Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 acts as a "setting" for how much H2O in atmosphere


CO2 acts as a "setting" for how much H2O in atmosphere18-09-2016 01:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
CO2 does increase the temperature of the Earth, but not by much. That is, not directly.

H2O is actually a better greenhouse gas than CO2 in that it absorbs more radiation. Why aren't we concerned about H2O emissions? Because the water cycle moves any excess water to the oceans and rivers.

But increasing the temperature of the Earth increases the amount of water that the atmosphere can hold. The atmosphere tends to be brought to a proportion of its maximum, but no more, by the water cycle; that is, the water cycle acts to keep the water in the atmosphere at a particular amount determined by temperature.

But H2O increases temperature, and that increases H2O in the air, and that increases temperature, and that increases H2O in the air! It is a feedback loop, one that can only be kicked off by increasing the temperature some other way than with H2O. The temperature of the Earth is actually quite delicate - the slightest push will be amplified.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
18-09-2016 01:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote:CO2 does increase the temperature of the Earth, but not by much. That is, not directly.


You are still weaseling.

You are still trying to argue that no additional energy is causing an increase in energy.

You are directly violating the 1st LoT while turning on the cognitive dissonance and claiming you aren't violating anything.

You are egregiously in error.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
18-09-2016 03:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The first law is not violated.

To prove this, let us ignore anything that concerns the second law of thermodynamics, Planck's Law, S-B, anything but the 1st LoT. Why? Because we're only dealing with the 1st LoT now. Divide and conquer.

Let us suppose that the atmosphere of Earth was taken away. This would cool down the surface to the temperature of an asteroid in a near-Earth orbit. (Of course, the days would get warmer, but the nights would cool down more than the days heated up.)

Now take this atmosphere-less Earth and gradually add its atmosphere. Would the Earth heat up?

Yes. Going from "cooler than X" to "X" is heating up. This logic is indisputable.

Where would the energy come from? It would come from reduced energy emissions, just as I've been saying. The Earth is heated by the atmosphere redirecting radiation back at it, or by the atmosphere absorbing radiation and preventing it from escaping, or by preventing it from being radiated out until a higher, cooler altitude. Whichever way the atmosphere heats the Earth, it does it by reducing emissions. Not a hypothetical atmosphere with more CO2. This atmosphere. Our atmosphere.

Of course, you could dispute this if you can show that the average temperature of the Earth is -38 C (the scientists made a 52 C error of measurement!) or mathematically prove that -38 = 14. Otherwise, this is indisputable. The average surface temperature of the Earth is warmer than the average surface temperature of the Moon. The only explanation is the atmosphere.
18-09-2016 04:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote:The first law is not violated.

Yes, your version of "greenhouse effect" still egregiously violates the 1st LoT and you are obviously still in heavy denial.

Your "greenhouse effect" increases the body's temperature, yes?

Assuming the body's volume is not compressed and assuming there is no other chemical reaction, the mere fact that the temperature has increased is a statement that there is a greater amount of energy.

Your only method of accounting for this additional energy is to insist that there is no additional energy.

Ergo, your argument remains that no increase in energy is an increase in energy.

Contradiction.

You are in error.

Your absurd claims are dismissed.

jwoodward48 wrote:Let us suppose that the atmosphere of Earth was taken away. This would cool down the surface to the temperature of an asteroid in a near-Earth orbit. (Of course, the days would get warmer, but the nights would cool down more than the days heated up.)

Earth would not "cool down" with the loss of the atmosphere.

Stefan-Boltzmann answers this question. Is this why you tried to prohibit Stefan-Boltzmann from the discussion?

Neither atmosphere nor atmospheric composition is a factor in a body's temperature. You would understand this if you weren't constantly denying the science I put in front of you.

A body does not increase in temperature if you add atmosphere.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
18-09-2016 04:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Have fun freezing to death, then. I mean, if I stick you in a room at -32 C, it'll be fine, right? It's the average temperature Earth would be without an atmosphere. Or I suppose the measured temperature of the Moon could be a hoax. Perhaps we need to place billions of thermometers on the Moon to prove that it's colder than Earth.
18-09-2016 05:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
A blanket heats up a person. Does that violate the first or second law of thermodynamics? It's reducing heat loss, same as Earth's atmosphere.

Hint: the internal vs external energy sources don't matter, as CO2 is partially opaque to infrared and pretty much ignores ultraviolet light. The energy from the sun is not as affected by greenhouse gases, and so can be seen as "inside the blanket".
Edited on 18-09-2016 05:15
18-09-2016 08:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, it's not reducing heat loss in the same way as greenhouse gases, but the heat flow changes are similar.
18-09-2016 09:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Have fun freezing to death, then. I mean, if I stick you in a room at -32 C, it'll be fine, right? It's the average temperature Earth would be without an atmosphere. Or I suppose the measured temperature of the Moon could be a hoax. Perhaps we need to place billions of thermometers on the Moon to prove that it's colder than Earth.


You are grabbing random shit numbers from an equation you don't even acknowledge and which you are using backwards to get to a stupid statement like that.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 09:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
A blanket heats up a person. Does that violate the first or second law of thermodynamics? It's reducing heat loss, same as Earth's atmosphere.

Hint: the internal vs external energy sources don't matter, as CO2 is partially opaque to infrared and pretty much ignores ultraviolet light. The energy from the sun is not as affected by greenhouse gases, and so can be seen as "inside the blanket".


CALLED IT! You brought up the classic Magick Blanket argument! You even merged it with the classic Magick One-Way Mirror argument!

You have learned NOTHING of what I taught you and what you acknowledged. You are now denying EVERYTHING that you have acknowledged.

The Church of Global Warming has made you dumb. You continue to deny science to worship your false God of Consensus and filled with teachings of Magick Blankets and Magick One-Way Mirrors.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 09:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Well, it's not reducing heat loss in the same way as greenhouse gases, but the heat flow changes are similar.


Nothing like it. Go learn how a blanket works. Then answer my question:

Is oxygen the same temperature as carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 09:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes! It is! Stop asking that everywhere. Keep it to the thread.
18-09-2016 10:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes! It is! Stop asking that everywhere. Keep it to the thread.

When you answer it, I'll stop stuffing it in your face.

You finally did answer it. I will continue that discussion there.

See the 'affects crops' thread.

Did you research how a blanket works?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-09-2016 11:00
18-09-2016 11:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
CO2 does increase the temperature of the Earth, but not by much. That is, not directly.

H2O is actually a better greenhouse gas than CO2 in that it absorbs more radiation. Why aren't we concerned about H2O emissions? Because the water cycle moves any excess water to the oceans and rivers.

But increasing the temperature of the Earth increases the amount of water that the atmosphere can hold. The atmosphere tends to be brought to a proportion of its maximum, but no more, by the water cycle; that is, the water cycle acts to keep the water in the atmosphere at a particular amount determined by temperature.

But H2O increases temperature, and that increases H2O in the air, and that increases temperature, and that increases H2O in the air! It is a feedback loop, one that can only be kicked off by increasing the temperature some other way than with H2O. The temperature of the Earth is actually quite delicate - the slightest push will be amplified.


The amount of water in the air, or at least it's carrying capacity, is fully understood. Is fully tabulated.

The tiny amount of extra water in the air due to the small increase in temperatures projected as a direct result of increased CO2 will have a tiny, if any, additional effect.

The earth has had periods of much hotter climates without going into any sort of unstoppable warming. We will never be VenusII.
18-09-2016 12:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I understand that a blanket reduced heat loss, mainly by reducing the effects of breezes and convections. It does not significantly affect radiative heat loss.

Now, tell me how this matters? The (first two) Laws of Thermodynamics don't care which way heat is lost, only the movement of energy.

The following numbers are made up, but the ordering of them is what matters. It's an example that shows that gw doesn't violate the LoT given a few lemmas. Those lemmas can then be discussed individually. Let it be made clear that this argument does not prove gw, only help to clear up where disputes exist. It's basically to help me figure out all my "assumptions" and prove them, and to help you understand my thinking and pinpoint what is wrong with my posts. (I assume that you are interested in discussion, not flamewars.) I might have made an extra assumption in my logic - please point that out if you find one. I also may have made a logical error - ditto.

For equilibrium to be reached, the energy in must equal the energy radiating from the Earth's surface (ERFS) minus the energy somehow brought back to the surface (EBS). (The method of bringing back the energy is part of Lemma A. For now, assume that the greenhouse effect increases the energy brought back more than the energy prevented from ever reaching the surface.) In other terms,

in = out_surface - not_let_out_by_atmosphere = out

Atmosphereless Earth:

In = 1.00 (this is the baseline for all energies)

ERFS = 1.00

EBS = 0.00

Out = 1.00

1.00 = 1.00 = 1.00 - 0.00
everything checks out, equilibrium exists

Now Earth has an atmosphere. It absorbs some sunlight, but more outward radiation. (This is Lemma A, and can be attacked or proven on its own.) Let's suppose that the atmosphere is added all at once. At that moment:

In = 0.95 (the atmosphere absorbs 0.10 of the sunlight and radiates half of that to space)

ERFS = 0.95 (equilibrium hasn't been reached yet, so we're for a short period suffering the decreased solar radiation without the greenhouse effect's warming; this effectively means that ERFS will continue equal In for a short time, but equilibrium will change that)

EBS = 0.08 (as per Lemma A; increased absorbance of earthly radiation plus back-radiation plus any of conduction, decrease in temperature of final radiative gas for infrared, etc. could produce this change)

Out = 0.87

0.95 =/= 0.87 = 0.95 - 0.08

Uh oh! More energy is coming in than is going out! Since there are feedback loops (Lemma C), this energy imbalance will have a larger effect than expected.

Let's wait a while, maybe equilibrium will be achieved:

In = 0.90

ERFS = 1.05

EBS = 0.15

Out = 0.90

0.90 = 0.90 = 1.05-0.15

(Here are my assumptions or lemmas:

A: A gas, combination of gases, or phenomenon exists which increases the outward energy through the atmosphere that is sent back to Earth more than the incoming energy through the atmosphere is sent back to space. That is, something can result in EBS exceeding 1 - In.

B: The positive feedback from warming the Earth exceeds the negative feedback. This may be necessary for any large-scale warming to occur.

Yep, equilibrium has been reached! How did that happen? As the temperature increased, two things happened: the greenhouse effect grew, and the outward radiation from Earth's surface increased. The latter increase was faster, and so it caught up with the greenhouse effect's decrease in escaping radiation relative to ERFS. The ERFS has increased, but not all of it is escaping - in fact, since the greenhouse effect has a similar, but lesser, effect on sunlight, radiating a portion of it to space, less of the radiation from Earth that a Martian might measure actually spent any time on the surface.

Note, though, that all equilibriums have in=out. In addition, someone outside Earth during equilibrium would notice 1.00 energy coming into the sphere defined by a radius that is one half of the Moon's orbit* - and 1.00 energy coming out of that sphere! Only during periods without equilibrium is there an imbalance between energy coming in and coming out of that sphere - and that correlates exactly to when there is an imbalance between the energy coming in and coming out of the Earth's surface! To an observer on Earth during that time, the energy coming in would exceed the energy coming out. To an observer on the Moon, there isn't enough energy coming out.

Where did the energy go? It went into heating the Earth. The 1st Law is not violated. No energy was ever created. No Lemmas ever assumed anything that can produce energy. (Lemma A simply says that a phenomenon exists wherein the redirection of energy traveling upwards through the atmosphere exceeds the redirection of energy traveling downwards. This does not violate the 1st Law.)

But what about the 2nd Law? Well, if the end result violates the 2nd Law (as you say it does), the error must be present in the Main Body or in a Lemma. With the assumption, though, that a phenomenon exists that increases EBS more than it decreases In, does my Main Body violate any laws? If not, then we can discuss Lemma A. If so, then where?

*(the radius doesn't actually matter, just needs to be bigger than Earth but not so big to include other bodies)
18-09-2016 21:25
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
jwoodward48 wrote:
A blanket heats up a person. Does that violate the first or second law of thermodynamics? It's reducing heat loss, same as Earth's atmosphere.

Hint: the internal vs external energy sources don't matter, as CO2 is partially opaque to infrared and pretty much ignores ultraviolet light. The energy from the sun is not as affected by greenhouse gases, and so can be seen as "inside the blanket".


A blanket does not heat up a person. The skin has the same temperature regardless of how much clothing a person wears.
18-09-2016 22:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Now I know you're trolling.
18-09-2016 22:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If temperature is not increased by putting on a jacket, regardless of how it achieves the reduced thermal dissipation necessary to increase temperature, the jacket is useless (as insulation).
Edited on 18-09-2016 22:30
18-09-2016 23:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Have fun freezing to death, then. I mean, if I stick you in a room at -32 C, it'll be fine, right? It's the average temperature Earth would be without an atmosphere. Or I suppose the measured temperature of the Moon could be a hoax. Perhaps we need to place billions of thermometers on the Moon to prove that it's colder than Earth.


You are grabbing random shit numbers from an equation you don't even acknowledge and which you are using backwards to get to a stupid statement like that.


How am I grabbing "random shit numbers"? The moon's average temperature is dozens of degrees Celsius colder than the average temperature of the Earth. Far outside any margins of errror, especially since the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

I acknowledge Planck and SB only for the types of situations in which they have been conceived, tested, and proven. Planck's Law applies only to black bodies, and S-B doesn't apply to the Earth as a whole, only to the radiation of each layer of the atmosphere. If you want to assert that a naive application of the Laws of Emission to a situation in which they don't apply produces useable and useful results, prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

And if the law really works, rearranging its terms mathematically is fine.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 18-09-2016 23:15
18-09-2016 23:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I understand that a blanket reduced heat loss, mainly by reducing the effects of breezes and convections. It does not significantly affect radiative heat loss.

Now, tell me how this matters? The (first two) Laws of Thermodynamics don't care which way heat is lost, only the movement of energy.

The following numbers are made up, but the ordering of them is what matters. It's an example that shows that gw doesn't violate the LoT given a few lemmas. Those lemmas can then be discussed individually. Let it be made clear that this argument does not prove gw, only help to clear up where disputes exist. It's basically to help me figure out all my "assumptions" and prove them, and to help you understand my thinking and pinpoint what is wrong with my posts. (I assume that you are interested in discussion, not flamewars.) I might have made an extra assumption in my logic - please point that out if you find one. I also may have made a logical error - ditto.

For equilibrium to be reached, the energy in must equal the energy radiating from the Earth's surface (ERFS) minus the energy somehow brought back to the surface (EBS). (The method of bringing back the energy is part of Lemma A. For now, assume that the greenhouse effect increases the energy brought back more than the energy prevented from ever reaching the surface.) In other terms,

in = out_surface - not_let_out_by_atmosphere = out

Atmosphereless Earth:

In = 1.00 (this is the baseline for all energies)

ERFS = 1.00

EBS = 0.00

Out = 1.00

1.00 = 1.00 = 1.00 - 0.00
everything checks out, equilibrium exists

Now Earth has an atmosphere. It absorbs some sunlight, but more outward radiation. (This is Lemma A, and can be attacked or proven on its own.) Let's suppose that the atmosphere is added all at once. At that moment:

In = 0.95 (the atmosphere absorbs 0.10 of the sunlight and radiates half of that to space)

ERFS = 0.95 (equilibrium hasn't been reached yet, so we're for a short period suffering the decreased solar radiation without the greenhouse effect's warming; this effectively means that ERFS will continue equal In for a short time, but equilibrium will change that)

EBS = 0.08 (as per Lemma A; increased absorbance of earthly radiation plus back-radiation plus any of conduction, decrease in temperature of final radiative gas for infrared, etc. could produce this change)

Out = 0.87

0.95 =/= 0.87 = 0.95 - 0.08

Uh oh! More energy is coming in than is going out! Since there are feedback loops (Lemma C), this energy imbalance will have a larger effect than expected.

Let's wait a while, maybe equilibrium will be achieved:

In = 0.90

ERFS = 1.05

EBS = 0.15

Out = 0.90

0.90 = 0.90 = 1.05-0.15

(Here are my assumptions or lemmas:

A: A gas, combination of gases, or phenomenon exists which increases the outward energy through the atmosphere that is sent back to Earth more than the incoming energy through the atmosphere is sent back to space. That is, something can result in EBS exceeding 1 - In.

B: The positive feedback from warming the Earth exceeds the negative feedback. This may be necessary for any large-scale warming to occur.

Yep, equilibrium has been reached! How did that happen? As the temperature increased, two things happened: the greenhouse effect grew, and the outward radiation from Earth's surface increased. The latter increase was faster, and so it caught up with the greenhouse effect's decrease in escaping radiation relative to ERFS. The ERFS has increased, but not all of it is escaping - in fact, since the greenhouse effect has a similar, but lesser, effect on sunlight, radiating a portion of it to space, less of the radiation from Earth that a Martian might measure actually spent any time on the surface.

Note, though, that all equilibriums have in=out. In addition, someone outside Earth during equilibrium would notice 1.00 energy coming into the sphere defined by a radius that is one half of the Moon's orbit* - and 1.00 energy coming out of that sphere! Only during periods without equilibrium is there an imbalance between energy coming in and coming out of that sphere - and that correlates exactly to when there is an imbalance between the energy coming in and coming out of the Earth's surface! To an observer on Earth during that time, the energy coming in would exceed the energy coming out. To an observer on the Moon, there isn't enough energy coming out.

Where did the energy go? It went into heating the Earth. The 1st Law is not violated. No energy was ever created. No Lemmas ever assumed anything that can produce energy. (Lemma A simply says that a phenomenon exists wherein the redirection of energy traveling upwards through the atmosphere exceeds the redirection of energy traveling downwards. This does not violate the 1st Law.)

But what about the 2nd Law? Well, if the end result violates the 2nd Law (as you say it does), the error must be present in the Main Body or in a Lemma. With the assumption, though, that a phenomenon exists that increases EBS more than it decreases In, does my Main Body violate any laws? If not, then we can discuss Lemma A. If so, then where?

*(the radius doesn't actually matter, just needs to be bigger than Earth but not so big to include other bodies)


Are you aware the S-B law incorporates area of radiation? Are you also aware that S-B cannot override the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Differences in emitted light and absorbed light cannot override the 2nd law.

So how does a colder gas warm a warmer surface?

What has greater surface area? A solid object or a gas of equal mass?


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 23:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
A blanket heats up a person. Does that violate the first or second law of thermodynamics? It's reducing heat loss, same as Earth's atmosphere.

Hint: the internal vs external energy sources don't matter, as CO2 is partially opaque to infrared and pretty much ignores ultraviolet light. The energy from the sun is not as affected by greenhouse gases, and so can be seen as "inside the blanket".


CALLED IT! You brought up the classic Magick Blanket argument! You even merged it with the classic Magick One-Way Mirror argument!

You have learned NOTHING of what I taught you and what you acknowledged. You are now denying EVERYTHING that you have acknowledged.

The Church of Global Warming has made you dumb. You continue to deny science to worship your false God of Consensus and filled with teachings of Magick Blankets and Magick One-Way Mirrors.


Dude, shut up and listen for a second. I never claimed that the GE was much like a blanket. (See the post after my quoted post for clarification; note how I wrote it before your post.) They're actually very different. The only main similarity, and, as it so happens, the similarity that I was noting, is that they somehow reduce heat emission. In terms of how they affect in/out energy flows, it's a decent comparison only if you're using it to explain how GW doesn't violate the 1st and 2nd laws.

As for the one-way mirror, the greater absorbence of the Earth's radiation compared to sunlight explains the one-way-ness.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
18-09-2016 23:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I understand that a blanket reduced heat loss, mainly by reducing the effects of breezes and convections. It does not significantly affect radiative heat loss.

Now, tell me how this matters? The (first two) Laws of Thermodynamics don't care which way heat is lost, only the movement of energy.

The following numbers are made up, but the ordering of them is what matters. It's an example that shows that gw doesn't violate the LoT given a few lemmas. Those lemmas can then be discussed individually. Let it be made clear that this argument does not prove gw, only help to clear up where disputes exist. It's basically to help me figure out all my "assumptions" and prove them, and to help you understand my thinking and pinpoint what is wrong with my posts. (I assume that you are interested in discussion, not flamewars.) I might have made an extra assumption in my logic - please point that out if you find one. I also may have made a logical error - ditto.

For equilibrium to be reached, the energy in must equal the energy radiating from the Earth's surface (ERFS) minus the energy somehow brought back to the surface (EBS). (The method of bringing back the energy is part of Lemma A. For now, assume that the greenhouse effect increases the energy brought back more than the energy prevented from ever reaching the surface.) In other terms,

in = out_surface - not_let_out_by_atmosphere = out

Atmosphereless Earth:

In = 1.00 (this is the baseline for all energies)

ERFS = 1.00

EBS = 0.00

Out = 1.00

1.00 = 1.00 = 1.00 - 0.00
everything checks out, equilibrium exists

Now Earth has an atmosphere. It absorbs some sunlight, but more outward radiation. (This is Lemma A, and can be attacked or proven on its own.) Let's suppose that the atmosphere is added all at once. At that moment:

In = 0.95 (the atmosphere absorbs 0.10 of the sunlight and radiates half of that to space)

ERFS = 0.95 (equilibrium hasn't been reached yet, so we're for a short period suffering the decreased solar radiation without the greenhouse effect's warming; this effectively means that ERFS will continue equal In for a short time, but equilibrium will change that)

EBS = 0.08 (as per Lemma A; increased absorbance of earthly radiation plus back-radiation plus any of conduction, decrease in temperature of final radiative gas for infrared, etc. could produce this change)

Out = 0.87

0.95 =/= 0.87 = 0.95 - 0.08

Uh oh! More energy is coming in than is going out! Since there are feedback loops (Lemma C), this energy imbalance will have a larger effect than expected.

Let's wait a while, maybe equilibrium will be achieved:

In = 0.90

ERFS = 1.05

EBS = 0.15

Out = 0.90

0.90 = 0.90 = 1.05-0.15

(Here are my assumptions or lemmas:

A: A gas, combination of gases, or phenomenon exists which increases the outward energy through the atmosphere that is sent back to Earth more than the incoming energy through the atmosphere is sent back to space. That is, something can result in EBS exceeding 1 - In.

B: The positive feedback from warming the Earth exceeds the negative feedback. This may be necessary for any large-scale warming to occur.

Yep, equilibrium has been reached! How did that happen? As the temperature increased, two things happened: the greenhouse effect grew, and the outward radiation from Earth's surface increased. The latter increase was faster, and so it caught up with the greenhouse effect's decrease in escaping radiation relative to ERFS. The ERFS has increased, but not all of it is escaping - in fact, since the greenhouse effect has a similar, but lesser, effect on sunlight, radiating a portion of it to space, less of the radiation from Earth that a Martian might measure actually spent any time on the surface.

Note, though, that all equilibriums have in=out. In addition, someone outside Earth during equilibrium would notice 1.00 energy coming into the sphere defined by a radius that is one half of the Moon's orbit* - and 1.00 energy coming out of that sphere! Only during periods without equilibrium is there an imbalance between energy coming in and coming out of that sphere - and that correlates exactly to when there is an imbalance between the energy coming in and coming out of the Earth's surface! To an observer on Earth during that time, the energy coming in would exceed the energy coming out. To an observer on the Moon, there isn't enough energy coming out.

Where did the energy go? It went into heating the Earth. The 1st Law is not violated. No energy was ever created. No Lemmas ever assumed anything that can produce energy. (Lemma A simply says that a phenomenon exists wherein the redirection of energy traveling upwards through the atmosphere exceeds the redirection of energy traveling downwards. This does not violate the 1st Law.)

But what about the 2nd Law? Well, if the end result violates the 2nd Law (as you say it does), the error must be present in the Main Body or in a Lemma. With the assumption, though, that a phenomenon exists that increases EBS more than it decreases In, does my Main Body violate any laws? If not, then we can discuss Lemma A. If so, then where?

*(the radius doesn't actually matter, just needs to be bigger than Earth but not so big to include other bodies)


Are you aware the S-B law incorporates area of radiation? Are you also aware that S-B cannot override the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Differences in emitted light and absorbed light cannot override the 2nd law.

So how does a colder gas warm a warmer surface?

What has greater surface area? A solid object or a gas of equal mass?


Yes, yes, no. (Huh? You idiot, the 2nd law is universal!) Yeah, but the gas itself is not heating the surface, it's simply preventing some cooling. If I turn down my AC, that makes me warmer.

Geez, Into, I don't know! Is the solid object platinum or wood? What pressure is the gas at? I can't answer the question without more information.

Alternatively, THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
18-09-2016 23:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
A blanket heats up a person. Does that violate the first or second law of thermodynamics? It's reducing heat loss, same as Earth's atmosphere.

Hint: the internal vs external energy sources don't matter, as CO2 is partially opaque to infrared and pretty much ignores ultraviolet light. The energy from the sun is not as affected by greenhouse gases, and so can be seen as "inside the blanket".


CALLED IT! You brought up the classic Magick Blanket argument! You even merged it with the classic Magick One-Way Mirror argument!

You have learned NOTHING of what I taught you and what you acknowledged. You are now denying EVERYTHING that you have acknowledged.

The Church of Global Warming has made you dumb. You continue to deny science to worship your false God of Consensus and filled with teachings of Magick Blankets and Magick One-Way Mirrors.


Dude, shut up and listen for a second. I never claimed that the GE was much like a blanket. (See the post after my quoted post for clarification; note how I wrote it before your post.) They're actually very different. The only main similarity, and, as it so happens, the similarity that I was noting, is that they somehow reduce heat emission. In terms of how they affect in/out energy flows, it's a decent comparison only if you're using it to explain how GW doesn't violate the 1st and 2nd laws.

As for the one-way mirror, the greater absorbence of the Earth's radiation compared to sunlight explains the one-way-ness.


Dude, the surface IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE.

You exactly claimed that 'greenhouse' gases act like a blanket. A Magick Blanket at that.

The atmosphere IS affected by energy from the sun.

The surface reflects light, just as all substances do.

The surface will only absorb certain frequencies of light, just as all substances do. It will emit IR light according to its temperature just as all substances do, including the atmosphere.

The incoming light is on one side of the planet. Radiation is from ALL sides of the planet.

You cannot warm a warmer surface with a colder one, be it by conduction, convection, or radiation. You cannot make hot coffee with ice.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 23:38
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
CO2 does increase the temperature of the Earth, but not by much. That is, not directly.

H2O is actually a better greenhouse gas than CO2 in that it absorbs more radiation. Why aren't we concerned about H2O emissions? Because the water cycle moves any excess water to the oceans and rivers.

But increasing the temperature of the Earth increases the amount of water that the atmosphere can hold. The atmosphere tends to be brought to a proportion of its maximum, but no more, by the water cycle; that is, the water cycle acts to keep the water in the atmosphere at a particular amount determined by temperature.

But H2O increases temperature, and that increases H2O in the air, and that increases temperature, and that increases H2O in the air! It is a feedback loop, one that can only be kicked off by increasing the temperature some other way than with H2O. The temperature of the Earth is actually quite delicate - the slightest push will be amplified.


The amount of water in the air, or at least it's carrying capacity, is fully understood. Is fully tabulated.

The tiny amount of extra water in the air due to the small increase in temperatures projected as a direct result of increased CO2 will have a tiny, if any, additional effect.

The earth has had periods of much hotter climates without going into any sort of unstoppable warming. We will never be VenusII.


I believe you meant "saturated." Yes, of course. That is what I said. But the amount of water present in saturated air increases with temperature. Hotter air holds more water.

Why do you say that the effects on temperature will be small? Keep in mind the feedback loop.

The climate has changed before, but not so quickly: there is not enough time for species to evolve for the new environment, and extinctions will skyrocket. (Of course, human activity has already made the extinction rate skyrocket, so the measured difference may be small compared to current rates.) Faster changes over merely thousands of years are still slow compared to the current trend. If we continue, the trend will get worse. That is why we need to decrease carbon emissions.

Fallacy Alert: Strawman! Venus is used as an extreme example of what the atmosphere can do to temperature. Unless we add dozens of atms of CO2, we won't see a Venus-like surface. (And if we do that, everybody would be long dead anyway, due to CO2 poisoning.)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
19-09-2016 00:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Also, don't just say that I am wrong. Point to where I am wrong! I gave you an argument and explanations with all assumptions listed. Use it.
19-09-2016 00:58
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Venus is used as an extreme example of what the atmosphere can do to temperature. Unless we add dozens of atms of CO2, we won't see a Venus-like surface. (And if we do that, everybody would be long dead anyway, due to CO2 poisoning.)


Venus is very different from Earth. It has a very reflective atmosphere. Very little sunlight reaches its surface despite being closer to the Sun. Venus atmosphere has 90+ times the pressure of Earth. Comparing Venus with Earth is apples and oranges. They are not directly comparable. A better comparison would be Scotland or Ireland compared with Alaska, which demonstrates the moderating and heating effects of water.
Edited on 19-09-2016 01:01
19-09-2016 02:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Joke's on you, because you're literally repeating what I just said. Earth will never become like Venus barring the entire human race focusing on terraforming Earth, and that would take centuries. That is, there's a huge difference.

I have used Venus as an example of a planet with an atmosphere that greatly affects its temperature. That does not mean that GHG will make Earth exactly like Venus, or in fact anything like Venus at all.




Join the debate CO2 acts as a "setting" for how much H2O in atmosphere:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)15615-10-2019 21:00
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact