Remember me
▼ Content

Does the Earth Have a Natural Greenhouse Effect?



Page 1 of 212>
Does the Earth Have a Natural Greenhouse Effect?01-05-2017 04:20
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
It has been estimated that, were the atmosphere to exist without the greenhouse gases that occur naturally, the earth would have been 33 deg C cooler than it was before man's influence. If, as many in this debate claim, there is no greenhouse effect, does this mean that something else caused that 33 deg warming, and, if so, what? Or does it mean that there never was any 33 deg warming, and, if so, was there a mistake in the earth's energy budget at that time?

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect
01-05-2017 18:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Frescomexico wrote:
It has been estimated that, were the atmosphere to exist without the greenhouse gases that occur naturally, the earth would have been 33 deg C cooler than it was before man's influence. If, as many in this debate claim, there is no greenhouse effect, does this mean that something else caused that 33 deg warming, and, if so, what? Or does it mean that there never was any 33 deg warming, and, if so, was there a mistake in the earth's energy budget at that time?

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect


The entire thing we have been talking about is that descriptions of "greenhouse effects" are nothing more than the slowing of heat exchange by a dense atmosphere. Plants only stop additional growth clear up to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is actually how a greenhouse works and not as is purported by allowing in light, converting it to lower frequency IR and then trapping the IR in the greenhouse. As proof of this - if you open a door on a greenhouse it cools off rapidly. If it was acting as an IR trap it would not cool off. The glass only slows cooling as any insulator would.

None of the additional CO2 has any effect whatsoever with climate.

It's not clear how any competent scientist could ever have agreed with this sort of idea in the first place but some 30% of so-called "climate scientists" have.

And since most of the papers have been published agreeing with this it appears that it is somehow a universal belief when it is not.

The most shocking thing is NOAA supporting the idea of greenhouse gases when this was a theory initially developed in the 19th century and falsified early in the 20th century.
02-05-2017 03:51
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It has been estimated that, were the atmosphere to exist without the greenhouse gases that occur naturally, the earth would have been 33 deg C cooler than it was before man's influence. If, as many in this debate claim, there is no greenhouse effect, does this mean that something else caused that 33 deg warming, and, if so, what? Or does it mean that there never was any 33 deg warming, and, if so, was there a mistake in the earth's energy budget at that time?

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect


The entire thing we have been talking about is that descriptions of "greenhouse effects" are nothing more than the slowing of heat exchange by a dense atmosphere. Plants only stop additional growth clear up to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is actually how a greenhouse works and not as is purported by allowing in light, converting it to lower frequency IR and then trapping the IR in the greenhouse. As proof of this - if you open a door on a greenhouse it cools off rapidly. If it was acting as an IR trap it would not cool off. The glass only slows cooling as any insulator would.

None of the additional CO2 has any effect whatsoever with climate.

It's not clear how any competent scientist could ever have agreed with this sort of idea in the first place but some 30% of so-called "climate scientists" have.

And since most of the papers have been published agreeing with this it appears that it is somehow a universal belief when it is not.

The most shocking thing is NOAA supporting the idea of greenhouse gases when this was a theory initially developed in the 19th century and falsified early in the 20th century.


So, I think you are saying that what the Australians are calling a natural greenhouse effect is actually not the atmospheric CO2 back-radiating IR, but instead is just the insulating effect of the atmosphere on energy leaving the earth for outer space.
02-05-2017 05:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Frescomexico wrote:
So, I think you are saying that what the Australians are calling a natural greenhouse effect is actually not the atmospheric CO2 back-radiating IR, but instead is just the insulating effect of the atmosphere on energy leaving the earth for outer space.


CO2 holds about 1/5th the heat of H2O so increasing CO2 would be increasing cooling.
02-05-2017 09:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It has been estimated that, were the atmosphere to exist without the greenhouse gases that occur naturally, the earth would have been 33 deg C cooler than it was before man's influence. If, as many in this debate claim, there is no greenhouse effect, does this mean that something else caused that 33 deg warming, and, if so, what? Or does it mean that there never was any 33 deg warming, and, if so, was there a mistake in the earth's energy budget at that time?

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect


The entire thing we have been talking about is that descriptions of "greenhouse effects" are nothing more than the slowing of heat exchange by a dense atmosphere. Plants only stop additional growth clear up to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is actually how a greenhouse works and not as is purported by allowing in light, converting it to lower frequency IR and then trapping the IR in the greenhouse. As proof of this - if you open a door on a greenhouse it cools off rapidly. If it was acting as an IR trap it would not cool off. The glass only slows cooling as any insulator would.

None of the additional CO2 has any effect whatsoever with climate.

It's not clear how any competent scientist could ever have agreed with this sort of idea in the first place but some 30% of so-called "climate scientists" have.

And since most of the papers have been published agreeing with this it appears that it is somehow a universal belief when it is not.

The most shocking thing is NOAA supporting the idea of greenhouse gases when this was a theory initially developed in the 19th century and falsified early in the 20th century.


Not how a greenhouse works. IR can get out just as easily as it can get in. Greenhouses don't stop or limit radiance. They do not trap IR at all.

They do reduce heat though. It is done by reducing convective heating.
Opening the door (particularly of a smaller greenhouse) allows convection again. The greenhouse cools off.

'Greenhouse effect' was falsified as externally inconsistent with physics the instant it was conceived, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both older than 'greenhouse effect' first described in 1896.


The Parrot Killer
02-05-2017 15:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It has been estimated that, were the atmosphere to exist without the greenhouse gases that occur naturally, the earth would have been 33 deg C cooler than it was before man's influence. If, as many in this debate claim, there is no greenhouse effect, does this mean that something else caused that 33 deg warming, and, if so, what? Or does it mean that there never was any 33 deg warming, and, if so, was there a mistake in the earth's energy budget at that time?

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect


The entire thing we have been talking about is that descriptions of "greenhouse effects" are nothing more than the slowing of heat exchange by a dense atmosphere. Plants only stop additional growth clear up to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is actually how a greenhouse works and not as is purported by allowing in light, converting it to lower frequency IR and then trapping the IR in the greenhouse. As proof of this - if you open a door on a greenhouse it cools off rapidly. If it was acting as an IR trap it would not cool off. The glass only slows cooling as any insulator would.

None of the additional CO2 has any effect whatsoever with climate.

It's not clear how any competent scientist could ever have agreed with this sort of idea in the first place but some 30% of so-called "climate scientists" have.

And since most of the papers have been published agreeing with this it appears that it is somehow a universal belief when it is not.

The most shocking thing is NOAA supporting the idea of greenhouse gases when this was a theory initially developed in the 19th century and falsified early in the 20th century.


Not how a greenhouse works. IR can get out just as easily as it can get in. Greenhouses don't stop or limit radiance. They do not trap IR at all.

They do reduce heat though. It is done by reducing convective heating.
Opening the door (particularly of a smaller greenhouse) allows convection again. The greenhouse cools off.

'Greenhouse effect' was falsified as externally inconsistent with physics the instant it was conceived, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both older than 'greenhouse effect' first described in 1896.


Wrong


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-05-2017 16:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It has been estimated that, were the atmosphere to exist without the greenhouse gases that occur naturally, the earth would have been 33 deg C cooler than it was before man's influence. If, as many in this debate claim, there is no greenhouse effect, does this mean that something else caused that 33 deg warming, and, if so, what? Or does it mean that there never was any 33 deg warming, and, if so, was there a mistake in the earth's energy budget at that time?

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect


The entire thing we have been talking about is that descriptions of "greenhouse effects" are nothing more than the slowing of heat exchange by a dense atmosphere. Plants only stop additional growth clear up to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is actually how a greenhouse works and not as is purported by allowing in light, converting it to lower frequency IR and then trapping the IR in the greenhouse. As proof of this - if you open a door on a greenhouse it cools off rapidly. If it was acting as an IR trap it would not cool off. The glass only slows cooling as any insulator would.

None of the additional CO2 has any effect whatsoever with climate.

It's not clear how any competent scientist could ever have agreed with this sort of idea in the first place but some 30% of so-called "climate scientists" have.

And since most of the papers have been published agreeing with this it appears that it is somehow a universal belief when it is not.

The most shocking thing is NOAA supporting the idea of greenhouse gases when this was a theory initially developed in the 19th century and falsified early in the 20th century.


Not how a greenhouse works. IR can get out just as easily as it can get in. Greenhouses don't stop or limit radiance. They do not trap IR at all.

They do reduce heat though. It is done by reducing convective heating.
Opening the door (particularly of a smaller greenhouse) allows convection again. The greenhouse cools off.

'Greenhouse effect' was falsified as externally inconsistent with physics the instant it was conceived, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both older than 'greenhouse effect' first described in 1896.


Wrong


It's a'ways nice to see you correcting people from that cast storehouse of knowledge you have.
02-05-2017 16:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It has been estimated that, were the atmosphere to exist without the greenhouse gases that occur naturally, the earth would have been 33 deg C cooler than it was before man's influence. If, as many in this debate claim, there is no greenhouse effect, does this mean that something else caused that 33 deg warming, and, if so, what? Or does it mean that there never was any 33 deg warming, and, if so, was there a mistake in the earth's energy budget at that time?

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect


The entire thing we have been talking about is that descriptions of "greenhouse effects" are nothing more than the slowing of heat exchange by a dense atmosphere. Plants only stop additional growth clear up to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is actually how a greenhouse works and not as is purported by allowing in light, converting it to lower frequency IR and then trapping the IR in the greenhouse. As proof of this - if you open a door on a greenhouse it cools off rapidly. If it was acting as an IR trap it would not cool off. The glass only slows cooling as any insulator would.

None of the additional CO2 has any effect whatsoever with climate.

It's not clear how any competent scientist could ever have agreed with this sort of idea in the first place but some 30% of so-called "climate scientists" have.

And since most of the papers have been published agreeing with this it appears that it is somehow a universal belief when it is not.

The most shocking thing is NOAA supporting the idea of greenhouse gases when this was a theory initially developed in the 19th century and falsified early in the 20th century.


Not how a greenhouse works. IR can get out just as easily as it can get in. Greenhouses don't stop or limit radiance. They do not trap IR at all.

They do reduce heat though. It is done by reducing convective heating.
Opening the door (particularly of a smaller greenhouse) allows convection again. The greenhouse cools off.

'Greenhouse effect' was falsified as externally inconsistent with physics the instant it was conceived, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both older than 'greenhouse effect' first described in 1896.


Wrong


It's a'ways nice to see you correcting people from that cast storehouse of knowledge you have.


What, with all your claimed credentials you can't spot it? Firstly the effect was described earlier then 1897.Secondly if it was falsified why did someone not say something. Ludwig Boltzman and Josef Stefan for a start. In fact Josef Stefan used John Tyndall's mesurments. So despite proving everything John Tyndall said about the atmosphere false he says nothing on the subject. It has to wait more then a century till an anonymous guy on an unmoderated internet forum who refuses to give a reference spots it and Brian Cox, Steven Hawking and every other scientist that has commented on this subject has missed this painfully obvious fact? It's not very likely is it?


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-05-2017 17:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It has been estimated that, were the atmosphere to exist without the greenhouse gases that occur naturally, the earth would have been 33 deg C cooler than it was before man's influence. If, as many in this debate claim, there is no greenhouse effect, does this mean that something else caused that 33 deg warming, and, if so, what? Or does it mean that there never was any 33 deg warming, and, if so, was there a mistake in the earth's energy budget at that time?

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect


The entire thing we have been talking about is that descriptions of "greenhouse effects" are nothing more than the slowing of heat exchange by a dense atmosphere. Plants only stop additional growth clear up to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is actually how a greenhouse works and not as is purported by allowing in light, converting it to lower frequency IR and then trapping the IR in the greenhouse. As proof of this - if you open a door on a greenhouse it cools off rapidly. If it was acting as an IR trap it would not cool off. The glass only slows cooling as any insulator would.

None of the additional CO2 has any effect whatsoever with climate.

It's not clear how any competent scientist could ever have agreed with this sort of idea in the first place but some 30% of so-called "climate scientists" have.

And since most of the papers have been published agreeing with this it appears that it is somehow a universal belief when it is not.

The most shocking thing is NOAA supporting the idea of greenhouse gases when this was a theory initially developed in the 19th century and falsified early in the 20th century.


Not how a greenhouse works. IR can get out just as easily as it can get in. Greenhouses don't stop or limit radiance. They do not trap IR at all.

They do reduce heat though. It is done by reducing convective heating.
Opening the door (particularly of a smaller greenhouse) allows convection again. The greenhouse cools off.

'Greenhouse effect' was falsified as externally inconsistent with physics the instant it was conceived, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both older than 'greenhouse effect' first described in 1896.


Wrong


It's a'ways nice to see you correcting people from that cast storehouse of knowledge you have.


What, with all your claimed credentials you can't spot it? Firstly the effect was described earlier then 1897.Secondly if it was falsified why did someone not say something. Ludwig Boltzmann and Josef Stefan for a start. In fact Josef Stefan used John Tyndall's measurements. So despite proving everything John Tyndall said about the atmosphere false he says nothing on the subject. It has to wait more then a century till an anonymous guy on an unmoderated internet forum who refuses to give a reference spots it and Brian Cox, Steven Hawking and every other scientist that has commented on this subject has missed this painfully obvious fact? It's not very likely is it?


So now you're telling us that your God is John Tyndall? The same man that said that H2O was what controlled the temperature of the Earth's surface?

And the Tyndall and Stefan radiation experiments had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with proving that CO2 had any effects at all - it had to do with heat radiation.

As I mentioned elsewhere - you would have to gain 50 IQ points to make it up to moron.
02-05-2017 17:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
No my God is not John Tyndall. Why would he be my God? Is ITN yours? Are you off your meds? I do feel though a passing familiarity with Tyndall's work would be beneficial to you before declaring anyone working on atmospheric physics a fraud. Josef Stefan certainly was familiar but says nothing about the implications his work has on the earlier work that ITN and yourself think it has. Strange.
02-05-2017 17:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
No my God is not John Tyndall. Why would he be my God? Is ITN yours? Are you off your meds? I do feel though a passing familiarity with Tyndall's work would be beneficial to you before declaring anyone working on atmospheric physics a fraud. Josef Stefan certainly was familiar but says nothing about the implications his work has on the earlier work that ITN and yourself think it has. Strange.


Then WHY did you mention Tyndall when the ONLY thing he was interested in was absorption of heat energy by atmospheric gases? He said nothing about "greenhouse effect". Stefan and Tyndall were interested in this "invisible radiation" that turned out to be what we call Infrared radiation. This again had nothing whatsoever to do with any such greenhouse effect.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law had nothing to do with CO2 or greenhouse effect - it was about radiation of a black body and how you could know the levels of energy by knowing the frequency of the radiation or visa versa.

Every time you write you show what a damn poor understanding you have of the world around you and how every step of the way you will grab at ANYTHING to try to appear to have some sort of knowledge even when the very things you are saying are totally wrong.

Too bad you decided long ago to turn your attention to a religion of AGW rather than learning.
02-05-2017 17:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
He specifically mentions the effects the gasses have in the atmosphere, He does not use the phrase greenhouse effect but it does directly contradicts with what ITN claims.

I suggest doing some research.
02-05-2017 18:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
He specifically mentions the effects the gasses have in the atmosphere, He does not use the phrase greenhouse effect but it does directly contradicts with what ITN claims.

I suggest doing some research.


He does not contradict what ITN said. He talked about the energy absorption of gases and not as they acted in the atmosphere. He made a chart that showed that CO2 had almost no absorption but more than O2 and N.
02-05-2017 19:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Oh, you obviously have not read Contributions to Molecular physics in the domain of Radiant Heat,

Your God, Into the night, has told me that Tyndalls work has been debunked. Of course he does not give a reference to back up this bold claim.

https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog

Page 38, Tyndall states that, even in the 19th century that it is a point of considerable interest, so its weird that since then nobody who has proved his work wrong mentions anything about the atmosphere.
03-05-2017 00:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It has been estimated that, were the atmosphere to exist without the greenhouse gases that occur naturally, the earth would have been 33 deg C cooler than it was before man's influence. If, as many in this debate claim, there is no greenhouse effect, does this mean that something else caused that 33 deg warming, and, if so, what? Or does it mean that there never was any 33 deg warming, and, if so, was there a mistake in the earth's energy budget at that time?

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/greenhouse-effect


The entire thing we have been talking about is that descriptions of "greenhouse effects" are nothing more than the slowing of heat exchange by a dense atmosphere. Plants only stop additional growth clear up to 10% CO2 in the atmosphere.

This is actually how a greenhouse works and not as is purported by allowing in light, converting it to lower frequency IR and then trapping the IR in the greenhouse. As proof of this - if you open a door on a greenhouse it cools off rapidly. If it was acting as an IR trap it would not cool off. The glass only slows cooling as any insulator would.

None of the additional CO2 has any effect whatsoever with climate.

It's not clear how any competent scientist could ever have agreed with this sort of idea in the first place but some 30% of so-called "climate scientists" have.

And since most of the papers have been published agreeing with this it appears that it is somehow a universal belief when it is not.

The most shocking thing is NOAA supporting the idea of greenhouse gases when this was a theory initially developed in the 19th century and falsified early in the 20th century.


Not how a greenhouse works. IR can get out just as easily as it can get in. Greenhouses don't stop or limit radiance. They do not trap IR at all.

They do reduce heat though. It is done by reducing convective heating.
Opening the door (particularly of a smaller greenhouse) allows convection again. The greenhouse cools off.

'Greenhouse effect' was falsified as externally inconsistent with physics the instant it was conceived, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both older than 'greenhouse effect' first described in 1896.


Wrong


It's a'ways nice to see you correcting people from that cast storehouse of knowledge you have.


What, with all your claimed credentials you can't spot it? Firstly the effect was described earlier then 1897.Secondly if it was falsified why did someone not say something. Ludwig Boltzman and Josef Stefan for a start. In fact Josef Stefan used John Tyndall's mesurments. So despite proving everything John Tyndall said about the atmosphere false he says nothing on the subject. It has to wait more then a century till an anonymous guy on an unmoderated internet forum who refuses to give a reference spots it and Brian Cox, Steven Hawking and every other scientist that has commented on this subject has missed this painfully obvious fact? It's not very likely is it?


Nope. Arrhenius first described 'global warming' in 1987.

When it was falsified by external inconsistency, people DID say something. They wrote down what they said too. You can find it if you look for it.

Oddly, he never defined what 'global warming' actually was! Neither can you. If you want to try, define 'global warming' without using links, quotes, or circular arguments.

Your remaining argument is one of Bulverism and name dropping, both fallacies.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2017 00:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law had nothing to do with CO2 or greenhouse effect - it was about radiation of a black body and how you could know the levels of energy by knowing the frequency of the radiation or visa versa.


Uh...no.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for the frequency of light. The law is specifically designed to be colorblind. It works for ALL emitted radiation from the surface, not just IR.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-05-2017 00:25
03-05-2017 00:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
He specifically mentions the effects the gasses have in the atmosphere, He does not use the phrase greenhouse effect but it does directly contradicts with what ITN claims.

I suggest doing some research.


Absorption is not 'greenhouse effect'. You keep trying to redefine 'absorption' as 'greenhouse effect'.

Absorption by CO2 or any other gas does not heat the surface. It is a way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, just like conduction and convection.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2017 00:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
Oh, you obviously have not read Contributions to Molecular physics in the domain of Radiant Heat,

Your God, Into the night, has told me that Tyndalls work has been debunked. Of course he does not give a reference to back up this bold claim.

https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog

Page 38, Tyndall states that, even in the 19th century that it is a point of considerable interest, so its weird that since then nobody who has proved his work wrong mentions anything about the atmosphere.


Never said any such thing.

You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas. That doesn't violate Tyndall.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2017 01:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
spot wrote:
Oh, you obviously have not read Contributions to Molecular physics in the domain of Radiant Heat,

Your God, Into the night, has told me that Tyndalls work has been debunked. Of course he does not give a reference to back up this bold claim.

https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog

Page 38, Tyndall states that, even in the 19th century that it is a point of considerable interest, so its weird that since then nobody who has proved his work wrong mentions anything about the atmosphere.

Thanks, that's quite fascinating. It's rather remarkable that, even then, in 1861, scientists realised the potential for changes in the concentration of certain gases (which we know today as greenhouse gases) to influence the Earth's climate.

Edit: Tyndall even predicted their involvement in the then recent discovery of prehistoric climate changes!
Edited on 03-05-2017 01:03
03-05-2017 01:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Oh, you obviously have not read Contributions to Molecular physics in the domain of Radiant Heat,

Your God, Into the night, has told me that Tyndalls work has been debunked. Of course he does not give a reference to back up this bold claim.

https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog

Page 38, Tyndall states that, even in the 19th century that it is a point of considerable interest, so its weird that since then nobody who has proved his work wrong mentions anything about the atmosphere.


You show your talent yet again. Tyndall repeated the work of Eunice Foote from three years prior.

And the THEORY of both was that in a glass jar if an atmosphere was entirely CO2, purely hydrogen or normal air the one with CO2 would warm more in direct sunlight.

Neither of these two experiments had ANY connection with a real atmosphere.

And I was the one that initially mentioned that and it was falsified by so many people that it can't be counted.

You get brighter and brighter by the moment. If must be your own globe is warming.
03-05-2017 01:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law had nothing to do with CO2 or greenhouse effect - it was about radiation of a black body and how you could know the levels of energy by knowing the frequency of the radiation or visa versa.


Uh...no.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for the frequency of light. The law is specifically designed to be colorblind. It works for ALL emitted radiation from the surface, not just IR.


The energy contained that is emitted from an ideal black body identifies the amount of energy via the wavelength of the light emitted. Equally if you know the frequency of the light you have the energy. Stop making this harder than it is. For crying out loud, they weren't very advanced mathematically in the 19th century.

You're waving your hands again. A black body isn't a point. A point is dimensionless. Therefore it must be at least two dimensions and there will be ideally a bell curve from the center of maximum energy. In practice it is three dimensions and the bell curve is also three dimensions.

Remember that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is ONLY a theoretical idealization.
03-05-2017 03:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law had nothing to do with CO2 or greenhouse effect - it was about radiation of a black body and how you could know the levels of energy by knowing the frequency of the radiation or visa versa.


Uh...no.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for the frequency of light. The law is specifically designed to be colorblind. It works for ALL emitted radiation from the surface, not just IR.


The energy contained that is emitted from an ideal black body identifies the amount of energy via the wavelength of the light emitted.
No, it doesn't.
Wake wrote:
Equally if you know the frequency of the light you have the energy.
No, you don't. You only have the energy of an individual photon. You do not have the total energy emitted.
Wake wrote:
Stop making this harder than it is.
I'm not. It is YOU that is making it harder than it is.
Wake wrote:
For crying out loud, they weren't very advanced mathematically in the 19th century.
They were actually pretty advanced. They had the calculus for 2 centuries by then.
Wake wrote:
You're waving your hands again. A black body isn't a point.
Never said it was.
Wake wrote:
A point is dimensionless. Therefore it must be at least two dimensions
and there will be ideally a bell curve from the center of maximum energy.
In practice it is three dimensions and the bell curve is also three dimensions.
This statement is a paradox. It also introduces your bell curve again. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't produce any kind of curve. It produces a scalar value.
Wake wrote:
Remember that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is ONLY a theoretical idealization.

No, it isn't. You are AGAIN confusing a reference with the equation. The equation applies to all bodies.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2017 08:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Oh, you obviously have not read Contributions to Molecular physics in the domain of Radiant Heat,

Your God, Into the night, has told me that Tyndalls work has been debunked. Of course he does not give a reference to back up this bold claim.

https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog

Page 38, Tyndall states that, even in the 19th century that it is a point of considerable interest, so its weird that since then nobody who has proved his work wrong mentions anything about the atmosphere.


Never said any such thing.

You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas. That doesn't violate Tyndall.


What an odd phrase, "violate Tyndall" and what he wrote is plain for all to see, Thats why you use references it shows your not just bluffing. like you are.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-05-2017 08:45
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Oh, you obviously have not read Contributions to Molecular physics in the domain of Radiant Heat,

Your God, Into the night, has told me that Tyndalls work has been debunked. Of course he does not give a reference to back up this bold claim.

https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog

Page 38, Tyndall states that, even in the 19th century that it is a point of considerable interest, so its weird that since then nobody who has proved his work wrong mentions anything about the atmosphere.


You show your talent yet again. Tyndall repeated the work of Eunice Foote from three years prior.

And the THEORY of both was that in a glass jar if an atmosphere was entirely CO2, purely hydrogen or normal air the one with CO2 would warm more in direct sunlight.

Neither of these two experiments had ANY connection with a real atmosphere.

And I was the one that initially mentioned that and it was falsified by so many people that it can't be counted.

You get brighter and brighter by the moment. If must be your own globe is warming.


Who are these people that falsified it surely someone would say if they managed to do that. Your bluffing.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-05-2017 23:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Oh, you obviously have not read Contributions to Molecular physics in the domain of Radiant Heat,

Your God, Into the night, has told me that Tyndalls work has been debunked. Of course he does not give a reference to back up this bold claim.

https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog

Page 38, Tyndall states that, even in the 19th century that it is a point of considerable interest, so its weird that since then nobody who has proved his work wrong mentions anything about the atmosphere.


Never said any such thing.

You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas. That doesn't violate Tyndall.


What an odd phrase, "violate Tyndall" and what he wrote is plain for all to see, Thats why you use references it shows your not just bluffing. like you are.


True. What he wrote is plain for all to see. You are seeing something more than what he demonstrated.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2017 23:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Oh, you obviously have not read Contributions to Molecular physics in the domain of Radiant Heat,

Your God, Into the night, has told me that Tyndalls work has been debunked. Of course he does not give a reference to back up this bold claim.

https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog

Page 38, Tyndall states that, even in the 19th century that it is a point of considerable interest, so its weird that since then nobody who has proved his work wrong mentions anything about the atmosphere.


You show your talent yet again. Tyndall repeated the work of Eunice Foote from three years prior.

And the THEORY of both was that in a glass jar if an atmosphere was entirely CO2, purely hydrogen or normal air the one with CO2 would warm more in direct sunlight.

Neither of these two experiments had ANY connection with a real atmosphere.

And I was the one that initially mentioned that and it was falsified by so many people that it can't be counted.

You get brighter and brighter by the moment. If must be your own globe is warming.


Who are these people that falsified it surely someone would say if they managed to do that. Your bluffing.


They do. You're bluffing. No physicist denies the laws of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2017 23:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.
03-05-2017 23:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2017 23:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.

It is eminently falsifiable. The discovery of a planet or moon whose temperature is inconsistent with the calculated greenhouse effect produced by its atmosphere would falsify the greenhouse theory. As yet, all such discoveries have vindicated it. Venus, tick. Earth, tick. Mars, tick. Titan, tick.

Not externally consistent? What do you mean by that?
Edited on 03-05-2017 23:59
04-05-2017 00:34
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:


They do. You're bluffing. No physicist denies the laws of thermodynamics.


A physicist denying the laws of thermodynamics would be absurd, but that is not the point, you are wrong and despite your desperate claim that an entire field is in agreement with you, and I am very familiar with your ridiculous argument, you can't find one quote that backs it up.

Strange


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
04-05-2017 02:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.

It is eminently falsifiable. The discovery of a planet or moon whose temperature is inconsistent with the calculated greenhouse effect produced by its atmosphere would falsify the greenhouse theory. As yet, all such discoveries have vindicated it. Venus, tick. Earth, tick. Mars, tick. Titan, tick.
You are defining the falsifiability of 'greenhouse effect' on a circular definition of 'greenhouse effect'???

Do you realize how stupid you sound?

Surface Detail wrote:
Not externally consistent? What do you mean by that?

Since you don't know what science or the method of science is, I'll try to explain...again.

A theory of science cannot conflict with any other theory of science. If a new theory does conflict, it must provide the reasoning by which the existing conflicting theory or theories must be destroyed.

The 'greenhouse effect' does not provide a mechanism to destroy the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Therefore the 'greenhouse effect' theory remains externally inconsistent with existing science.

If you can define 'greenhouse effect' so that it does not violate existing physics or shows how existing physics that conflict must be destroyed, only THEN can you go on to bother with tests of falsifiability. You're going to have a hell of time with that one IF you get there.

You haven't yet defined 'global warming' or 'climate change' without resorting to circular arguments. No links. No quotes.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2017 02:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


They do. You're bluffing. No physicist denies the laws of thermodynamics.


A physicist denying the laws of thermodynamics would be absurd, but that is not the point, you are wrong and despite your desperate claim that an entire field is in agreement with you, and I am very familiar with your ridiculous argument, you can't find one quote that backs it up.

Strange


That IS the point. You cannot heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.

You can't do it by conduction.
You can't do it by convection.
You can't do it by radiance.

You can't do it. You might as well try to make hot coffee with ice.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2017 02:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.

It is eminently falsifiable. The discovery of a planet or moon whose temperature is inconsistent with the calculated greenhouse effect produced by its atmosphere would falsify the greenhouse theory. As yet, all such discoveries have vindicated it. Venus, tick. Earth, tick. Mars, tick. Titan, tick.
You are defining the falsifiability of 'greenhouse effect' on a circular definition of 'greenhouse effect'???

Do you realize how stupid you sound?

Surface Detail wrote:
Not externally consistent? What do you mean by that?

Since you don't know what science or the method of science is, I'll try to explain...again.

A theory of science cannot conflict with any other theory of science. If a new theory does conflict, it must provide the reasoning by which the existing conflicting theory or theories must be destroyed.

The 'greenhouse effect' does not provide a mechanism to destroy the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Therefore the 'greenhouse effect' theory remains externally inconsistent with existing science.

If you can define 'greenhouse effect' so that it does not violate existing physics or shows how existing physics that conflict must be destroyed, only THEN can you go on to bother with tests of falsifiability. You're going to have a hell of time with that one IF you get there.

You haven't yet defined 'global warming' or 'climate change' without resorting to circular arguments. No links. No quotes.

ITN, your posts are becoming increasingly insane.

The greenhouse effect, as described by Tyndall, predated the formulation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so it could hardly have been inconsistent with it. On the contrary, Stefan drew on Tyndall's work when formulating the law that bears his name!

I won't bother replying to your post in the other thread apparently claiming that the ice ages either didn't happen or don't count as climate change (it's hard to tell which you mean). I'll leave it as a suitable testament to denialist lunacy.
04-05-2017 03:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You haven't yet defined 'global warming' or 'climate change' without resorting to circular arguments. No links. No quotes.

ITN, your posts are becoming increasingly insane.

The greenhouse effect, as described by Tyndall, predated the formulation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, so it could hardly have been inconsistent with it. On the contrary, Stefan drew on Tyndall's work when formulating the law that bears his name!

I won't bother replying to your post in the other thread apparently claiming that the ice ages either didn't happen or don't count as climate change (it's hard to tell which you mean). I'll leave it as a suitable testament to denialist lunacy.


You still don't seem to understand the difference between theory and conjecture. The order doesn't matter. Tyndall only showed absorption.

Greenhouse effect is externally inconsistent with the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

THOSE are the laws you have to deal with. THOSE are the conflicting theories.

Or are you actually saying these are NOT existing physics because they are externally inconsistent with Tyndall?

What kind of a paradox are you building here?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-05-2017 03:12
04-05-2017 05:15
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
I get from this discussion, before it degenerated into trivia and insults, that respondents either believe that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is either impossible to any degree, or is the prime (perhaps only) cause of present warming and triggered by man's contribution of CO2. There seems to be no middle ground.

Another phenomenon that I notice is the tenacity with which many respondents cling to their beliefs in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary or, at least without convincing evidence to support their convictions. I, also, suffer from this malady. I entered this debate with a firm conviction that the planet is in a natural warming phase unaided by man. I leave the debate believing that man does affect climate, but to an insignificant degree. I will continue my study elsewhere, and hopefully will amend my beliefs ever closer to the truth.

A study of science and the scientists who brought it to its present state reveals that little advance is made by stubbornly ignoring evidence. The truly great scientists continued to remain open-minded.
04-05-2017 05:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.


Why do you suppose SD ignored the "Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself."?

He seems to miss the obvious whenever any chance permits.

Since he estimated the humidity and his heating apparatus only had to heat in the region of CO2 absorption which he was in no position to estimate these findings showed nothing more than water is the controlling factor and not CO2.

His own references show that he doesn't understand the very thing he's claiming he studies.
04-05-2017 10:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.


Why do you suppose SD ignored the "Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself."?

He seems to miss the obvious whenever any chance permits.

Since he estimated the humidity and his heating apparatus only had to heat in the region of CO2 absorption which he was in no position to estimate these findings showed nothing more than water is the controlling factor and not CO2.

His own references show that he doesn't understand the very thing he's claiming he studies.

You clearly missed his main result, which was that air containing both water vapour and CO2 absorbed 15 times as well as dry air without CO2. To summarise for the hard of thinking:

Dry air, no CO2: 1
Humid air, no CO2: 13
Humid air, with CO2: 15

Tyndall demonstrated that water vapour is a strong absorber of IR radiation and that CO2 also absorbs IR radiation. He also mentions that hydrocarbons (such as methane) are strong absorbers, and he goes on to point out that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could have been responsible for changes in global climate since even small changes could have a powerful warming effect. He was one smart fellow.
04-05-2017 12:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:


That IS the point. You cannot heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.

You can't do it by conduction.
You can't do it by convection.
You can't do it by radiance.

You can't do it. You might as well try to make hot coffee with ice.


This is becoming a repetitive conversation. The heat comes from the Sun. The composition of the atmosphere affects the temperature of the planet. Physicists know this to be true, many climate scientists are physicists. Many Physicists who are not climate scientists have publicly come out warning of the threat that an unchecked increase in CO2 poses.

However right or wrong I would expect a rocket scientist to understand what he is arguing against.

Anyway I say again, if Tyndall's statements on the atmosphere were proven wrong someone would have mentioned it.

I am not going to get a reference with a quote in response to this, I am going to get a diatribe laced with insults.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
04-05-2017 12:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Frescomexico wrote:
I get from this discussion, before it degenerated into trivia and insults, that respondents either believe that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is either impossible to any degree, or is the prime (perhaps only) cause of present warming and triggered by man's contribution of CO2. There seems to be no middle ground.

Another phenomenon that I notice is the tenacity with which many respondents cling to their beliefs in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary or, at least without convincing evidence to support their convictions. I, also, suffer from this malady. I entered this debate with a firm conviction that the planet is in a natural warming phase unaided by man. I leave the debate believing that man does affect climate, but to an insignificant degree. I will continue my study elsewhere, and hopefully will amend my beliefs ever closer to the truth.

A study of science and the scientists who brought it to its present state reveals that little advance is made by stubbornly ignoring evidence. The truly great scientists continued to remain open-minded.


So if one party is saying; "2+2=4" and another claims; "2+2=5" you being reasonable say; "2+2=4.5" and go away with a smug sense of superiority.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
04-05-2017 19:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.


Why do you suppose SD ignored the "Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself."?

He seems to miss the obvious whenever any chance permits.

Since he estimated the humidity and his heating apparatus only had to heat in the region of CO2 absorption which he was in no position to estimate these findings showed nothing more than water is the controlling factor and not CO2.

His own references show that he doesn't understand the very thing he's claiming he studies.

You clearly missed his main result, which was that air containing both water vapour and CO2 absorbed 15 times as well as dry air without CO2. To summarise for the hard of thinking:

Dry air, no CO2: 1
Humid air, no CO2: 13
Humid air, with CO2: 15

Tyndall demonstrated that water vapour is a strong absorber of IR radiation and that CO2 also absorbs IR radiation. He also mentions that hydrocarbons (such as methane) are strong absorbers, and he goes on to point out that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could have been responsible for changes in global climate since even small changes could have a powerful warming effect. He was one smart fellow.


And YOU clearly missed my posting in your rush to call me wrong. They had NO WAY of measuring humidity accurately in the mid-1800's. Furthermore since they did NOT have any manner of measuring the wavelength of IR they could have been using precisely the correct frequency of CO2.

Since this is an unusual frequency that has so little energy in it that it is totally absorbed by CO2 in the normal atmosphere you have nothing whatsoever to back up your stupid misunderstandings.

Tell you what - talk to the stars. I'm done having anything to do with you. You are nothing more than litesong on even stronger drugs.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Does the Earth Have a Natural Greenhouse Effect?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law36622-08-2019 15:35
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made8006-08-2019 19:38
Antarctica's Effect on Sea Level Rise in Coming Centuries2613-05-2019 07:51
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact