Remember me
▼ Content

Consensus of Scientists and Proof



Page 6 of 8<<<45678>
19-04-2017 20:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.

Not really. It is the same as saying one joule.

No, a watt second (Ws) is the same as a joule (J). A watt per second (Ws-1) would be a rate of change of power with time.

As an example of when you might use such a unit: The Dinorwig pumped storage facility in Wales, UK can ramp up its output from 0 to 1800 MW in 16 seconds to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand. This is a rate of change of output of 1,800,000,000 / 16 = 112,500,000 watts per second.


Why are you trying to change the subject after making such a stupid statement? Power demand has nothing to do with watts per second.
19-04-2017 20:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.

Not really. It is the same as saying one joule.

No, a watt second (Ws) is the same as a joule (J). A watt per second (Ws-1) would be a rate of change of power with time.

As an example of when you might use such a unit: The Dinorwig pumped storage facility in Wales, UK can ramp up its output from 0 to 1800 MW in 16 seconds to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand. This is a rate of change of output of 1,800,000,000 / 16 = 112,500,000 watts per second.


Why are you trying to change the subject after making such a stupid statement? Power demand has nothing to do with watts per second.

I'm not changing the subject; I'm illustrating the point. I just gave an example of a quantity that would be measured in watts per second. Power is measured in watts, so rate of change of power is measured in watts per second.
19-04-2017 21:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.

Not really. It is the same as saying one joule.

No, a watt second (Ws) is the same as a joule (J). A watt per second (Ws-1) would be a rate of change of power with time.

As an example of when you might use such a unit: The Dinorwig pumped storage facility in Wales, UK can ramp up its output from 0 to 1800 MW in 16 seconds to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand. This is a rate of change of output of 1,800,000,000 / 16 = 112,500,000 watts per second.


Why are you trying to change the subject after making such a stupid statement? Power demand has nothing to do with watts per second.


When during the FA cup half the kettles in the UK go on at the same time during the half time interval the rate of change of power demand in watts per second is very inportant to those managing the national grid.
19-04-2017 21:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.

Not really. It is the same as saying one joule.

No, a watt second (Ws) is the same as a joule (J). A watt per second (Ws-1) would be a rate of change of power with time.

As an example of when you might use such a unit: The Dinorwig pumped storage facility in Wales, UK can ramp up its output from 0 to 1800 MW in 16 seconds to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand. This is a rate of change of output of 1,800,000,000 / 16 = 112,500,000 watts per second.


Why are you trying to change the subject after making such a stupid statement? Power demand has nothing to do with watts per second.

I'm not changing the subject; I'm illustrating the point. I just gave an example of a quantity that would be measured in watts per second. Power is measured in watts, so rate of change of power is measured in watts per second.


You got into this subject in order to get away from the fact that you have absolutely no science to back up the idea of AGW. I am not going to argue with your ignorant insistence on what you think you know something about.

We are presently in an interglacial period of an ice age. And we are GOING to warm and man has no control of that despite what the supreme ignorance of people like you are crying.

You are so stupid you believe that "ice age" means a snowball earth despite the fact that such periods appear to have never occurred at any time since the Supercontinent divided.

Now is the time for you to tell us about watt sec not being the same as watts per second.
19-04-2017 21:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.

Not really. It is the same as saying one joule.

No, a watt second (Ws) is the same as a joule (J). A watt per second (Ws-1) would be a rate of change of power with time.

As an example of when you might use such a unit: The Dinorwig pumped storage facility in Wales, UK can ramp up its output from 0 to 1800 MW in 16 seconds to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand. This is a rate of change of output of 1,800,000,000 / 16 = 112,500,000 watts per second.


Why are you trying to change the subject after making such a stupid statement? Power demand has nothing to do with watts per second.

I'm not changing the subject; I'm illustrating the point. I just gave an example of a quantity that would be measured in watts per second. Power is measured in watts, so rate of change of power is measured in watts per second.


You got into this subject in order to get away from the fact that you have absolutely no science to back up the idea of AGW. I am not going to argue with your ignorant insistence on what you think you know something about.

We are presently in an interglacial period of an ice age. And we are GOING to warm and man has no control of that despite what the supreme ignorance of people like you are crying.

You are so stupid you believe that "ice age" means a snowball earth despite the fact that such periods appear to have never occurred at any time since the Supercontinent divided.

Now is the time for you to tell us about watt sec not being the same as watts per second.
19-04-2017 21:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.

Not really. It is the same as saying one joule.

No, a watt second (Ws) is the same as a joule (J). A watt per second (Ws-1) would be a rate of change of power with time.

As an example of when you might use such a unit: The Dinorwig pumped storage facility in Wales, UK can ramp up its output from 0 to 1800 MW in 16 seconds to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand. This is a rate of change of output of 1,800,000,000 / 16 = 112,500,000 watts per second.


Why are you trying to change the subject after making such a stupid statement? Power demand has nothing to do with watts per second.


When during the FA cup half the kettles in the UK go on at the same time during the half time interval the rate of change of power demand in watts per second is very important to those managing the national grid.


Yeah but them limeys are pretty strange in any case. Remember that the representatives of the people haven't represented them for the last 20 years and they continued to vote them in because of their party affiliations.

Of course we now have the same problem with the illiberals.
19-04-2017 22:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
I won't remind you that you think that watt/seconds and watts per second are different.

You're lying. I didn't write that.

Watts/second and watts per second are indeed different ways of writing the same thing (Ws-1)

Watt seconds are, however, a different thing (Ws) and are equivalent to joules.

Why would you expect anyone to believe anything you say when you blatantly lie about things that are easily verified, such as what people wrote on this site? Anyone can make a mistake, but by repeating the same lie even after it has been pointed out to you, you are simply destroying your own credibility.


One watt sustained for one second is one joule, which is the SAME as saying one watt, or one joule per second.

Correct. A joule is a watt second, which is the same as saying that a watt is a joule per second. A watt per second would be something very different though.

Not really. It is the same as saying one joule.

No, a watt second (Ws) is the same as a joule (J). A watt per second (Ws-1) would be a rate of change of power with time.

As an example of when you might use such a unit: The Dinorwig pumped storage facility in Wales, UK can ramp up its output from 0 to 1800 MW in 16 seconds to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand. This is a rate of change of output of 1,800,000,000 / 16 = 112,500,000 watts per second.


Why are you trying to change the subject after making such a stupid statement? Power demand has nothing to do with watts per second.

I'm not changing the subject; I'm illustrating the point. I just gave an example of a quantity that would be measured in watts per second. Power is measured in watts, so rate of change of power is measured in watts per second.


You got into this subject in order to get away from the fact that you have absolutely no science to back up the idea of AGW. I am not going to argue with your ignorant insistence on what you think you know something about.

Actually, it was you, not me, who raised the subject of units again - look at the quotes in this post. Now stop trying to blame me for responding to your diversionary tactics and lies.
20-04-2017 00:07
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.
20-04-2017 00:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.


The "greenhouse effect" doesn't even work in a greenhouse. But these people are so brain dead they don't know it. If there WAS a greenhouse effect if you opened the door of a greenhouse in the sunlight it would remain warm inside. Instead what it does is equalize to the outside temperature. All the glass does is prevent heat convection.

But these looney's think that the ATMOSPHERE also acts like a greenhouse does in their heads.

The first law of thermodynamics says that heat is the result of moving energy from one spot to another COOLER location. The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

This is insanity at it's highest.
20-04-2017 01:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.
20-04-2017 02:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


Actually I meant the second law of thermodynamics.

Heat can ONLY move from hotter to colder. You cannot heat a surface from a colder surface. Energy can ONLY move from a higher source to a lower source under ANY conditions. Once equilibrium is reached they cannot transfer energy one way or the other.

The entire theory of greenhouse gases is that a colder source can heat a hotter source.

Tell us how many homes you have heated with an ice cube.

"It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Work CAN transfer energy from cold to hot meaning that is how a refrigerator works. But the total energy used in that "work" exceeds the amount of energy transferred.

Again - tell us how many homes you have heated with a block of ice.
Edited on 20-04-2017 02:23
20-04-2017 02:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


Actually I meant the second law of thermodynamics.

Heat can ONLY move from hotter to colder. You cannot heat a surface from a colder surface. Energy can ONLY move from a higher source to a lower source under ANY conditions. Once equilibrium is reached they cannot transfer energy one way or the other.

The entire theory of greenhouse gases is that a colder source can heat a hotter source.

Tell us how many homes you have heated with an ice cube.

"It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Work CAN transfer energy from cold to hot meaning that is how a refrigerator works. But the total energy used in that "work" exceeds the amount of energy transferred.

Again - tell us how many homes you have heated with a block of ice.

I repeat: No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.
20-04-2017 02:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


Actually I meant the second law of thermodynamics.

Heat can ONLY move from hotter to colder. You cannot heat a surface from a colder surface. Energy can ONLY move from a higher source to a lower source under ANY conditions. Once equilibrium is reached they cannot transfer energy one way or the other.

The entire theory of greenhouse gases is that a colder source can heat a hotter source.

Tell us how many homes you have heated with an ice cube.

"It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Work CAN transfer energy from cold to hot meaning that is how a refrigerator works. But the total energy used in that "work" exceeds the amount of energy transferred.

Again - tell us how many homes you have heated with a block of ice.

I repeat: No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


You are so full of crap you could paint the town brown.

The very basis of greenhouse gas theory is that CO2 will radiate energy from a cooler level - CO2 - to a warmer level - the Earth.
Edited on 20-04-2017 02:33
20-04-2017 02:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


Actually I meant the second law of thermodynamics.

Heat can ONLY move from hotter to colder. You cannot heat a surface from a colder surface. Energy can ONLY move from a higher source to a lower source under ANY conditions. Once equilibrium is reached they cannot transfer energy one way or the other.

The entire theory of greenhouse gases is that a colder source can heat a hotter source.

Tell us how many homes you have heated with an ice cube.

"It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Work CAN transfer energy from cold to hot meaning that is how a refrigerator works. But the total energy used in that "work" exceeds the amount of energy transferred.

Again - tell us how many homes you have heated with a block of ice.

I repeat: No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


You are so full of crap you could paint the town brown.

The very basis of greenhouse gas theory is that CO2 will radiate energy from a cooler level - CO2 - to a warmer level - the Earth.

But the net transfer of energy is still from the Earth to the atmosphere. This is because the energy radiated by the Earth is greater than the downward radiation from the atmosphere. Look again at that diagram of energy flows that I posted a few days ago.
20-04-2017 03:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


Are you saying that on average the atmosphere 1000 ft up is warmer than the surface???


The Parrot Killer
20-04-2017 03:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


Actually I meant the second law of thermodynamics.

Heat can ONLY move from hotter to colder. You cannot heat a surface from a colder surface. Energy can ONLY move from a higher source to a lower source under ANY conditions. Once equilibrium is reached they cannot transfer energy one way or the other.

The entire theory of greenhouse gases is that a colder source can heat a hotter source.

Tell us how many homes you have heated with an ice cube.

"It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object."

Work CAN transfer energy from cold to hot meaning that is how a refrigerator works. But the total energy used in that "work" exceeds the amount of energy transferred.

Again - tell us how many homes you have heated with a block of ice.

I repeat: No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


You are so full of crap you could paint the town brown.

The very basis of greenhouse gas theory is that CO2 will radiate energy from a cooler level - CO2 - to a warmer level - the Earth.

But the net transfer of energy is still from the Earth to the atmosphere. This is because the energy radiated by the Earth is greater than the downward radiation from the atmosphere. Look again at that diagram of energy flows that I posted a few days ago.


Ignoring Kirchoff's laws now???


The Parrot Killer
20-04-2017 04:17
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Are you saying that on average the atmosphere 1000 ft up is warmer than the surface???

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight", who ain't got no sigh-ants, no way, no how, blows the big smoke.... anythang to delay & decrease action on the heatin' Earth.
Meanwhile:
Good "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" found the decrease, indicating the decrease in the solar TSI over the last decades. Then my posts show how AGW causes nighttime temperatures NOT to drop as far as traditionally they would.
Edited on 20-04-2017 04:18
20-04-2017 09:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
litesong wrote:
...deleted non-English portion...Are you saying that on average the atmosphere 1000 ft up is warmer than the surface???

...deleted non-English portion...deleted spam...


That's what he's saying. Do you disagree or agree with it?


The Parrot Killer
20-04-2017 13:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" blows smoke: That's what he's saying. Do you disagree or agree with it?


"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight", who ain't got no sigh-ants, no way, no how, blows the big smoke.... anythang to delay & decrease action on the heatin' Earth.
Meanwhile:
Good "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" found the website showing decreased mean temperatures, indicating the decrease in the solar TSI over the last decades. Then my posts (from the same website) show how AGW GHGs cause nighttime temperatures NOT to drop as far as traditionally they would.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner, smoke a blowin' badnight" is spam, what am.
20-04-2017 16:12
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


The vertical temperature profile of the earth's atmosphere shows that, until the thermosphere is reached, temperatures are always equal or below the average temperature of the earth's surface.
http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/knowledge/encyclopedia/me006.htm

In order for there to be a net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere to the earth's surface, the gases have to be at a higher temperature than the earth's surface. There is no such level of higher temperature, ergo, there can be no net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases to the earth's surface. What am I missing here?
20-04-2017 16:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


The vertical temperature profile of the earth's atmosphere shows that, until the thermosphere is reached, temperatures are always equal or below the average temperature of the earth's surface.
http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/knowledge/encyclopedia/me006.htm

In order for there to be a net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere to the earth's surface, the gases have to be at a higher temperature than the earth's surface. There is no such level of higher temperature, ergo, there can be no net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases to the earth's surface. What am I missing here?


I think the hypothesis is that you have to compare the temperature of the surface of the Moon with that of the earth and find a reason why the earth is warmer.

This is, in my view a bit wrong as you should start at the top of the atmosphere where the temperature of the Moon and the earth's atmosphere is equal, on average, and then work down.

I have seen a paper which did this and arrived at the correct surface temperature without any greenhouse effect at all.
20-04-2017 18:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


Are you saying that on average the atmosphere 1000 ft up is warmer than the surface???


As is usual with him he doesn't know what he's saying. There is radiation from ALL of the gases which do catch IR energy. And it goes in all directions including down. But the majority of it goes in directions other than down and almost all of it is then captured by H2O which then converts it to convention cooling.

The True Believers do not understand spectroscopy and so are willing to follow their great leader - the IPCC which is nothing more than a group of politicians working for a one world government and using any tactic they can.

When you're as dumb as a board you fall for it.
20-04-2017 19:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


The vertical temperature profile of the earth's atmosphere shows that, until the thermosphere is reached, temperatures are always equal or below the average temperature of the earth's surface.
http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/knowledge/encyclopedia/me006.htm

In order for there to be a net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere to the earth's surface, the gases have to be at a higher temperature than the earth's surface. There is no such level of higher temperature, ergo, there can be no net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases to the earth's surface. What am I missing here?

There is no net energy transfer from greenhouse gases to the earth's surface for precisely the reason you give. More energy is transferred from the ground to the atmosphere than vice versa because, as you say, the ground is warmer than the atmosphere.

If, however, there were no greenhouse gases, then no energy would be radiated from the atmosphere to the ground, and so the ground would lose energy at a higher net rate for a given temperature. The word "net" is very important here.
20-04-2017 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


The vertical temperature profile of the earth's atmosphere shows that, until the thermosphere is reached, temperatures are always equal or below the average temperature of the earth's surface.
http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/knowledge/encyclopedia/me006.htm

In order for there to be a net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere to the earth's surface, the gases have to be at a higher temperature than the earth's surface. There is no such level of higher temperature, ergo, there can be no net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases to the earth's surface. What am I missing here?

There is no net energy transfer from greenhouse gases to the earth's surface for precisely the reason you give. More energy is transferred from the ground to the atmosphere than vice versa because, as you say, the ground is warmer than the atmosphere.

If, however, there were no greenhouse gases, then no energy would be radiated from the atmosphere to the ground, and so the ground would lose energy at a higher net rate for a given temperature. The word "net" is very important here.


Okay. Let's look at an example of similar sunlight exposure without greenhouse gas (or even an atmosphere at all), the International Space Station or ISS.

The sunlit skin temperature of the ISS is approximately 250 deg F.

The temperature of the surface of the Earth is nowhere near that hot. There isn't even a region on the surface of the Earth anywhere near that hot.

If CO2 or anything else in the atmosphere causes the surface to become warmer, why is the daytime surface of the Earth considerably COOLER than the sunlit skin of the ISS?

Magick Bouncing Photons? Magick Blankets?


The Parrot Killer
20-04-2017 22:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


The vertical temperature profile of the earth's atmosphere shows that, until the thermosphere is reached, temperatures are always equal or below the average temperature of the earth's surface.
http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/knowledge/encyclopedia/me006.htm

In order for there to be a net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere to the earth's surface, the gases have to be at a higher temperature than the earth's surface. There is no such level of higher temperature, ergo, there can be no net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases to the earth's surface. What am I missing here?

There is no net energy transfer from greenhouse gases to the earth's surface for precisely the reason you give. More energy is transferred from the ground to the atmosphere than vice versa because, as you say, the ground is warmer than the atmosphere.

If, however, there were no greenhouse gases, then no energy would be radiated from the atmosphere to the ground, and so the ground would lose energy at a higher net rate for a given temperature. The word "net" is very important here.


You really are a nitwit and you're getting better at it as you go along.

CO2 has ALWAYS been in the atmosphere. Plant life formed when it was at 40%. There was NO runaway global warming at that time. Can you suggest why not?

Animal life first showed up when the CO2 in the atmosphere was around 24%. Why wasn't there any run away positive feedback then?

Since then plant life has been depleting the atmosphere of the CO2 they need to support themselves. That's where ALL of those coal, oil and natural gas comes from.

Plant life would be better served without harming animal life at levels of 2,500 ppm.

But according to you we should have levels of CO2 at the point at which there is so little that photosynthesis ceases (200 ppm) and the planet dies. To YOU that is success.

You also do not understand that the absorption wavelength of molecules is different from the emission wavelengths. CO2 emitting radiation does NOT emit at the same frequency that could be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

So that means that it is far more likely to be absorbed by H2O and to be lost to the tropopause via convection.

But nothing is going to break a skull as hard as a stone. We only have to wait another decade or two to see if this warming phase follows all the other warming phases throughout history and goes away naturally.

But after it's clear that it is following historic changes you will flee for the hills. You have no intentions of coming back on any group and saying that you were wrong. Then you will claim to have always been a "denier".
20-04-2017 23:00
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Frescomexico wrote:
The AGW adherents discovered a possibly actual phenomenon (CO2 greenhouse effect) and, instead of writing a science-fiction novel, decided to make a full-blown crisis out of it.

The greenhouse gas theory says that somehow you can transmit energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.

No, it doesn't. No part of greenhouse gas theory involves a net transfer of energy from a cooler region to a hotter region.


The vertical temperature profile of the earth's atmosphere shows that, until the thermosphere is reached, temperatures are always equal or below the average temperature of the earth's surface.
http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7e/knowledge/encyclopedia/me006.htm

In order for there to be a net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere to the earth's surface, the gases have to be at a higher temperature than the earth's surface. There is no such level of higher temperature, ergo, there can be no net energy transfer from the "greenhouse" gases to the earth's surface. What am I missing here?

There is no net energy transfer from greenhouse gases to the earth's surface for precisely the reason you give. More energy is transferred from the ground to the atmosphere than vice versa because, as you say, the ground is warmer than the atmosphere.

If, however, there were no greenhouse gases, then no energy would be radiated from the atmosphere to the ground, and so the ground would lose energy at a higher net rate for a given temperature. The word "net" is very important here.


Surface Detail, your explanation is truly appreciated and long overdue, at least for me. Let's examine your second paragraph. The earth radiates energy at a certain flux towards space, based on its temperature. The greenhouse gases radiate energy in all directions based on their temperature, albeit lower than the earth's temperature. The energy radiating from the gases toward the earth augments the energy arriving from the sun, tending to warm the earth until equilibrium is reached.

The greenhouse gases are receiving radiant energy from both the earth and the sun, and convected energy from other gases, tending to increase the greenhouse gases' temperatures until equilibrium is reached. This is the reason for the famous "hot spot" above the tropics, long expected and only recently believed to have been found.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere.

"The authors develop a new method to account for natural variability, long-term trends, and instruments in the temperature measurement." This is a rather all-encompassing method. To my knowledge this "discovery" has not been confirmed.

I'll pause here while I go back to installing my air conditioners, my bank against global warming.
20-04-2017 23:48
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1695)
Wake wrote:
But after it's clear that it is following historic changes you will flee for the hills. You have no intentions of coming back on any group and saying that you were wrong. Then you will claim to have always been a "denier".


I've been thinking about this very thing for a long time. How will it go down in the future? If you just stare at the graph below for a while, it becomes obvious that we have been bouncing around the top side of temps for 12-14,000 years now.....and sooner than later, we are headed towards a sharp drop off the cliff. Now don't everyone blow me up here, I didn't say tomorrow, I'm not even saying in our lifetime. But sometime in the future, temps will crash.

So what does a world look like that is 8 C colder than it is now? It's a pretty miserable place. There are multitudes of negatives to the earth being 8 degrees colder, but the major one would be food shortages, and all the bad things that go with that. Food prices will skyrocket, billions will go hungry and starve. So the question is this; How will the warmies respond? I see a couple options for them.

1. They could easily double down on being wrong, insisting they are right, and then begin promoting the mass use of fossil fuels to try and warm the earth back up again.

2. This is the one that could put future generations in the same argument we're in now. The warmies will simply say ''whoopsi, after further research is appears we were on the right track, we just didn't calculate it correctly and we are now certain that CO2 is a coolant. If we don't curb fossil fuel usage now, we and all our children will freeze to death.......wala, governments can still strictly regulate fuel usage and thereby control their people.

Which way do you think it would go?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Attached image:


Edited on 20-04-2017 23:53
20-04-2017 23:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail, your explanation is truly appreciated and long overdue, at least for me. Let's examine your second paragraph. The earth radiates energy at a certain flux towards space, based on its temperature. The greenhouse gases radiate energy in all directions based on their temperature, albeit lower than the earth's temperature. The energy radiating from the gases toward the earth augments the energy arriving from the sun, tending to warm the earth until equilibrium is reached.

The greenhouse gases are receiving radiant energy from both the earth and the sun, and convected energy from other gases, tending to increase the greenhouse gases' temperatures until equilibrium is reached. This is the reason for the famous "hot spot" above the tropics, long expected and only recently believed to have been found.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere.

"The authors develop a new method to account for natural variability, long-term trends, and instruments in the temperature measurement." This is a rather all-encompassing method. To my knowledge this "discovery" has not been confirmed.

I'll pause here while I go back to installing my air conditioners, my bank against global warming.


The nutcake has it wrong so I suggest you don't listen to him.

One out of every 2500 molecules of AIR is CO2. CO2 has a lower latent heat content than other gases but it never receives much energy to begin with because it's absorption band is in a very narrow region that is above the strong radiation from the earth and far below the emissions from the Sun.

The end result of this is that practically ALL of the heat contained by CO2 is transferred to the other molecules around it by simple conduction. This is the same way that all of the rest of the air molecules do in the lower atmosphere.

If CO2 does by chance receive enough energy that is radiated in it's absorption band from the Earth it radiates in all directions just as ALL of the other air molecules do. Remember that this radiation is almost entire in the bands that are absorbed by H2O in the form of water vapor in the atmosphere.

This means that in the lower atmosphere there is no change whatsoever. And in the stratosphere above the air is so thin that CO2 is virtually non-existent.

Again let me remind you that plant life evolved on this Earth with a CO2 level of 40% and that animal life arose at CO2 levels of 24% or so. There was no very high temperatures at this time. No run-away greenhouse effects.

Over the eons the plant life has been in the process of destroying its own food - CO2. The presence of animal life is the only thing that has stretched the time of life on this planet out. Every vein of coal or well of oil is the plant energy stored and the carbon removed from the atmosphere.

At 200 ppm photosynthesis of plants ceases. And it had gotten as lower as 180 ppm according to some not very reliable sources - NOAA. This means that the planet was dying until man started recovering some of that stored carbon and began releasing it again into the atmosphere.

We are at 400 ppm now? What do we see? Plants and animals dying? No, we see huge growth spurts of plants and animals all over the world. Especially in the oceans. 100 years ago the Blue Whale was close to extinction. Today there are more Blue Whales just in the Pacific coast pods than were thought to exist in the world just 50 years ago.

All over the world starvation is down dramatically. Now the problem to reduce starvation even more isn't the CO2 but the water resources.

When someone hands you what looks like pure BS (the world is going to end in 10 years in a fiery death) it in all likelihood is BS. The Earth has been around for over 5 billion years and it knows a great deal more how to take care of itself than some politicians on the IPCC. Why would you suppose that Russia won't have anything to do with them?
21-04-2017 00:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
But after it's clear that it is following historic changes you will flee for the hills. You have no intentions of coming back on any group and saying that you were wrong. Then you will claim to have always been a "denier".


I've been thinking about this very thing for a long time. How will it go down in the future? If you just stare at the graph below for a while, it becomes obvious that we have been bouncing around the top side of temps for 12-14,000 years now.....and sooner than later, we are headed towards a sharp drop off the cliff. Now don't everyone blow me up here, I didn't say tomorrow, I'm not even saying in our lifetime. But sometime in the future, temps will crash.

So what does a world look like that is 8 C colder than it is now? It's a pretty miserable place. There are multitudes of negatives to the earth being 8 degrees colder, but the major one would be food shortages, and all the bad things that go with that. Food prices will skyrocket, billions will go hungry and starve. So the question is this; How will the warmies respond? I see a couple options for them.

1. They could easily double down on being wrong, insisting they are right, and then begin promoting the mass use of fossil fuels to try and warm the earth back up again.

2. This is the one that could put future generations in the same argument we're in now. The warmies will simply say ''whoopsi, after further research is appears we were on the right track, we just didn't calculate it correctly and we are now certain that CO2 is a coolant. If we don't curb fossil fuel usage now, we and all our children will freeze to death.......wala, governments can still strictly regulate fuel usage and thereby control their people.

Which way do you think it would go?


Well, in the first place we are in an Ice Age. To be exact, in an Interglacial Period of that Ice Age. So the human race has never known anything but cold and thinks that it is normal. When this ice age ends there will be an abrupt uptick in temperatures. Abrupt in geological terms; it will take about half the lifetime of the human species to hit the top of the curve.

At that time it will be followed by steps over some 400,000 years come back down to another ice age. These warm times will see a large portion of the world's oceans evaporate and sea level to fall a long way.

With the removal of so much weight I think that we will see violent tectonic activity.

Whether or not man will be able to evolve to survive under such conditions is difficult to say. There is insufficient nuclear materials to last much more than several thousands of years. Solar power won't be available because with the evaporation of the oceans the cloud cover will be much too heavy.

Hydroelectric and wind will be available but man can only stand about 10,000 ppm of CO2 and there is a rather sharp limit on what fossil fuel resources are recoverable.

Certainly NONE of the plants that we use as sources of food will be available and hopefully others of equal nutritional value will evolve.

And remember, this is only a tiny length of time in the Earth's history and man won't even be able to remember what it was like now.
21-04-2017 01:49
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail, your explanation is truly appreciated and long overdue, at least for me. Let's examine your second paragraph. The earth radiates energy at a certain flux towards space, based on its temperature. The greenhouse gases radiate energy in all directions based on their temperature, albeit lower than the earth's temperature. The energy radiating from the gases toward the earth augments the energy arriving from the sun, tending to warm the earth until equilibrium is reached.

The greenhouse gases are receiving radiant energy from both the earth and the sun, and convected energy from other gases, tending to increase the greenhouse gases' temperatures until equilibrium is reached. This is the reason for the famous "hot spot" above the tropics, long expected and only recently believed to have been found.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere.

"The authors develop a new method to account for natural variability, long-term trends, and instruments in the temperature measurement." This is a rather all-encompassing method. To my knowledge this "discovery" has not been confirmed.

I'll pause here while I go back to installing my air conditioners, my bank against global warming.


The nutcake has it wrong so I suggest you don't listen to him.

One out of every 2500 molecules of AIR is CO2. CO2 has a lower latent heat content than other gases but it never receives much energy to begin with because it's absorption band is in a very narrow region that is above the strong radiation from the earth and far below the emissions from the Sun.

The end result of this is that practically ALL of the heat contained by CO2 is o to the other molecules around it by simple conduction. This is the same way that all of the rest of the air molecules do in the lowe atmosphere.

If CO2 does by chance receive enough energy that is radiated in it's absorption band from the Earth it radiates in all directions just as ALL of the other air molecules do. Remember that this radiation is almost entire in the bands that are absorbed by H2O in the form of water vapor in the atmosphere.


This means that in the lower atmosphere there is no change whatsoever. And in the stratosphere above the air is so thin that CO2 is virtually non-existent.

Again let me remind you that plant life evolved on this Earth with a CO2 level of 40% and that animal life arose at CO2 levels of 24% or so. There was no very high temperatures at this time. No run-away greenhouse effects.

Over the eons the plant life has been in the process of destroying its own food - CO2. The presence of animal life is the only thing that has stretched the time of life on this planet out. Every vein of coal or well of oil is the plant energy stored and the carbon removed from the atmosphere.

At 200 ppm photosynthesis of plants ceases. And it had gotten as lower as 180 ppm according to some not very reliable sources - NOAA. This means that the planet was dying until man started recovering some of that stored carbon and began releasing it again into the atmosphere.

We are at 400 ppm now? What do we see? Plants and animals dying? No, we see huge growth spurts of plants and animals all over the world. Especially in the oceans. 100 years ago the Blue Whale was close to extinction. Today there are more Blue Whales just in the Pacific coast pods than were thought to exist in the world just 50 years ago.

All over the world starvation is down dramatically. Now the problem to reduce starvation even more isn't the CO2 but the water resources.

When someone hands you what looks like pure BS (the world is going to end in 10 years in a fiery death) it in all likelihood is BS. The Earth has been around for over 5 billion years and it knows a great deal more how to take care of itself than some politicians on the IPCC. Why would you suppose that Russia won't have anything to do with them?


I listen to every postor, even though some spend more time attacking the messenger rather than rebutting the message.

Latent heat only comes into play during a phase change such as a gas condensing to a liquid. CO2 is an excellent refrigerant and is used in cascade systems, but that is irrelevant in the atmosphere. What is stored in the gas CO2 is called sensible heat.

The radiation from CO2, however small, is probably partially absorbed by water vapor, as you say, but it seems to me, in this case water acts just like the earth would from the "greenhouse effect ". Superheating it makes it less likely to change phase and become a cooling cloud.

I agree with you on the evolution of plant life under high CO2 conditions, and I see little evidence of "run-away" greenhouse effect. But I can understand normal greenhouse effect tending to elevate our temperatures above ice age levels until the earth's orbit and inclination brings on the next ice age, at which time no amount of CO2 will save us.

One of the largest pods of humpback whales in the world is right here in Banderas Bay, protected and thriving.

I am happy with the global climate now (and I probably would have been happy during the Little Ice Age because I wouldn't have known any better), and I look forward to the many good effects of elevated CO2.
21-04-2017 04:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface Detail, your explanation is truly appreciated and long overdue, at least for me. Let's examine your second paragraph. The earth radiates energy at a certain flux towards space, based on its temperature. The greenhouse gases radiate energy in all directions based on their temperature, albeit lower than the earth's temperature. The energy radiating from the gases toward the earth augments the energy arriving from the sun, tending to warm the earth until equilibrium is reached.

The greenhouse gases are receiving radiant energy from both the earth and the sun, and convected energy from other gases, tending to increase the greenhouse gases' temperatures until equilibrium is reached. This is the reason for the famous "hot spot" above the tropics, long expected and only recently believed to have been found.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/15/new-study-finds-a-hot-spot-in-the-atmosphere.

"The authors develop a new method to account for natural variability, long-term trends, and instruments in the temperature measurement." This is a rather all-encompassing method. To my knowledge this "discovery" has not been confirmed.

I'll pause here while I go back to installing my air conditioners, my bank against global warming.


The nutcake has it wrong so I suggest you don't listen to him.

One out of every 2500 molecules of AIR is CO2. CO2 has a lower latent heat content than other gases but it never receives much energy to begin with because it's absorption band is in a very narrow region that is above the strong radiation from the earth and far below the emissions from the Sun.

The end result of this is that practically ALL of the heat contained by CO2 is o to the other molecules around it by simple conduction. This is the same way that all of the rest of the air molecules do in the lowe atmosphere.

If CO2 does by chance receive enough energy that is radiated in it's absorption band from the Earth it radiates in all directions just as ALL of the other air molecules do. Remember that this radiation is almost entire in the bands that are absorbed by H2O in the form of water vapor in the atmosphere.


This means that in the lower atmosphere there is no change whatsoever. And in the stratosphere above the air is so thin that CO2 is virtually non-existent.

Again let me remind you that plant life evolved on this Earth with a CO2 level of 40% and that animal life arose at CO2 levels of 24% or so. There was no very high temperatures at this time. No run-away greenhouse effects.

Over the eons the plant life has been in the process of destroying its own food - CO2. The presence of animal life is the only thing that has stretched the time of life on this planet out. Every vein of coal or well of oil is the plant energy stored and the carbon removed from the atmosphere.

At 200 ppm photosynthesis of plants ceases. And it had gotten as lower as 180 ppm according to some not very reliable sources - NOAA. This means that the planet was dying until man started recovering some of that stored carbon and began releasing it again into the atmosphere.

We are at 400 ppm now? What do we see? Plants and animals dying? No, we see huge growth spurts of plants and animals all over the world. Especially in the oceans. 100 years ago the Blue Whale was close to extinction. Today there are more Blue Whales just in the Pacific coast pods than were thought to exist in the world just 50 years ago.

All over the world starvation is down dramatically. Now the problem to reduce starvation even more isn't the CO2 but the water resources.

When someone hands you what looks like pure BS (the world is going to end in 10 years in a fiery death) it in all likelihood is BS. The Earth has been around for over 5 billion years and it knows a great deal more how to take care of itself than some politicians on the IPCC. Why would you suppose that Russia won't have anything to do with them?


I listen to every postor, even though some spend more time attacking the messenger rather than rebutting the message.

Latent heat only comes into play during a phase change such as a gas condensing to a liquid. CO2 is an excellent refrigerant and is used in cascade systems, but that is irrelevant in the atmosphere. What is stored in the gas CO2 is called sensible heat.

The radiation from CO2, however small, is probably partially absorbed by water vapor, as you say, but it seems to me, in this case water acts just like the earth would from the "greenhouse effect ". Superheating it makes it less likely to change phase and become a cooling cloud.

I agree with you on the evolution of plant life under high CO2 conditions, and I see little evidence of "run-away" greenhouse effect. But I can understand normal greenhouse effect tending to elevate our temperatures above ice age levels until the earth's orbit and inclination brings on the next ice age, at which time no amount of CO2 will save us.

One of the largest pods of humpback whales in the world is right here in Banderas Bay, protected and thriving.

I am happy with the global climate now (and I probably would have been happy during the Little Ice Age because I wouldn't have known any better), and I look forward to the many good effects of elevated CO2.


The funny thing about the whales is that these idiots don't realize that what saved the whales wasn't law. It was that we didn't need their blubber anymore. It was Big Oil that saved the whale!


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2017 04:50
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
I guess you're right about big oil saving the whales. Ironic. The protection I see here is the Mexican navy keeping the whale watching boats back a safe distance from the whales. Without that protection I would fully expect to see a tourista standing on a whale for a photo op and you know what the next picture would show.
21-04-2017 06:13
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote: Put U.S. made wider tires on da car & ah gots ta find ifn they be any good. Da mpg might be low. But dat wide tire will be what's makes those turns secure.... ifn..... the new tires (from Les Schwab)......I can tell that slightly wider tire is a better driving tire, tho.

Not completely sure yet (two tanks of gas only), but the tires appears to be able to get within 1+mpg (if any IS lost, at all) of the old tires, which I thought were fairly fuel efficient. Not too bad for a 185mm wide tire, compared to 175mm.
21-04-2017 10:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Frescomexico wrote:
I guess you're right about big oil saving the whales. Ironic. The protection I see here is the Mexican navy keeping the whale watching boats back a safe distance from the whales. Without that protection I would fully expect to see a tourista standing on a whale for a photo op and you know what the next picture would show.


Probably true. We have that problem here in the Northwest somewhat harassing the Orcas.


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2017 19:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Latent heat only comes into play during a phase change such as a gas condensing to a liquid. CO2 is an excellent refrigerant and is used in cascade systems, but that is irrelevant in the atmosphere. What is stored in the gas CO2 is called sensible heat.

The radiation from CO2, however small, is probably partially absorbed by water vapor, as you say, but it seems to me, in this case water acts just like the earth would from the "greenhouse effect ". Superheating it makes it less likely to change phase and become a cooling cloud.

I agree with you on the evolution of plant life under high CO2 conditions, and I see little evidence of "run-away" greenhouse effect. But I can understand normal greenhouse effect tending to elevate our temperatures above ice age levels until the earth's orbit and inclination brings on the next ice age, at which time no amount of CO2 will save us.

One of the largest pods of humpback whales in the world is right here in Banderas Bay, protected and thriving.

I am happy with the global climate now (and I probably would have been happy during the Little Ice Age because I wouldn't have known any better), and I look forward to the many good effects of elevated CO2.


Well you are correct that it is CALLED sensible heat. But it is the latent heat content of the gas that cannot change phase any longer since it has reached the gas stage.

This energy can ONLY build to the maximum content level of that gas before it is released in a burst of radiation. But in the troposphere that rarely occurs and most of the radiant heat is from the Earth's surface. Most molecules cannot change to the gas phase and hence will radiate in the solid phase and that's what occurs on the Earth's surface to a small portion of the Sun's emissions.

Instead CO2 transfers most of it's heat to other adjacent molecules via conduction. There is nothing whatsoever special about a CO2 molecule and since almost all of it's power is lost through conduction of what possible means could it be considered a "greenhouse gas"?

Think about this - it is claimed by the not very bright that a greenhouse allows heat in through the glass and won't allow it to escape by changing it's frequency from visible spectrum to infra-red which cannot penetrate the glass.

In fact greenhouses operate not in that manner at all. If that were the case opening the door would not change the temperature inside a greenhouse.

But when you open the door on a greenhouse it very rapidly cools to the outside temperature.

So what is happening in a greenhouse has nothing to do with radiant energy but instead conduction and convention. With the door closed the Sun's emissions are converted to IR which heats everything around it and is trapped in the greenhouse through nothing more than the insulating effect of an enclosed space.

The entire idea of a greenhouse gas is frivolous and even H2O warms the Earth though nothing more than insulating effect.
21-04-2017 20:16
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Latent heat only comes into play during a phase change such as a gas condensing to a liquid. CO2 is an excellent refrigerant and is used in cascade systems, but that is irrelevant in the atmosphere. What is stored in the gas CO2 is called sensible heat.

The radiation from CO2, however small, is probably partially absorbed by water vapor, as you say, but it seems to me, in this case water acts just like the earth would from the "greenhouse effect ". Superheating it makes it less likely to change phase and become a cooling cloud.

I agree with you on the evolution of plant life under high CO2 conditions, and I see little evidence of "run-away" greenhouse effect. But I can understand normal greenhouse effect tending to elevate our temperatures above ice age levels until the earth's orbit and inclination brings on the next ice age, at which time no amount of CO2 will save us.

One of the largest pods of humpback whales in the world is right here in Banderas Bay, protected and thriving.

I am happy with the global climate now (and I probably would have been happy during the Little Ice Age because I wouldn't have known any better), and I look forward to the many good effects of elevated CO2.


Well you are correct that it is CALLED sensible heat. But it is the latent heat content of the gas that cannot change phase any longer since it has reached the gas stage.

This energy can ONLY build to the maximum content level of that gas before it is released in a burst of radiation. But in the troposphere that rarely occurs and most of the radiant heat is from the Earth's surface. Most molecules cannot change to the gas phase and hence will radiate in the solid phase and that's what occurs on the Earth's surface to a small portion of the Sun's emissions.

Instead CO2 transfers most of it's heat to other adjacent molecules via conduction. There is nothing whatsoever special about a CO2 molecule and since almost all of it's power is lost through conduction of what possible means could it be considered a "greenhouse gas"?

Think about this - it is claimed by the not very bright that a greenhouse allows heat in through the glass and won't allow it to escape by changing it's frequency from visible spectrum to infra-red which cannot penetrate the glass.

In fact greenhouses operate not in that manner at all. If that were the case opening the door would not change the temperature inside a greenhouse.

But when you open the door on a greenhouse it very rapidly cools to the outside temperature.

So what is happening in a greenhouse has nothing to do with radiant energy but instead conduction and convention. With the door closed the Sun's emissions are converted to IR which heats everything around it and is trapped in the greenhouse through nothing more than the insulating effect of an enclosed space.

The entire idea of a greenhouse gas is frivolous and even H2O warms the Earth though nothing more than insulating effect.


You are whipping a dead horse by bringing up the known fact that the name "greenhouse effect" when applied to gases in the atmosphere is a misnomer. But this does not necessarily mean that those gases in the atmosphere, that absorb and emit energy in the infrared range, do not have an insulating effect on radiation leaving the earth, thereby increasing the global temperature.

You say "This energy can ONLY build to the maximum content level of that gas before it is released in a burst of radiation". If this burst of radiation occurred, the CO2 that remained would be a sub-cooled gas under pressure and temperature conditions where it could not condense (below the triple point). I suspect that rather than a burst of radiation, it is radiating in the infrared range, based on its temperature, in all directions, just as I posted in my description of the (misnamed) greenhouse effect.
21-04-2017 20:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Latent heat only comes into play during a phase change such as a gas condensing to a liquid. CO2 is an excellent refrigerant and is used in cascade systems, but that is irrelevant in the atmosphere. What is stored in the gas CO2 is called sensible heat.

The radiation from CO2, however small, is probably partially absorbed by water vapor, as you say, but it seems to me, in this case water acts just like the earth would from the "greenhouse effect ". Superheating it makes it less likely to change phase and become a cooling cloud.

I agree with you on the evolution of plant life under high CO2 conditions, and I see little evidence of "run-away" greenhouse effect. But I can understand normal greenhouse effect tending to elevate our temperatures above ice age levels until the earth's orbit and inclination brings on the next ice age, at which time no amount of CO2 will save us.

One of the largest pods of humpback whales in the world is right here in Banderas Bay, protected and thriving.

I am happy with the global climate now (and I probably would have been happy during the Little Ice Age because I wouldn't have known any better), and I look forward to the many good effects of elevated CO2.


Well you are correct that it is CALLED sensible heat. But it is the latent heat content of the gas that cannot change phase any longer since it has reached the gas stage.

This energy can ONLY build to the maximum content level of that gas before it is released in a burst of radiation. But in the troposphere that rarely occurs and most of the radiant heat is from the Earth's surface. Most molecules cannot change to the gas phase and hence will radiate in the solid phase and that's what occurs on the Earth's surface to a small portion of the Sun's emissions.

Instead CO2 transfers most of it's heat to other adjacent molecules via conduction. There is nothing whatsoever special about a CO2 molecule and since almost all of it's power is lost through conduction of what possible means could it be considered a "greenhouse gas"?

Think about this - it is claimed by the not very bright that a greenhouse allows heat in through the glass and won't allow it to escape by changing it's frequency from visible spectrum to infra-red which cannot penetrate the glass.

In fact greenhouses operate not in that manner at all. If that were the case opening the door would not change the temperature inside a greenhouse.

But when you open the door on a greenhouse it very rapidly cools to the outside temperature.

So what is happening in a greenhouse has nothing to do with radiant energy but instead conduction and convention. With the door closed the Sun's emissions are converted to IR which heats everything around it and is trapped in the greenhouse through nothing more than the insulating effect of an enclosed space.

The entire idea of a greenhouse gas is frivolous and even H2O warms the Earth though nothing more than insulating effect.


You are whipping a dead horse by bringing up the known fact that the name "greenhouse effect" when applied to gases in the atmosphere is a misnomer. But this does not necessarily mean that those gases in the atmosphere, that absorb and emit energy in the infrared range, do not have an insulating effect on radiation leaving the earth, thereby increasing the global temperature.

You say "This energy can ONLY build to the maximum content level of that gas before it is released in a burst of radiation". If this burst of radiation occurred, the CO2 that remained would be a sub-cooled gas under pressure and temperature conditions where it could not condense (below the triple point). I suspect that rather than a burst of radiation, it is radiating in the infrared range, based on its temperature, in all directions, just as I posted in my description of the (misnamed) greenhouse effect.


https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Edited on 21-04-2017 20:39
21-04-2017 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Latent heat only comes into play during a phase change such as a gas condensing to a liquid. CO2 is an excellent refrigerant and is used in cascade systems, but that is irrelevant in the atmosphere. What is stored in the gas CO2 is called sensible heat.

The radiation from CO2, however small, is probably partially absorbed by water vapor, as you say, but it seems to me, in this case water acts just like the earth would from the "greenhouse effect ". Superheating it makes it less likely to change phase and become a cooling cloud.

I agree with you on the evolution of plant life under high CO2 conditions, and I see little evidence of "run-away" greenhouse effect. But I can understand normal greenhouse effect tending to elevate our temperatures above ice age levels until the earth's orbit and inclination brings on the next ice age, at which time no amount of CO2 will save us.

One of the largest pods of humpback whales in the world is right here in Banderas Bay, protected and thriving.

I am happy with the global climate now (and I probably would have been happy during the Little Ice Age because I wouldn't have known any better), and I look forward to the many good effects of elevated CO2.


Well you are correct that it is CALLED sensible heat. But it is the latent heat content of the gas that cannot change phase any longer since it has reached the gas stage.

This energy can ONLY build to the maximum content level of that gas before it is released in a burst of radiation. But in the troposphere that rarely occurs and most of the radiant heat is from the Earth's surface. Most molecules cannot change to the gas phase and hence will radiate in the solid phase and that's what occurs on the Earth's surface to a small portion of the Sun's emissions.

Instead CO2 transfers most of it's heat to other adjacent molecules via conduction. There is nothing whatsoever special about a CO2 molecule and since almost all of it's power is lost through conduction of what possible means could it be considered a "greenhouse gas"?

Think about this - it is claimed by the not very bright that a greenhouse allows heat in through the glass and won't allow it to escape by changing it's frequency from visible spectrum to infra-red which cannot penetrate the glass.

In fact greenhouses operate not in that manner at all. If that were the case opening the door would not change the temperature inside a greenhouse.

But when you open the door on a greenhouse it very rapidly cools to the outside temperature.

So what is happening in a greenhouse has nothing to do with radiant energy but instead conduction and convention. With the door closed the Sun's emissions are converted to IR which heats everything around it and is trapped in the greenhouse through nothing more than the insulating effect of an enclosed space.

The entire idea of a greenhouse gas is frivolous and even H2O warms the Earth though nothing more than insulating effect.


You are whipping a dead horse by bringing up the known fact that the name "greenhouse effect" when applied to gases in the atmosphere is a misnomer. But this does not necessarily mean that those gases in the atmosphere, that absorb and emit energy in the infrared range, do not have an insulating effect on radiation leaving the earth, thereby increasing the global temperature.

You say "This energy can ONLY build to the maximum content level of that gas before it is released in a burst of radiation". If this burst of radiation occurred, the CO2 that remained would be a sub-cooled gas under pressure and temperature conditions where it could not condense (below the triple point). I suspect that rather than a burst of radiation, it is radiating in the infrared range, based on its temperature, in all directions, just as I posted in my description of the (misnamed) greenhouse effect.


https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


An excellent paper.


The Parrot Killer
21-04-2017 21:42
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Latent heat only comes into play during a phase change such as a gas condensing to a liquid. CO2 is an excellent refrigerant and is used in cascade systems, but that is irrelevant in the atmosphere. What is stored in the gas CO2 is called sensible heat.

The radiation from CO2, however small, is probably partially absorbed by water vapor, as you say, but it seems to me, in this case water acts just like the earth would from the "greenhouse effect ". Superheating it makes it less likely to change phase and become a cooling cloud.

I agree with you on the evolution of plant life under high CO2 conditions, and I see little evidence of "run-away" greenhouse effect. But I can understand normal greenhouse effect tending to elevate our temperatures above ice age levels until the earth's orbit and inclination brings on the next ice age, at which time no amount of CO2 will save us.

One of the largest pods of humpback whales in the world is right here in Banderas Bay, protected and thriving.

I am happy with the global climate now (and I probably would have been happy during the Little Ice Age because I wouldn't have known any better), and I look forward to the many good effects of elevated CO2.


Well you are correct that it is CALLED sensible heat. But it is the latent heat content of the gas that cannot change phase any longer since it has reached the gas stage.

This energy can ONLY build to the maximum content level of that gas before it is released in a burst of radiation. But in the troposphere that rarely occurs and most of the radiant heat is from the Earth's surface. Most molecules cannot change to the gas phase and hence will radiate in the solid phase and that's what occurs on the Earth's surface to a small portion of the Sun's emissions.

Instead CO2 transfers most of it's heat to other adjacent molecules via conduction. There is nothing whatsoever special about a CO2 molecule and since almost all of it's power is lost through conduction of what possible means could it be considered a "greenhouse gas"?

Think about this - it is claimed by the not very bright that a greenhouse allows heat in through the glass and won't allow it to escape by changing it's frequency from visible spectrum to infra-red which cannot penetrate the glass.

In fact greenhouses operate not in that manner at all. If that were the case opening the door would not change the temperature inside a greenhouse.

But when you open the door on a greenhouse it very rapidly cools to the outside temperature.

So what is happening in a greenhouse has nothing to do with radiant energy but instead conduction and convention. With the door closed the Sun's emissions are converted to IR which heats everything around it and is trapped in the greenhouse through nothing more than the insulating effect of an enclosed space.

The entire idea of a greenhouse gas is frivolous and even H2O warms the Earth though nothing more than insulating effect.


You are whipping a dead horse by bringing up the known fact that the name "greenhouse effect" when applied to gases in the atmosphere is a misnomer. But this does not necessarily mean that those gases in the atmosphere, that absorb and emit energy in the infrared range, do not have an insulating effect on radiation leaving the earth, thereby increasing the global temperature.

You say "This energy can ONLY build to the maximum content level of that gas before it is released in a burst of radiation". If this burst of radiation occurred, the CO2 that remained would be a sub-cooled gas under pressure and temperature conditions where it could not condense (below the triple point). I suspect that rather than a burst of radiation, it is radiating in the infrared range, based on its temperature, in all directions, just as I posted in my description of the (misnamed) greenhouse effect.


https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf
21-04-2017 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Frescomexico wrote:

http://cedegesrv7.epfl.ch/2013-2014/pluginfile.php/1054751/mod_resource/content/0/paper_correcting_Gerlich_arguments.pdf


There are quite a few errors in this paper. Probably the most egregious is the attempted redefinition of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in an effort to make the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again.


The Parrot Killer
Page 6 of 8<<<45678>





Join the debate Consensus of Scientists and Proof:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
The most honest climate scientist among the most dishonest climate scientists203-09-2019 04:38
▲ 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