Remember me
▼ Content

Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)



Page 5 of 6<<<3456>
17-10-2019 08:10
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
Your understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann and of the laws of thermodynamics is abysmal...

If so, please explain them to me, in a way that comports with what I'm reading from the physicists. I've already done several Stefan-Boltzmann calculations in my posts; they're easy. The actual physics behind Stefan-Boltzmann's simplified assumption of a blackbody surface are harder. Gases are not surfaces; they occupy volume. Thermal emission from gases isn't the same as transmission of radiation through them. Your constant repetition of Stefan-Boltzmann is a fail, unless you have a surface which acts like a blackbody.

IBdaMann wrote:
Throwing "references" around does not answer the questions that you are not answering.

So you give yourself as the ultimate reference on physics. A screen name. Good night! Have you realized that physicists themselves use references? Their papers are full of citations.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and your argument is saying nothing.
... you have said nothing.
Nope...
...then you will probably not get very far...

And a screen name that sounds like the Party of "No."

IBdaMann wrote:
You will not succeed in getting the earth to violate physics by convoluting your model with wavelengths and atmospheric layers and weather and lots of unnecessary crap. It's just "the earth." That's all you need.

So the engineers at GM shouldn't convolute their car models with cylinders, piston rods, planetary gears and zig-zag tread on the tires. A car is a lump of steel. Yeah.
~


IBdaMann wrote:
Neither Into the Night nor I are advocating your error of trying to subdivide the body in order to violate the laws of physics...

And you're the one talking about a church. I can hear it now: "Oh, Lord, we know thy commandment, that thou shalt not subdivide the body, but we have done so. We know our error. We have sinned. Forgive us, oh Lord."
~


IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere.

Then why doesn't it apply to this piece of matter?



The Orion nebula is 42 light-years across and appears larger than the sun in our sky. Its temperatures range from 7200 to 9000K, hotter than the sun is. By Stefan-Boltzmann, the Orion nebula as seen from Earth should therefore appear brighter than the sun, yet it is not.

Obvious conclusion: The Orion nebula does not obey the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

After all, we don't expect it to. It's an extremely thin gas, with most of its radiation coming from widely-spaced molecules in its interior. Although the Earth's atmosphere is thicker than the nebula, it's still thin enough for radiation to come from throughout its volume, from molecules which aren't in contact with one another except during collisions.



Let me instruct you on that point: Stefan-Boltzmann applies to blackbody surfaces, nothing else. Scientists use it as a shortcut because most solids and liquids behave pretty much like blackbodies, as does the sun, which is opaque beneath its photosphere, the thin layer where the light comes out. Planck's law was devised for cavity radiators (below) where there is a surface, the walls of the cavity, enclosing an open space where the light can resonate with those walls. The radiation coming out the pinhole obeys Stefan-Boltzmann; you compute the area of the pinhole and multiply by σT^4.

Balmer Discontinuity Temperatures in Orion nebula
Liu, Barlow et. al.
The Astrophysical Journal, 1995
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ApJ...450L..59L


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 17-10-2019 08:40
17-10-2019 11:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Your understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann and of the laws of thermodynamics is abysmal...

If so, please explain them to me,

RQAA. We already have. Here is the equation again:
r = C * e * t^4
VernerHornung wrote:
in a way that comports with what I'm reading from the physicists.

Irrelevant. The equation is what it is.
VernerHornung wrote:
I've already done several Stefan-Boltzmann calculations in my posts; they're easy. The actual physics behind Stefan-Boltzmann's simplified assumption of a blackbody surface are harder.

You are trying to remove the emissivity term again, denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
VernerHornung wrote:
Gases are not surfaces; they occupy volume.

They also have a radiating surface, just as any matter.
VernerHornung wrote:
Thermal emission from gases isn't the same as transmission of radiation through them.

Nobody said it was.
VernerHornung wrote:
Your constant repetition of Stefan-Boltzmann is a fail, unless you have a surface which acts like a blackbody.

WRONG. You are still attempting to remove the emissivity term. You can't just change the equation.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Throwing "references" around does not answer the questions that you are not answering.

So you give yourself as the ultimate reference on physics. A screen name. Good night! Have you realized that physicists themselves use references? Their papers are full of citations.

Irrelevant. Science isn't papers. It isn't quotes. It isn't a scientist or any group of scientists. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves. You cannot use any citation or 'scientist' to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and your argument is saying nothing.
... you have said nothing.
Nope...
...then you will probably not get very far...

And a screen name that sounds like the Party of "No."

That's right, NO. You cannot just change the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Neither can you just discard it.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You will not succeed in getting the earth to violate physics by convoluting your model with wavelengths and atmospheric layers and weather and lots of unnecessary crap. It's just "the earth." That's all you need.

So the engineers at GM shouldn't convolute their car models with cylinders, piston rods, planetary gears and zig-zag tread on the tires. A car is a lump of steel. Yeah.
~

You are trying to compare two systems as if they were the same system again. False equivalence fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Neither Into the Night nor I are advocating your error of trying to subdivide the body in order to violate the laws of physics...

And you're the one talking about a church.

Yes. The Church of Global Warming.
VernerHornung wrote:
I can hear it now: "Oh, Lord, we know thy commandment, that thou shalt not subdivide the body, but we have done so. We know our error. We have sinned. Forgive us, oh Lord."
~

You cannot compare two systems as if they are one system.
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere.

Then why doesn't it apply to this piece of matter?


It does.
VernerHornung wrote:
The Orion nebula is 42 light-years across and appears larger than the sun in our sky. Its temperatures range from 7200 to 9000K, hotter than the sun is. By Stefan-Boltzmann, the Orion nebula as seen from Earth should therefore appear brighter than the sun, yet it is not.

You are forgetting the inverse square law.
VernerHornung wrote:
Obvious conclusion: The Orion nebula does not obey the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No, you are ignoring the inverse square law.
VernerHornung wrote:
It's an extremely thin gas, with most of its radiation coming from widely-spaced molecules in its interior.

Irrelevant.
VernerHornung wrote:
Although the Earth's atmosphere is thicker than the nebula, it's still thin enough for radiation to come from throughout its volume, from molecules which aren't in contact with one another except during collisions.

Irrelevant.
VernerHornung wrote:
Let me instruct you on that point: Stefan-Boltzmann applies to blackbody surfaces, nothing else.

WRONG. You are AGAIN trying to remove the emissivity term. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all matter, everywhere, all the time.
VernerHornung wrote:
Scientists use it as a shortcut

No, it is not a shortcut.
VernerHornung wrote:
because most solids and liquids behave pretty much like blackbodies,

No. They have an emissivity of less than 100%.
VernerHornung wrote:
as does the sun,

So does the Sun.
VernerHornung wrote:
which is opaque beneath its photosphere,

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
VernerHornung wrote:
the thin layer where the light comes out.

It does apply to surfaces, yes.
VernerHornung wrote:
Planck's law was devised for cavity radiators (below) where there is a surface,

No. It applies to all matter, everywhere, all the time.


The Parrot Killer
17-10-2019 16:23
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no frequency term in Stefan-Boltzmann. Do you know why?

You may rewrite it with a frequency term if you wish. But you would get only the power (Watts/m^2) per unit of Hertz emitted in a narrow band of frequencies around the particular frequency you chose, instead of the total power radiated from the surface.

Into the Night wrote:
You are forgetting the inverse square law.

No problem here, either:

[(size of nebula)/(distance to nebula)]^2
= [42 ly / 1300 ly]^2

is greater than

[(size of sun)/(distance to sun)]^2
= [0.86 million mi. / 93 million mi.]^2


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
17-10-2019 16:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no frequency term in Stefan-Boltzmann. Do you know why?

You may rewrite it with a frequency term if you wish. But you would get only the power (Watts/m^2) per unit of Hertz emitted in a narrow band of frequencies around the particular frequency you chose, instead of the total power radiated from the surface.

At this point I have to ask how far you got in mathematics.

Your answer to my question, by the way, is way off although the answer is high-school-easy.

Stefan-Boltzmann cannot be "rewritten" to include wavelength. Do you know why?

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2019 22:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There is no frequency term in Stefan-Boltzmann. Do you know why?

You may rewrite it with a frequency term if you wish.

But you would get only the power (Watts/m^2) per unit of Hertz emitted in a narrow band of frequencies around the particular frequency you chose, instead of the total power radiated from the surface.

You can't just change the equation and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no frequency term.

IBdaMann asked you a question. Answer it.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are forgetting the inverse square law.

No problem here, either:

[(size of nebula)/(distance to nebula)]^2
= [42 ly / 1300 ly]^2

is greater than

[(size of sun)/(distance to sun)]^2
= [0.86 million mi. / 93 million mi.]^2

Not the inverse square law of light. Try again.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-10-2019 22:29
01-11-2019 14:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Into the Night wrote:[claims tmiddles says]1) Radiance is only from the top of the atmosphere.
2) Radiance is from walls inside a closed room.
Which is it, dude?
Radiance form Earth is primarily only from the top of the atmosphere. We reflect some of the suns light directly off of the surface but the radiance formed from the temperature of Earth, which is infrared, does a relay race up through the atmosphere only to makes it's final exist near the top.

Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
If this trend doesn't alarm you, then be sure we'll sooner or later elect an über-Democrat ...

What precedent?

The precedent of a president who won't disclose his finances, lacks civility, lies to the people almost every day, attacks the seperation of powers, and calls for a ban on an entire ideological group from the country. You know, Trump stuff.

How would you like a Uber-Democratic president calling for a ban on Tea Party supporters entering the country, directing that all political opponents be audited by the IRS, denying access to any press they don't like...

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Like calling for a ban on Muslims entering the country and getting away with it.

RDCF. He didn't call for a ban on Muslims.
I've presented the proof. You're just announcing your lack of sanity.


Into the Night wrote:...CO2 does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to heat the colder atmosphere. The surface is COOLED by this action.

Until you have an explanation for how planets with atmospheres ALL have higher temperatures at the ground level you have all the wisdom of someone claiming bumble bees can't fly due to the laws of thermodynamics.

VernerHornung wrote: Surface rays in the 15μm band are absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 or H2O molecules several times as they progress upward toward space,

But don't O2, N and the rest of the atmosphere participate in the relay? Since they have a temperature they are emitting right? And they can absorb through conduction right?

VernerHornung wrote:All the words in the so-called Politiplex "Manual" are IBdaMann's, of course.

It's weird and creepy to write your own post and call it a "Manual" but I think they really get satisfaction out of pretending they've authored reference material. The whole "Data Mine" BS too. As if we were all on some Gilligans Island with them and they were dazzling us with coconut radios. Meanwhile human civilization rages around their deaf ears.

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:You're not really arguing with me, but with these authors:

Nope, the argument is yours until you bring one of these "authors" to Climate-Debate to be cross-examined.

So many cheap tactics to end debate. ITN/IBD were banned from Debate-Politics but it suits them well since they're simply committed to not discussing out in the wider world. I can't actually think of anything where a credible argument is made that you can't cite references.

IBdaMann wrote:
So ... explain your inclusion of a frequency (or wavelength) term in Stefan-Boltzmann.
You know IBD if you'd ever explained how anything works in the real world your small head would explode. 5 years without ever explaining anything!

If the argument is made that anything is being misapplied the logical and appropriate way to point that out is with an example of how it SHOULD BE applied. I've asked ITN/IBD this repeatedly and it will never be obliged.

The great thing about the scientific method is that you can sort out what's true by seeing wat actually works. Platitudes and unapplied statements are just useless noise.

It is incredibly lucky we're not the only planet in the solar system because we have a literally gallery of experiments running to test out our theories about our own planets climate.

IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:iting sources is perfectly acceptable in debate.

Not if you cannot answer my questions.
Your understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann and of the laws of thermodynamics is abysmal.

I'm fully preparred to admit that Verner is far beyond my own ability academically. IBD you are truly outclassed. It's nice to have a small taste of how a really well supported argument crushes your lame attempts to end debate.

This is the fruit of bothering to be here. Because there are more crackpots like you two out there and these knives keep getting sharper.

IBdaMann wrote:
1. Neither Into the Night nor I are advocating your error of trying to subdivide the body in order to violate the laws of physics
Subdividing the solar system is just as arbitrary. There is nothing wrong with subdividing anything unless you are getting the wrong answer to how things actually work. Every problem of thermodynamics taking place within the Earth is subdividing. If I ask how a hot plate, beaker, plate, human, wall, anything interacts I'm subdividing Earth.

VernerHornung wrote:

The Orion nebula is 42 light-years across and appears larger than the sun in our sky. Its temperatures range from 7200 to 9000K, hotter than the sun is. By Stefan-Boltzmann, the Orion nebula as seen from Earth should therefore appear brighter than the sun, yet it is not.

Obvious conclusion: The Orion nebula does not obey the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Nicely done! So quick question: Is it that a gas doesn't "behave" because it's got void around each molecule? And solids and liquids will respond per stefan-boltzmann because they don't?

"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
01-11-2019 15:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote: Radiance form Earth is primarily only from the top of the atmosphere.

This is an absurd statement. I suppose you could create a model that treats all of earth's radiance as emerging from the very top of the atmosphere and that would work ... except that then you wouldn't be able to say "primarily." Otherwise, most of earth's radiance is from something other than the "top" of the atmosphere, to include the earth's surface.

tmiddles wrote: We reflect some of the suns light directly off of the surface but the radiance formed from the temperature of Earth, which is infrared, does a relay race up through the atmosphere only to makes it's final exist near the top.

If you are going to make a claim about all the individual photons then you need to show your data about all the individual photons. Otherwise we have to just use the earth as a body and stop trying to subdivide it.

tmiddles wrote: The precedent of a president who won't disclose his finances,

I notice that you have never disclosed your finances. Is that why no one should give any creedence to anything you say?

tmiddles wrote: ... lacks civility,

... wait, are we talking about Trump or about you?

tmiddles wrote: lies to the people almost every day,

... wait, when did this become all about you?

tmiddles wrote: ... attacks the seperation of powers,

When did this happen?

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-11-2019 18:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:[claims tmiddles says]1) Radiance is only from the top of the atmosphere.
2) Radiance is from walls inside a closed room.
Which is it, dude?
Radiance form Earth is primarily only from the top of the atmosphere.

WRONG. Radiant energy from Earth is primarily from the surface. Nothing about the atmosphere stops radiant energy. You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its energy at the same time. You are again denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
We reflect some of the suns light directly off of the surface but the radiance formed from the temperature of Earth, which is infrared, does a relay race up through the atmosphere only to makes it's final exist near the top.

WRONG. There is no 'relay race'. Everything radiates...the surface, the atmosphere...everything.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
If this trend doesn't alarm you, then be sure we'll sooner or later elect an über-Democrat ...

What precedent?

The precedent of a president who won't disclose his finances, lacks civility, lies to the people almost every day, attacks the seperation of powers, and calls for a ban on an entire ideological group from the country. You know, Trump stuff.

He doesn't need to disclose his finances. He is not attacking the separation of powers (the Democrats are!). He doesn't have to be civil. Every politician lies from time to time. Banning an idealogical group, such as terrorists, is normal and there is nothing illegal about it.
tmiddles wrote:
How would you like a Uber-Democratic president calling for a ban on Tea Party supporters entering the country, directing that all political opponents be audited by the IRS, denying access to any press they don't like...

He has done none of these things. Extreme argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Like calling for a ban on Muslims entering the country and getting away with it.

RDCF. He didn't call for a ban on Muslims.
I've presented the proof. You're just announcing your lack of sanity.

Inversion fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...CO2 does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to heat the colder atmosphere. The surface is COOLED by this action.

Until you have an explanation for how planets with atmospheres ALL have higher temperatures at the ground level you have all the wisdom of someone claiming bumble bees can't fly due to the laws of thermodynamics.

Read the part you quoted again. RQAA. YALIF.
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote: Surface rays in the 15μm band are absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 or H2O molecules several times as they progress upward toward space,

But don't O2, N and the rest of the atmosphere participate in the relay? Since they have a temperature they are emitting right? And they can absorb through conduction right?

There is no 'relay race'. Most of the radiance of Earth comes from the surface itself.
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:All the words in the so-called Politiplex "Manual" are IBdaMann's, of course.

It's weird and creepy to write your own post and call it a "Manual" but I think they really get satisfaction out of pretending they've authored reference material.

I didn't write The Manual. IBDaMann didn't write it either. He only wrote part of it. The rest comes from other posters as offers of definitions for various buzzword phrases in the Church of Global Warming. The Church of Global Warming has not offered any other definitions. Neither have you.
tmiddles wrote:
The whole "Data Mine" BS too.

Supply data according to the rules of the Data Mine and I'll possibly consider it, assuming the collection methods and instrumentation used are sensible. I only ask that you provide this kind of documentation for any data presented.
tmiddles wrote:
As if we were all on some Gilligans Island with them and they were dazzling us with coconut radios. Meanwhile human civilization rages around their deaf ears.

YALIF. Nothing prevents you from providing data according to the rules of the Data Mine except your own religion.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:You're not really arguing with me, but with these authors:

Nope, the argument is yours until you bring one of these "authors" to Climate-Debate to be cross-examined.

So many cheap tactics to end debate.

Thought terminating cliche fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You never started any debate. IBDaMann asked you a question. You have never answered it. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD were banned from Debate-Politics

As far as I know IBDaMann was never there. The forum is a kiddie pool that quashes any conservative views. Big deal.
tmiddles wrote:
but it suits them well since they're simply committed to not discussing out in the wider world.

It is not the wider world. It's a kiddie pool forum.
tmiddles wrote:
I can't actually think of anything where a credible argument is made that you can't cite references.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is a reference. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a reference. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a reference. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
So ... explain your inclusion of a frequency (or wavelength) term in Stefan-Boltzmann.
You know IBD if you'd ever explained how anything works in the real world your small head would explode. 5 years without ever explaining anything!

If the argument is made that anything is being misapplied the logical and appropriate way to point that out is with an example of how it SHOULD BE applied. I've asked ITN/IBD this repeatedly and it will never be obliged.
RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
The great thing about the scientific method is that you can sort out what's true by seeing wat actually works.

Science has no 'method' or 'procedure'. It has no proofs. It does not show what is true. It is just a collection of falsifiable theories. All science shows is that a theory has not been falsified...yet.

tmiddles wrote:
Platitudes and unapplied statements are just useless noise.

Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem.
tmiddles wrote:
It is incredibly lucky we're not the only planet in the solar system because we have a literally gallery of experiments running to test out our theories about our own planets climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate. Not on any planet. You have no theories about Earth's climate. There is no such thing as a global climate. There are no falsifiable theories about unquantifiable things. Climate is not quantifiable nor does it contain any quantifiable element.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]VernerHornung wrote:iting sources is perfectly acceptable in debate.

Not if you cannot answer my questions.
Your understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann and of the laws of thermodynamics is abysmal.

I'm fully preparred to admit that Verner is far beyond my own ability academically. IBD you are truly outclassed. It's nice to have a small taste of how a really well supported argument crushes your lame attempts to end debate.

Denying laws of physics is not support. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
This is the fruit of bothering to be here. Because there are more crackpots like you two out there and these knives keep getting sharper.

What knives?
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. Neither Into the Night nor I are advocating your error of trying to subdivide the body in order to violate the laws of physics
Subdividing the solar system is just as arbitrary.

Yes it is. However, you cannot change the system arbitrarily and compare two different systems as if they were the same system. You cannot consider any energy source or energy sink from outside a chosen system.
tmiddles wrote:
There is nothing wrong with subdividing anything unless you are getting the wrong answer to how things actually work.

There is when you consider two different systems the same system.
tmiddles wrote:
Every problem of thermodynamics taking place within the Earth is subdividing.

No, it is simply choosing a smaller system.
tmiddles wrote:
If I ask how a hot plate, beaker, plate, human, wall, anything interacts I'm subdividing Earth.

No, you are simply using a system involving hot plates in a room, beakers in a room, plates in a room, humans in a room, the room, and that's it. You cannot consider any part of that the same as the Earth. They are two completely different systems. You are still arguing a goalpost fallacy. This has already been explained to you. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
The Orion nebula is 42 light-years across and appears larger than the sun in our sky. Its temperatures range from 7200 to 9000K, hotter than the sun is. By Stefan-Boltzmann, the Orion nebula as seen from Earth should therefore appear brighter than the sun, yet it is not.

Obvious conclusion: The Orion nebula does not obey the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Nicely done! So quick question: Is it that a gas doesn't "behave" because it's got void around each molecule? And solids and liquids will respond per stefan-boltzmann because they don't?

It obeys the Stefan-Boltzmann law just like everything else. You are still ignoring the inverse square law. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
02-11-2019 12:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Radiance form Earth is primarily only from the top ...
...most of earth's radiance is from something other than the "top"
An infrared radiance has a very long journey through roughly 10 meters (if it were compressed) of atmosphere to make it out into space. But I guess that only the greenhouse gas density matters so hmmm. I wonder how you can figure out where the radiance leaving earth came from. Hopefully Verner takes a stab at explaining that.

IBdaMann wrote:we have to just use the earth as a body and stop trying to subdivide it.
AKA "STOP" says the debate killer. Why do you insist on subdividing the solar system? The Earth is just one part you know.
How can you talk about the interaction of the atmosphere, ground, water, rain? Since you don't even talk about these things you're just wasring time.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I can't actually think of anything where a credible argument is made that you can't cite references.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is a reference. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a reference. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a reference.
Ah but you have lied, both of you about what these laws are. You've made things up not found in any text book, research or scientific writing. You present fraudulent materiel and claim it is accepted. You then claim all the text books, even ones from 50 years ago, are corrupted by warmazombies and teach lies.

"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
03-11-2019 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Radiance form Earth is primarily only from the top ...
...most of earth's radiance is from something other than the "top"
An infrared radiance has a very long journey through roughly 10 meters (if it were compressed) of atmosphere to make it out into space. But I guess that only the greenhouse gas density matters so hmmm. I wonder how you can figure out where the radiance leaving earth came from.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny.
tmiddles wrote:
Hopefully Verner takes a stab at explaining that.

He can't change this law of physics either.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:we have to just use the earth as a body and stop trying to subdivide it.
AKA "STOP" says the debate killer. Why do you insist on subdividing the solar system? The Earth is just one part you know.
How can you talk about the interaction of the atmosphere, ground, water, rain? Since you don't even talk about these things you're just wasring time.

No, that would be YOU. Inversion fallacy. You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system. Goalpost fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I can't actually think of anything where a credible argument is made that you can't cite references.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is a reference. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a reference. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a reference.
Ah but you have lied, both of you about what these laws are.

No, that would be YOU again. Inversion fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You've made things up not found in any text book, research or scientific writing.

Lie. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You present fraudulent materiel and claim it is accepted.

RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You then claim all the text books, even ones from 50 years ago, are corrupted by warmazombies and teach lies.

Compositional error fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-02-2020 03:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Moving this to the appropriate thread from here:

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...explain how Greenhouse Effect increases temperature without violating physics. Right here.
If you'd like to discuss the greenhouse theory I presented you'll need to do so here:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right
Your model avoids violating physics by not increasing temperature. After describing a model in which temperature does not increase, you merely claim that temperature increases. Sorry, not according to the model you presented. Either you believe that Greenhouse Effect does not increase temperature (as your model indicates) or you have not explained how it does so without violating physics.

I'm assuming that you are operating on the assumption that the Earth is always is perfect equilibrium every millisecond of it's existence? Is that the case?

The Earth is probably never in perfect equilibrium (same energy in as out). The amount of energy entering Earth from the sun does not have to equal the amount leaving in the same instant in time. There is no "Law of equilibrium" that insists on such a thing.

Proof of this is in the pattern of ground level temperature on Earth which shows that the coldest moment in the 24 hour cycle is not the dead of night as one might assume but just after dawn. Why? Because the thermal energy which has accumulated throughout the day on Earth takes time to radiate away. It does not happen instantaneously.

Now the energy budget model presented in this thread is in equilibrium and what's more the quantities are not precise but approximate. This is because it's a model to show the approximate workings of energy as it passes through the Earth long term and in general.

"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
12-02-2020 17:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras 4a...16...29...29...16...16...16...20a1...20a2...20b...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
16-02-2020 10:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...explain how Greenhouse Effect increases temperature without violating physics.

I'm assuming that you are operating on the assumption that the Earth is always is perfect equilibrium every millisecond of it's existence?...


Still waiting....
16-02-2020 21:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...explain how Greenhouse Effect increases temperature without violating physics.

I'm assuming that you are operating on the assumption that the Earth is always is perfect equilibrium every millisecond of it's existence?...


Still waiting....

You are conflating contexts.

1) Solar output is not constant, ergo the earth's average temperature is always fluctuating. It just isn't fluctuating to any extent that we humans can perceive, and we don't have the means to measure it. Ergo, the earth's thermal state is "what we DON'T know."

2) If we are discussing physics then we are necessarily presuming that all bodies have heat until reaching equilibrium. Ergo, all models operate under the equilibrium presumption unless the scenario specifically assumes a non-equilibrium. If your argument assumes a non-equilibrium then you need to demonstrate/show it to be the case, otherwise the argument will be dimissed.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-02-2020 14:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:
2) If we are discussing physics then we are necessarily presuming that all bodies have heat until reaching equilibrium. Ergo, all models operate under the equilibrium presumption unless the scenario specifically assumes a non-equilibrium....

Is where I see the main issue with:
IBdaMann wrote:
Your model avoids violating physics by not increasing temperature.

Of course the greenhouse effect model has two states relevant to the discussion here:
1 the composition of the atmosphere is constant
2 the composition is changing

Are you saying that the model presented which shows no change does not violate physics but if it did show a change, which in turn caused a change in temperature, that would?

Also while equilibrium is an assumed default there is no law of equilibrium that requires all things to be in equilibrium. Nor is it timed to the millisecond but rather "over time" in the general sense. To say AGW violates equilibrium is simply to recognize the theory for what it is.
17-02-2020 15:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote: Of course the greenhouse effect model has two states relevant to the discussion here:

There is no Greenhouse Effect model, at least no falsifiable model that predicts nature in any way. I'm not interested in any particular theology.

tmiddles wrote: Are you saying that the model presented which shows no change does not violate physics but if it did show a change, which in turn caused a change in temperature, that would?

I'm having difficulty parsing your semantics but the basic answer is "yes." Warmizombies bounce around in their Greenhouse Effect story more than popcorn in the microwave. One "interim" position, which is more of a tactic, is to feint before pivoting by saying "No one is saying that additional energy is being created" which implies that temperature is not increasing, because temperature cannot increase without additional energy ... because nothing in nature spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. The feint on the other end is to say "no one is claiming that earth's radiance changes" which implies that earth's temperature isn't changing.

This tactic is equivalent to a military "falling back to regroup." Once the warmizombie has retreated to safety (and declared that "no one is making that obviously contradictory argument" and thus abandoning the problem assumption of an increase in temperature) he pivots and tries another argument that assumes a bogus increase in temperature, which he maintains until the contradiction is spotted and the temperature increase assumption has to be abandoned yet again and a new pivot is performed. Repeat ad infinitum.

tmiddles wrote: Also while equilibrium is an assumed default there is no law of equilibrium that requires all things to be in equilibrium.

Thermodynamics says that everything moves towards an equilibrium and that entropy is always increasing. You must explain/describe any nonequilibria and all usable energy in your system.

tmiddles wrote: To say AGW violates equilibrium is simply to recognize the theory for what it is.

There is no falsifiable AGW model. This is how you recognize it for what it is.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-02-2020 21:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermodynamics says that everything moves towards an equilibrium and that entropy is always increasing. .

So equilibrium is not a requirement every millisecond.

The presented model can be accused of being non-falsifiable, a vague accusation, since we don't have a 2nd Earth to run a lab experiment against. But falsifiability is not always available. Democritus was in no position to make such a claim about the atom. This doesn't mean a theory or model is note useful.

As presented the reason for Earth's elevated temperature is explained AND an increase in CO2 resulting in an increase in temperature is explained.

Should I copy/paste the first post?

What is not explained is you belief that temperature cannot increase on a planet when the composition of that planet changes, with a fixed input of radiance from the Sun.
17-02-2020 22:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermodynamics says that everything moves towards an equilibrium and that entropy is always increasing. .

So equilibrium is not a requirement every millisecond.

Did you bother to read what I wrote previously? I explained that.

Do you plan to use physics?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-02-2020 22:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:
... read what I wrote previously? I explained that.

You wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermodynamics says that everything moves towards an equilibrium and that entropy is always increasing. You must explain/describe any nonequilibria and all usable energy in your system.

And I was simply clarifying that it's not a law that equilibrium is maintained every milllisecond. It's a tendency of nature to find an equilibrium over time. Did you say something that contradicts my assesment? If so I don't see it.


IBdaMann wrote:
Do you plan to use physics?

Plan to? I have already presented the theory.
Opening post of this thread
I don't understand your question. I don't defy physics, which are not optional.
18-02-2020 04:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... read what I wrote previously? I explained that.

You wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermodynamics says that everything moves towards an equilibrium and that entropy is always increasing. You must explain/describe any nonequilibria and all usable energy in your system.

I did write the above ... but I also took the time to write the following to directly answer your question ... and apparently you missed it:

IBDaMann wrote: You are conflating contexts.

1) Solar output is not constant, ergo the earth's average temperature is always fluctuating. It just isn't fluctuating to any extent that we humans can perceive, and we don't have the means to measure it. Ergo, the earth's thermal state is "what we DON'T know."

2) If we are discussing physics then we are necessarily presuming that all bodies have heat until reaching equilibrium. Ergo, all models operate under the equilibrium presumption unless the scenario specifically assumes a non-equilibrium. If your argument assumes a non-equilibrium then you need to demonstrate/show it to be the case, otherwise the argument will be dimissed.



tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Do you plan to use physics?

Plan to? I have already presented the theory.

So, yes or no, do you plan to use physics?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-02-2020 05:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
I did read this:
IBdaMann wrote:...all models operate under the equilibrium presumption...
It does not say, and it does not follow that for things to be out of equilibrium is a violation of any laws or principles in physics.

I have a simple example:
A solar flare causes a surge in the radiance coming from the sun. This radiance reaches the Earth. At that millisecond the ratio of Energy In to Energy Out for the Earth is not in equilibrium. More energy is coming in then is going out.


IBdaMann wrote:
So, yes or no, do you plan to use physics?
Still a vague question but to my understanding I have already used Physics here yes:
Opening post of this thread
18-02-2020 06:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote: I have a simple example:
A solar flare causes a surge in the radiance coming from the sun. This radiance reaches the Earth. At that millisecond the ratio of Energy In to Energy Out for the Earth is not in equilibrium. More energy is coming in then is going out.

Yes. The key point is that you must justify/explain all nonequilibria as you did here, if you plan on using physics.

You cannot, for example, assume the earth is out of equilibrium because there is "greenhouse gas" without explaining/justifying exactly how that breaks the equilibrium. If you try to say "it breaks the equilibrium by altering the earth's emissivity" then you must show that ... it cannot simply be assumed.

Once again: equilibrium is the default. All nonequilibria must be thoroughly explained/justified.


...so ... the floor is yours. Take it away.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-02-2020 06:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:... the floor is yours. Take it away.
OK!

tmiddles wrote: ..."Temperature" means the air temperature at sea level. The air is heated through both infrared radiation (only the water vapor and greenhouse gases) and conduction/convection (all the gases).

For 100 units of SUN light/infrared coming in:
35 reflect back (our Albedo)
51 absorbed by the ground
14 absorbed by the air directly

For the 65 units now departing:
From the ground
17 radiate from the ground directly (the remaining 34 transfer from ground to air before leaving earth)
From the air
So the air now has 34+14=48 units it radiates out into space:
14 it had absorbed directly
19 are from evaporated water condensing
9 from conduction/convection
6 infrared radiation from the earth absorbed by the air
(6+9+19=34)

wikipedia heat budget

For the thermal energy transferred to the atmosphere from infrared radiation, 14 on the way in and 6 leaving the surface, 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 thermal energy 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

And the increase that may have occurred in the change from 300 to 400ppm would have been like 0.45C, 0.81F?

I just want to know if this is the general idea.
18-02-2020 17:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:... the floor is yours. Take it away.
OK!

Houston, we have a problem. Someone is trying to claim a spontaneous increase in temperature without any additional energy.

The claim is that an equilibrium of 100 energy units in and 100 energy units out results in a temperature increase of 1.81C, 3.26F

We think we've isolated the problem ... a Wikipedia reference. We noticed a totally bogus term "heat budget" and that pointed us in the right direction.

Houston, what do you recommend?



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-02-2020 23:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:
The claim is that an equilibrium of 100 energy units in and 100 energy units out results in a temperature increase of 1.81C, 3.26F

The "budget" first presented is in balance. A change in the composition of the atmosphere would result in a change in the "processing"?, not the worst word for it, of thermal energy coming in, before it goes out.

You would recognize that the "energy in" does not dictate the temperature would you not?
19-02-2020 01:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The claim is that an equilibrium of 100 energy units in and 100 energy units out results in a temperature increase of 1.81C, 3.26F

The "budget" first presented is in balance.

Tell me you understand the problem here. You said you wanted to use physics, right? We can't just ignore glaring, egregious errors, right?

tmiddles wrote: A change in the composition of the atmosphere would result in a change in the "processing"?,

This is on you to show. We've been over this. This is, in no way, simply assumed.

I'm sure your support for this will be fascinating.

tmiddles wrote: You would recognize that the "energy in" does not dictate the temperature would you not?

The average planetary temperature is a function of the "energy in," the planet's emissivity and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2020 02:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:We can't just ignore glaring, egregious errors, right?
Please don't. Point them out.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A change in the composition of the atmosphere would result in a change in the "processing"?,

This is on you to show.
OK one more time.

For the thermal energy transferred to the atmosphere from infrared radiation, 14 on the way in and 6 leaving the surface, 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 thermal energy 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


IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You would recognize that the "energy in" does not dictate the temperature would you not?

The average planetary temperature is a function of the "energy in," the planet's emissivity and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
And here we have the key bit. How do you define that IBD? Does it include anything underground? Underwater? I'm assuming you'd say it's unknowable for any planet which I'm sure you'll admit does look a bit convenient in a debate.

However, we are not concerned with the molten core unless, and we are not concerned with the stratosphere unless, and we are not concerned with any region of the whole Earth, on which we just reside on a narrow elevation, unless...
it affect the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere/ground level.

This is where plants grow, mosquitoes breed, ice melts or freezes, and our ecosystem is located.

Sure the molten core, thermosphere, even an asteroid from a distance galaxy, might "impact" us, but it also might not.
19-02-2020 05:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:We can't just ignore glaring, egregious errors, right?
Please don't. Point them out.

... and I did. Your graph was depicting an equilibrium, ergo it was depicting no temperature increase because a body in equilibrium cannot somehow increase in temperature spontaneously ... yet you were nonetheless claiming a temperature increase. This is an egregious contradiction.

However, with this post of yours you have pivotted to a different egregious violation of physics, i.e. violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I'll comment on it below but the basic jist is that you are going to describe a sequence of energy form changes that result in additional energy, even though the 1st law states that energy can change form 24/7 but you can never create any additional energy.

Let's take a closer look.

tmiddles wrote: 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 thermal energy 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

So any additional thermal energy contained in CO2 is at the expense of something else's thermal energy. It's a zero-sum-game ... unless you are claiming that this sequence of energy form changes actually CREATES that additional energy ... in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You would recognize that the "energy in" does not dictate the temperature would you not?

The average planetary temperature is a function of the "energy in," the planet's emissivity and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
And here we have the key bit. How do you define that IBD? Does it include anything underground? Underwater? [/quote]
And here we have the key bit. Many times I have tried to get you to define what you include in all that. YOU are the one that is supposed to be defining what you are supposedly talking about. When did that become my job?

If you are going to let me define "the earth's surface" then I include the entire atmosphere, the entire hydrosphere and all of the solid ground at the bottom of the atmosphere down to a depth of two meters. You are free to use that definition or you can make your own but you need to define it.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2020 05:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:...Your graph was depicting an equilibrium, ... yet you were nonetheless claiming a temperature increase...
Yes I was saying if there was a change to what is shown in the graph. The change being an increase in CO2. The graph doesn't show an increase in CO2 or an increase in temperature. I described that below the graph.

IBdaMann wrote:
So any additional thermal energy contained in CO2 is at the expense of something else's thermal energy. It's a zero-sum-game ...
A zero sum game for energy would be a closed/contained system. As in there are 5000 joules, they are going to go somewhere but you can't make any more.

The sun is pouring radiance onto the Earth, that then loses it to space.

That's not a "zero sum" game at all. If fact unless you include space as the ultimate recipient of the energy that is a "total loss" game.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ....
The average planetary temperature ...How do you define that IBD? Does it include anything underground? Underwater?
YOU are the one that is supposed to be defining what you are supposedly talking about.
I don't use the term "Planetary temperature". When I talk about the temperature it's the bottom of the atmosphere. It's an anthropocentric temperature : )
Edited on 19-02-2020 05:33
19-02-2020 16:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote: A zero sum game for energy would be a closed/contained system.

... and here we get to your main probem: You still don't understand thermodynamics. You haven't the vaguest clue what is meant by an "open system" or a "closed system."

[note: I checked Wikipedia. It's wrong.]

I think that you really can't go any further until you resolve this deficiency. I will get you started:

1) Notice that there is no mention of any requirement for a closed system in the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that you cannot create energy. Once again, no closed system is required and you were trying to create energy. Your graph and your argument in its entirety is simply dismissed.

2) The second law of thermodynamics begins with "In a closed system ..." Now you need to somehow figure out what that means otherwise you will continue babbling. When you saw keepit quip to Into the Night that "the earth is not a closed system," that should have been your clue to not regurgitate it. You know that keepit is horrendously wrong 100% of the time. That should have gotten you thinking if you had previously been under that impression.

- 2a) If you have a closed system A and then "open it", and then "close it", you no longer have closed system A, you have a brand new closed system B. The previous closed system A is gone forever and closed system B is starting at time T(0).


tmiddles wrote: The sun is pouring radiance onto the Earth, that then loses it to space. That's not a "zero sum" game at all.

Yes it is. You are letting "space" throw you off, aren't you?

You thanked keepit for pointing you towards Carnot's principle. Unfortunately, you did not read it because the answer is there. What did Carnot mean by a "heat reservoir" and is space serving in that capacity in your example?

I think you have some reading to do.

tmiddles wrote: I don't use the term "Planetary temperature". When I talk about the temperature it's the bottom of the atmosphere.

... but you assured me, nay, insisted, that you were planning on using physics. Black body science does not deal with the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. subdividing its own atomic unit, but rather the temperature of the body. If you are claiming that a planet is the body in question then you are necessarily talking about planetary temperature and necessarily not talking about the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. subdividing the atomic unit.

I'll mention it (yet) again, if you want to discuss a temperature at the bottom of an atmosphere and you know Temperature, Pressure, Amount_of_Substance, Volume (and/or gravity + surface area) then you can calculate:

Temperature = (Pressure * Volume)/(Amount_of_Substance * Ideal Constant)


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2020 22:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:
1) Notice that there is no mention of any requirement for a closed system in the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that you cannot create energy.

Yes and you said:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: And CO2 double to 800ppm ... for an ...increase of 1.81C, 3.26F

So any additional thermal energy contained in CO2 is at the expense of something else's thermal energy. It's a zero-sum-game ...

The implication being that in order for more thermal energy to be present in CO2 it would mean that less thermal energy would be present elsewhere.

I have a simple proof that is false:
Two objects have the same fixed input of thermal energy, by conduction no less to make it simple. They are both the same substance and volume but one object has twice the mass, double the density.

Now the input energy is fixed (none can be created) but continuous. So do the objects have the same thermal energy content? No. Because it's not a zero sum game. The more massive object has more capacity and will have more energy. What it at the expense of something else? Yes, whatever it's transferring it's thermal energy too, but only once/initially. Was energy created for one object to have more than the other? No.

IBdaMann wrote:
2) The second law o...keepit quip...should have gotten you thinking ..."open it", and then "close it", you no longer have closed system ...
You lost me on #2 here. Maybe the example above works to show that in that case entropy never decreases just because a more massive object accumulates more thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote:
What did Carnot mean by a "heat reservoir" and is space serving in that capacity in your example?

I think you have some reading to do.
Well I read your post. Just to be clear you're not my professor any more than I am yours.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I don't use the term "Planetary temperature". When I talk about the temperature it's the bottom of the atmosphere.

... but you assured me, nay, insisted, that you were planning on using physics. Black body science does not deal with the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. subdividing its own atomic unit, ...
"Using physics" is not equivalent to "never talking about anything other than an entire planet". This "though shall not subdivide" makes no sense to me. It pretty much means that nothing other than entire planets can be talked about ever, for no apparent reason.

I'm not subdividing anything to talk about it's parts. I don't cut your arm off when I say "nice tattoo".

My initial post described the input energy as being 100 units, or 100% of the input energy. Nothing about that violates any:
IBdaMann wrote:...using physics. Black body science does not deal with the bottom of the atmosphere, ...

Radiance, Conduction and convection deal with the bottom of the atmosphere, the ground, clouds, all the parts matter. I'm at no point saying that the bottom of the atmosphere is a black body interacting with the Sun on it's own. In fact the theory presented shows 100 units of energy coming in to the entire group of parts as a whole.

IBdaMann wrote:...if you want to discuss a temperature at the bottom of an atmosphere ...you can calculate:
Temperature = (Pressure * Volume)/(Amount_of_Substance * Ideal Constant)
What is "Temperature" here? Temperature of what? The equilibrium temperature of Earth?
20-02-2020 00:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote: The implication being that in order for more thermal energy to be present in CO2 it would mean that less thermal energy would be present elsewhere.

Nope. It means that CO2 cannot create energy. Period. If some CO2 suddenly has more thermal energy then it got it from something else, i.e. it did not create the energy.

tmiddles wrote: I have a simple proof that is false:

Nope. You proved that there can be differing quantities of thermal energy. Your scenario did not address bodies in equilibrium with constant energy sources increasing in temperature.

tmiddles wrote: You lost me on #2 here.

So what do you suggest?

tmiddles wrote: Well I read your post. Just to be clear you're not my professor any more than I am yours.

Just to be clear, I'm not your professor, so you'll have to read up if you want to catch up.

I figured out why you went into art. You first surveyed the physics department on their belief in Global Warming and the results indicated that they could not be your professors.

tmiddles wrote: "Using physics" is not equivalent to "never talking about anything other than an entire planet".

"Using physics" is not equivalent to watching Liverpool play Arsenal.
"Using physics" is not equivalent to a ham sandwich.
"Using physics" is not equivalent to an application API call.

Wait, I have an idea, why don't you say what it is as opposed to what it isn't?

Are you trying to invent your own gibber-babble that doesn't have to adhere to science models? That will be my assumption until you clarify otherwise.

tmiddles wrote: This "though shall not subdivide" makes no sense to me. It pretty much means that nothing other than entire planets can be talked about ever, for no apparent reason.

Well, the science model not making any sense to you should tell you what your problem is.

tmiddles wrote: I'm not subdividing anything to talk about it's parts. I don't cut your arm off when I say "nice tattoo".

I'll presume you just don't get it, and since I'm not your professor, I'll leave you to find another way to wrap your mind around it.

Let me know when something changes.

tmiddles wrote: Radiance, Conduction and convection deal with the bottom of the atmosphere, the ground, clouds, all the parts matter.

Radiance, over all wavelengths, pertains to bodies. "the bottom of the atmosphere" is not a body.

Conduction and convection don't apply to the vacuum of space, i.e. that which delivers the 100 units in and the 100 units out in your physics violation example.

The ideal gas law applies ... therefore you don't want to use it.

You're on a roll.

tmiddles wrote: I'm at no point saying that the bottom of the atmosphere is a black body interacting with the Sun on it's own. In fact the theory presented shows 100 units of energy coming in to the entire group of parts as a whole.

... and the "parts" must be forthwith dispensed under the model you are using otherwise you are subdividing the atomic unit. You can't change the overarching equilibrium by any gibber-babble pertaining to the "parts." There is no sequence of eneregy form changes amongst the "parts" that can create energy in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics to result in an increase in temperature.

This kind of rookie mistake on your part tells everyone that I'm not your professor.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-02-2020 00:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The implication being that in order for more thermal energy to be present in CO2 it would mean that less thermal energy would be present elsewhere.

Nope. It means that CO2 cannot create energy. Period. If some CO2 suddenly has more thermal energy then it got it from something else, i.e. it did not create the energy.


Of course not. The thermal energy ultimately originated with the Sun and CO2 got it directly from the sun, from other molecules of the atmosphere, from the ground, and so on. We know the air around us has thermal energy in it right now, and that doesn't mean it created it.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I have a simple proof that is false:

...Your scenario did not address bodies in equilibrium with constant energy sources increasing in temperature.
So are you saying that what I described is not in equilibrium? Because it does have a constant energy source. Also the "increase in temperature" is something you object to because there is more thermal energy right?

IBdaMann wrote:"the bottom of the atmosphere" is not a body.


Isn't any collection of matter "a body" ? Is our solar system "a body", how about the Earth and the moon together? Is a basketball a body? Oh wait it's on Earth, I can't subdivide right?

So no physics can ever be applied to anything other than a planet ( or moon? ) what about asteroids?

IBdaMann wrote:....subdividing the atomic unit...
What?? Congratulations on saying something for the first time in the history of the English language! Novelty points.

No definition points though.

A Google search for "subdividing the atomic unit" and you guessed it, first time is right here!
20-02-2020 03:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote: Also the "increase in temperature" is something you object to because there is more thermal energy right?

I object to your attempts to violate thermodynamics.

Scenario: In the vacuum of space there is a constant heat source shining on two bodies A and B, both steel spheres except A has a diameter of 10 cm and B has a diameter of 20 cm. Both A and B are in equilibrium at 40C, but B has four times the mass and four times the thermal energy.

Question: When does B suddenly increase in temperature spontaneously just because it has more thermal energy than A?

tmiddles wrote: Isn't any collection of matter "a body"?

Nope. We've been over this.

tmiddles wrote: Is our solar system "a body",

Nope.

tmiddles wrote: how about the Earth

Yes.

tmiddles wrote: and the moon together?

Nope.

tmiddles wrote: Is a basketball a body?

Yes.

tmiddles wrote:Oh wait it's on Earth, I can't subdivide right?

You can't subdivide what you have determined is your body in question. Are you really this dense that you aren't fully grasping this?


tmiddles wrote: What?? Congratulations on saying something for the first time in the history of the English language! Novelty points.
No definition points though.


Conclusion: You are illiterate and you suck at internet searches. What more is there to say?

a·tom·ic
/əˈtämik/

forming a single irreducible unit or component in a larger system.


Synonyms for Atomic: Granular, Indivisible, Irreducible


You don't get any points.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-02-2020 03:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:...two bodies A and B, ...When does B suddenly increase in temperature...
It doesn't but it does have more thermal energy. How is that possible if it didn't create the thermal energy! Zero sum game?

Scenario Vegas: 4 poker players play a hand of poker, but one is very fat, twice the size of the other 3 players, does he get any more money for his girth? No, because that is a zero sum game.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Isn't any collection of matter "a body"?

Nope. We've been over this.
Ah the classic RQAA by any other name...
Nope, we haven't.

IBdaMann wrote:
You can't subdivide what you have determined is your body in question.
Who is the "you" in that statement and when did this person make such a declaration?

IBdaMann wrote:
a·tom·ic
/əˈtämik/
Totally unclear what you're trying to say with your invented language.

Try conventional vocabulary.
20-02-2020 04:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...two bodies A and B, ...When does B suddenly increase in temperature...
It doesn't but it does have more thermal energy. How is that possible if it didn't create the thermal energy!

Unfortunately, I'm not your professor.

I nonetheless recommend This Reference.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-02-2020 04:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:
I nonetheless recommend This Reference.
You presenting something you wrote as a reference is dishonest.

I wasn't confused by what your wrote. I call BS on it.
Edited on 20-02-2020 04:43
20-02-2020 05:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote: You presenting something you wrote as a reference is dishonest.

Not if it's correct. It did, in fact, contain the answer you sought.

Also, I did not "present" it. I recommended it.


On this point, I have a philosophical question for you. What is the difference between my writing out that material in a post to you ... vs. my writing that material on Politiplex and giving you a link?



tmiddles wrote:
I wasn't confused by what your wrote. [/quote]
Yes, you clearly are.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-02-2020 05:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
IBdaMann wrote:What is the difference between my writing out that material in a post to you ... vs. my writing that material on Politiplex and giving you a link?
The pretense of corroboration. It is more honest, and takes no longer, to write: "I wrote this" as it does "This reference", or to say "My site" in place of "The manual".

I know you likely do mainly because you think it's funny but it's also deceptive. Not to me, but you play to an audience.

So IBD how can you talk about clouds? Isn't it impossible to do so? Since you'd be subdividing Earth? But basketballs, no problem.

Yeah...
20-02-2020 15:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6650)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:What is the difference between my writing out that material in a post to you ... vs. my writing that material on Politiplex and giving you a link?
The pretense of corroboration. It is more honest, and takes no longer, to write: "I wrote this" as it does "This reference",

That was nothing more than a lame attempt to blame me for you being somewhat stupid.

No, I did not devise the laws of thermodynamics and you are being dishonest by referring to my having typed the material in a clear form for laymen to understand as my having "written it." But that's pretty much all you do, i.e. mischaracterize, deceive and assign bogus positions.

tmiddles wrote: So IBD how can you talk about clouds? Isn't it impossible to do so? Since you'd be subdividing Earth? But basketballs, no problem.

Aaaahh, so you aren't smart enough to grasp this easy, straightforward concept and it is somehow my fault for not having dumbed it down sufficiently for you.

OK. I get it.

So what are your next steps? How are you planning on learning this now that I have tried to explain it and failed? Are you going to give Into the Night a shot at explaining it down to your level? Wait, I bet GasGuzzler and gfm could help you out; they are typically very clear and don't get bogged down in the weeds like I do.

... or maybe you can go to the library. Theyv'e got some good resources there as well.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 5 of 6<<<3456>





Join the debate Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
where all the co2 at120-05-2020 14:13
The Prevention of Climate Change Through CO2 Removal2328-03-2020 22:32
Co2A (Co2 Atmosphere) = SUM(SOURCES)-SUM(SINKS)913-02-2020 18:05
CO2 Behavior in the Atmosphere2412-02-2020 03:53
could we slow co2 release in enviornment by engineering a virus to kill wood eating bacteria?810-02-2020 01:42
▲ 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