Remember me
▼ Content

Consensus of Scientists and Proof



Page 4 of 8<<<23456>>>
13-04-2017 00:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Houses and ovens don't trap heat.

You're just playing with words now.

Ovens and houses are warm because their insulation slows the outward flow of the heat released within them by burning gas or passing electricity through a resistive load. The thicker the insulation, the warmer the house or oven for a given rate of heat release.

In an exactly analogous fashion, the Earth is warm because greenhouse gases slow the outward flow of heat (that was brought by solar radiation) by returning emitted IR. The more greenhouse gases there are, the more IR is returned and so the warmer the Earth is for a given amount of radiation from the sun.

At all points in the system, the amount of energy lost is exactly equal to the amount of energy received minus the increase in internal energy. There is therefore no violation of the 1st LoT.
13-04-2017 01:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Houses and ovens don't trap heat.

You're just playing with words now.

Nope. It is YOU that is insisting on playing with words. Redefining 'heat' is one such attempt. 'Heat' has a specific meaning in science.
Surface Detail wrote:
Ovens and houses are warm because their insulation slows the outward flow of the heat released within them by burning gas or passing electricity through a resistive load. The thicker the insulation, the warmer the house or oven for a given rate of heat release.

Wrong. they are warm because they have devices to convert electricity or fuel to thermal energy (furnace, gas, electric element). Insulation actually makes no difference to this whatsoever. Ovens get warm even when the door is open.
Surface Detail wrote:
In an exactly analogous fashion, the Earth is warm because greenhouse gases slow the outward flow of heat (that was brought by solar radiation) by returning emitted IR.

There is no insulation in the atmosphere. CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. Clouds conduct heat quite a bit BETTER than dry air.
Surface Detail wrote:
The more greenhouse gases there are, the more IR is returned and so the warmer the Earth is for a given amount of radiation from the sun.

The skin temperature of the lit side of the ISS is 250 deg F. Why is the daytime temperature of the Earth COOLER than the ISS? Magick Holy Gas??? Magick Bouncing Photons??? Magick Blankets???
Surface Detail wrote:
At all points in the system, the amount of energy lost is exactly equal to the amount of energy received minus the increase in internal energy. There is therefore no violation of the 1st LoT.

You can't trap heat. Attempting to do so violates the 1st LoT. You can't trap energy either, without converting it to potential energy, which has no temperature. To attempt to do so also violates the 1st LoT.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 13-04-2017 01:22
13-04-2017 01:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Houses and ovens don't trap heat.

You're just playing with words now.

Nope. It is YOU that is insisting on playing with words. Redefining 'heat' is one such attempt. 'Heat' has a specific meaning in science.
Surface Detail wrote:
Ovens and houses are warm because their insulation slows the outward flow of the heat released within them by burning gas or passing electricity through a resistive load. The thicker the insulation, the warmer the house or oven for a given rate of heat release.

Wrong. they are warm because they have devices to convert electricity or fuel to thermal energy (furnace, gas, electric element). Insulation actually makes no difference to this whatsoever. Ovens get warm even when the door is open.
Surface Detail wrote:
In an exactly analogous fashion, the Earth is warm because greenhouse gases slow the outward flow of heat (that was brought by solar radiation) by returning emitted IR.

There is no insulation in the atmosphere. CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. Clouds conduct heat quite a bit BETTER than dry air.
Surface Detail wrote:
The more greenhouse gases there are, the more IR is returned and so the warmer the Earth is for a given amount of radiation from the sun.

The skin temperature of the lit side of the ISS is 250 deg F. Why is the daytime temperature of the Earth COOLER than the ISS? Magick Holy Gas??? Magick Bouncing Photons??? Magick Blankets???
Surface Detail wrote:
At all points in the system, the amount of energy lost is exactly equal to the amount of energy received minus the increase in internal energy. There is therefore no violation of the 1st LoT.

You can't trap heat. Attempting to do so violates the 1st LoT. You can't trap energy either, without converting it to potential energy, which has no temperature. To attempt to do so also violates the 1st LoT.

You're just being deliberately obtuse now, as well as coming out with some bizarre statements. Insulation makes no difference to the temperature of a house or oven? Oxygen and nitrogen are not transparent to visible light (from your earlier post)? I think those'll be a tough sell to GasGuzzler.
13-04-2017 02:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Houses and ovens don't trap heat.

You're just playing with words now.

Nope. It is YOU that is insisting on playing with words. Redefining 'heat' is one such attempt. 'Heat' has a specific meaning in science.
Surface Detail wrote:
Ovens and houses are warm because their insulation slows the outward flow of the heat released within them by burning gas or passing electricity through a resistive load. The thicker the insulation, the warmer the house or oven for a given rate of heat release.

Wrong. they are warm because they have devices to convert electricity or fuel to thermal energy (furnace, gas, electric element). Insulation actually makes no difference to this whatsoever. Ovens get warm even when the door is open.
Surface Detail wrote:
In an exactly analogous fashion, the Earth is warm because greenhouse gases slow the outward flow of heat (that was brought by solar radiation) by returning emitted IR.

There is no insulation in the atmosphere. CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. Clouds conduct heat quite a bit BETTER than dry air.
Surface Detail wrote:
The more greenhouse gases there are, the more IR is returned and so the warmer the Earth is for a given amount of radiation from the sun.

The skin temperature of the lit side of the ISS is 250 deg F. Why is the daytime temperature of the Earth COOLER than the ISS? Magick Holy Gas??? Magick Bouncing Photons??? Magick Blankets???
Surface Detail wrote:
At all points in the system, the amount of energy lost is exactly equal to the amount of energy received minus the increase in internal energy. There is therefore no violation of the 1st LoT.

You can't trap heat. Attempting to do so violates the 1st LoT. You can't trap energy either, without converting it to potential energy, which has no temperature. To attempt to do so also violates the 1st LoT.

You're just being deliberately obtuse now, as well as coming out with some bizarre statements.
This style of the argument of the Stone fallacy seems to be a favorite of yours.
Surface Detail wrote:
Insulation makes no difference to the temperature of a house or oven?
That they become warmer? Nope. Not a bit of difference. All insulation does is require less fuel or electricity to do so, since insulation reduces heat.
Surface Detail wrote:
Oxygen and nitrogen are not transparent to visible light (from your earlier post)?
Correct. The reason visible light gets through anyway is because:
1) molecules don't always absorb (carbon dioxide only absorbs about 1% of the time a photon hits it). Instead is may be reflected (scattered), or the substance is effectively transparent for that molecule.
2) air is thin.
Surface Detail wrote:
I think those'll be a tough sell to GasGuzzler.

Speculating again?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-04-2017 02:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
That they become warmer? Nope. Not a bit of difference. All insulation does is require less fuel or electricity to do so, since insulation reduces heat.

We're obviously taking it as given that the same amount of energy is supplied (as with the Earth). If you change the amount of insulation while keeping the input of energy constant, then the temperature will also change.

Correct. The reason visible light gets through anyway is because:
1) molecules don't always absorb (carbon dioxide only absorbs about 1% of the time a photon hits it). Instead is may be reflected (scattered), or the substance is effectively transparent for that molecule.
2) air is thin.

The fact that the atmosphere allows visible light to pass through it without deviation of its path means that the atmosphere is transparent to visible light. That is the definition of transparent. The atmosphere is transparent to visible light.
13-04-2017 02:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
That they become warmer? Nope. Not a bit of difference. All insulation does is require less fuel or electricity to do so, since insulation reduces heat.

We're obviously taking it as given that the same amount of energy is supplied (as with the Earth). If you change the amount of insulation while keeping the input of energy constant, then the temperature will also change.

Assuming the insulation was capable of reducing radiant heating, yes. It would get colder. The source of that energy is outside the Earth.
Surface Detail wrote:
Correct. The reason visible light gets through anyway is because:
1) molecules don't always absorb (carbon dioxide only absorbs about 1% of the time a photon hits it). Instead is may be reflected (scattered), or the substance is effectively transparent for that molecule.
2) air is thin.

The fact that the atmosphere allows visible light to pass through it without deviation of its path means that the atmosphere is transparent to visible light. That is the definition of transparent. The atmosphere is transparent to visible light.


It doesn't allow visible light to pass through it without deviation of its path.

Apparently you've never heard of scattering (a form of reflection). Oh well, I guess the daytime sky is black to you, isn't it? It's too bad you can't appreciate a sunset. They are really quite beautiful.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-04-2017 06:00
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Surface Detail wrote:
I think those'll be a tough sell to GasGuzzler.


Well, this had been quite entertaining. I do not have my wallet out for either of you yet .


Surface Detail,
You still have not explained how increased water vapor increases heat. This seams to be a dead link in your sequence of events for global warming.

Parrot Killer
If you can't trap heat or increase thermal energy without increasing IR, explain how a car in the sun can heat to 130F when ambient temps are 90F.

Both of you....
Does CO2 have insulating properties? Why? Why not? Prove it.

I'll go make some popcorn.
13-04-2017 09:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I think those'll be a tough sell to GasGuzzler.


Well, this had been quite entertaining. I do not have my wallet out for either of you yet .


Parrot Killer
If you can't trap heat or increase thermal energy without increasing IR, explain how a car in the sun can heat to 130F when ambient temps are 90F.

Both of you....
Does CO2 have insulating properties? Why? Why not? Prove it.

I'll go make some popcorn.


A car in the sun does not trap heat. A car heating to 130 deg F does so because of reduced heat. In greenhouses and cars, reducing heat is done by limiting convective heating. Like everything else, though, they still absorb the same heat by radiance from the Sun.

At night, something interesting happens. Both greenhouses and cars return to ambient temperature. They gain more thermal energy during the day due to heat loss reduction (by shutting down convective heating), and lose more thermal energy to again reach ambient temperature at night.

Heat loss still occurs in greenhouses and cars just the same. The difference is one method of heating the outside atmosphere has been limited (convective heating). A hot greenhouse or car will still radiate more light in the infrared range. Radiant heating is not limited.

In the open atmosphere, no such limit exists. CO2 is a gas, and fluid like the rest of the atmosphere. It is just as much a part of convective heat flow as anything else in the atmosphere.

Convective heating is an important part of the troposphere. It is what powers all our weather. Just a bit of moisture, a bit of heat to get convection started, and suddenly you have a storm capable of major destruction...just from a bit of heating and a bit of water. Personally, I find that a most spectacular effect of simple convective heating, something denied greenhouses and cars.

You can find the thermal conductivity of common materials at http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html.

There you will see that CO2, O2, N2, and methane are fairly close to each other in conductivity. You will also find that water (use the liquid conductivity for most clouds), is high in thermal conductivity.

In summary for gases of interest (at atmospheric pressure) and water (in watts per meter in deg K):

CO2 - 0.0146
N2 - 0.0240
O2 - 0.0240
methane - 0.0300
water - 0.5800

You might find the list at the link interesting. There are other lists containing the same information, but not as well collated. It also has a feature that allows conversion of these figures to more familiar BTU / hour in deg F.

As you see, CO2 conducts heat about as well as any other gas. BTW, a wool blanket conducts heat better than any of them except water, at 0.0400. That why a wet blanket becomes useless and why you should change into dry cloths if they get wet on a cold day. On a hot day of course, a wet shirt can do wonders to help you cool down! Not only do you get better conductivity, you get the evaporation working for you as well!

The specific heat (the time it takes to heat and cool a substance in normalized form) can be found at
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html.

CO2 is not listed specifically (it's specific heat is approx 0.20 cal / gm deg C).

Dry air has a specific heat of 0.24 cal / gm deg C.

Pure water is considered the reference. It has 1.00 cal /gm deg C. It defines how big a calorie is.

It takes more time to heat water than it does to heat air, if you put the same energy into it, and if you go by weight. A gram of air is considerably larger than a gram of water.

I do not usually depend on links, but you asked for the references of these numbers. Links are fine for this purpose. Where people get in trouble with them is when they borrow arguments of others as their own, and they lose the ability to reason for themselves. It becomes a shouting match of links, resulting in a Link War.

If you wish to study this sort of thing further, these numbers for various substances are across several sites.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 13-04-2017 09:10
13-04-2017 09:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
And a black car heats up more then a white car Mr rocket scientist. Just like the on mythbusters experiment except it's different paint rather then different gasses within the chamber, day to day life proves your delusional pataphyisics wrong.


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.
13-04-2017 09:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the night.

I see that you are using the word heat to be something that it is not used as in the rest of the world.

There is temperature and there is heat energy. There is also the flow of heat energy or heat flow.

The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect, and I do not know if it is correct or not, is that the sun's energy comes into the earth as a wide spectrum of EM energy. But that since the temperature of the earth is lower than the Sun the out going radient heat energy from the surface of the earth is almost all in the IR.

The greenhouse gasses absorb IR and let the higher frquency light through. So when the Sun's rays come in they get a bit blocked by the gasses and the outgoing IR is more blocked. Thus a net heat energy inbalance and a warming effect. Once the temperature of the earth's surface has warmed a bit then the out going IR will have incresed so there will be a new balance point.

This lot is a bit debatable but should be avoided because it's all a bit too complex.

The next bit is that the increase in CO2 is supposed to create an increase in water vapour which is the primary geenhouse gas. This is highly debatable but let it go.

The next bit is that this will cause doom to fall upon the earth. Well it wont. This is clearly and easily obvious. Just examine any of the doom scenarios critically and they all fall down. Easy.

Edited on 13-04-2017 09:30
13-04-2017 09:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the night.

I see that you are using the word heat to be something that it is not used as in the rest of the world.
I am using the definition of heat as used in science. Heat has a very specific meaning in science.
Tim the plumber wrote:
There is temperature and there is heat energy. There is also the flow of heat energy or heat flow.
No, there is temperature. There is heat. They are not the same. Temperature is a measurement of thermal energy.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect, and I do not know if it is correct or not, is that the sun's energy comes into the earth as a wide spectrum of EM energy. But that since the temperature of the earth is lower than the Sun the out going radient heat energy from the surface of the earth is almost all in the IR.

The greenhouse gasses absorb IR and let the higher frquency light through. So when the Sun's rays come in they get a bit blocked by the gasses and the outgoing IR is more blocked. Thus a net heat energy inbalance and a warming effect. Once the temperature of the earth's surface has warmed a bit then the out going IR will have incresed so there will be a new balance point.
You have it rather correct. I refer to this as the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. The problem is that it violates the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This lot is a bit debatable but should be avoided because it's all a bit too complex.
It is intentionally made to look complex by the Church of Global Warming. It is designed to make it look like only the elites can understand it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The next bit is that the increase in CO2 is supposed to create an increase in water vapour which is the primary geenhouse gas. This is highly debatable but let it go.
Water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas either.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The next bit is that this will cause doom to fall upon the earth. Well it wont. This is clearly and easily obvious. Just examine any of the doom scenarios critically and they all fall down. Easy.

Yes. This is the usual conclusions made. It is no different than declaring the "End of the world is nigh!".


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-04-2017 09:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
spot wrote:
And a black car heats up more then a white car Mr rocket scientist. Just like the on mythbusters experiment except it's different paint rather then different gasses within the chamber, day to day life proves your delusional pataphyisics wrong.


A black car absorbs more energy than a white car. It loses more energy at night, too.

Doesn't support greenhouse effect, bozo.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-04-2017 13:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail,
You still have not explained how increased water vapor increases heat. This seams to be a dead link in your sequence of events for global warming.

Water vapour in the atmosphere behaves in a very similar way to CO2: it absorbs some of the IR emitted by the ground and emits IR in all directions, including downwards, thus reducing the rate at which IR is emitted into space. Water vapour is a better absorber of IR than CO2 and there is more of it in the air. So it absorbs and re-emits far more of the outgoing IR than CO2 does, making it by far the most effective greenhouse gas.

The big difference, though, is that water vapour doesn't stick around in the atmosphere like CO2 does. Its concentration fluctuates with the weather and is, on average, temperature dependent. The hotter the Earth, the more water vapour the atmosphere can hold. This means that water vapour amplifies the warming produced by permanent greenhouse gases like CO2. Added CO2 warms the Earth a little, which raises the water vapour concentration, thus warming the Earth some more.


Both of you....
Does CO2 have insulating properties? Why? Why not? Prove it.

CO2, like other gases, has insulating properties in the sense that it doesn't conduct heat very well, but that's not particularly relevant to the discussion. That's because the transport of heat through the atmosphere is mostly due to radiation and convection. However, CO2 in the atmosphere acts like an insulator because it absorbs some outgoing IR and re-emits some of this back to the ground - the net effect being that heat is lost from the Earth at a lower rate than if it wasn't there.
13-04-2017 16:55
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Water vapour is a better absorber of IR than CO2 and there is more of it in the air. So it absorbs and re-emits far more of the outgoing IR than CO2 does, making it by far the most effective greenhouse gas.

The hotter the Earth, the more water vapour the atmosphere can hold. This means that water vapour amplifies the warming produced by permanent greenhouse gases like CO2. Added CO2 warms the Earth a little, which raises the water vapour concentration, thus warming the Earth some more.



OK, got it, but still not getting it.

Here in the US we have some of the most wild weather in the world. One ingredient to that is the close proximity of very dry air with very humid air.

Phoenix Arizona, extremely dry air, has a max summer average of 107F, with a night time low average of 83....

At the same latitude there is Jackson Mississsipi. Oppressive humidity with a summer max average 92F, with a nighttime low average of 72F.

Even though the humid air takes longer to cool, the mean temp is far higher in the dry areas. I don't understand how there can be any claim to more water vapour causing any heating, or higher average temps. If anything, it has a cooling effect, especially when you factor cooling rain potential.
13-04-2017 17:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the night.

I see that you are using the word heat to be something that it is not used as in the rest of the world.
I am using the definition of heat as used in science. Heat has a very specific meaning in science.
Tim the plumber wrote:
There is temperature and there is heat energy. There is also the flow of heat energy or heat flow.
No, there is temperature. There is heat. They are not the same. Temperature is a measurement of thermal energy.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect, and I do not know if it is correct or not, is that the sun's energy comes into the earth as a wide spectrum of EM energy. But that since the temperature of the earth is lower than the Sun the out going radient heat energy from the surface of the earth is almost all in the IR.

The greenhouse gasses absorb IR and let the higher frquency light through. So when the Sun's rays come in they get a bit blocked by the gasses and the outgoing IR is more blocked. Thus a net heat energy inbalance and a warming effect. Once the temperature of the earth's surface has warmed a bit then the out going IR will have incresed so there will be a new balance point.
You have it rather correct. I refer to this as the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. The problem is that it violates the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This lot is a bit debatable but should be avoided because it's all a bit too complex.
It is intentionally made to look complex by the Church of Global Warming. It is designed to make it look like only the elites can understand it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The next bit is that the increase in CO2 is supposed to create an increase in water vapour which is the primary geenhouse gas. This is highly debatable but let it go.
Water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas either.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The next bit is that this will cause doom to fall upon the earth. Well it wont. This is clearly and easily obvious. Just examine any of the doom scenarios critically and they all fall down. Easy.

Yes. This is the usual conclusions made. It is no different than declaring the "End of the world is nigh!".


Temperature is definately not a measurement of thermal energy. Temperature is measured in degrees (c if you are being sensible) and thermal energy in joules.

I do not know what you are talking about when you say heat. Do you measure it in Joules, degrees or watts?
13-04-2017 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the night.

I see that you are using the word heat to be something that it is not used as in the rest of the world.
I am using the definition of heat as used in science. Heat has a very specific meaning in science.
Tim the plumber wrote:
There is temperature and there is heat energy. There is also the flow of heat energy or heat flow.
No, there is temperature. There is heat. They are not the same. Temperature is a measurement of thermal energy.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect, and I do not know if it is correct or not, is that the sun's energy comes into the earth as a wide spectrum of EM energy. But that since the temperature of the earth is lower than the Sun the out going radient heat energy from the surface of the earth is almost all in the IR.

The greenhouse gasses absorb IR and let the higher frquency light through. So when the Sun's rays come in they get a bit blocked by the gasses and the outgoing IR is more blocked. Thus a net heat energy inbalance and a warming effect. Once the temperature of the earth's surface has warmed a bit then the out going IR will have incresed so there will be a new balance point.
You have it rather correct. I refer to this as the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. The problem is that it violates the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This lot is a bit debatable but should be avoided because it's all a bit too complex.
It is intentionally made to look complex by the Church of Global Warming. It is designed to make it look like only the elites can understand it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The next bit is that the increase in CO2 is supposed to create an increase in water vapour which is the primary geenhouse gas. This is highly debatable but let it go.
Water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas either.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The next bit is that this will cause doom to fall upon the earth. Well it wont. This is clearly and easily obvious. Just examine any of the doom scenarios critically and they all fall down. Easy.

Yes. This is the usual conclusions made. It is no different than declaring the "End of the world is nigh!".


Temperature is definately not a measurement of thermal energy. Temperature is measured in degrees (c if you are being sensible) and thermal energy in joules.

I do not know what you are talking about when you say heat. Do you measure it in Joules, degrees or watts?


Thermal energy is the random movement of molecules. Temperature is a measurement of the average of this movement. Temperature is used for thermal energy. The joule is the unit of heat, which can also be expressed as watts per second.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-04-2017 01:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail,
You still have not explained how increased water vapor increases heat. This seams to be a dead link in your sequence of events for global warming.

Water vapour in the atmosphere behaves in a very similar way to CO2: it absorbs some of the IR emitted by the ground and emits IR in all directions, including downwards, thus reducing the rate at which IR is emitted into space. Water vapour is a better absorber of IR than CO2 and there is more of it in the air. So it absorbs and re-emits far more of the outgoing IR than CO2 does, making it by far the most effective greenhouse gas.

The big difference, though, is that water vapour doesn't stick around in the atmosphere like CO2 does. Its concentration fluctuates with the weather and is, on average, temperature dependent. The hotter the Earth, the more water vapour the atmosphere can hold. This means that water vapour amplifies the warming produced by permanent greenhouse gases like CO2. Added CO2 warms the Earth a little, which raises the water vapour concentration, thus warming the Earth some more.


Both of you....
Does CO2 have insulating properties? Why? Why not? Prove it.

CO2, like other gases, has insulating properties in the sense that it doesn't conduct heat very well, but that's not particularly relevant to the discussion. That's because the transport of heat through the atmosphere is mostly due to radiation and convection. However, CO2 in the atmosphere acts like an insulator because it absorbs some outgoing IR and re-emits some of this back to the ground - the net effect being that heat is lost from the Earth at a lower rate than if it wasn't there.


Surface Defect - H2O ACTS LIKE CO2??? Every time you post you insult your parents.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

If anyone thinks back you'll remember that this turd in disguise used this SAME site to try to explain something else he doesn't understand.

Only 48% of the Sun's radiation ever gets down below the Tropopause and of that only 17% is converted to radiation and CO2 has almost NOTHING to do with any of that energy. Furthermore, of that energy that is in the absorption spectra of CO2 what is left unsaid is that every OTHER band in the IR spectra is the EMISSION spectra of CO2.

This means that CO2 is actually a coolant and not a "greenhouse gas".

A fool and his mouth show the world what he is.
14-04-2017 03:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Water vapour is a better absorber of IR than CO2 and there is more of it in the air. So it absorbs and re-emits far more of the outgoing IR than CO2 does, making it by far the most effective greenhouse gas.

The hotter the Earth, the more water vapour the atmosphere can hold. This means that water vapour amplifies the warming produced by permanent greenhouse gases like CO2. Added CO2 warms the Earth a little, which raises the water vapour concentration, thus warming the Earth some more.



OK, got it, but still not getting it.

Here in the US we have some of the most wild weather in the world. One ingredient to that is the close proximity of very dry air with very humid air.

Phoenix Arizona, extremely dry air, has a max summer average of 107F, with a night time low average of 83....

At the same latitude there is Jackson Mississsipi. Oppressive humidity with a summer max average 92F, with a nighttime low average of 72F.

Even though the humid air takes longer to cool, the mean temp is far higher in the dry areas. I don't understand how there can be any claim to more water vapour causing any heating, or higher average temps. If anything, it has a cooling effect, especially when you factor cooling rain potential.

That's an interesting question. It's true that we don't normally think of humid places as being hot places. It's a fact that H2O molecules absorb IR radiation well, so you'd think that humid places should be the warmest.

Some thoughts on this: remember that relative humidity (what we feel) isn't the same as absolute humidity (the amount of H2O in the air) since hot air can hold more water vapour but still have a lower relative humidity. Also, places where the geography and airflow causes humidity to form clouds will have a lower daytime temperature due to the clouds reflecting incoming sunlight.

I need to think some more about this, but have had a glass or two of red, so not the best time now. I'll get back to you on this.
14-04-2017 03:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the night.

I see that you are using the word heat to be something that it is not used as in the rest of the world.
I am using the definition of heat as used in science. Heat has a very specific meaning in science.
Tim the plumber wrote:
There is temperature and there is heat energy. There is also the flow of heat energy or heat flow.
No, there is temperature. There is heat. They are not the same. Temperature is a measurement of thermal energy.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The hypothesis of the greenhouse effect, and I do not know if it is correct or not, is that the sun's energy comes into the earth as a wide spectrum of EM energy. But that since the temperature of the earth is lower than the Sun the out going radient heat energy from the surface of the earth is almost all in the IR.

The greenhouse gasses absorb IR and let the higher frquency light through. So when the Sun's rays come in they get a bit blocked by the gasses and the outgoing IR is more blocked. Thus a net heat energy inbalance and a warming effect. Once the temperature of the earth's surface has warmed a bit then the out going IR will have incresed so there will be a new balance point.
You have it rather correct. I refer to this as the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. The problem is that it violates the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This lot is a bit debatable but should be avoided because it's all a bit too complex.
It is intentionally made to look complex by the Church of Global Warming. It is designed to make it look like only the elites can understand it.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The next bit is that the increase in CO2 is supposed to create an increase in water vapour which is the primary geenhouse gas. This is highly debatable but let it go.
Water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas either.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The next bit is that this will cause doom to fall upon the earth. Well it wont. This is clearly and easily obvious. Just examine any of the doom scenarios critically and they all fall down. Easy.

Yes. This is the usual conclusions made. It is no different than declaring the "End of the world is nigh!".


Temperature is definately not a measurement of thermal energy. Temperature is measured in degrees (c if you are being sensible) and thermal energy in joules.

I do not know what you are talking about when you say heat. Do you measure it in Joules, degrees or watts?


Thermal energy is the random movement of molecules. Temperature is a measurement of the average of this movement. Temperature is used for thermal energy. The joule is the unit of heat, which can also be expressed as watts per second.

No, you're getting mixed up. Joules are the same as watt seconds, not watts per second. Watts are joules per second.
14-04-2017 03:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail,
You still have not explained how increased water vapor increases heat. This seams to be a dead link in your sequence of events for global warming.

Water vapour in the atmosphere behaves in a very similar way to CO2: it absorbs some of the IR emitted by the ground and emits IR in all directions, including downwards, thus reducing the rate at which IR is emitted into space. Water vapour is a better absorber of IR than CO2 and there is more of it in the air. So it absorbs and re-emits far more of the outgoing IR than CO2 does, making it by far the most effective greenhouse gas.

The big difference, though, is that water vapour doesn't stick around in the atmosphere like CO2 does. Its concentration fluctuates with the weather and is, on average, temperature dependent. The hotter the Earth, the more water vapour the atmosphere can hold. This means that water vapour amplifies the warming produced by permanent greenhouse gases like CO2. Added CO2 warms the Earth a little, which raises the water vapour concentration, thus warming the Earth some more.


Both of you....
Does CO2 have insulating properties? Why? Why not? Prove it.

CO2, like other gases, has insulating properties in the sense that it doesn't conduct heat very well, but that's not particularly relevant to the discussion. That's because the transport of heat through the atmosphere is mostly due to radiation and convection. However, CO2 in the atmosphere acts like an insulator because it absorbs some outgoing IR and re-emits some of this back to the ground - the net effect being that heat is lost from the Earth at a lower rate than if it wasn't there.


Surface Defect - H2O ACTS LIKE CO2??? Every time you post you insult your parents.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

If anyone thinks back you'll remember that this turd in disguise used this SAME site to try to explain something else he doesn't understand.

Only 48% of the Sun's radiation ever gets down below the Tropopause and of that only 17% is converted to radiation and CO2 has almost NOTHING to do with any of that energy. Furthermore, of that energy that is in the absorption spectra of CO2 what is left unsaid is that every OTHER band in the IR spectra is the EMISSION spectra of CO2.

This means that CO2 is actually a coolant and not a "greenhouse gas".

A fool and his mouth show the world what he is.

Thank you for doing so.
14-04-2017 04:14
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Surface Detail wrote:
Some thoughts on this: remember that relative humidity (what we feel) isn't the same as absolute humidity (the amount of H2O in the air) since hot air can hold more water vapour but still have a lower relative humidity.

True. Dew point is a much better measure of moisture in the air. Phoenix I would guess dew points on hot days to average 30ish. Jackson Mississippi I would say 70 80 degree dew points...you could plug those in to temps to get JKG.

Also, places where the geography and airflow causes humidity to form clouds will have a lower daytime temperature due to the clouds reflecting incoming sunlight.

Average wind speed in July in Jackson is 2 mph, well departed from the jet steam in the summer.....not much. Not sure about Phoenix.


I need to think some more about this, but have had a glass or two of red,

Red Bull or red wine?

so not the best time now.

awe common' give it a go!


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
14-04-2017 18:52
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Surface Detail wrote:
Ovens and houses are warm because their insulation slows the outward flow of the heat released within them by burning gas or passing electricity through a resistive load. The thicker the insulation, the warmer the house or oven for a given rate of heat release.


You start by explaining how insulation decrease heat loss from different constructions. I assume you use this as a base for an argument about heat from a cold atmosphere.

In an exactly analogous fashion, the Earth is warm because greenhouse gases slow the outward flow of heat (that was brought by solar radiation) by returning emitted IR. The more greenhouse gases there are, the more IR is returned and so the warmer the Earth is for a given amount of radiation from the sun.


Yes, you did! I must say I am almost a bit ashamed of how much fun I think this is, but here we go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation

Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of differing temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.

The exact same mechanism that you say is causing the atmosphere to heat the surface, is what you avoid with thermal insulation. Is there a worse analogy for how cold, wet air with increasing amounts of dry ice, could heat the surface?

I think not.

At all points in the system, the amount of energy lost is exactly equal to the amount of energy received minus the increase in internal energy. There is therefore no violation of the 1st LoT.


And this is supposed to be a defense for a theory that reduce the amount of heat from the sun by 30% before even starting to calculate, and then say: there is not enough heat?

Instead of thinking: maybe something is wrong with the calculation,
you think: it is something wrong with established physics.

One of the first statements about bodies and heat was made by Prevost. He concluded: The emission of a body depends on the internal state solely.

It has not been questioned after that. Why do you? Do you think that the cold, wet air is part of the internal state of the surface?

Your theory claims: earth receive 240W/m^2 and the surface emits 390W/m^2. We can write that as: 240W=390W, and there we have it. Creation of energy, first law violation.

Then it claims: heat flows from the very cold atmosphere at -18C to the hot surface at 14C. Here we go again, second law violation. Heat flowing from cold to hot.

How will you move on after this? You managed to violate the whole foundation of emission and temperature that is an extremly well proven independent relationship, then you violate the first and second LOT. What next? God created earth in 6000 years?
14-04-2017 18:59
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Surface Detail wrote:
It's very simple to understand. An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established. There is nothing unsubstantiated or mysterious about this. It's a completely obvious and expected effect.


How do you find that easy to understand?

If you sit outside in the sun and I spray a mist of water at you, do you get hotter?

If I throw a potent heat absorber at you, like dry ice(co2), do you get hot from that to?

If I use a compressor to blow cold air across the surface of your skin, does that burn you?

If air was such a heater, wouldn´t increasing wind make everything hot?
14-04-2017 19:13
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
spot wrote:
Read a book and find out, muppet.


He has, that is why he is asking. That question is a good sign of someone that has read a textbook on thermal energy, heat and the relation to bodies with temperature.


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


Funny enough, the unicorn-greenhouse-photon-blanket, uses the equation for thermal radiation from bodies. Which is a blackbody-equation that is corrected for bodies with less distinct relationships

Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.


Which is the maximum power that can be emitted from two-dimensional absorption and emission. Every body that is not a BB, absorb and emit less energy, at lower temperature.


By the way, Prevost made a statement before Planck. "The emission of a body depends on the internal state only".

The atmosphere? Is it part of the internal state of the surface?

You blanket-people think that absorption is cause of emission. It is not, and that is clearly stated in the old theories. They are related through temperature of the emitter, emission is caused by the internal state of the emitter, and absorption happen according to difference in temperature, also known as the internal state. That is why the heat transfer equation is such a brilliant success, and why the greenhoust theory such a big failure. It uses an equation for net-energy transfer to add fluxes together, proving the lack of understanding by using+ where you only can use -.
Edited on 14-04-2017 19:15
14-04-2017 19:19
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Surface Detail wrote:


There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


You seem totally unaware of the fact that "radiate a little less" is equal to lower temperature?

When something radiate a little less, it is an unquestionable sign that something is cooling down.
Edited on 14-04-2017 19:19
14-04-2017 20:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:


There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


You seem totally unaware of the fact that "radiate a little less" is equal to lower temperature?

When something radiate a little less, it is an unquestionable sign that something is cooling down.


You've made a few comments here that counter your own arguments while maintaining a careful logic.

Atmosphere as a whole does act like a blanket which is why the temperature of the Earth's surface isn't that of open space on the night side. Or are you suggesting that the Sun side is cooler because the atmosphere is rotating the heat into the night side? That would be an interesting theory.

Most the emissions from the sun are captured in the upper Troposphere or perhaps I should say "about half". And the atmosphere releases most of this energy through conduction which is invariably up. (heat rises) The lower atmosphere gains heat only through radiation and does itself lose some of that heat though IR radiation.

We have been arguing against the True Believers that the level of CO2 is so low that it has two effects - One; CO2 cannot help but release the greater part of it's energy to other gases around it via conduction since the rest of the gases in the atmosphere consist of close enough to a million times more of other gases. Two, while CO2 does absorb some energy it is radiation from the earth's surface in a VERY narrow band of absorption which little energy in those four narrow bands. Because CO2 has a lower latent heat content than other common atmospheric gases it radiates off this energy sooner should it not release it via conduction. And the radiation of emission covers energy bands that CO2 doesn't absorb.

The end result of this is that CO2 is a coolant and not an insulating factor.

Now I'm considering the idea that heat is released from the sunward side of the Earth via the atmosphere carrying it off to cooler regions - the nightward side. Hmmm.
14-04-2017 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Wake wrote:
Atmosphere as a whole does act like a blanket which is why the temperature of the Earth's surface isn't that of open space on the night side. Or are you suggesting that the Sun side is cooler because the atmosphere is rotating the heat into the night side? That would be an interesting theory.


Using this logic, an anvil makes a good blanket.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-04-2017 23:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Atmosphere as a whole does act like a blanket which is why the temperature of the Earth's surface isn't that of open space on the night side. Or are you suggesting that the Sun side is cooler because the atmosphere is rotating the heat into the night side? That would be an interesting theory.


Using this logic, an anvil makes a good blanket.


Will you think about this for a minute?

Using the temperature of the moon as a reference without an atmosphere the Earth would be around 250 degrees F sunside and minus 240 degrees F. on the night side.

If we assume that the atmosphere is a mediating medium instead of an insulating layer we could theorize that the motions of the atmosphere are actually transferring energy from the daylight side to the night side via motion in the atmosphere.

There is some science to support this:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

You can see that approximately the same atmospheric pressure on all of the planets the pressure steps are all at the same point. The giant planets have extremely high internal heat to dump besides that gained by the emissions of the Sun.

One of the first points they make is: "but radiative-convective equilibrium exerts first-order control of globally averaged structure."

I'll have to think more of this. You might, as well.
15-04-2017 00:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Atmosphere as a whole does act like a blanket which is why the temperature of the Earth's surface isn't that of open space on the night side. Or are you suggesting that the Sun side is cooler because the atmosphere is rotating the heat into the night side? That would be an interesting theory.


Using this logic, an anvil makes a good blanket.


Will you think about this for a minute?

Using the temperature of the moon as a reference without an atmosphere the Earth would be around 250 degrees F sunside and minus 240 degrees F. on the night side.

If we assume that the atmosphere is a mediating medium instead of an insulating layer we could theorize that the motions of the atmosphere are actually transferring energy from the daylight side to the night side via motion in the atmosphere.

There is some science to support this:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf

You can see that approximately the same atmospheric pressure on all of the planets the pressure steps are all at the same point. The giant planets have extremely high internal heat to dump besides that gained by the emissions of the Sun.

One of the first points they make is: "but radiative-convective equilibrium exerts first-order control of globally averaged structure."

I'll have to think more of this. You might, as well.


Yes...air is a fluid. It can distribute heat around a planet, helping to even things out.

It is also a mass. It takes time to heat it up or cool it down. The day-night cycle is effectively pulsating energy fed into a parcel of air.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-04-2017 01:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:


There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


You seem totally unaware of the fact that "radiate a little less" is equal to lower temperature?

When something radiate a little less, it is an unquestionable sign that something is cooling down.

I'm perfectly aware of this.

But you, my friend, seem to be unaware that the rate at which a body radiates energy in the form of heat depends on both (the fourth power of) its temperature and its emissivity. On average, the Earth must radiate the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun, and its temperature is such that this is true.

If, however, you reduce its effective emissivity by changing the composition of its atmosphere, then its temperature must rise in order to maintain the same output of energy. That's why its temperature is, indeed, rising.
15-04-2017 02:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:


There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


You seem totally unaware of the fact that "radiate a little less" is equal to lower temperature?

When something radiate a little less, it is an unquestionable sign that something is cooling down.

I'm perfectly aware of this.

But you, my friend, seem to be unaware that the rate at which a body radiates energy in the form of heat depends on both (the fourth power of) its temperature and its emissivity. On average, the Earth must radiate the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun, and its temperature is such that this is true.

If, however, you reduce its effective emissivity by changing the composition of its atmosphere, then its temperature must rise in order to maintain the same output of energy. That's why its temperature is, indeed, rising.


How does changing the composition of the atmosphere change the emissivity of Earth? Do you think CO2 has some magick property to do this?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-04-2017 02:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:


There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


You seem totally unaware of the fact that "radiate a little less" is equal to lower temperature?

When something radiate a little less, it is an unquestionable sign that something is cooling down.

I'm perfectly aware of this.

But you, my friend, seem to be unaware that the rate at which a body radiates energy in the form of heat depends on both (the fourth power of) its temperature and its emissivity. On average, the Earth must radiate the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun, and its temperature is such that this is true.

If, however, you reduce its effective emissivity by changing the composition of its atmosphere, then its temperature must rise in order to maintain the same output of energy. That's why its temperature is, indeed, rising.


How does changing the composition of the atmosphere change the emissivity of Earth? Do you think CO2 has some magick property to do this?

If, by "magick", you mean the ability to absorb and emit IR radiation, then yes, it does. Because changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the atmosphere's ability to absorb and emit IR, it also changes the effective emissivity of the Earth.
15-04-2017 03:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:


There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


You seem totally unaware of the fact that "radiate a little less" is equal to lower temperature?

When something radiate a little less, it is an unquestionable sign that something is cooling down.

I'm perfectly aware of this.

But you, my friend, seem to be unaware that the rate at which a body radiates energy in the form of heat depends on both (the fourth power of) its temperature and its emissivity. On average, the Earth must radiate the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun, and its temperature is such that this is true.

If, however, you reduce its effective emissivity by changing the composition of its atmosphere, then its temperature must rise in order to maintain the same output of energy. That's why its temperature is, indeed, rising.


How does changing the composition of the atmosphere change the emissivity of Earth? Do you think CO2 has some magick property to do this?

If, by "magick", you mean the ability to absorb and emit IR radiation, then yes, it does. Because changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the atmosphere's ability to absorb and emit IR, it also changes the effective emissivity of the Earth.


Emissivity is not dependent on frequency. You are attempting to redefine the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It specifically is color-blind.

You are, however, trying to describe a reduction in radiance (the missing IR light that is somehow magickally trapped). You are using this to increase the temperature of the Earth. You are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-04-2017 16:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:


There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.


You seem totally unaware of the fact that "radiate a little less" is equal to lower temperature?

When something radiate a little less, it is an unquestionable sign that something is cooling down.

I'm perfectly aware of this.

But you, my friend, seem to be unaware that the rate at which a body radiates energy in the form of heat depends on both (the fourth power of) its temperature and its emissivity. On average, the Earth must radiate the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun, and its temperature is such that this is true.

If, however, you reduce its effective emissivity by changing the composition of its atmosphere, then its temperature must rise in order to maintain the same output of energy. That's why its temperature is, indeed, rising.


How does changing the composition of the atmosphere change the emissivity of Earth? Do you think CO2 has some magick property to do this?

If, by "magick", you mean the ability to absorb and emit IR radiation, then yes, it does. Because changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere changes the atmosphere's ability to absorb and emit IR, it also changes the effective emissivity of the Earth.


Emissivity is not dependent on frequency. You are attempting to redefine the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It specifically is color-blind.

You are, however, trying to describe a reduction in radiance (the missing IR light that is somehow magickally trapped). You are using this to increase the temperature of the Earth. You are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Actually as usual he is violating the law of common sense.
15-04-2017 17:59
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Surface Detail wrote:

But you, my friend


Hey, stop that shit. You can be very sure that I am not your friend. I don´t like stupid people.

seem to be unaware that the rate at which a body radiates energy in the form of heat depends on both (the fourth power of) its temperature and its emissivity. On average, the Earth must radiate the same amount of energy that it receives from the sun, and its temperature is such that this is true.


Right about now you give us a source for this bullshit. A source that is neutral, not from the blanket-religion. No greenhouse BS. If what you say is true, you would have no problem to find a source outside the unicorn-land.

If, however, you reduce its effective emissivity by changing the composition of its atmosphere, then its temperature must rise in order to maintain the same output of energy. That's why its temperature is, indeed, rising.


We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Emissivity can not be used for only one way, it applies to both. You must be very stupid, I just told you that less emitted radiation means lower temperature, and you agreed. Then you say the opposite? Shit for brains?
16-04-2017 09:42
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Back on the subject of Consensus of Scientists the below referenced paper contains the statement 'However, as countless examples in history have shown, "scientific consensus" bears no resemblance whatsoever to scientific validity.'.

The subject of the paper is an interesting one and runs counter to the IPCC's "consensus opinion ": No Warming From Carbon Dioxide 'Greenhouse Gas Effect'"

http://principia-scientific.org/no-warming-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-gas-effect/
16-04-2017 17:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Back on the subject of Consensus of Scientists the below referenced paper contains the statement 'However, as countless examples in history have shown, "scientific consensus" bears no resemblance whatsoever to scientific validity.'.

The subject of the paper is an interesting one and runs counter to the IPCC's "consensus opinion ": No Warming From Carbon Dioxide 'Greenhouse Gas Effect'"

http://principia-scientific.org/no-warming-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-gas-effect/


Have no fear - to the True Believers we are all still "deniers". No amount of scientific fact will change the basis of their religion.
16-04-2017 19:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Back on the subject of Consensus of Scientists the below referenced paper contains the statement 'However, as countless examples in history have shown, "scientific consensus" bears no resemblance whatsoever to scientific validity.'.

The subject of the paper is an interesting one and runs counter to the IPCC's "consensus opinion ": No Warming From Carbon Dioxide 'Greenhouse Gas Effect'"

http://principia-scientific.org/no-warming-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-gas-effect/


Have no fear - to the True Believers we are all still "deniers". No amount of scientific fact will change the basis of their religion.


After reading that original paper I would like to present that to an actual gathering of physicists and let them try to blow a single hole through that. Though I would us a larger square to make it more obvious. The way it is there is one CO2 molecule in a volume of 10 um - that is a million times larger than that rather large molecule. Now of course the idea is that the absorption spectra occurs at that frequency but other factors are far more important.

In this same area is 999,600 OTHER atoms. Any energy that CO2 could possibly receive though radiation of IR would be transmitted though conduction or convention etc. to another atom and equalize the temperatures in the volume in usec. And if the CO2 received sufficient energy to actually radiate it would be at any frequency OTHER than the absorption spectra of CO2.

So in any case CO2 has absolutely no effect. Since the absorption spectra and the emission spectra are different, CO2 in fact is a coolant by absorbing the rather small amount of energy in it's absorption spectra and emitting it at a different spectra in which CO2 is insensitive.
16-04-2017 21:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.
16-04-2017 22:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
We use sources in science, not pulling shit out of our asses. So please show if this is shit or not, by providing a source.

So, would you be so kind to give us a source for how your theory does this:

240W=390W

without creating energy.

Since you asked so nicely, here's a helpful diagram produced by NASA that illustrates the flows of energy to and from the Earth:



Note that the 1st LoT is not violated because no energy is destroyed or created at any point. The net effect is a heat flux of 0.6 W-m2 to the Earth. This is what is making the temperature of the Earth rise.


Rather than giving all that dumbshit numbers why have you ignored NASA?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

As you can see in more easily understood numbers only 48% of the Sun's energy gets down to the Earth.

Of that the majority moves into the tropopause via conduction etc. and only 17% of it moves from the surface as radiation and the overwhelming majority of that energy is totally outside of the absorption bands of CO2.

As anyone would expect, when only one molecule of 2,499 is CO2 energy travels though far more other paths than from CO2.
Page 4 of 8<<<23456>>>





Join the debate Consensus of Scientists and Proof:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate change for the non-scientists2903-09-2020 05:01
A Post On Quora Explaining What is Wrong With The 97% Consensus Studies208-03-2020 18:17
Ocean currents are speeding up faster than scientists predicted417-02-2020 14:55
SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong1711-02-2020 17:42
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact