Demonstrating IR CO2 reaction

tmiddles wrote:Why is the dark side of Earth so warm? I mean it's blazing hot compared to the dark side of the moon.

IBdaMann wrote:
Why is the daytime side of Earth so cold?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Why is the daytime side of Earth so cold?

Because the gases of Earth's atmosphere absorb radiance on it's way in. And it's diffusion not refrigeration. They hold onto thermal energy till morning. Not all of it but most of it. Like a big thermal savings account for Earth, keeping us toasty.

I guess you'll Dodge my question though. Keep on believing thermal energy is never retained, I can't stop you.

tmiddles wrote: They hold onto thermal energy till morning.

tmiddles wrote: Like a big thermal savings account for Earth, keeping us toasty.

tmiddles wrote: Keep on believing thermal energy is never retained, I can't stop you.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: They hold onto thermal energy till morning.

Do atmospheric gases have little alarms to let them know when to "let go" of the thermal energy that they are holding? What time of the morning does that happen?

tmiddles wrote: Like a big thermal savings account for Earth, keeping us toasty.

We've been over this. It's like a big walk-in freezer for Earth, keeping us ice-cold.

tmiddles wrote: Keep on believing thermal energy is never retained, I can't stop you.

Keep on avoiding defining "retention" as it pertains to thermal energy ... I can't make you.


.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...gases of Earth's atmosphere ...hold onto thermal energy till morning...

it is not possible to trap thermal energy...

IBdaMann wrote:
Do atmospheric gases have little alarms

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
You're not following the conversation.

You were relying to me? I'm not sure what I missed.

So you recognize that gases react very differently to infrared? Depending on the gas?

"They are the same in terms of the end result of being converted to thermal energy." is not correct. If radiance is transmitted, as in a gas is transparent to it as air we breath is to white light, then it's not converted into thermal energy at all.

Harry C wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:...there's a finite amount of IR entering the atmosphere,...

Earth has a continuous supply of energy from the Sun.

...It is measurably finite, not variable enough to account for an increase in global average temperatures over time.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: They hold onto thermal energy till morning.

Do atmospheric gases have little alarms to let them know when to "let go" of the thermal energy that they are holding? What time of the morning does that happen?

tmiddles wrote: Like a big thermal savings account for Earth, keeping us toasty.

We've been over this. It's like a big walk-in freezer for Earth, keeping us ice-cold.

tmiddles wrote: Keep on believing thermal energy is never retained, I can't stop you.

Keep on avoiding defining "retention" as it pertains to thermal energy ... I can't make you.


.

If you know everything why are you asking questions?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:...gases of Earth's atmosphere ...hold onto thermal energy till morning...

it is not possible to trap thermal energy...

You are using the word "trap" not me.

tmiddles wrote:
Explain why the Earths dark side is so much warmer than the Moon's dark side ITN.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Do atmospheric gases have little alarms

Only questions with no answers IBD?

The absurd notion that thermal energy is instantly expelled from all matter is just weird. Of course it's not. It takes time for things to cool off including Earth.

tmiddles wrote:
The coldest moment is actually just after sunrise:

Harry C wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
You're not following the conversation.

You were relying to me? I'm not sure what I missed.

So you recognize that gases react very differently to infrared? Depending on the gas?

"They are the same in terms of the end result of being converted to thermal energy." is not correct. If radiance is transmitted, as in a gas is transparent to it as air we breath is to white light, then it's not converted into thermal energy at all.

Harry C wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:...there's a finite amount of IR entering the atmosphere,...

Earth has a continuous supply of energy from the Sun.

...It is measurably finite, not variable enough to account for an increase in global average temperatures over time.

Below is a list of the gasses that make up air. Two gasses amount to 99.03%. The largest single element is Nitrogen which is known to absorb IR and convert to thermal energy. Oxygen does not react and the other constituents are not materially significant to this exercise unless they react and are greater than the concentration of CO2.
nitrogen (N2) 78.084
oxygen (O2) 20.946
argon (Ar) 0.934
neon (Ne) 0.0018
helium (He) 0.000524
methane (CH4) 0.0002
krypton (Kr) 0.000114
hydrogen (H2) 0.00005
nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.00005
xenon (Xe) 0.0000087

Now introduce both H2O and CO2 which will convert IR to thermal energy. We will assume 400ppm or .0004 in concentration for CO2. H20 is highly variable in concentration and can vary by the minute and foot of elevation.

Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.

spot wrote:
Methane and nitrous oxyide are greenhouse gasses too also the CO2 is created by burning stuff so Oxygen is going down enough to be measured.

Harry C wrote:
Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.

So nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. What does that mean: when Tyndall tested room air infrared radiance passed through unimpeeded while CO2, a greenhouse gas, absorbed it.

The gases are not all the same! They aren't. If you are convinced they are please share why.

Water vapor varies a lot. So do clouds in the sky. They do so regardless of human activity. Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

So if CO2 does add a few degrees fluctuations in water vapor wont fix that.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.

So nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas.

tmiddles wrote:
What does that mean: when Tyndall tested room air infrared radiance passed through unimpeeded while CO2, a greenhouse gas, absorbed it.

tmiddles wrote:
The gases are not all the same! They aren't. If you are convinced they are please share why.

tmiddles wrote:
Water vapor varies a lot.

tmiddles wrote:
So do clouds in the sky.

tmiddles wrote:
They do so regardless of human activity.

tmiddles wrote:
Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

tmiddles wrote:
So if CO2 does add a few degrees fluctuations in water vapor wont fix that.

Harry C wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
Of 100% of the gasses and water vapor in the atmosphere that will react with IR why would we focus on just CO2? They are all going to convert to thermal energy. The variability of H2O can more than offset the projected increase in CO2. What is it about CO2 that is the problem?

Remember to have an increase in CO2 you must also have a decrease in some other gas. We don't know if it will be inert or reactive.

So nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas. What does that mean: when Tyndall tested room air infrared radiance passed through unimpeeded while CO2, a greenhouse gas, absorbed it.

The gases are not all the same! They aren't. If you are convinced they are please share why.

Water vapor varies a lot. So do clouds in the sky. They do so regardless of human activity. Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

So if CO2 does add a few degrees fluctuations in water vapor wont fix that.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong about Nitrogen and IR. Nitrogen has 2 atoms with a bond that is so stiff it can't absorb energy in the form of vibration in our atmosphere. So, we shall omit it from our 100% of gasses that DO convert to thermal energy.

That out of the way, it doesn't change my central premise that the energy capacity of the H20 can vary more than whatever is attributed to CO2. So, back to my question which you continue to avoid is why should we worry about CO2? What is it about CO2 that causes such angst?

Harry C wrote:
I'm not afraid to admit I was wrong about Nitrogen and IR.

Harry C wrote:
So, back to my question which you continue to avoid is why should we worry about CO2? What is it about CO2 that causes such angst?

tmiddles wrote:
Water vapor varies a lot. So do clouds in the sky. They do so regardless of human activity. Variables like that even out over time and DO NOT offset a variable that is shifting decidedly to increase or decrease.

tmiddles wrote:
Here is the math wikipedia/cunsensus uses as I understand it from this thread I posted:

tmiddles wrote:
"...the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F "

tmiddles wrote:
Now that uses 2.5% humidity arbitrarily. In a given place and time it might be more or less but the contribution of CO2 would remain.

tmiddles wrote:
I dont think my attempt at sumurizing that theory with that math is very good and I question the theory (doesnt explain in my mind why MARS isnt hotter)

tmiddles wrote:
But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

tmiddles wrote:
IF that calculation were correct we would shift the temperature of the earth by several degrees very quickly.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Here is the math wikipedia/cunsensus uses as I understand it from this thread I posted:

Wikipedia is not a science book or a math book. You cannot use it as a reference.

tmiddles wrote:
"...the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F "

Argument from randU fallacy. You cannot use random numbers as data or as a mathematical proof.

tmiddles wrote:
Now that uses 2.5% humidity arbitrarily. In a given place and time it might be more or less but the contribution of CO2 would remain.

CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth.

tmiddles wrote:
I dont think my attempt at sumurizing that theory with that math is very good and I question the theory (doesnt explain in my mind why MARS isnt hotter)

You aren't using math. You are just making up numbers and equations.

tmiddles wrote:
But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

tmiddles wrote:
IF that calculation were correct we would shift the temperature of the earth by several degrees very quickly.

What calculation? You never made any!

spot wrote: If you know everything why are you asking questions?

spot wrote: Methane and nitrous oxyide are greenhouse gasses too

spot wrote: ... also the CO2 is created by burning stuff so Oxygen is going down enough to be measured.

MarcusR wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Here is the math wikipedia/cunsensus uses as I understand it from this thread I posted:

Wikipedia is not a science book or a math book. You cannot use it as a reference.

tmiddles wrote:
"...the only molecules relevant are:
Water vapor (from 0-4%) estimated average of 2.5%
nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone 0.06%
CO2 0.04%

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).

If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin

And CO2 double to 800ppm from 400, making it 0.08% instead of 0.04% (I know the math is a bit off) then another 0.63% of heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C

An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F "

Argument from randU fallacy. You cannot use random numbers as data or as a mathematical proof.

tmiddles wrote:
Now that uses 2.5% humidity arbitrarily. In a given place and time it might be more or less but the contribution of CO2 would remain.

CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth.

tmiddles wrote:
I dont think my attempt at sumurizing that theory with that math is very good and I question the theory (doesnt explain in my mind why MARS isnt hotter)

You aren't using math. You are just making up numbers and equations.

tmiddles wrote:
But that is my answer to you excellent question why is CO2 of such concern.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

tmiddles wrote:
IF that calculation were correct we would shift the temperature of the earth by several degrees very quickly.

What calculation? You never made any!

This has been explained to you before:

yhttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

What EXACTLY is is you don't get ??

Into the Night wrote:A religious text is not science nor a calculation.

For all bands, the downward shortwave flux at the tropopause is always decreased by the increased concentrations, due to increased absorption in the stratosphere (Figures S1a and S1b). The sign of the forcing depends on whether this negative contribution dominates over the increased absorption by these gases in the troposphere, which contributes a positive forcing. For CO2, the extremely strong band at 4.3 µm makes little contribution to forcing at band center; absorption is almost complete in the stratosphere at unperturbed concentrations, and it only starts to contribute to forcing at the band edges. The CO2 2.7 µm band lies toward the center of a strong water vapor band (Figure 1d). The change in the downward forcing is strongly negative (Figure S1b), but there is not a compensating increase in tropospheric absorption because the heavy spectral overlap with water vapor strongly mutes the impact of CO2 increases. By contrast, the weaker bands of CO2 at 1.6 and 2.0 µm lie in, or toward the edges of, windows between the main water vapor bands (Figure 1d); hence, they are more able to increase tropospheric absorption causing a positive forcing that dominates over the negative stratospheric component.

keepit wrote:
IBDM,
When i lived in texas there was a phrase, "All hat and no cattle". Look at your posts. There's a ton of stuff and a ton of other people's stuff but you aren't contributing much.

keepit wrote:
For example, you say there is an absolute zero temperature.

keepit wrote:
There isn't,

keepit wrote:
because of virtual energy entering and exiting our universe all the time, everywhere.

keepit wrote:
That's why it can never get to absolute zero.

keepit wrote:
ITN,
I don't buy your response. Can you explain yourself?

keepit wrote:
Semantics isn't going to provide an answer ITN.

keepit wrote:
The issue isn't the problems encountered when people try to achieve absolute zero,

keepit wrote:
rather whether it is physically possible by any means, natural phenomenon or man made.

keepit wrote:
IBDM,
When i lived in texas there was a phrase, "All hat and no cattle". Look at your posts. There's a ton of stuff and a ton of other people's stuff but you aren't contributing much.

keepit wrote: For example, you say there is an absolute zero temperature.

keepit wrote: There isn't, because of virtual energy entering and exiting our universe all the time, everywhere.

keepit wrote: That's why it can never get to absolute zero.

keepit wrote: What a load IBDM.
Learn a little about "empty space" and then argue your position with every cosmology scientists at the big universities and the Large Hadron Collider.
Maybe you and ITN know better than them.

keepit wrote:
...IBDM....then argue your position with every cosmology scientists....

tmiddles wrote: One thing we never get to argue with ITN/IBD is a position. They have never, in 5 years, offered an explanation for anything.

tmiddles wrote: They will claim a made up law of thermodynamics (in my sig) mixed in with some real ones.

tmiddles wrote: They will say something is NOT the answer to why the universe is the way we find it.

tmiddles wrote: But they will never actually offer an explanation.

keepit wrote:
What a load IBDM.

keepit wrote:
Learn a little about "empty space" and then argue your position with every cosmology scientists at the big universities and the Large Hadron Collider.
Maybe you and ITN know better than them.

tmiddles wrote:

keepit wrote:
...IBDM....then argue your position with every cosmology scientists....

One thing we never get to argue with ITN/IBD is a position. They have never, in 5 years, offered an explanation for anything.

tmiddles wrote:
Q: "How do you explain _________" ITN/IBD: "It is unknown"
or

tmiddles wrote:
Q: "What is your answer to that hen?" ITN/IGD: hand waving "Fallacy" and "I have a question for you instead of answer"

tmiddles wrote:
They will claim a made up law of thermodynamics

tmiddles wrote:
(in my sig) mixed in with some real ones.

tmiddles wrote:
They will say something is NOT the answer to why the universe is the way we find it. But they will never actually offer an explanation.

tmiddles wrote:
Not even to how the human body maintains body temperature (in my sig).

tmiddles wrote:
I call it the "boxer without a body" where the (usually adolescent) "debater" says someone else is wrong without having a position of their own they take. You can't really hit back, attack their solution, because they don't have one.

tmiddles wrote:
It's much easier to say someone else is wrong than it is to be correct in your own calculation on things.

IBdaMann wrote:
Example: "We do not have the means to ascertain the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy."

IBdaMann wrote:
Example: "thermodynamics says that thermal energy only flows from warmer to cooler."

IBdaMann wrote: Christians used to get on my back for not having an explanation for what happens to our souls when we die.

IBdaMann wrote:...for tmiddles to pretend to be a genius, ...

tmiddles wrote:
... address my two proofs.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Example: "thermodynamics says that thermal energy only flows from warmer to cooler."

Yes it does and it's a NET FLOW.

IBdaMann wrote:
Until you can provide ...