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

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)

Page 1 of 6

Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)30-07-2019 11:07
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	So I'm not a scientist and want help to know if I'm understanding this (it may be a wait but if you read this and can help I'll be monitoring the thread): The "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 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 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. Edited on 30-07-2019 11:22
30-07-2019 17:38
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Doubling the amount of CO2, doesn't add any energy. The sun doesn't send us more energy, based on CO2 content. Don't molecules have sort of a maximum capacity? Some reactions, you need to add energy to form or break bonds, others release energy.
30-07-2019 19:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: So I'm not a scientist and want help to know if I'm understanding this (it may be a wait but if you read this and can help I'll be monitoring the thread): The "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) The emissivity of Earth is unknown. tmiddles wrote: 51 absorbed by the ground The emissivity of the ground is unknown. tmiddles wrote: 14 absorbed by the air directly The emissivity of the air is unknown. tmiddles wrote: 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) * You cannot destroy energy. * You cannot create energy. * You cannot reduce radiance and increase the temperature at the same time. * You cannot reduce entropy in any system. tmiddles wrote: wikipedia heat budget Wikipedia is garbage. Don't use it as a science textbook. tmiddles wrote: 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% * You cannot trap light. * You cannot treat all photons as the same energy. * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. tmiddles wrote: 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). * You cannot trap heat. * You cannot trap light. * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. tmiddles wrote: If the average temperature on earth is 14C = 287.15 Kelvin The temperature of Earth is unknown. 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 heat could be added (CO2 holding twice as much) for an extra 1.8 Kelvin for 288.96 = 15.81C * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. * There is no sequence. tmiddles wrote: An increase of 1.81C, 3.26F Argument from randU fallacy. You math is based on random numbers to produce a random number. tmiddles wrote: And the increase that may have occurred in the change from 300 to 400ppm would have been like 0.45C, 0.81F? Zero. Zip. Nada. CO2 has absolute no capability to warm the Earth. * You cannot trap heat. * You cannot trap light. * You cannot reduce the entropy in any system. * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. tmiddles wrote: I just want to know if this is the general idea. Your 'general idea' violates laws of physics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 30-07-2019 19:43
31-07-2019 04:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: Doubling the amount of CO2, doesn't add any energy. The sun doesn't send us more energy, based on CO2 content. Don't molecules have sort of a maximum capacity? Some reactions, you need to add energy to form or break bonds, others release energy. We actually live in the atmosphere, the air above the surface of the earth. When we talk about the temperature we are talking about the atmosphere. Some love to point out that the air cannot heat the earth (during the day anyway) and that's true, but we don't live in the earth we live on it in the air. Every bit of the suns energy that comes to Earth will leave it, as we have to settle into an equilibrium. However!!! There is a delay/storage capacity to Earth. An amount of the Suns energy that is on it's way but not gone yet (why we don't freeze to death at night). That delayed thermal transfer is why our atmospheric temperature, near the ground where we live (but not IN the ground), is what gives us a temperature higher than what we would have otherwise. (technically without an atmosphere we'd be exposed to the void of space with no gas around us at all). Your sweater doesn't create thermal energy either, but it does delay its movement from your skin out into the air, trapping/holding up some of it near you for a little while. So adding more CO2 would in theory result in more thermal energy being "held up" on it's way out, more thermal energy would be stored in the atmosphere, and the temperature would be higher. While only 2.6% of the atmospheres particles (mostly water vapor) can be energized by infrared radiation, those particles can transfer their thermal energy to the remaining 97.4% of the atmosphere. The heat is then distributed throughout the air around us. Edited on 31-07-2019 04:50
31-07-2019 05:48
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Only so much energy is sent to one side of the planet, at any given moment. The thermal energy always tries to find a balance, equilibrium. The air isn't going to get warmer than the surface, without the surface getting a little cooler, they try to become equal. The whole time, we have it leaking back out to space. Takes time for half the planet to warm in the daylight, takes time for it to cool at night. The air was never warmer than the surface, so it could never warm the surface. Nothing is being trapped, it moves to a cooler surface. There is always movement. It's not like a sealed container in a laboratory, just doesn't work out the same way.

31-07-2019 05:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:It's not like a sealed container in a laboratory, just doesn't work out the same way. Yeah that's a good way of putting it. It's not sealed. The heat is always leaking out back into space. If the sun stopped shining it would eventually drift down (over time, not instantly) to the point that the only heat we'd feel would be from the earths molten core. So the sun keeps pumping heat in during the day as the planet radiates it back out into space all day and night. The "traffic jam" or "hold up" or "Thermal storage" that the earth has, in everything from a hot rock to heated air to the thermal energy that goes into evaporating water (and is then rereleased when the water condenses back into liquid) represents the amount of thermal energy, from the sun, that is still with the earth at any given time. Because it doesn't leave instantly unless it's reflected away. The moon, mercury and other solar system object with no atmosphere aren't able to store much thermal energy and become very cold at night. Venus stores a tremendous amount. The Earth stores some. It's a temporary "storage" (not the best word) but the important part is that it's here, energizing our air and what we call the temperature. You CAN increase the ability of a planet to store/delay the departing energy from the sun. This is why looking at Venus and Mercury is worthwhile. The Earth will be in equilibrium still if there is a change, what goes in will equal what goes out, just as it does with Venus and with Mercury: in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. But the amount of thermal energy that hangs out at any given time could be different. This is known as "The hang out principle of thermodynamism" based on the principle of "It's night time and you didn't freeze to death" Edited on 31-07-2019 06:56
31-07-2019 06:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: So I'm not a scientist and want help to know if I'm understanding this (it may be a wait but if you read this and can help I'll be monitoring the thread): The "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 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 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. If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature.
31-07-2019 06:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote: If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature. The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C. However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing. Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that. Edited on 31-07-2019 07:03
31-07-2019 10:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:The air was never warmer than the surface, so it could never warm the surface. Nothing is being trapped, it moves to a cooler surface. There is a flaw in the thinking that: The air cannot warm the ground, the ground is always warmer. The ground is not the source of the thermal energy the sun is. The dirt is not like a hot plate generating the energy that results in our temperature. At night the ground is no longer absorbing any sunlight and can actually be cooler than the air and yes it CAN be warmed by the air: the ground cools off rapidly at night. In such situations, the 2-m air temperature can be 2-8F warmer than the surface This is because it takes time for thermal energy to move around. The loss of the radiation of the sun is fairly sudden and so the thermal energy movement is essential slower than sunset. Sometimes anyway. It is true that we cannot warm the sun, with energy from the sun, but that's unlikely to come up! Also "The earth" is not well defined in these discussions. Isn't the gas layer around a planet part of the planet? Would we exclude liquids too? What about when they evaporate? I think "The Earth" is only reasonably defined as the whole thing, gas included. It is true that thermal energy will move from a hotter to a cooler place but it doesn't know which way is up. That said our temperature, greenhouse effect and all, really has little to do with thermal energy flowing downward, but simply with the accumulation of it in the gases of our atmosphere (temporary accumulation but that's our temperature for you). It's just so often repeated that the air can't warm the ground so the greenhouse effect is impossible I thought it was good to address it. So again: The heat source is the sun, it's true we cannot heat the sun as we are only the recipient of it's energy. The dirt/ground of Earth is NOT the SOURCE of the heat that results in our temperature (not a hot plate plugged into the wall). The whole planet has the thermal energy of the sun either reflecting off of it or moving through it's matter before radiating back out. Our temperature (the one humans, plants and animals are concerned with) is the amount of thermal energy on it's way through the gases of our lower atmosphere (conventionally measured at 2M 6ft above the ground). Edited on 31-07-2019 10:44
31-07-2019 18:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14421)	HarveyH55 wrote: Don't molecules have sort of a maximum capacity? No, they do not. That is a common misconception held by warmizombies and they promulgate that physics violation as religious dogma. Whatever the temperature of a molecule, it's temperature can be increased, i.e. it will absorb photons (of sufficient energy, it must adhere to the 2nd law of thermodynamics) and its temperature will increase. There's no such thing as photon seating capacity. From The Manual: Saturation: noun In the Global Warming mythology, the mysterious belief that an atom can somehow be "filled to capacity" with photons. At such a point all other photons will apparently find no room at the inn and must look elsewhere to be absorbed. Since this seems to violate Planck's Law and other classical physics, this belief falls within Settled Science. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
31-07-2019 18:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature. The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C. However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing. Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that. Between 1880 to 1980, about a 60 ppm rise in CO2 levels. Why no significant temperature change? Yet with a rise of 70 ppm it's considered that CO2 is causing the warming that didn't happen before? I do have a carbon capture idea that I might pursue when able. But I won't be able to ask any Americans or American owned businesses to take an interest in it. This would also include scientists as well. And if it creates any jobs, it can't for any Americans. In the US people should do things by themselves. If I wanted to work with other people to help make things better for everyone, that is socialism and that's a bad thing. And a socialist should not ever want to live in the US.
31-07-2019 19:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature. The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C. However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing. Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that. Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.". Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number). Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics. It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-07-2019 20:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Doubling the amount of CO2, doesn't add any energy. The sun doesn't send us more energy, based on CO2 content. Don't molecules have sort of a maximum capacity? Some reactions, you need to add energy to form or break bonds, others release energy. We actually live in the atmosphere, the air above the surface of the earth. When we talk about the temperature we are talking about the atmosphere. Some love to point out that the air cannot heat the earth (during the day anyway) and that's true, but we don't live in the earth we live on it in the air. This actually is an attempt to deny Kirchoff's law. As far as energy goes, the Earth and the atmosphere are one body. To separate them out and treat them differently for energy denies this law. All nodes of energy are summed into one body. tmiddles wrote: Every bit of the suns energy that comes to Earth will leave it, as we have to settle into an equilibrium. However!!! There is a delay/storage capacity to Earth. An amount of the Suns energy that is on it's way but not gone yet (why we don't freeze to death at night). Aren't you forgetting something? It takes time to heat the Earth in the first place. In terms of the surface temperature, it takes time for the Sun to heat everything up to the highest temperature of the day, which typically takes place around 2pm (assuming constant weather during that time). tmiddles wrote: That delayed thermal transfer is why our atmospheric temperature, near the ground where we live (but not IN the ground), is what gives us a temperature higher than what we would have otherwise. (technically without an atmosphere we'd be exposed to the void of space with no gas around us at all). This is an attempt to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating energy that isn't there, and of the 2nd law of thermodynamics by reducing entropy in a closed system. tmiddles wrote: Your sweater doesn't create thermal energy either, but it does delay its movement from your skin out into the air, trapping/holding up some of it near you for a little while. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Sweaters work by reducing heat. You are also making a false equivalence fallacy. You convert food into thermal energy. The Earth doesn't. Putting a sweater on a rock will not make the rock warmer. Sweaters actually don't make YOU warmer either. Your body temperature is controlled by a small set of cells at the base of the brain. What the sweater does is reduce your need to produce as much thermal energy to maintain your body temperature. The body only has so much capacity to convert food into thermal energy. If you exceed that capacity, your body temperature drops, putting your life in danger. Sweaters reduce the need to expend so much energy to maintain your body temperature. But they don't help a rock. They don't help a dead body. Sweaters do not make anything warmer. tmiddles wrote: So adding more CO2 would in theory result in more thermal energy being "held up" on it's way out, more thermal energy would be stored in the atmosphere, and the temperature would be higher. WRONG. * You cannot trap or slow heat. * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. * You cannot trap light. * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. tmiddles wrote: While only 2.6% of the atmospheres particles (mostly water vapor) can be energized by infrared radiation, those particles can transfer their thermal energy to the remaining 97.4% of the atmosphere. The heat is then distributed throughout the air around us. Argument from randU fallacy. Using arbitrary numbers as data is a fallacy, dude. Humidity is NOT a measure of total water content. It is a measure of how close the water vapor is before it condenses out and becomes a cloud. Another way to show this is by the dew point you see on weather reports. Humidity in the air can range from as little as 2% (in the driest of deserts) to 100% (when the cloud forms). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-07-2019 20:56
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature. The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C. However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing. Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that. Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.". Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number). Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics. It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same. In good conscience I must disagree with you ITN. When people use random numbers, they feel better about themselves. I have tried suggesting that Venus is as dense as the Earth is if it's surface at sea level were lowered by 900 meters. It's a really neat, ie. cool feature associated with gravity. It's almost as if a part of it's surface burned off. This can in a sense only happen if gravity increases making for a denser mantle. It's quite interesting really. Yet for some reason scientists don't consider that gravity in a satellite (planet) orbiting the Sun increases. This is where the inverse square of the Earth's gravity gives us a starting point. And if we consider that Venus is 0.72 AU (astronomical units, Earth = 1) from the Sun, then the Sun's gravity would be to the 15th power and not to the 26th power which it is. This suggests that Venus' gravity is greater than the Earth's instead of 0.93 m/s less. What I like is that none of you probably get this. And Ya'all have good heari g. I am kind of pissed off though. Went and bought a new brush for staining wood with ( and applying polyurethane) and accidentally bought the wrong one. The bristles matter. Now I'm going to have to sand off the work I just did and with a new brush, the right brush will have to reapply the polyurethane coating. Even in wood working details matter. And when getting them wrong just makes it a more expensive hobby.
31-07-2019 20:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	HarveyH55 wrote: Only so much energy is sent to one side of the planet, at any given moment. The thermal energy always tries to find a balance, equilibrium. The air isn't going to get warmer than the surface, without the surface getting a little cooler, they try to become equal. The whole time, we have it leaking back out to space. Takes time for half the planet to warm in the daylight, takes time for it to cool at night. The air was never warmer than the surface, so it could never warm the surface. Nothing is being trapped, it moves to a cooler surface. There is always movement. It's not like a sealed container in a laboratory, just doesn't work out the same way. There are times when warm air moves in from elsewhere and can warm the surface. In general, yes...the atmosphere is always cooler than the surface. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

31-07-2019 21:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:It's not like a sealed container in a laboratory, just doesn't work out the same way. Yeah that's a good way of putting it. It's not sealed. The heat is always leaking out back into space. If the sun stopped shining it would eventually drift down (over time, not instantly) to the point that the only heat we'd feel would be from the earths molten core. A surprisingly small amount of time. If the Sun were to go completely dark, or Earth was removed from the Sun, temperatures on the Earth would drop to the temperature of space in as little as 48 hours. tmiddles wrote: So the sun keeps pumping heat in during the day as the planet radiates it back out into space all day and night. The "traffic jam" or "hold up" or "Thermal storage" that the earth has, in everything from a hot rock to heated air to the thermal energy that goes into evaporating water (and is then rereleased when the water condenses back into liquid) represents the amount of thermal energy, from the sun, that is still with the earth at any given time. There is no 'traffic jam'. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Water evaporating and condensing does not add energy. tmiddles wrote: Because it doesn't leave instantly unless it's reflected away. Reflected light has nothing to do with heat. tmiddles wrote: The moon, mercury and other solar system object with no atmosphere They actually do, it's just very, very thin. So thin we can essentially ignore it as an atmosphere. tmiddles wrote: aren't able to store much thermal energy and become very cold at night. They also become much hotter during the day. tmiddles wrote: Venus stores a tremendous amount. Nope. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. tmiddles wrote: The Earth stores some. Nope. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. tmiddles wrote: It's a temporary "storage" (not the best word) but the important part is that it's here, energizing our air and what we call the temperature. Nope. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. tmiddles wrote: You CAN increase the ability of a planet to store/delay the departing energy from the sun. This is why looking at Venus and Mercury is worthwhile. It's not a one way street, dude. It takes time to heat the Earth's atmosphere, just as it takes time to cool it. An atmosphere is mass. It is no different from any other mass. It also takes time to heat the surface, just as it takes time to cool it. tmiddles wrote: The Earth will be in equilibrium still if there is a change, what goes in will equal what goes out, just as it does with Venus and with Mercury: in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. You have built yourself a paradox. 1) energy in = energy out 2) energy is stored. energy in < energy out Both cannot be true. That is irrational. tmiddles wrote: But the amount of thermal energy that hangs out at any given time could be different. Back to argument 2) again. Thermal energy doesn't 'hang out'. It is not possible to store thermal energy. tmiddles wrote: This is known as "The hang out principle of thermodynamism" based on the principle of "It's night time and you didn't freeze to death" No such principle. Buzzword fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-07-2019 21:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: So I'm not a scientist and want help to know if I'm understanding this (it may be a wait but if you read this and can help I'll be monitoring the thread): The "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 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 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. If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature. No one was measuring CO2 in 1880. Atmospheric CO2 measurements didn't start until 1959. There is no way to measure the global atmospheric CO2. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, and we don't have enough stations to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable level. It is also not possible to measure the global temperature. Same problem. There are simply not enough thermometers. Further, the ones we do have are biased by location grouping and by time. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-07-2019 21:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14421)	Into the Night wrote: CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, and we don't have enough stations to reduce the margin of error to an acceptable level. What's wrong with simply relying on a single CO2 measurement at, say, the base of an active volcano that is only fudged a little bit I'm sure? I don't see why we wouldn't be able to call it the atmospheric CO2 measurement; of course the CO2 measured is in the atmosphere! Where else would it be from? What's the big confusion? Into the Night wrote:It is also not possible to measure the global temperature. I have to beg to differ. I measured the earth's average temperature outside my house before lunch. It was easy. Into the Night wrote: There are simply not enough thermometers. I only needed one. I grabbed the one in my den. I don't know what you guy's big problem is. I hope I didn't need to put any smileys in my post. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
31-07-2019 21:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature. The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C. However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing. Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that. Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.". Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number). Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics. It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same. In good conscience I must disagree with you ITN. When people use random numbers, they feel better about themselves. That they do, but it doesn't change the logic, the math, or the error you make by using such numbers as data. James___ wrote: I have tried suggesting that Venus is as dense as the Earth is if it's surface at sea level were lowered by 900 meters. It's a really neat, ie. cool feature associated with gravity. It's almost as if a part of it's surface burned off. This can in a sense only happen if gravity increases making for a denser mantle. You are almost, but not quite, correct here. Atmospheres form on planets because the surface essentially 'burned off'. Volcanic activity, pressures in land or water compared to a vacuum, etc. produce an atmosphere. Water and land will vaporize into the vacuum, filling it. Any mass does that. That's why it's not possible to achieve a perfect vacuum. The container is going to vaporize part of itself into it. All bodies in space have an atmosphere. It may not be thick enough to actually call it an 'atmosphere' in the traditional sense, but they ALL have an atmosphere, thin as it might be. Even space itself isn't empty. It too has an 'atmosphere', that is simply very, very, very, very, very, <repeat a large number of times> thin atmosphere. Yes, that's a randU. It's okay here, since it is used as a generic description and not as data. James___ wrote: It's quite interesting really. Yet for some reason scientists don't consider that gravity in a satellite (planet) orbiting the Sun increases. Because it doesn't. James___ wrote: This is where the inverse square of the Earth's gravity gives us a starting point. Gravity is a property of any mass. It is not the property of any other mass. The inverse square law doesn't apply here. James___ wrote: And if we consider that Venus is 0.72 AU (astronomical units, Earth = 1) from the Sun, then the Sun's gravity would be to the 15th power and not to the 26th power which it is. This suggests that Venus' gravity is greater than the Earth's instead of 0.93 m/s less. Nope. The gravity of Venus is determined by the mass of Venus. Nothing else. James___ wrote: What I like is that none of you probably get this. Because what you are suggesting is wrong. Fortunately, people who navigate spacecraft know better. James___ wrote: And Ya'all have good heari g. You are typing. I can be deaf and understand what you are typing. James___ wrote: I am kind of pissed off though. Went and bought a new brush for staining wood with ( and applying polyurethane) and accidentally bought the wrong one. Okay. Let's talk about wood work. I happen to be building a wood airplane. I know staining and finishing pretty well. There is no wrong brush for applying polyurethane. Any chip brush will do. Better brushes can do a slightly better finish. James___ wrote: The bristles matter. Ah. Caught by that one, eh? It's not the brush. It's the technique. All brushes will drop bristles into your nice work. Sucks, don't it? Here is the trick: Before you use a brush, slap the brush against a hard edge (any table will do). This dislodges the loose hairs in the brush. Slap it in your hand and this will further loosen the hairs. They are now sticking out far enough that you can pull them free of the brush. All new brushes should be treated so before using them. The best brush money can buy will shed little hairs into your work unless you do this. Worse, sometimes you get 'em anyway. Don't worry about 'em. Just keep some toothpicks handy and work the hair out of your finish before it dries. Then simply rebrush the affected area. James___ wrote: Now I'm going to have to sand off the work I just did and with a new brush, the right brush will have to reapply the polyurethane coating. Not such a disaster. You can use an Exacto knife (carefully!) to pick the hair out. Sand the area immediately around the spot where the damn hair was with 400 grit paper, and recoat the affected area only. James___ wrote: Even in wood working details matter. Yes, they do. Finishing techniques matter as well. Don't sand the whole thing and start over. Just do the areas where the hairs are. Use a properly slapped brush next time. James___ wrote: And when getting them wrong just makes it a more expensive hobby. 400 grit sandpaper is pretty cheap. So are Exacto knives (I like to use No. 2 knives for this purpose). It's mostly your time, not cost. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-07-2019 22:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature. The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C. However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing. Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that. Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.". Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number). Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics. It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same. In good conscience I must disagree with you ITN. When people use random numbers, they feel better about themselves. That they do, but it doesn't change the logic, the math, or the error you make by using such numbers as data. James___ wrote: I have tried suggesting that Venus is as dense as the Earth is if it's surface at sea level were lowered by 900 meters. It's a really neat, ie. cool feature associated with gravity. It's almost as if a part of it's surface burned off. This can in a sense only happen if gravity increases making for a denser mantle. You are almost, but not quite, correct here. Atmospheres form on planets because the surface essentially 'burned off'. Volcanic activity, pressures in land or water compared to a vacuum, etc. produce an atmosphere. Water and land will vaporize into the vacuum, filling it. Any mass does that. That's why it's not possible to achieve a perfect vacuum. The container is going to vaporize part of itself into it. All bodies in space have an atmosphere. It may not be thick enough to actually call it an 'atmosphere' in the traditional sense, but they ALL have an atmosphere, thin as it might be. Even space itself isn't empty. It too has an 'atmosphere', that is simply very, very, very, very, very, <repeat a large number of times> thin atmosphere. Yes, that's a randU. It's okay here, since it is used as a generic description and not as data. James___ wrote: It's quite interesting really. Yet for some reason scientists don't consider that gravity in a satellite (planet) orbiting the Sun increases. Because it doesn't. James___ wrote: This is where the inverse square of the Earth's gravity gives us a starting point. Gravity is a property of any mass. It is not the property of any other mass. The inverse square law doesn't apply here. James___ wrote: And if we consider that Venus is 0.72 AU (astronomical units, Earth = 1) from the Sun, then the Sun's gravity would be to the 15th power and not to the 26th power which it is. This suggests that Venus' gravity is greater than the Earth's instead of 0.93 m/s less. Nope. The gravity of Venus is determined by the mass of Venus. Nothing else. James___ wrote: What I like is that none of you probably get this. Because what you are suggesting is wrong. Fortunately, people who navigate spacecraft know better. James___ wrote: And Ya'all have good heari g. You are typing. I can be deaf and understand what you are typing. James___ wrote: I am kind of pissed off though. Went and bought a new brush for staining wood with ( and applying polyurethane) and accidentally bought the wrong one. Okay. Let's talk about wood work. I happen to be building a wood airplane. I know staining and finishing pretty well. There is no wrong brush for applying polyurethane. Any chip brush will do. Better brushes can do a slightly better finish. James___ wrote: The bristles matter. Ah. Caught by that one, eh? It's not the brush. It's the technique. All brushes will drop bristles into your nice work. Sucks, don't it? Here is the trick: Before you use a brush, slap the brush against a hard edge (any table will do). This dislodges the loose hairs in the brush. Slap it in your hand and this will further loosen the hairs. They are now sticking out far enough that you can pull them free of the brush. All new brushes should be treated so before using them. The best brush money can buy will shed little hairs into your work unless you do this. Worse, sometimes you get 'em anyway. Don't worry about 'em. Just keep some toothpicks handy and work the hair out of your finish before it dries. Then simply rebrush the affected area. James___ wrote: Now I'm going to have to sand off the work I just did and with a new brush, the right brush will have to reapply the polyurethane coating. Not such a disaster. You can use an Exacto knife (carefully!) to pick the hair out. Sand the area immediately around the spot where the damn hair was with 400 grit paper, and recoat the affected area only. James___ wrote: Even in wood working details matter. Yes, they do. Finishing techniques matter as well. Don't sand the whole thing and start over. Just do the areas where the hairs are. Use a properly slapped brush next time. James___ wrote: And when getting them wrong just makes it a more expensive hobby. 400 grit sandpaper is pretty cheap. So are Exacto knives (I like to use No. 2 knives for this purpose). It's mostly your time, not cost. It's not the bristles in the polyurethane. It's air bubbles. You are probably using a smaller brush because of what you're working on. It changes things a little. The inverse square of gravity does matter. For what I'm pursuing, it doesn't matter. With that said, the acidification of our oceans might be something to be concerned about. If the ph balance is thrown off by too much then it would harm marine life. That's when people would know we have a problem. I think ITN that the basic problem is that most people just don't care.
31-07-2019 23:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: If we were to consider from 1880 to 1980, CO2 levels rose but not the temperature. Just nothing for those 100 years that shows a correlation between CO2 levels and the annual global temperature. The expected change is so small I think we don't know empirically (from data gathered). Could have happened or not at all. The precision with which we can know the mean surface temperature of the Earth is a question but I doubt there are realistic claims it's to the 0.1C. However it does seem that the temperature has risen because of the rising sea level. But it's been doing that for 12,000 years (due to the tilt of the earth? only?). So measuring the "extra increase" is really what you'd be doing. Also there are other things that can impact the temperature of course. Notice that water vapor is a HUGE player. It varies from 0-4%, it's not a steady 2.5%, I arbitrarily picked that. Arbitrarily picking numbers is a type of random number known as a randU. This is the so-called 'predictable' random number. It is the random number people use to embellish a conversation, such as, "<insert large number here> scientists agree on this principle." or , "<insert small number here> polar bears live in the tropics.". Words like "everyone", "everything", "no one", "nothing", "very few", are usually indications of a randU being used (just without an actual number). Using a randU as data is a fallacy (an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math). Logic is a closed system, just like mathematics. It doesn't matter when you arbitrarily pick a number or whether you are quoting someone else that did. It is the same. In good conscience I must disagree with you ITN. When people use random numbers, they feel better about themselves. That they do, but it doesn't change the logic, the math, or the error you make by using such numbers as data. James___ wrote: I have tried suggesting that Venus is as dense as the Earth is if it's surface at sea level were lowered by 900 meters. It's a really neat, ie. cool feature associated with gravity. It's almost as if a part of it's surface burned off. This can in a sense only happen if gravity increases making for a denser mantle. You are almost, but not quite, correct here. Atmospheres form on planets because the surface essentially 'burned off'. Volcanic activity, pressures in land or water compared to a vacuum, etc. produce an atmosphere. Water and land will vaporize into the vacuum, filling it. Any mass does that. That's why it's not possible to achieve a perfect vacuum. The container is going to vaporize part of itself into it. All bodies in space have an atmosphere. It may not be thick enough to actually call it an 'atmosphere' in the traditional sense, but they ALL have an atmosphere, thin as it might be. Even space itself isn't empty. It too has an 'atmosphere', that is simply very, very, very, very, very, <repeat a large number of times> thin atmosphere. Yes, that's a randU. It's okay here, since it is used as a generic description and not as data. James___ wrote: It's quite interesting really. Yet for some reason scientists don't consider that gravity in a satellite (planet) orbiting the Sun increases. Because it doesn't. James___ wrote: This is where the inverse square of the Earth's gravity gives us a starting point. Gravity is a property of any mass. It is not the property of any other mass. The inverse square law doesn't apply here. James___ wrote: And if we consider that Venus is 0.72 AU (astronomical units, Earth = 1) from the Sun, then the Sun's gravity would be to the 15th power and not to the 26th power which it is. This suggests that Venus' gravity is greater than the Earth's instead of 0.93 m/s less. Nope. The gravity of Venus is determined by the mass of Venus. Nothing else. James___ wrote: What I like is that none of you probably get this. Because what you are suggesting is wrong. Fortunately, people who navigate spacecraft know better. James___ wrote: And Ya'all have good heari g. You are typing. I can be deaf and understand what you are typing. James___ wrote: I am kind of pissed off though. Went and bought a new brush for staining wood with ( and applying polyurethane) and accidentally bought the wrong one. Okay. Let's talk about wood work. I happen to be building a wood airplane. I know staining and finishing pretty well. There is no wrong brush for applying polyurethane. Any chip brush will do. Better brushes can do a slightly better finish. James___ wrote: The bristles matter. Ah. Caught by that one, eh? It's not the brush. It's the technique. All brushes will drop bristles into your nice work. Sucks, don't it? Here is the trick: Before you use a brush, slap the brush against a hard edge (any table will do). This dislodges the loose hairs in the brush. Slap it in your hand and this will further loosen the hairs. They are now sticking out far enough that you can pull them free of the brush. All new brushes should be treated so before using them. The best brush money can buy will shed little hairs into your work unless you do this. Worse, sometimes you get 'em anyway. Don't worry about 'em. Just keep some toothpicks handy and work the hair out of your finish before it dries. Then simply rebrush the affected area. James___ wrote: Now I'm going to have to sand off the work I just did and with a new brush, the right brush will have to reapply the polyurethane coating. Not such a disaster. You can use an Exacto knife (carefully!) to pick the hair out. Sand the area immediately around the spot where the damn hair was with 400 grit paper, and recoat the affected area only. James___ wrote: Even in wood working details matter. Yes, they do. Finishing techniques matter as well. Don't sand the whole thing and start over. Just do the areas where the hairs are. Use a properly slapped brush next time. James___ wrote: And when getting them wrong just makes it a more expensive hobby. 400 grit sandpaper is pretty cheap. So are Exacto knives (I like to use No. 2 knives for this purpose). It's mostly your time, not cost. It's not the bristles in the polyurethane. It's air bubbles. Not the brush. Air bubbles are the result of one of two things: 1) You are moving too fast with the brush. Slow down. 2) You stirred the polyurethane, introducing air into it. Do not stir the polyurethane. It doesn't need mixing. James___ wrote: You are probably using a smaller brush because of what you're working on. It changes things a little. I use everything from a 4 inch brush to an acid brush. None of them change anything. The aircraft is 25 feet long and has a 25 foot wingspan. Every bit of its structure is coated with polyurethane (an indoor/outdoor variety called 'spar varnish'). Indoor polyurethanes behave the same way. James___ wrote: The inverse square of gravity does matter. There is no inverse square of gravity. James___ wrote: For what I'm pursuing, it doesn't matter. It can't. James___ wrote: With that said, the acidification of our oceans might be something to be concerned about. The oceans are alkaline. You can't acidify an alkaline. The ocean water and calcium carbonate that are in solution completely buffer and counter any weak acid like carbonic acid from CO2. pH is not a linear scale either. Further, the pH of ocean water varies somewhat depending on your location. James___ wrote: If the ph balance is thrown off by too much then it would harm marine life. Nothing is changing the pH at all. Most CO2, when introduced to water, simply dissolves (think soda pop). The amount of CO2 in ocean water near the water surface tracks that of the atmosphere (about 0.04% if you believe the Mauna Loa 'data'). Only about 1% of THAT becomes carbonic acid (about 0.004% of any sample of ocean water near the surface). This is H2CO3. In water, a small amount of THIS disassociates into H+ ions and HCO3- (sodium bicarbonate, or baking soda) ions, making this a weak acid. pH is defined as: 0 - log10(number of H+) But the H+ from carbonic acid doesn't stay there. It reassociates with the HCO3 again forming carbonic acid again (the same thing happens in your own bloodstream). That can reform into dissolved CO2 and even vent to the atmosphere again. Then of course there is the sheer vast amount of ocean water. The only place where atmospheric CO2 interacts with ocean water takes place at the surface. Everything happens there. There is a hell of a lot of ocean water in the ocean, most of which isn't anywhere near the surface. Adding a few temporary H+ to ocean water makes no significant change at all in pH. Any difference that would show up temporarily is too small to measure with our current instrumentation (and we have GREAT instrumentation in this area!). Anyone claiming CO2 is 'acidifying the oceans' simply doesn't understand acid-base chemistry. James___ wrote: That's when people would know we have a problem. I live in the Pacific Northwest. No clams, oysters, mussles, or any other shellfish around here is in any kind of distress (other than overharvesting in some places). James___ wrote: I think ITN that the basic problem is that most people just don't care. No, I think the basic problem is that you don't understand acid-base chemistry. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 31-07-2019 23:14
22-09-2019 18:47
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	tmiddles wrote: 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. Seems to be, yet given the enormous complexity of the models and their use of "hindcasting" as a way to tweak the fudge factors (and every engineering model has these) drives me to view the 0.5˚C as an order-of-magnitude estimate for something between 0.1 and 1. While it's enough to show the CO2's effects are real, the precision on how many degrees of warming we'll get by 2050 come with wads of confidence that may be misplaced. Scientists are usually tentative about claims until they're really sure. Mama Nature's surprised them too many times! Hindcasting brings the deficits of using past data. The models include smog, forest cover and global overcast patterns that weren't as well known before the Space Age, for instance. So the past data can't test the validity of these model assumptions; they only provide best matches to temp, humidity and precip. Reviewing the thread, I did note the Earth heat budget in the OP. On Wikimedia Commons, it's labeled "Cmglee - Own work," the own work clause the way to get around © that makes finding an image hard; the site deletes material that infringes (probably after DMCA lawsuits, just like YouTube with movies). It looks okay, but no way to tell if Cmglee copied the data accurately when drawing it. At least the file gave sources, though these are biology textbooks instead of the weather or geophysics I'd prefer. I like diagrams that show *actual* units, Watts per square meter instead of normalizing everything to 100. Must be authors are afraid of scaring laypersons away if they use SI units. But Watts are what go into a clothes iron, and kilowatt-hours are what Local Power & Light charges for. Without the wattage, the user can't tell how much heating's at stake. ITN was right about one thing: Don't touch Wikipedia with a 12-foot pike if you can help it. An encyclopedia anyone can edit isn't an encyclopedia at all, and less of one with screen names like "NoFrankenfoods" running around as Commisars to exercise political supervision over half the content. ~ HarveyH55 wrote: Doubling the amount of CO2, doesn't add any energy. Correct. Only the *sun* does. The "doubling the amount" phrase is a rule of thumb. Around 1895, chemist Svante Arrenhius (the guy who put Arrenhius acids and pH in your chem book) estimated that doubling the air's CO2 content, then 0.03%, could produce average temperature rises of 5 to 9˚C depending on latitude. At that time he was interested in the causes of ice ages. His figure was very high; today it's pegged at around 2 to 5˚. (And we don't use moonlight to measure attenuation as he did.) tmiddles wrote: That delayed thermal transfer is why our atmospheric temperature, near the ground where we live (but not IN the ground), is what gives us a temperature higher than what we would have otherwise. I'd say it gives us moderation. The side of a satellite facing the sun gets hot as a frying pan, the shady side gets colder than dry ice. I've one idea how N2 and O2 contribute to net warming on Earth: The low-altitude N2 is first warmed by sunlit ground in the mid-latitudes, and then cyclones push it north into cloudy areas where its re-radiation to space is delayed. When it comes back into the clear, it's reheated at a faster rate again. Equilibrium with radiation to space is established by the Earth emitting from higher surface temperature as a result. But this will work only with *alternating* clear and cloudy regions on a planet because the N2 moving under a cloud is replaced by cold N2 that moves into the clear weather so it can heat faster. Faster heating in one region, delay in a neighboring region leads to net delay. If all regions were clear (or cloudy), then there's no difference in heating rates to make this true. The Earth does have bands of cloud and clear, however. Peruse an analogy with speed. Joey drives 240 miles from Kansas City to St. Louis at 60 mph, and returns at 40 mph. What's his average speed? The trip times are 4 hours and 6 hours, or 10 hours in all, and the total distance is 480 miles. So the average speed is only 48 mph, not 50. The N2 under the clouds corresponds to the slower trip, if more time is spent there. I'm not sure about this idea yet; I *haven't* found confirmation for it. The stumbling block is the fact that heated air expands and rises, carrying it to higher altitudes where it can radiate more efficiently, an effect accentuated by condensation of moisture it carries aloft. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 22-09-2019 19:02
23-09-2019 00:09
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: 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. Seems to be, yet given the enormous complexity of the models and their use of "hindcasting" ... tmiddles wrote: That delayed thermal transfer ... gives us a temperature higher than what we would have otherwise. I'd say it gives us moderation. I'm not advancing it as my own theory but trying to wrap my head around the "going theory" to see if I'm understanding it. So for that purpose Wikipedia and the input number and result can fail to match reality. Also the average temperature on Earth has a margin of error to be sure but it's not the 30C cooler we would expect by calculation (and what we find on the moon). Accurate?
23-09-2019 01:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: 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. Seems to be, yet given the enormous complexity of the models and their use of "hindcasting" ... tmiddles wrote: That delayed thermal transfer ... gives us a temperature higher than what we would have otherwise. I'd say it gives us moderation. I'm not advancing it as my own theory but trying to wrap my head around the "going theory" to see if I'm understanding it. So for that purpose Wikipedia and the input number and result can fail to match reality. Also the average temperature on Earth has a margin of error to be sure but it's not the 30C cooler we would expect by calculation (and what we find on the moon). Accurate? The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-09-2019 06:56
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. You have never affirmed the temperature of anything is known or described how it could be known in any practicle sense. You repeatedly lie on this forum claiming you have but pretending you can't be bothered to restate it or quote/link to a previous response. You're just a troll and a debunked fraud. "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[/quote][/quote]
23-09-2019 15:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14421)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. You have never affirmed the temperature of anything is known or described how it could be known in any practicle sense. Yes he has. In fact, on this forum (and others) he has been an outspoken advocate for doing it properly. Of course this falls under the umbrella topic of your refusal to research anything. ... but then again, you refuse to do anything correctly because you are on a religious mission to demonize science and to legitimize its replacement with gibberbabble nonsense, i.e. Global Warming dogma. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
23-09-2019 18:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. You have never affirmed the temperature of anything is known or described how it could be known in any practicle sense. You repeatedly lie on this forum claiming you have but pretending you can't be bothered to restate it or quote/link to a previous response. You're just a troll and a debunked fraud. RQAA. YALIF. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-09-2019 18:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: 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. Seems to be, yet given the enormous complexity of the models and their use of "hindcasting" ... tmiddles wrote: That delayed thermal transfer ... gives us a temperature higher than what we would have otherwise. I'd say it gives us moderation. I'm not advancing it as my own theory Lie. Yes you are. tmiddles wrote: but trying to wrap my head around the "going theory" to see if I'm understanding it. No, you are advancing your own fallacy. It conflicts with several theories of science, therefore it cannot be a theory of science. Since it is based on a randU fallacy, it is not even a nonscientific theory. It is not a theory at all. tmiddles wrote: So for that purpose Wikipedia and the input number and result can fail to match reality. Comparing one randU against another randU and calling it a proof is not reality. tmiddles wrote: Also the average temperature on Earth has a margin of error to be sure but it's not the 30C cooler we would expect by calculation (and what we find on the moon). Not a margin of error. A randU number. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-09-2019 21:11
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	tmiddles wrote: Also the average temperature on Earth has a margin of error to be sure but it's not the 30C cooler we would expect by calculation. Yah. There's a nice chunk of "greenhouse" overhead compared to the moon and Mercury. The American Chem Society has a chart with solar influx, albedo, atmosphere, and predicted versus actual temps for the inner planets. The moon is omitted but fits Mercury were the latter moved to our distance from the sun. Venus's low predicted temp results from its *high albedo. The extra sun it's getting is just reflected away at the cloud tops and Venera beheld light levels resembling a soggy day in Moscow, but hotter than a self-cleaning oven—rocks glowing a dim red at night. The fact that atmospheres result in warmer planet surfaces isn't disputed. Nor is the potency of gases such as CO2 and H2O that absorb and emit preferentially in infrared. Nor is the 33˚ difference. The lockbox challenging the safecrackers is finding how much of Earth's 33˚ margin is manmade. Note the oddity: Mars has way* more CO2 mass per square meter in its sky than Earth despite the low air pressure there. Yet this CO2 gives it a bare 6˚C of warming above its predicted temperature. Why is CO2 so much less effective on Mars? (I computed each square meter of Mars has 170 kg of CO2 versus 4 kg on Earth. The formula is mass of CO2 = partial pressure of CO2 divided by surface gravity. The gravity is needed because more gas is needed to exert the same pressure at low g's.) tmiddles wrote: So for that purpose Wikipedia and the input number and result can fail to match reality. The diagram itself is okay, but you can't use it to help you figure how much heat is involved since it shows relative units. Hence I prefer the diagram IPCC issued in 2007: Since 342 W/m^2 come down from old sol, each unit in the Wiki diagram must be 3.42 W/m^2. But notice something else: the small disagreements between them. In the IPCC, 169 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere. (169 = 67+24+78, the numbers beside that little cloud near the middle.) Flipping back to the Wiki, we see 48 units, meaning 164 W/m^2. The two diagrams differ by 5 Watts, or *1½ percent of all the energy.* And here's the one by IPCC from 2013: The sun's giving us 340 W/m^2 and the atmosphere absorbs 183 (79+20+84, the numbers now scattered around the diagram because the cloudscape's grown more threatening meantime). These discrepancies don't invalidate the diagrams as an approximate picture, and the latest version was courteous enough to put alternative numbers that show the variation among the observers it relied on. But global warming hypotheses involve *small* changes in these numbers. I just don't see where we're getting the "1.5˚ of safe warming by 2100" Greta Thunberg and Atlantic Monthly are talking about. We might end up even worse than all the models predict, with a vast drought in the act of turning Earth into a Sahara by 2100. Or a new "Little Ice Age" that forces Britons to rethink their recent penchant for subtropical gardens. Such extremes are unlikely and we can plan for some warming, some sea level rise, and costs that come with them—with *some* confidence. The panic and the protesters are a diversion from realistic energy policy adjustments, however. Exotic and subtropical plants Royal Horticulture Society https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=1030 Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 23-09-2019 21:14
23-09-2019 22:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. You have never affirmed the temperature of anything ... Yes he has. You both keep lying about this. No amount of research(and yes I've done it) will find what's not there. Liars both. Into the Night wrote: ... A randU number. A whole post of nothing again. "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

23-09-2019 23:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: Also the average temperature on Earth has a margin of error to be sure but it's not the 30C cooler we would expect by calculation. Yah. There's a nice chunk of "greenhouse" overhead compared to the moon and Mercury. Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Your 'calculation' is based on a random number. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. * You can't create energy out of nothing. * You can't trap heat. * You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat. VernerHornung wrote: The American Chem Society has a chart with solar influx, albedo, atmosphere, and predicted versus actual temps for the inner planets. It is not possible to make such a calculation or to measure the temperature for any planet. The ACS has no magickal ability to do so either. VernerHornung wrote: The moon is omitted but fits Mercury were the latter moved to our distance from the sun. Irrelevant. VernerHornung wrote: Venus's low predicted temp results from its *high albedo. It is not possible to predict. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Venus. VernerHornung wrote:* The extra sun it's getting is just reflected away at the cloud tops and Venera beheld light levels resembling a soggy day in Moscow, but hotter than a self-cleaning oven—rocks glowing a dim red at night. Some are. That is not the temperature of the planet. There is no frequency term in emissivity (which is the same as absorptivity). There is no frequency term in albedo. VernerHornung wrote: The fact that atmospheres result in warmer planet surfaces isn't disputed. Yes it is. No atmosphere warms a planet. You can't create energy out of nothing. VernerHornung wrote: Nor is the potency of gases such as CO2 and H2O Zero. Zip. Nada. VernerHornung wrote: that absorb Absorption of surface IR is not warming any planet. The surface is cooled by emitting IR light. VernerHornung wrote: and emit preferentially in infrared. WRONG. They will emit according to their temperature, across a wide band of frequencies, including infrared. VernerHornung wrote: Nor is the 33˚ difference. Argument from randU fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: The lockbox challenging the safecrackers is finding how much of Earth's 33˚ margin is manmade. Not a margin of error. A random number. Go learn statistical math. VernerHornung wrote: Note the oddity: Mars has *way* more CO2 mass per square meter in its sky than Earth despite the low air pressure there. Yet this CO2 gives it a bare 6˚C of warming above its predicted temperature. Why is CO2 so much less effective on Mars? It isn't. It's effect is zero. Zip. Nada. Just the same as on Earth. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: So for that purpose Wikipedia and the input number and result can fail to match reality. The diagram itself is okay, No, it isn't. * You cannot trap heat. * You cannot trap light. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. * You cannot destroy energy into nothing. * You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Heat does not flow from cold to hot. * You cannot reduce the radiance of any body and increase its temperature at the same time. VernerHornung wrote: but you can't use it to help you figure how much heat is involved since it shows relative units. You are not talking about heat. You are talking about random numbers. VernerHornung wrote: Hence I prefer the diagram IPCC issued in 2007: More random numbers. VernerHornung wrote: Since 342 W/m^2 come down from old sol, each unit in the Wiki diagram must be 3.42 W/m^2. Argument from randU. The Sun puts out 348.2x10^1026 watts of energy (very approximate). Earth intercepts approximately 1.74^10^17 watts of that. Not all of it is absorbed. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. VernerHornung wrote: But notice something else: the small disagreements between them. In the IPCC, 169 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere. (169 = 67+24+78, the numbers beside that little cloud near the middle.) There is no frequency term in emissivity. Clouds are opaque on some frequencies, transparent on others. ALL frequencies are included. VernerHornung wrote: Flipping back to the Wiki, Flipping from one Holy Site to another... VernerHornung wrote: we see 48 units, meaning 164 W/m^2. The two diagrams differ by 5 Watts, or *1½ percent of all the energy.* Arguments from randU. VernerHornung wrote: And here's the one by IPCC from 2013: The sun's giving us 340 W/m^2 and the atmosphere absorbs 183 (79+20+84, the numbers now scattered around the diagram because the cloudscape's grown more threatening meantime). Flipping back to the IPCC Holy Site... Same fallacies. Argument from RandU fallacy. Define 'more threatening cloudscape'. VernerHornung wrote: These discrepancies don't invalidate the diagrams as an approximate picture, and the latest version was courteous enough to put alternative numbers that show the variation among the observers it relied on. But global warming hypotheses involve *small* changes in these numbers. I just don't see where we're getting the "1.5˚ of safe warming by 2100" Greta Thunberg and Atlantic Monthly are talking about. Random numbers, based on random numbers, compared with random numbers. This is what Greta Thunberg and the Atlantic Monthly is talking about. VernerHornung wrote: We might end up even worse than all the models predict, with a vast drought in the act of turning Earth into a Sahara by 2100. Models don't predict. Computer models generate only the numbers they are told to generate. They are randU. Deserts form in specific locations on the Earth for a reason. It has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth. It has much more to do with uneven heating of the Earth. Go look up Hadley Cells and weather effects caused by mountain ranges, two different factors that cause deserts. VernerHornung wrote: Or a new "Little Ice Age" that forces Britons to rethink their recent penchant for subtropical gardens. How does warming cause extra ice? Didn't you say glaciers are melting? Paradox. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: Such extremes are unlikely Irrational. You must clear your paradox. VernerHornung wrote: and we can plan for some warming, Irrational. You said Britain will see another ice age. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: some sea level rise, So you believe the story of Noah is possible. VernerHornung wrote: and costs that come with them—with *some* confidence. The only cost of your irrationality is you are lost in irrationality. You MUST clear your paradox. VernerHornung wrote: The panic Such as what you just suggested? VernerHornung wrote: and the protesters Such as the ones you support? VernerHornung wrote: are a diversion from realistic energy policy adjustments, however. There it is, right there. YOU don't get to dictate the energy markets. You are not the king. Your attempts at fascism will fail. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which stems from the Church of Karl Marx. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-09-2019 23:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. You have never affirmed the temperature of anything ... Yes he has. You both keep lying about this. No amount of research(and yes I've done it) will find what's not there. Liars both. Into the Night wrote: ... A randU number. A whole post of nothing again. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Math is not research, dumbass. You are simply denying statistical mathematics and probability mathematics. BTW, when are you going to answer IBdaMann's question he put to you? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 23-09-2019 23:05
23-09-2019 23:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14421)	VernerHornung wrote:And here's the one by IPCC from 2013: This is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I bet tmiddles can explain to you why that is. Then we get into other physics. Stefan-Boltzmann says that a reduced radiance implies a reduced temperature, because radiance and temperature move in the same direction. Are you erroneously claiming that this diagram, with it's radiance reduction, somehow depicts an increased earth temperature? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
25-09-2019 08:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	VernerHornung wrote: Venera beheld light levels resembling a soggy day in Moscow, ... I think this make Venus a fascinating study. Could the air be heating the ground since: Even at visible wavelengths, only 5% of the sunlight reaches the surface. VernerHornung wrote:...rocks glowing a dim red at night. Too cool I didn't know that. Hot enough to melt lead I guess that makes sense. VernerHornung wrote: ...isn't disputed.... the potency of gases such as CO2... Now I'm very curious about this. While there are strong cases made for CO2 having a dramatic impact as a trace gas I don't think it's fair to say it's undisputed. Even establishing that other gases like Nitrogen or Oxygen have a significant greenhouse effect as Blair McDonald has here on the forum: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/revealing-the-160-year-systematic-error-behind-greenhouse-theory-with-raman-spectroscopy-d10-e2795.php or that just the mass/pressure is very significant as I shared Huffman did: tmiddles wrote:A real scientist in the this area, Harry Dale Huffman, (posts)has an argument here against the current meaning of "Greenhouse Effect", namely that greenhouse gases increase temperature: there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself. My understanding of it is that you have to compare the same atmospheric pressures on Venus and Earth, which means comparing the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere with all that CO2. If you do that the temperature is what you would expect to find based on the distance from the sun. That of course a heavier blanket is warmer, but CO2 doesn't seem to be influencing the temperature dramatically... VernerHornung wrote:Why is CO2 so much less effective on Mars? The answer could be that the other gases and the total mass/pressure of the atmosphere are more important then they are given credit in many CO2 focused calculations (including my own in this topics initial post). VernerHornung wrote:I just don't see where we're getting the "1.5˚ of safe warming by 2100" Greta Thunberg and Atlantic Monthly are talking about. Here's what I don't understand. TRUE the real atmosphere and Earth system are very hard to model and predict BUT the models above are simplification that are intended to show how the parts interact. Why aren't we able reproduce the simplistic model in the lab? Not to predict what will happen with Earth but to simply demonstrate how the parts interact. Why when you look online is there a 10th grade science teacher with a couple two liter soda bottles and not much else?Hotter Co2 I agree completely that the issue/stakes are high enough that the issue has to be taken seriously even if the fear mongering is unwarranted. Also Trump is intent on instigating conflict in this area so having solid, well grounded arguments that others can understand is critical. Having all of Europe hate us is probably a greater threat in the near term than any amount of warming (but then I can't assume this is a US based forum). Into the Night wrote: Zero. Zip. Nada. Yeah. Got it ITN. Keep on barking. Into the Night wrote: BTW, when are you going to answer IBdaMann's question he put to you? I've answered it repeatedly: I repeatable example of a cooler objects radiance being absorbed for IBD and ITN IBdaMann wrote:This is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I bet tmiddles can explain to you why that is. No it's not. 340 in and 339 out (1 representing the lack of equilibrium as Earth absorbs a bit more radiance than it gives as CO2 has been added, a temporary imbalance). No energy is being created. "Heat" is energy, not just temperature. Having a higher temperature doesn't mean having more heat and more energy. But go ahead and point out where energy is being created. You seem to not understand insulation. Stefan-Boltzman deals only with the emitting/absorbing surface (a mix of ground and gas in the case of Earth) and not with everything behind/underneath that surface. (corrections by VernerHornung appreciated here). "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.
25-09-2019 19:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14421)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:This is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I bet tmiddles can explain to you why that is. No it's not. 340 in and 339 out (1 representing the lack of equilibrium as Earth absorbs a bit more radiance than it gives as CO2 has been added, a temporary imbalance). Ooops, I was mistaken. tmiddles apparently can't explain to you how energy can't be destroyed. Ooops, apparently tmiddles doesn't understand that you can't treat the atmosphere like it's a separate body. Oooops, I forgot, tmiddles isn't talking about physics. He's preaching WACKY religious dogma. Nevermind. I see my mistake now. My apologies to everyone else for the disruption of the "net flow" of this thread. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
25-09-2019 19:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Venera beheld light levels resembling a soggy day in Moscow, ... I think this make Venus a fascinating study. Could the air be heating the ground since: Even at visible wavelengths, only 5% of the sunlight reaches the surface. Visible light produces very little heating. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote:...rocks glowing a dim red at night. Too cool I didn't know that. Hot enough to melt lead I guess that makes sense. Yes it does. Too bad we only have one measurement taken at a time. That is not the temperature of the whole planet. tmiddles wrote: I agree completely that the issue/stakes are high enough that the issue has to be taken seriously even if the fear mongering is unwarranted. Pascal's Wager fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Also Trump is intent on instigating conflict in this area so having solid, well grounded arguments that others can understand is critical. * You can't trap heat. * You can't trap light. * You can't create energy out of nothing. * You can't destroy energy into nothing. * You can't heat a warm object with a cold one. * You can't reduce the radiance of a body and increase its temperature at the same time. tmiddles wrote: Having all of Europe hate us is probably a greater threat in the near term than any amount of warming (but then I can't assume this is a US based forum). Not all of Europe hates us. No, this is not a US based forum. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Zero. Zip. Nada. Yeah. Got it ITN. Keep on barking. Okay. Zero. Zip. Nada. CO2 has NO capability to warm a planet using IR from the planet surface. No gas or vapor does. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: BTW, when are you going to answer IBdaMann's question he put to you? I've answered it repeatedly: I repeatable example of a cooler objects radiance being absorbed for IBD and ITN Making up random numbers and calling that a proof is not an answer. Try again. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:This is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I bet tmiddles can explain to you why that is. No it's not. 340 in and 339 out (1 representing the lack of equilibrium as Earth absorbs a bit more radiance than it gives * You can't destroy energy into nothing. tmiddles wrote: as CO2 has been added, a temporary imbalance). There is no sequence. tmiddles wrote: No energy is being created. You are arguing that CO2 is creating energy on the surface and destroying any energy that tries to leave. tmiddles wrote: "Heat" is energy, WRONG. Heat is not energy. tmiddles wrote: not just temperature. Heat has no temperature. tmiddles wrote: Having a higher temperature doesn't mean having more heat and more energy. A higher temperature REQUIRES more energy. tmiddles wrote: But go ahead and point out where energy is being created. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: You seem to not understand insulation. Yes I do. Thermal insulation reduces heat. That's all it does. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make it warm. tmiddles wrote: Stefan-Boltzman deals only with the emitting/absorbing surface (a mix of ground and gas in the case of Earth) and not with everything behind/underneath that surface. (corrections by VernerHornung appreciated here). Verner is correct on this one. However, * You can't create energy out of nothing. * You can't destroy energy into nothing. * You can't decrease entropy in any system. * You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. * There is no sequence. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-09-2019 20:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14421)	VernerHornung wrote:The fact that atmospheres result in warmer planet surfaces isn't disputed. It is disputed. The reality is the exact opposite. We have been over this exhaustively. The earth's atmosphere has a huge refrigeration effect, especially on the earth's surface. This is observed by all people on the planet every day. Our ocean does not utterly boil away in the daytime because our atmosphere ensures it remains between very cool and freezing. That is one powerful refrigeration effect! Nowhere on the surface of the earth ever reaches 130degC like on the moon which has no atmosphere to refrigerate it like earth does. I'm sure CO2 plays a big part in that, perhaps that's why CO2 is an industrial refrigerant. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
26-09-2019 08:01
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: Some are. That is not the temperature of the planet. There is no frequency term in emissivity (which is the same as absorptivity). There is no frequency term in albedo. The Veneras had thermometers. Emissivity and albedo are dimensionless constants and the frequency terms are found in *Planck's radiation law* B(f,T) = (8πh/c^4) f^5 (e^(hf/kT) – 1)^(-1), where f is the frequency, T the temperature, h is Planck's constant, k is Boltzmann's constant and c the speed of light. What a nice piece of physics! It puts the fundamental constants behind relativity, quantum mechanics and the classical kinetic theory of gases all in one formula. Along with pi, an old favorite. Into the Night wrote: No atmosphere warms a planet. Tell that to the fellas at NASA and JPL. Maybe they'll listen to your revolutionary ideas. tmiddles wrote: The answer could be that the other gases and the total mass/pressure of the atmosphere are more important then they are given credit in many CO2 focused calculations. Yup. It's the *pressure* after all. Nitrogen and oxygen have a role, and I've found the geophysicists' explanation for it. While they don't exert any significant radiative forcing by themselves, they collide with CO2 and H2O molecules in the air, causing the CO2 and H2O spectral lines to broaden. The more pressure you have—even if it's from nitrogen—the more effective CO2 becomes at blocking infrared. Broader lines block infrared over a wider range of wavelengths than narrow lines do. Since Mars has so little pressure, its CO2 doesn't help it much. And Venus, well, we know about her pressures & temps! Infrared Radiation & Planetary Temperature Raymond Pierrehumbert Department of Geophysical Sciences University of Chicago https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf (See last paragraph on p.1 which continues to p.2, and then see first paragraph on p. 5.) I don't understand why collisions affect spectral lines, but physicists say they do; something with the rotational and vibrational modes of a molecule. These are quantum states in molecules, and I didn't have a full course in quantum mechanics. If you look at the Planck curve profile for Earth at the top of p. 4, it shows the temperature level at which a satellite can "see" radiation at a given wavelength. The 285K curve means the radiation's coming from the surface, the other three curves represent rays from higher, colder regions of the atmosphere. The surface isn't seen because its rays are totally blocked by molecules in the air, which then re-radiate a smaller amount to space. The CO2 and H2O work together, since CO2 absorbs in a "ditch-shaped" dip near the middle of the chart while H2O absorbs near the left and right ends. There's also some methane and ozone doing this. We just have a "lucky" combination of gases to get so much blanketing from them, plus the "boost" the N2 and O2 provide. tmiddles wrote: Even establishing that other gases like Nitrogen or Oxygen have a significant greenhouse effect as Blair McDonald has here on the forum: I'm not qualified to critique Raman spectrometry. Of it Blair says, "What is more, I found, as supporting evidence to my hypothesis all the gases absorb and emit IR radiation: N2 also absorbs at its (said) 2338cm-1 mode in the 'pumping process' of the CO2 laser." Wave number 2338 is well away from the Earth's surface peak emission at wave number 1000, and I won't know how strong or wide these lines are until I study the spectrum. Nor do I know anything about lasing of N2; I've never heard anyone say that was happening to a significant extent in the air, though I wasn't a "radiation guy" when in career and need to read Blair's papers on this stuff. I don't want to shout him down at this point. That would make me a hypocrite after criticizing ITN's constant nay-saying. If Blair's mechanism is operant, then it's in addition to what I discussed above and would enhance N2's importance in the hothouse. There is one detail I should cover. The nitrogen and oxygen certainly radiate because they're above absolute zero. Yet if we assume they're not blocking many rays from the ground, then they're not slowing the escape of radiant energy. They're just radiating energy they got by conduction or convection. With a blanket in bed, impeding conduction or convection works fine, since the blanket forwards heat to the room air through these two mechanisms. But the air has outer space above it, and nothing conducts through vacuum, which leaves only radiation to pass energy. Of course the CO2 is warmed by conduction or convection, too, but it's the *added* energy it gets by blocking infrared from the ground that matters. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
26-09-2019 13:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14421)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: No atmosphere warms a planet. Tell that to the fellas at NASA and JPL. Maybe they'll listen to your revolutionary ideas. They are already aware, that's why they are engineers like Into the Night, and you are not. VernerHornung wrote:I've found the geophysicists' explanation for it. While they don't exert any significant radiative forcing by themselves, Clue: "radiative forcing" is not physics or geophysics terminology. It's religious dogma. You've been tooled. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
26-09-2019 20:08
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	IBdaMann wrote: This is a clear violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy is conserved. Do you think those diagrams are *mine?* They're not. They're based on work by top-flight people in meteorology, chemistry and radiation physics, all of whom know about the laws of thermodynamics. 235 + 107 = 342. Incoming = outgoing. 239 + 100 = 339. Incoming ≈ outgoing but there's a small difference, the 0.6 W/m^2 by the green arrow at lower left, which says Earth is, at the moment, receiving more than it emits because it's not in equilibrium with radiation from the sun if it's warming up. IBdaMann wrote: Stefan-Boltzmann says that a reduced radiance implies a reduced temperature, because radiance and temperature move in the same direction. And they do move in the same direction. The Earth is currently getting warmer if the model's numbers are correct. An ice cube under a heat lamp doesn't radiate as much as it receives from the lamp. It will do so only after it melts and reaches equilibrium with the lamp. tmiddles wrote: 340 in and 339 out (1 representing the lack of equilibrium as Earth absorbs a bit more radiance than it gives as CO2 has been added, a temporary imbalance). No energy is being created. Precisely. tmiddles wrote: "Heat" is energy, not just temperature. Having a higher temperature doesn't mean having more heat and more energy. True. Higher temperature *doesn't* imply heat, as you point out. The general thermodynamic equation for internal energy change ΔU in a system is ΔU = ΔQ – W where ΔQ is the amount of heat *entering* the system and W the work done by the system. The W term is why a bicycle pump tends to get hot when you're inflating the tires. Since you do work on the air in the pump, W itself is negative, and ΔU is positive. We also have aerosol spray cans, where the jet from the nozzle is cool. That's because the nozzle gases are at pressure, expanding and pushing the air around them out of the way. Work is done by the nozzle gases on the surrounding air, so W is positive and ΔU is negative. Notice no ΔQ in either situation. Inflating a tire is an *adiabatic* process, one in which no heat enters or leaves the system. (Of course the bike pump cools after you put it away, but we're ignoring that.) Also notice the general equation doesn't mention the temperature T. Often the ΔU will manifest as a change in temperature, as with bike pumps and spray can gases, but it's possible the ΔU will become chemical potential energy instead, or the energy associated with phase changes, as when water evaporates or boils. Your sweat picks up a positive ΔU when ΔQ from your body evaporates it, and an equal and opposite –ΔU shows up in your body because the heat left it. *Two* systems here, the sweat and sweaty guy, so you have to write an equation for each one. I hate lecturing on this, but it's the only way to punch through all the obfuscation on thermodynamics milling around the forum. When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. While it's true the Earth and its atmosphere radiate together toward space, the components—surface, and each layer of air at its own temperature and pressure–must be analyzed separately as each interacts with the other components. That's the only way you can find T for the surface. The models geophysics and climate people use for this are sophisticated, but all of them rest on the first law equation above, plus the second law ΔS = ΔQ/T for the entropy. The work is modeled as winds and convection (rising, expanding air), and the ΔU is thermal energy that manifests as T, plus the "latent heat" when water evaporates and condenses into clouds, minus the work done by each component. I'm sure this complexity is why pop literature doesn't explain it very well. tmiddles wrote: Why when you look online is there a 10th grade science teacher with a couple two liter soda bottles and not much else? In the "Alka-Seltzer" setup, I believe the lamp heats the CO2 directly; thus the dramatic rise in temp. To a small extent, this also happens in our atmosphere. But the sun isn't a Burger King lamp. Most of its radiant power arrives as visible light, which CO2 doesn't absorb. Instead, the surface, warmed by the sun, becomes the heat lamp. (And it's nary as intense.) With a planet, there's something else to consider: temperature near the ground, where we live, versus temperatures *aloft* where we fly United. A global warming scenario might raise temperatures aloft without raising them very much at the surface when convection and latent heat are involved. This would of course be in accord with the first law. Models predicting surface temps must take convection into account, and they do. Question is, with all the complexity—we've got snow and ice, reflection by clouds, forests, storage of energy in oceans—where will the warmth appear, and how soon? tmiddles wrote: Also Trump is intent on instigating conflict in this area so having solid, well grounded arguments that others can understand is critical. Having all of Europe hate us is probably a greater threat in the near term than any amount of warming... Losing NATO would hurt us damn sooner than cooking under sunlight while Earth re-creates the Pennsylvanian-Permian swamp. Trump's taking advantage of disaster fog in the climate movement. Arguments that anyone can understand may be impossible with advanced physics topics like weather & climate; only some of it can be explained non-technically, as with cars and computers. I think what needs emphasis is the models are the best *science* has to offer, not wizards with crystal balls into the future. I'm amenable to accepting them as conceptually sound unless or until later science disproves them. But energy conservatives should also yak about our need for energy independence, both us and Europe. I'm frankly sick of the mullahs, sheiks and headcloths in the oil business. And Putin having his hands around Europe's pipeline valves. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 26-09-2019 20:17

Page 1 of 6

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

Threads	Replies	Last post
Basic Mistakes in Math, Just an FYI, 2 x 2 ≠ 4.	0	27-01-2024 19:01
Math Help	53	08-12-2023 01:56
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22