It does. Instead the atmosphere radiates more to space.
Jeffvw wrote:
A good example of convection in nature is a dust devil.

True. That is hot air rising. That is convection.
Jeffvw wrote:
Somehow I think you are confusing conduction with convection.

No, it is YOU that is doing this. Inversion fallacy.
Jeffvw wrote:
Conduction mainly occurs is solids.

WRONG. Conduction occurs everywhere.
Jeffvw wrote:
Convection occurs in fluids (liquids and gasses), where the portion of the fluid that is in contact with the hot surface rises and is replaced by a cooler fluid, which gets heated and again replaced.

WRONG. Convection is simply the movement of the air. It has nothing to do with what heats it. It is hot air rising.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The only type of heat that goes into space is radiance.

True. That is why if the surface is cooled by the atmosphere, much less heat goes into space (again it is proportional to T^4).

WRONG. The atmosphere has radiance, just as the surface has. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to gases, liquids, solids, even plasmas.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Convection does not go into space.

True, it goes into the atmosphere.

WRONG. It IS the atmosphere. You are again confusing conduction with convection.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law! You are not considering the radiance of the atmosphere itself.

I don't think you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

I understand it quite well. I understand it applies to ALL bodies, not just solid ones.
Jeffvw wrote:
The atmosphere is mainly made of up N2 and O2. They are effectively invisible to nearly all of the electromagnetic spectrum that is of interest. They do not radiate heat to space.

WRONG. They DO radiate into space.
Jeffvw wrote:
They are heated and cooled by convection or conduction.

Convection does not go into space. Neither does conduction.
Jeffvw wrote:
The trace amounts of H2O and CO2 can potentially heat or cool the N2 or O2 by collisions and then transfer that heat by radiance, but it would be negligible.

WRONG. Conduction, convection, and radiance ALL take place in the atmosphere.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Humidity itself is related to temperature, dude.

Relative humidity is related to temperature. A better way to think about humidity is dew point. The higher the dew point, the more moisture is in the air. If air temperature drops below the dew point, the water vapor will condense and form dew (or clouds) and that transition will release a lot of latent heat. That is why you have higher low temperatures when it is humid.

WRONG. Humidity sets the dew point. It does not raise the temperature of anything.
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'trend' in temperature spread. Houston is cooler than Death Valley because it's higher in elevation than Death Valley. It tends to get more consistent temperatures from the Gulf as well. Land cools off and warms up faster than seawater does.

Houston has a generally wider temperature spread than Seattle, which has similar humidity, due to cloud cover blocking sunlight. We get a lot of stratus clouds here, you see, whereas Houston tends to get a lot of cumulus clouds instead.

I realize this particular theory is popular, but unfortunately, it has been falsified. All one needs is one exception. There are days in Death Valley where the temperature changes very little from day to night. There are days in Seattle where the temperature changes quite a lot, even though we have higher humidity than Death Valley.

Of course there is variation due to weather conditions. Weather forecasters always take humidity into account when forecasting temperatures.

WRONG. They use it to predict cloud cover and precipitation.
Jeffvw wrote:
Please take some time and study 'latent heat'. You clearly don't understand it.

I do understand it. It does not warm anything. It does not cool anything. It does not change the temperature at all.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2018 19:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.


WRONG. It applies to solids, gases, liquids, and even plasmas. It applies to ALL bodies, not just ideally black ones. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing terms in the equation.

It DOES apply to the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2018 19:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
One Punch Man wrote:
AK_User wrote:
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
The graphs below are good in helping to visualize how tiny human CO2 is compared to the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. The rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It becomes obvious that man-made global warming must be a very small quantity indeed.

You might want to read your graphic again. That is 0.04% atmospheric CO2, not 4%. It has not been 4% atmospheric CO2 on this planet for more than 600 million years, thankfully. Otherwise we would be having serious problems right now. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) puts atmospheric CO2 at 3% before it starts causing health problems in humans, which would be 30,000 ppm. We are currently at ~407 ppm.

The pie chart shows the 1% atmospheric water vapor in comparison to the 0.04% CO2. The human CO2 contribution is a very tiny portion of that 0.04%.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. We've had ice ages when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today, and we have had the hottest period on our planet in the last 600 million years when atmospheric CO2 levels were below what they are today.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of all the radiative forcing, where atmospheric CO2 only contributes 3%.

I said that CO2 was about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. Not 4% of the total atmosphere, just 4% of the atmospheric greenhouse.


There is no such thing as an 'atmospheric greenhouse'. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth by absorbing surface IR.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2018 19:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Jeffvw wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct.

No, utterly wrong.
Jeffvw wrote:
That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body

Yes they do. All gases do.
Jeffvw wrote:
since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about.

There is no term for frequency in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body.

ALL gases have black body radiance.
Jeffvw wrote:
Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for frequency. ALL frequencies combined are considered.
Jeffvw wrote:
But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

It also emits black body radiation over a wide range of colors. That curve is according to Wien's law. The amount radiated is according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2018 20:39
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.
05-10-2018 20:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.


Heat does not 'transfer'.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2018 21:29
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.


Heat does not 'transfer'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer
05-10-2018 22:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.


Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...


Wikipedia is discarded on sight. It is not a valid reference. Too many articles in it are badly written, incomplete, or outright wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and its direction of flow. Wikipedia does not define 'heat'.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat does not 'transfer' anywhere. Heat IS transfer. It is the flow itself.


False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2018 22:33
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.


Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...


Wikipedia is discarded on sight. It is not a valid reference. Too many articles in it are badly written, incomplete, or outright wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and its direction of flow. Wikipedia does not define 'heat'.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat does not 'transfer' anywhere. Heat IS transfer. It is the flow itself.


False authority fallacy.

Amazon search for 'Heat Transfer' textbooks
I would strongly suggesting purchasing one of these textbooks and reading it, or sign up for a university level 'Heat Transfer' course almost anywhere that has engineering courses.
05-10-2018 23:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.


Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...


Wikipedia is discarded on sight. It is not a valid reference. Too many articles in it are badly written, incomplete, or outright wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and its direction of flow. Wikipedia does not define 'heat'.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat does not 'transfer' anywhere. Heat IS transfer. It is the flow itself.


False authority fallacy.

Amazon search for 'Heat Transfer' textbooks
I would strongly suggesting purchasing one of these textbooks and reading it, or sign up for a university level 'Heat Transfer' course almost anywhere that has engineering courses.


I would strongly suggest you learn what 'heat' is.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2018 23:11
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.


Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...


Wikipedia is discarded on sight. It is not a valid reference. Too many articles in it are badly written, incomplete, or outright wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and its direction of flow. Wikipedia does not define 'heat'.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat does not 'transfer' anywhere. Heat IS transfer. It is the flow itself.


False authority fallacy.

Amazon search for 'Heat Transfer' textbooks
I would strongly suggesting purchasing one of these textbooks and reading it, or sign up for a university level 'Heat Transfer' course almost anywhere that has engineering courses.


I would strongly suggest you learn what 'heat' is.

I did in my heat transfer, physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, and other classes. I passed and have applied what I learned in my career.
05-10-2018 23:47
AK_User
☆☆☆☆☆
(25)
Into the Night wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.


WRONG. It applies to solids, gases, liquids, and even plasmas. It applies to ALL bodies, not just ideally black ones. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing terms in the equation.

It DOES apply to the atmosphere.

No, it does not. However, your post does demonstrate that you do not have an understanding of either the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or basic physics.
05-10-2018 23:51
AK_User
☆☆☆☆☆
(25)
Jeffvw wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

Not "mostly correct", entirely correct. I posted, verbatim, the definitions of both the Stefan–Boltzmann law and black bodies. Look it up. The Stefan-Boltzmann equations have absolutely nothing do with atmospheres, gases, or chemical combinations. To even try to draw some kind of inference that there may be a correlation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.
06-10-2018 00:36
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

Not "mostly correct", entirely correct. I posted, verbatim, the definitions of both the Stefan–Boltzmann law and black bodies. Look it up. The Stefan-Boltzmann equations have absolutely nothing do with atmospheres, gases, or chemical combinations. To even try to draw some kind of inference that there may be a correlation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

To see if I am correct, take a spectrometer, point it into the sky (not the sun) and see if you can get a temperature of the CO2, O3, or H2O. You will be able to. The N2 and O2 are invisible. Here's an example:
Look at the wavelength around 667. You will see that the CO2 is warmer in the tropics. It can be measured. You can also estimate the temperature of the H2O and the ozone if you know what wavelengths to look at. You will also see that in Alaska, where there is very low humidity to interfere, that the O2 and N2 do not record a temperature.
The spectrometer uses the principles of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The dotted line represents an ideal black body temperature. The dotted line that the CO2 portion falls on will give you a good estimate of the temperature of the CO2 above you.

If your assertion is correct, a spectrometer would be a flat line if you were looking into space.
Edited on 06-10-2018 00:37
06-10-2018 00:54
AK_User
☆☆☆☆☆
(25)
Jeffvw wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

Not "mostly correct", entirely correct. I posted, verbatim, the definitions of both the Stefan–Boltzmann law and black bodies. Look it up. The Stefan-Boltzmann equations have absolutely nothing do with atmospheres, gases, or chemical combinations. To even try to draw some kind of inference that there may be a correlation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

To see if I am correct, take a spectrometer, point it into the sky (not the sun) and see if you can get a temperature of the CO2, O3, or H2O. You will be able to. The N2 and O2 are invisible. Here's an example:
Look at the wavelength around 667. You will see that the CO2 is warmer in the tropics. It can be measured. You can also estimate the temperature of the H2O and the ozone if you know what wavelengths to look at. You will also see that in Alaska, where there is very low humidity to interfere, that the O2 and N2 do not record a temperature.
The spectrometer uses the principles of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The dotted line represents an ideal black body temperature. The dotted line that the CO2 portion falls on will give you a good estimate of the temperature of the CO2 above you.

If your assertion is correct, a spectrometer would be a flat line if you were looking into space.

The Stefan-Boltzmann equations only apply to an abstraction of a physical concept. There are no black bodies on Earth, nor is Earth or any chemical a black body. You are misapplying the law because you do not understand it.

Your graph, by the way, fails to take into account that by March 10th Barrow was getting less that 12 hours of daylight and had just come out of 90 days of total darkness. One thing about O3 that less scrupulous politically motivated people never tell you is that it requires sunlight, or more specifically, UV radiation to make O3. No sunlight, no O3. Oh, look an ozone hole over Barrow (now known as Utqiagvik), Alaska! Imagine that!

Edited on 06-10-2018 01:01
06-10-2018 01:07
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
AK_User wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann equations only apply to an abstraction of a physical concept. There are no black bodies on Earth, nor is Earth or any chemical a black body. You are misapplying the law because you do not understand it.

As in all laws of science, it is applied in non-ideal conditions. It is still useful. You sound like ITN in your rigid adherence to a definition.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time j (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T.

Pay attention to the term proportional. That leaves room for gray bodies and elements that only emit a portion of the spectrum such as gasses.
06-10-2018 01:19
AK_User
☆☆☆☆☆
(25)
Jeffvw wrote:
AK_User wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann equations only apply to an abstraction of a physical concept. There are no black bodies on Earth, nor is Earth or any chemical a black body. You are misapplying the law because you do not understand it.

As in all laws of science, it is applied in non-ideal conditions. It is still useful. You sound like ITN in your rigid adherence to a definition.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time j (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T.

Pay attention to the term proportional. That leaves room for gray bodies and elements that only emit a portion of the spectrum such as gasses.

Of course it is applied in "non-ideal conditions," but that does not make the conclusions correct. The Stephan-Boltzmann equations are used in calculating stellar habitable zones, but only as approximations. Nobody has ever claimed any planet must have a specific surface temperature based upon the Stephan-Boltzmann laws. That would be stupid. They are only suggesting what the surface temperature of an idealized abstract black body would radiate according to Stephan-Boltzmann.

You are attempting to apply Stephan-Boltzmann to the real-world as an absolute, and that is where you are making your mistake. Stephan-Boltzmann has absolutely nothing to do with the practical world, because there is no such thing as a real physical black body that is able to absorb all electromagnetic radiation, regardless of the angle of incident. It is entirely a theoretical construct.
06-10-2018 06:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.


Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...


Wikipedia is discarded on sight. It is not a valid reference. Too many articles in it are badly written, incomplete, or outright wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and its direction of flow. Wikipedia does not define 'heat'.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat does not 'transfer' anywhere. Heat IS transfer. It is the flow itself.


False authority fallacy.

Amazon search for 'Heat Transfer' textbooks
I would strongly suggesting purchasing one of these textbooks and reading it, or sign up for a university level 'Heat Transfer' course almost anywhere that has engineering courses.


I would strongly suggest you learn what 'heat' is.

I did in my heat transfer, physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, and other classes. I passed and have applied what I learned in my career.


I don't believe you. You will find that claims of credentials mean nothing on forums.


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2018 06:46
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

Not "mostly correct", entirely correct. I posted, verbatim, the definitions of both the Stefan–Boltzmann law and black bodies. Look it up. The Stefan-Boltzmann equations have absolutely nothing do with atmospheres, gases, or chemical combinations. To even try to draw some kind of inference that there may be a correlation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.



...I've tried to explain ad nauseum that black body radiation actually references steel and the new science at the turn of the 20th Century. Any theoretical relationship would need to exist between water and atmospheric gases as the difference in density is about 1,000:1. The exchange rate of heat is expected to follow accordingly.
06-10-2018 06:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
AK_User wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.


WRONG. It applies to solids, gases, liquids, and even plasmas. It applies to ALL bodies, not just ideally black ones. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing terms in the equation.

It DOES apply to the atmosphere.

No, it does not. However, your post does demonstrate that you do not have an understanding of either the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or basic physics.

Argument of the Stone. Did you know an gas can glow with heat? What do you suppose it's giving off if not light?


The Parrot Killer
06-10-2018 06:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
AK_User wrote:
Jeffvw wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).


The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

Not "mostly correct", entirely correct.
AK_User wrote:
I posted, verbatim, the definitions of both the Stefan–Boltzmann law and black bodies.

No, you didn't. You are attempting to eliminate terms from the equation and add new ones.
AK_User wrote:
Look it up.

For reference: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
This law is an integration of Planck's law of all frequencies of light. It does not have any terms for frequency in it. It does not refer only to ideal black bodies. That is a reference point, not the law. That is why the law as an 'emissivity' constant. It is a measured constant. This law applies to all bodies, whether they are solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. It applies at all times.
AK_User wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann equations have absolutely nothing do with atmospheres, gases, or chemical combinations.

Yes it does. It applies to all bodies, even gaseous ones.
AK_User wrote:
To even try to draw some kind of inference that there may be a correlation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change27301-12-2018 20:09
Why I'm Skeptical3928-11-2018 00:11
20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming6927-09-2018 20:50
When (if at all) did human co2 emissions begin to affect the climate?915-05-2018 02:30
How Much Is Trly Human Caused?1629-03-2018 12:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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