Remember me
▼ Content

economic



Page 2 of 3<123>
29-05-2019 01:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
The thing is, the heat coming in to earth is at a higher frequency than CO2 in the atmosphere can hold back so it does reach the earth and heats the earth and oceans up.
But when the earth radiates that energy back out, it radiates it at a lower frequency (infrared) which can't get through the CO2 as easily, so the heat is trapped in the atmosphere and the earth and oceans heat up. Ice then melts, oceans rise etc.

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law or in the 1st law of thermodynamics.
It makes NO difference the frequency of light. ALL frequencies combined are used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
keepit wrote:
It has happened many times in the distant path

It has never happened. It can't.
keepit wrote:
and there's nothing we know of that can stop the macro trends.

There is no magick 'trend'. There is no data.
keepit wrote:
But, what we can do is stop the near term effects (2-3 hundred years or less) and thereby stop the sea level rise in the near term.

You can't stop what is not happening.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 01:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Come on Parrot. Get real.


You don't even know what 'real' is. It's just another meaningless buzzword to you.


The Parrot Killer
RE: economics29-05-2019 02:16
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
I guess i just don't see the science in what you're saying.
29-05-2019 02:23
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1230)
keepit wrote:
I guess i just don't see the science in what you're saying.


What would be your definition of science? I think we should start over right there and discover where your disconnect from reality comes from.


This statement of yours helps you meet your obligation to bash Trump and stick your tongue up Obama's netherpipe in one efficient sentence. Well done.

~IBdaMann~
29-05-2019 02:44
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
The things you say don't sound like any scientist i've ever spoken to or heard speak.
Things like :
"Disconnect from reality", bash Trump, stick your tongue and others things you've said while i've been on this website.
What people do you mix with that think that kind of talk is all right?
29-05-2019 02:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
I guess i just don't see the science in what you're saying.


The 1st law of thermodynamics is essentially the expression of the law of conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created or destroyed.

In order for the Earth's surface to emit energy in the form of infrared light, it must be cooled by doing so. All CO2 absorption becomes is simply another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere (and cool itself in the process).

Both the surface and the atmosphere radiate into space. The surface radiates far more than the atmosphere does, but BOTH radiate into space.

The higher the temperature, the greater the radiance. Radiance is proportional to temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is never inversely proportional. There is never a situation where radiance is reduced by CO2 or anything else while temperature is increasing.

The Stefan-Boltzmann combines all frequencies of light. There is no frequency term in the equation. It holds regardless of the composition of the radiating body (the Earth). No matter how much CO2 or anything else is in the atmosphere, it is the same.

By using surface infrared to heat CO2 and assuming surface temperature remains the same, you are creating energy out of nothing. The 1st law of thermodynamics says this is not possible. You are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.

By saying that CO2 is 'trapping' thermal energy while the upper atmosphere is getting colder as a result, is to say that CO2 is capable of decreasing entropy.The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy must increase or stay the same in any system.

The Ross Ice Shelf is floating. Even if it were ALL to somehow melt (which require tremendous ADDITIONAL energy coming from the Sun), the ocean level will not change on millimeter. You can perform this experiment at home. Floating ice that melts does NOT change the water level at all.

These three theories of science don't just go away because you wish to believe in your religion.

You are also proposing a paradox with CO2.

The International Space Station (ISS) orbits Earth. It's sunlit outer skin temperature reaches 250 deg F. There is no significant atmosphere, CO2, or anything else.

Here on Earth, we have an atmosphere, CO2, and the whole bit, yet nowhere on Earth reaches 250 deg F during the day. If CO2 warms the Earth, why is Earth so much COLDER during the day?


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 02:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
The things you say don't sound like any scientist i've ever spoken to or heard speak.
Things like :
"Disconnect from reality", bash Trump, stick your tongue and others things you've said while i've been on this website.
What people do you mix with that think that kind of talk is all right?


Heh. Guess you haven't spoken to many scientists. They are people, just like any other. They are not above throwing a few insults.

There is no 'sound of a scientist'.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 02:52
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Parrot -
It's true that i've listened to a lot more scientists than i've spoken to but i've listened to a lot of them. I'm just an amateur scientist.
I would bet you aren't a scientist but maybe you are. Tell me about it.
29-05-2019 03:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Parrot -
It's true that i've listened to a lot more scientists than i've spoken to but i've listened to a lot of them.

I doubt that. All you've listened to are climate 'scientists'. They deny science, just as you do. They are not scientists.
keepit wrote:
I'm just an amateur scientist.

I don't believe you. You are denying several important theories of science.
keepit wrote:
I would bet you aren't a scientist but maybe you are. Tell me about it.

Makes no difference. I do not base my arguments on my credentials. I base my arguments on theories of science that you are ignoring. Credentials, you see, don't really mean much on blind forums such as this one. There is no way for anyone to prove they have them. However, if you are curious, I am a scientist. I am also an engineer, a business owner, a philosopher, an etymologist, an aircraft designer and builder, a certified aircraft mechanic, an amateur radio operator, a commercial radiotelegraph operator with radar endorsements, an instrument rated pilot, a musician, a computer programmer, a sailor, a rigger, an electrician, a plumber, a carpenter including both rough work and cabinetry, a rancher, and a husband and father. I live in the Seattle area. There. You know the same about me as others here on the forum. None of my arguments depend on any of these. You can choose to believe my credentials if you want or not. It makes no difference.

Science isn't scientists. It is not any university, study, government agency, society, or academy. It isn't even people at all.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. Among these theories, which you are currently denying, are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot just discard these theories on a whim, not even to satisfy your belief in the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 03:44
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
I'm not familiar with the church of global warming.
Anyway, that's quite a resume, i'm impressed.
Still, i think you're misinterpreting the Stephan Boltzman law and both the 1st and 2 law of thermodynamics.
Would you mind taking, one at a time per post, the things you don't agree with.
Thank you.
29-05-2019 03:49
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
A couple of quick questions;
Do you think the americans landed on the moon.
Do you think there is a past beyond 6000 years.
I'm a Christian by the way.
29-05-2019 03:58
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(809)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Parrot -
It's true that i've listened to a lot more scientists than i've spoken to but i've listened to a lot of them.

I doubt that. All you've listened to are climate 'scientists'. They deny science, just as you do. They are not scientists.
keepit wrote:
I'm just an amateur scientist.

I don't believe you. You are denying several important theories of science.
keepit wrote:
I would bet you aren't a scientist but maybe you are. Tell me about it.

Makes no difference. I do not base my arguments on my credentials. I base my arguments on theories of science that you are ignoring. Credentials, you see, don't really mean much on blind forums such as this one. There is no way for anyone to prove they have them. However, if you are curious, I am a scientist. I am also an engineer, a business owner, a philosopher, an etymologist, an aircraft designer and builder, a certified aircraft mechanic, an amateur radio operator, a commercial radiotelegraph operator with radar endorsements, an instrument rated pilot, a musician, a computer programmer, a sailor, a rigger, an electrician, a plumber, a carpenter including both rough work and cabinetry, a rancher, and a husband and father. I live in the Seattle area. There. You know the same about me as others here on the forum. None of my arguments depend on any of these. You can choose to believe my credentials if you want or not. It makes no difference.

Science isn't scientists. It is not any university, study, government agency, society, or academy. It isn't even people at all.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. Among these theories, which you are currently denying, are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot just discard these theories on a whim, not even to satisfy your belief in the Church of Global Warming.


Should have included psychologist in your impressive resume, since you claim qualified to diagnose mental disorders, and prescribe treatment, as part of your arguments...

I've never really sat down and thought out all the things I've done, can do. I just learn what I need, to get a job done. I've really never seen a need to hire out jobs, where I'm just as capable of learning, and performing the same work. I'll admit that most of my work isn't pretty, some might not hold up to local codes, but all are fully functional, and have lasted. Had a few failures on the first attempt, for things I've never done before, but usually get it right the second time around, as I learned what fail, and knew what was needed to avoid it. Usually, it was trying to get by with parts or materials on hand, rather than buying anything, I'm cheap... Well, actually, I just get a kick out of free repairs, where most people spend hundreds, even thousands. I also tend to believe that things that fail, can be improved, so they are less likely to fail again.
29-05-2019 04:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
I'm not familiar with the church of global warming.

The name I coined for this religion.

All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending out from that. In Christianity, for example, the initial circular argument is that Christ exists, and He is who He says He is (namely the Son of God). All other arguments about this religion extend from that initial circular argument.

The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'. Such argument just remain circular because it is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or do not exist.

The circular argument in and of itself is not a fallacy. It can be a valid argument. However, attempting to prove a circular argument becomes the Circular Argument Fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. There are fundamentalists in every religion. Some religions by their nature are fundamentalist in structure.

Any argument based on faith, and uses further arguments extending out from that initial circular argument, can be said to be a religion. This is one way that philosophy uses to define 'religion'.

The initial circular argument for the Church of Global Warming is that the Earth is warming. ALL other arguments are based on this initial argument, which is an argument of faith. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Thus, Global Warming is a religion. Like most religions, it uses supporting evidence to justify itself. No proof is possible. The Earth may be warming, cooling, or just staying the same temperature. We simply don't know, neither is it possible for us to know. We simply don't have enough thermometers to measure the temperature of the Earth to any useful margin of error. This is a math problem, not a scientific one. The mathematics involved is statistical math.

The 'greenhouse gas' model is not possible as a theory of science. In order for a theory to become one of science, it must first pass three tests:

1) The internal consistency test.
2) The external consistency test.
3) The test of falsifiability.

If it does pass these tests, it automatically becomes a theory of science.

The internal consistency test is simply a test to see if the theory is a valid argument free of any fallacy. No fallacy is a valid argument, and the existence of any fallacy in the theory immediately kills it, for the theory is not valid as an argument to begin with. No theory is possible, whether scientific or otherwise, based on a fallacy.

The external consistency test is simply a test to compare the theory with existing theories of science. No two theories of science may conflict with each other. One or both must be falsified. A falsified theory utterly destroys the theory.

The final test is one of falsifiability. Science uses no supporting evidence. It is only interested in conflicting evidence. The new theory must be testable, using a test designed to try to destroy the theory, with a test that is available, practical to perform, specific, and produces a specific result (hence the need for quantifiable measurements in science). Such measurements must be direct. No proxies are allowed. That test may be an experiment, a thought experiment, an bit of mathematics from another theory that conflicts, any specific test designed to kill the new theory.

If the theory survives such a test, it is automatically a theory of science, then and there. It will never be proven. It will always remain a theory, until some test DOES come along that destroys the theory.

The 'greenhouse gas' model fails the internal consistency check. The phrase 'global warming' is not defined. To describe a change, you must have a starting and ending time, and you must have something that is measurable. No times are specified and justified, and no measurement of global temperature is possible. The model is based on a void argument fallacy stemming from a buzzword fallacy.

The 'greenhouse gas' model also fails the external consistency check. It is in conflict with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't destroy energy into nothing.
* You can't make heat flow 'backwards', that is, from cold to hot. CO2 is in the atmosphere. It is colder than the land beneath it. It cannot warm that land, no matter how you try.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase the temperature of Earth at the same time.

The magick frequencies of light coming in or going out are irrelevant. Energy is energy. Frequency is not a term in any of these equations.

The magick trapping of heat is not possible. Heat is not contained in anything. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself. You cannot trap thermal energy either. There is always heat.

Assuming a box made of a perfect thermal insulation, the inside of that box will be an unchanging temperature regardless of what happens outside it. It is a temperature above absolute zero, so it is radiating light just as any mass does. That light however is simply absorbed again by the contents of the box. Temperature does not change. The Magick Blanket argument of CO2 doesn't work.

To warm the Earth, you need ADDITIONAL energy than what the Sun is putting out and being absorbed by the Earth. The only way to do that is to change the output of the Sun, or change the distance between the Earth and the Sun. It is not possible to trap thermal energy.

Some energy from the Sun is converted into plant life, higher energy molecular bonds, etc. This is potential energy. It has no temperature. Thermal energy is a type of kinetic energy.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is:
radiance = constant *emissivity * temperature ^ 4, where:
* radiance is in watts per square meter,
* constant is the Boltzmann constant, a constant of nature, that essentially converts the equation to our units of measurement.
* emissivity is a measured constant describing the reflectivity of the surface, from 0 (ideally black) to 100% (ideally white). Earth is somewhere in between. Emissivity of the Earth is unknown can can't be measured.
* temperature is in degrees Kelvin.

This equation describes all blackbody radiance, which is solely dependent on temperature (everything else is a constant). It contains no term for frequency, since ALL frequencies are combined for this equation. It can be generated by integrating Planck's law across all frequencies.

By claiming that CO2 traps energy, that means necessarily that the radiance of Earth is reduced. At the same time, temperature is claimed to be increasing. That is not possible because of this equation.

Light can be generated without the use of blackbody radiance. Blackbody radiance is only one way to produce light. It describes the way thermal energy produces light. Thermal energy is measured as temperature. It is not heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.

You asked why I am making the argument I am making. These are the reasons why.

keepit wrote:
Anyway, that's quite a resume, i'm impressed.

Thank you. At least you don't outright deny these credentials like so many here do.
keepit wrote:
Still, i think you're misinterpreting the Stephan Boltzman law and both the 1st and 2 law of thermodynamics.

No, there is nothing to interpret. The equations are what they are. They apply always, everywhere, all the time, in all locations.
keepit wrote:
Would you mind taking, one at a time per post, the things you don't agree with.
Yes I would. I can explain everything in one post such as I have done here. I do not condone cluttering up the forum with multiple posts like this. These topics are related. Separating them out is just clutter.
keepit wrote:
Thank you.

You're quite welcome. I hope it helped you to understand my position. This is also the position of IBdaMann and gfm7175 to a great extent. The math, the logic, and these theories do not change. We all make the same arguments because they are describing the same theories, math, and logic.

Each of us also tend to agree on the philosophies of Karl Popper, which define 'science' and to a certain extent 'religion', and on my philosophies of the definition of 'religion'. We do have a few minor differences on my philosophies concerning refinements of those of Karl Popper.

The reason we all sound alike to a certain extent is because we are arguing the same thing from the same sources. We are each three different people. I live in Seattle, gam7175 lives in Wisconsin somewhere, and I believe IBdaMann might be in Virginia (could be wrong about that).


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-05-2019 04:41
29-05-2019 04:52
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Maybe i should have said you have misapplied the SB law, the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I didn't hear your answer about americans on the moon and more than 6000 years of past.
RE: economics29-05-2019 04:57
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
I haven't yet understood why the upper atmosphere is cooler while the lower atmosphere is warmer.
Could it be that the CO2 slows the progress of heat upward and during that delay the upper atmosphere just cools off because there hasn't been as much additional heat added to the upper atmosphere.
29-05-2019 05:00
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Parrot, i don't understand how you have so much to say about global warming that i don't understand. I'm pretty sure i couldn't talk that much that quickly about climate change. I once new a guy that could sit and sing lyrics he made up as he sang along. His lyrics were as good as bob dylan but he never turned professional.
29-05-2019 05:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
A couple of quick questions;
Do you think the americans landed on the moon.

Yes. Man landed on the Moon. I was alive during that time, and I am familiar with the spacecraft and its construction that made it possible. An absolutely astounding achievement that involved launching, from a spinning Earth, at a time when the Moon wasn't above the horizon, aiming for where the Moon would be in three day's time, and after a journey of 240,000 miles, landing to within feet of it's target point.

Grumman, who made the lunar lander, went on to manufacture several small aircraft with very clean designs. I flew one once. A wonderful aircraft, speedy and fast, but you had to pay attention to it!

The Saturn V rocket was the largest rocket ever built; a magnificent vehicle. Two of them still survive to this day. One is on display at Houston Center (it's lying on its side in sections), and the other is at Cape Canaveral in Florida similarly on display. The computer system on board both the command module and the lunar module had less computing power than most pocket calculators today.

Today's computer technology, teflon plastic, and several important components we use today in telecommunications were developed out of the Apollo program.

keepit wrote:
Do you think there is a past beyond 6000 years.

Certainly. There is no reason to believe that the entirety of the universe is a mere 6000 years old.

Questions like this have no basis in science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. It cannot describe when the universe came into being, or even IF it came into being (it's quote possible to have no beginning, it's always been, and always will be). Similarly, it cannot describe the age of the Earth itself. We don't know how old the Earth is, neither can we know.

There are two competing religions concerning the universe itself. One is the Church of the Big Bang. This is one that often taught as 'science' by some. This nonscientific theory describes a universe that began from a single point, expanding outward to it's present 'size' today. (The universe has no 'size' that we know of. We can only see so far into the universe, and we have no idea if it has a boundary, or none at all.) The theory of the Big Bang means there was a beginning, and therefore there must be an end. How this will happen is by a wide variety of speculations, each stemming from original theory of the Big Bang. The theory is circular in nature. It is not falsifiable. It has arguments extending from the original theory as a consequence. It is a religion.

The other is known as the Theory of Eternity or the Theory of Continuance. It simply describes a universe that has no beginning, and therefore no end. It has always been, and shall always be. Again, this theory is not falsifiable. It is not science. It is a religion.

However, one of these theories must be false. Which one? We have no idea. These theories conflict with each other. Only one can possibly be True, leaving all others False. They might BOTH be False. We simply don't know. We can't go back in time to look.
keepit wrote:
I'm a Christian by the way.

So am I. So is gfm7175. You will find that IBdaMann is not.

According to the Bible, we began marking time not from when the Earth was created, but from the moment of The Fall. The moment that Adam and Eve were forced out of Eden and into the world we know today.

Before that time, time didn't really mean much. We have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden. We have no idea how long it took to create the Earth either. The Bible uses the word 'day', but that is a translation from Hebrew, where 'day' can mean any period of any length, not just the solar day. Indeed, the first 'day', there WAS no solar day! Speculations that the Earth is 6000 years old stem from taking a translation from another language too literally (words might translate, but idioms do not), and assuming a wrong zero mark in time.

Did creation happen? Yes, I believe it did. The Theory of Creation certainly makes more sense than the Theory of Abiogenesis, which states that life arrived on Earth through accidents of random chemistry. Neither theory is science. Both remain circular arguments. Both have extending arguments from them. Both are religions. Thus, my statement that I believe it did stems strictly from faith, just as my belief in Christ and God do.

I cannot prove any of it. I do not need to. My own belief is sufficient for me. This belief makes the most sense to me.

Science need not abandon Christianity or even be atheist in nature. Science is instead agnostic in nature. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of any god or gods, nor can it. It simply doesn't go there. Theories of science MUST be falsifiable.

I subscribe to the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Continuance. The Theory of Creation simply states that life arrived on Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence (note it does not require a god. For all we know, we could be the results of a horrible lab accident, and they dumped it on Earth to get rid of it.

However, I believe that intelligence to be God. Again, an argument of faith.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 05:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Parrot -
It's true that i've listened to a lot more scientists than i've spoken to but i've listened to a lot of them.

I doubt that. All you've listened to are climate 'scientists'. They deny science, just as you do. They are not scientists.
keepit wrote:
I'm just an amateur scientist.

I don't believe you. You are denying several important theories of science.
keepit wrote:
I would bet you aren't a scientist but maybe you are. Tell me about it.

Makes no difference. I do not base my arguments on my credentials. I base my arguments on theories of science that you are ignoring. Credentials, you see, don't really mean much on blind forums such as this one. There is no way for anyone to prove they have them. However, if you are curious, I am a scientist. I am also an engineer, a business owner, a philosopher, an etymologist, an aircraft designer and builder, a certified aircraft mechanic, an amateur radio operator, a commercial radiotelegraph operator with radar endorsements, an instrument rated pilot, a musician, a computer programmer, a sailor, a rigger, an electrician, a plumber, a carpenter including both rough work and cabinetry, a rancher, and a husband and father. I live in the Seattle area. There. You know the same about me as others here on the forum. None of my arguments depend on any of these. You can choose to believe my credentials if you want or not. It makes no difference.

Science isn't scientists. It is not any university, study, government agency, society, or academy. It isn't even people at all.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. Among these theories, which you are currently denying, are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot just discard these theories on a whim, not even to satisfy your belief in the Church of Global Warming.


Should have included psychologist in your impressive resume, since you claim qualified to diagnose mental disorders, and prescribe treatment, as part of your arguments...

I am not a psychologist. I consider psychology quackery. It does not use falsifiable theories as it's base. I have not diagnosed a single 'mental disorder' or prescribed any treatment for anyone. Indeed, I blame psychoquacks that prescribe mind altering drugs to be a large contributing factor in mass shootings at schools.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've never really sat down and thought out all the things I've done, can do.

Try it sometime. You might be impressed with what you've done so far!
HarveyH55 wrote:
I just learn what I need, to get a job done.

Incentive like that is hard to beat.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've really never seen a need to hire out jobs, where I'm just as capable of learning, and performing the same work.

There's a certain pride in performing your own work, and not having to hire out to get that work done.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'll admit that most of my work isn't pretty, some might not hold up to local codes, but all are fully functional, and have lasted.

Part of the learning process. It's how any skill is developed. Yes, I am also a teacher.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Had a few failures on the first attempt, for things I've never done before, but usually get it right the second time around, as I learned what fail, and knew what was needed to avoid it.

We've all been there. You should've seen my first welds! Bubble gum would have been more sturdy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Usually, it was trying to get by with parts or materials on hand, rather than buying anything, I'm cheap...

Heh. Join the club!
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, actually, I just get a kick out of free repairs, where most people spend hundreds, even thousands.

Another benefit of that club!
HarveyH55 wrote:
I also tend to believe that things that fail, can be improved, so they are less likely to fail again.

And this right here is the basis of that thing called capitalism. Take the way something is, and improve it. In this way wealth is created out of nothing. Capitalism is the only economic system that can do this.

Having the guts to learn a new skill. I salute you for that!


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 05:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Maybe i should have said you have misapplied the SB law, the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I didn't hear your answer about americans on the moon and more than 6000 years of past.


Answered the question about the Moon shot and the age of the Earth and the universe. We crossed posted.

There is no misapplying these theories of science. They operate everywhere. The operate all the time. The equations describe what they describe. There are no exceptions to what they describe.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 06:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
I haven't yet understood why the upper atmosphere is cooler while the lower atmosphere is warmer.
Could it be that the CO2 slows the progress of heat upward and during that delay the upper atmosphere just cools off because there hasn't been as much additional heat added to the upper atmosphere.

No. This would mean CO2 is reducing entropy in a system (the Earth's atmosphere). That is not possible. Entropy must always increase or stay the same in any system.

The vertical profile of the atmosphere is rather an interesting one:


The surface absorbs most of the energy from the Sun. It is denser than the atmosphere and contains more absorbing surface area (which also allows it to radiate better than the atmosphere).

Moving upwards from the surface, temperature decreases with altitude, but only up to a certain point. Incoming light other than infrared light (which is what heats the surface) is affecting the atmosphere. I am referring to UV light, which is split into three bands, UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C, with UV-C being the highest frequency.

As UV light enters the atmosphere, some of it is absorbed. The higher the frequency, the less it penetrates into the atmosphere. This is because the atmosphere thickens as you descend through it.

Most of the UV-A light reaches the surface. These are the so-called 'tanning' rays.
Less UV-B light reaches the surface. These are the so-called 'burning' rays.
Very little UV-C reaches the surface. These are extremely destructive frequencies of light, quite dangerous to us in higher intensity.

Oxygen (O2) absorbs UV-B light. This breaks apart the oxygen and reforms it into O3, or ozone, a higher energy bond. This is what produces the ozone layer. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. This production of ozone is what absorbs much of the UV-B light.

Producing ozone is an endothermic reaction. The air around the reaction is cooled by the reaction. This takes place at around 35000 to 65000 feet (10-20km on this chart), and produces that part of the atmosphere we call the tropopause (the red label. The black label is a typo and is wrong).

Near the top of the stratosphere, UV-C light is breaking down ozone back into oxygen. This is an exothermic reaction that also heats the air. Thus, through the stratosphere, increasing breakdown is overpowering the creation of ozone, and the temperature RISES with altitude in the stratosphere. This action absorbs UV-C light, which is why so little of it reaches the surface (thankfully!).

Above this point temperature begins to fall with altitude again through the mesosphere.
At some point, however, the air is getting so thin that the solar wind is heating what's left of the atmosphere. Temperatures begin to climb with altitude again. This is the thermosphere. From there, the atmosphere just fades into space. Yeah, temperatures are nice and high here, but there is so little air left that it doesn't feel warm to you. It's almost the vacuum of space.

Most planets have temperature inversions like this for one reason or another. However, though the temperature may be increasing, the total energy is DECREASING. That's because the air is thinning, and the total thermal energy per given volume is decreasing as a result.

CO2 doesn't slow or trap thermal energy. Radiance is at the speed of light, whether that radiance is from the surface or from any CO2 that happens to be in the atmosphere. Yes, the atmosphere radiates energy too. The oxygen, the nitrogen, the CO2, all of it is radiating energy just like the surface does.

If you looked at Earth in infrared, you would see a bright surface (intense light), and a thin 'fog' of infrared light from the atmosphere, becoming thinner as the atmosphere thins with altitude.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 06:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Parrot, i don't understand how you have so much to say about global warming that i don't understand. I'm pretty sure i couldn't talk that much that quickly about climate change. I once new a guy that could sit and sing lyrics he made up as he sang along. His lyrics were as good as bob dylan but he never turned professional.


Heh. I've seen some very talented musicians that never turned professional. Usually it doesn't pay well. Even Bob Dylan took a long while to achieve the fame (and money coming in) that he did. It's a long, hard, road, the entertainment business.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 06:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1230)
Thanks ITN for everything today. VERY well detailed and explained. I am actually printing these pages for future "quick" reference. Although my knowledge is just scratching the surface, I learned more today than I can remember.
Much appreciated by me anyway.


This statement of yours helps you meet your obligation to bash Trump and stick your tongue up Obama's netherpipe in one efficient sentence. Well done.

~IBdaMann~
Edited on 29-05-2019 06:38
29-05-2019 06:53
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
That was a very impressive discussion of atmospheric phenomena.
But how can you be so off on climate change when you know so much other stuff?
29-05-2019 07:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
keepit wrote:
That was a very impressive discussion of atmospheric phenomena.
But how can you be so off on climate change when you know so much other stuff?


Democrats like you resort to insults when they run out of arguments. Get lost.
Edited on 29-05-2019 07:30
29-05-2019 07:35
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Mr. Chen,
So many insults on this website.
I'm neither a repub nor a dem. I agree with some positions from each party.
It makes it hard greatly agree with anyone about politics because my various political beliefs don't totally match with dems or repubs. People are very tribalistic nowadays about politics.
29-05-2019 07:43
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Radiation proceeds at the speed of light until it hits a CO2 molecule but then the kinetic energy in that CO2 molecule doesn't move around that fast. That says something about the heat trapping of infrared.
29-05-2019 07:47
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
I meant to add that much of the infrared that hits the CO2 is turned into kinetic energy.
True, some of CO2's new energy does radiate but much of it becomes kinetic, hence the increase in temp of the earth and the oceans.
29-05-2019 07:53
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Entropy generally increases but locally, and temporarily can stay the same or even increase.
This comment is not to mean that i agree with your interpretation of SB law or 1st and 2nd thermodynamics.
29-05-2019 07:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Thanks ITN for everything today. VERY well detailed and explained. I am actually printing these pages for future "quick" reference. Although my knowledge is just scratching the surface, I learned more today than I can remember.
Much appreciated by me anyway.


*humble bow*

You are welcome to use them as reference material.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 08:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
That was a very impressive discussion of atmospheric phenomena.
But how can you be so off on climate change when you know so much other stuff?

I'm not. The 'greenhouse gas' model doesn't work. The very phrase 'climate change' has no meaning. Climate itself is a subjective thing, not quantifiable. To describe a 'change' is not possible. Secondly, there is no such thing as a global climate.

Climate is usually defined something similar to weather over a long time.

A 'long time' is not specified. Hours? Days? Weeks? Years? Centuries?

There is no such thing as a global weather.

Thus, 'climate change' is a meaningless buzzword.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 08:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
keepit wrote:
That was a very impressive discussion of atmospheric phenomena.
But how can you be so off on climate change when you know so much other stuff?


Democrats like you resort to insults when they run out of arguments. Get lost.


He actually has stopped insulting. He is asking questions. Give him a break.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 08:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Mr. Chen,
So many insults on this website.
I'm neither a repub nor a dem. I agree with some positions from each party.
It makes it hard greatly agree with anyone about politics because my various political beliefs don't totally match with dems or repubs. People are very tribalistic nowadays about politics.


They certainly can be!

I myself am a strong conservative, almost libertarian. I believe government should return to the Constitution. The further it deviates from it, the further strife increases.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 08:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Radiation proceeds at the speed of light until it hits a CO2 molecule but then the kinetic energy in that CO2 molecule doesn't move around that fast. That says something about the heat trapping of infrared.


Not quite. It might seem that way, but it isn't.

Light emitted from the surface is primary infrared, but it's a wide range of infrared. CO2 only responds to a narrow range of infrared frequencies.

Photons emitted by the surface cool the surface. It takes energy to emit photons.

If CO2 happens to absorb one, it does make the CO2 warmer, that that in turn increases the energy it will release. This is in keeping with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

When a photon is absorbed, it is utterly destroyed. The energy it contains goes into the molecule that absorbed it. Absorption of infrared light causes an increase in thermal energy. The CO2 becomes slightly warmer.

Anything above absolute zero emits photons. This is again in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The intensity increases with higher temperatures, as well as more energetic photons are emitted. Not all photons are equal. The total power emitted is greater with higher temperatures, regardless of what substance is emitting the photon. It doesn't matter if it's CO2, oxygen, dirt, seawater, anything. They all respond exactly the same way.

So CO2 doesn't even act as a way station, slowing down light. Absorbed photons are destroyed. What is emitted is a NEW photon, and these are being emitted even as one is being absorbed.

It is not possible to trap or slow heat.

Heat itself is often a bit misunderstood. It is not energy. It is the flow of energy. Like a current in a river, it is not the water itself, but the movement of the water.

If you dam a river, current is reduced, but it does not slow. If you completely block a river, then current is zero, it is not slowed. What you have at that point is a stagnant lake. The water is slower, but the current is not.

Heat is the same way. You can reduce heat, but you can't store it, trap it, slow it, or any thing else. You can only reduce it or increase it. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

As with a river, you can't stop it forever. Sooner or later, the river will find a way around the blockage. It WILL continue to flow, and you can't stop it.

Thermal energy is the same way. There is no such thing as a perfect thermal insulator. There is always heat. Thermal energy is always flowing. You can't stop it. Thus, you can't store it.

If there is a greater difference of temperature between the two regions of thermal energy, the greater the flow is going to be. Just like a river flowing down a steep ravine rather than meandering across flat country.

As long as there is a difference of thermal energy (like a difference in height between a water source and a drain), and a coupling between the two regions (like a path for the river), there will be heat (just like there will be current).

Heat can take the form of conductive heating, where energy transfers from molecule to molecule, convective heating, where molecules are dissipating from each other and dispersing energy by doing so, or by radiance, which is conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again. Electromagnetic energy (light) is only heat if its absorption by something causes a temperature increase.

Space isn't completely empty. There are molecules found even in the deepest space. Sooner or later, light will strike one of these molecules and be absorbed. Very rarely does light go on forever unabsorbed.

Thus, Earth can actually heat the space around it.

No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. This theory comes from quantum physics. If such a photon arrives at such a molecule, the photon is NOT absorbed, and the molecule behaves as if it were transparent. The photon just goes right on by.

This is why you can't heat something with a colder substance. Heat can only flow from hot to cold. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action. Entropy is increasing. Entropy is the randomness of the system, in this case, energy.

It is the 2nd law of thermodynamics that essentially defines heat and gives it a direction.

Unfortunately, the 'greenhouse gas' model uses colder CO2 to warm an already warmer surface. It tries to make heat flow backwards...'up hill' so to speak. That's like making a river flow up the mountain. It's not possible without putting in energy from outside the system (thus changing the system).

In the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the system must be closed; that is, you cannot consider any energy source from outside the system or any energy sink from outside the system. They may exist, but you cannot consider any of their effects. To do so would change the system you are using.

Thus, a refrigerator, which seems to reduce entropy, doesn't work unless you plug it in. Left without a power supply, the refrigerator will equalize temperatures, increasing entropy, until the inside is the same temperature as the room it's sitting in.

Once you plug it in, you MUST the consider the power supply itself. That power plant is also increasing entropy, but some of that is used to make the refrigerator colder. The total entropy is therefore still increasing. There is no such thing as a 'local' entropy, since that again means changing the system, which you cannot do. The system MUST be consistent.

If a model, such as the 'greenhouse gas' model, is in conflict with a SINGLE theory of science, it fails the external consistency check and that destroys the theory. This model conflicts with THREE theories of science. Yes, they DO support each other, but they ARE three different theories of science.

The 'greenhouse gas' model argument generally takes one of two forms (sometimes switching in the middle!). One I call the Magick Blanket argument, where CO2 is considered to be some kind of magick thermal insulation, blocking radiant heating, and the other I call the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, in which photons keep bouncing back and forth between the surface and the CO2 forever, increasing in number and intensity simply by bouncing around.

Neither can work. CO2 is not a thermal insulator (indeed, it conducts thermal energy better than most atmospheric gases!), and it is not a one-way mirror that can somehow heat the surface using colder CO2.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 08:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
I meant to add that much of the infrared that hits the CO2 is turned into kinetic energy.
True, some of CO2's new energy does radiate but much of it becomes kinetic, hence the increase in temp of the earth and the oceans.


Gaseous CO2 is not in the oceans.

Higher temperature CO2 will conduct that thermal energy to nearby molecules, and will also radiate photons of its own.

BTW, infrared light from the Sun heats ocean water. This is why surface temperatures at sea tend to be higher near the equator. Like hot air that rises, hot water rises too. The warmer water stays near the surface and does not mix.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 08:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Entropy generally increases but locally, and temporarily can stay the same or even increase.
This comment is not to mean that i agree with your interpretation of SB law or 1st and 2nd thermodynamics.


There is no such thing as 'local' entropy. Whenever this argument appears, it means someone is comparing two dissimilar systems as if they were the same system. That's a false equivalence.

I know you don't agree with any of these three laws, yet they ARE theories of science. You can't just discard them. There is no 'interpretation' of them. They are math equations. That's like saying you can 'interpret' y=mx+b.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 12:46
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Radiation proceeds at the speed of light until it hits a CO2 molecule but then the kinetic energy in that CO2 molecule doesn't move around that fast. That says something about the heat trapping of infrared.


Not quite. It might seem that way, but it isn't.

Light emitted from the surface is primary infrared, but it's a wide range of infrared. CO2 only responds to a narrow range of infrared frequencies.

Photons emitted by the surface cool the surface. It takes energy to emit photons.

If CO2 happens to absorb one, it does make the CO2 warmer, that that in turn increases the energy it will release. This is in keeping with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

When a photon is absorbed, it is utterly destroyed. The energy it contains goes into the molecule that absorbed it. Absorption of infrared light causes an increase in thermal energy. The CO2 becomes slightly warmer.

Anything above absolute zero emits photons. This is again in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The intensity increases with higher temperatures, as well as more energetic photons are emitted. Not all photons are equal. The total power emitted is greater with higher temperatures, regardless of what substance is emitting the photon. It doesn't matter if it's CO2, oxygen, dirt, seawater, anything. They all respond exactly the same way.

So CO2 doesn't even act as a way station, slowing down light. Absorbed photons are destroyed. What is emitted is a NEW photon, and these are being emitted even as one is being absorbed.

It is not possible to trap or slow heat.

Heat itself is often a bit misunderstood. It is not energy. It is the flow of energy. Like a current in a river, it is not the water itself, but the movement of the water.

If you dam a river, current is reduced, but it does not slow. If you completely block a river, then current is zero, it is not slowed. What you have at that point is a stagnant lake. The water is slower, but the current is not.

Heat is the same way. You can reduce heat, but you can't store it, trap it, slow it, or any thing else. You can only reduce it or increase it. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

As with a river, you can't stop it forever. Sooner or later, the river will find a way around the blockage. It WILL continue to flow, and you can't stop it.

Thermal energy is the same way. There is no such thing as a perfect thermal insulator. There is always heat. Thermal energy is always flowing. You can't stop it. Thus, you can't store it.

If there is a greater difference of temperature between the two regions of thermal energy, the greater the flow is going to be. Just like a river flowing down a steep ravine rather than meandering across flat country.

As long as there is a difference of thermal energy (like a difference in height between a water source and a drain), and a coupling between the two regions (like a path for the river), there will be heat (just like there will be current).

Heat can take the form of conductive heating, where energy transfers from molecule to molecule, convective heating, where molecules are dissipating from each other and dispersing energy by doing so, or by radiance, which is conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again. Electromagnetic energy (light) is only heat if its absorption by something causes a temperature increase.

Space isn't completely empty. There are molecules found even in the deepest space. Sooner or later, light will strike one of these molecules and be absorbed. Very rarely does light go on forever unabsorbed.

Thus, Earth can actually heat the space around it.

No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. This theory comes from quantum physics. If such a photon arrives at such a molecule, the photon is NOT absorbed, and the molecule behaves as if it were transparent. The photon just goes right on by.

This is why you can't heat something with a colder substance. Heat can only flow from hot to cold. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action. Entropy is increasing. Entropy is the randomness of the system, in this case, energy.

It is the 2nd law of thermodynamics that essentially defines heat and gives it a direction.

Unfortunately, the 'greenhouse gas' model uses colder CO2 to warm an already warmer surface. It tries to make heat flow backwards...'up hill' so to speak. That's like making a river flow up the mountain. It's not possible without putting in energy from outside the system (thus changing the system).

In the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the system must be closed; that is, you cannot consider any energy source from outside the system or any energy sink from outside the system. They may exist, but you cannot consider any of their effects. To do so would change the system you are using.

Thus, a refrigerator, which seems to reduce entropy, doesn't work unless you plug it in. Left without a power supply, the refrigerator will equalize temperatures, increasing entropy, until the inside is the same temperature as the room it's sitting in.

Once you plug it in, you MUST the consider the power supply itself. That power plant is also increasing entropy, but some of that is used to make the refrigerator colder. The total entropy is therefore still increasing. There is no such thing as a 'local' entropy, since that again means changing the system, which you cannot do. The system MUST be consistent.

If a model, such as the 'greenhouse gas' model, is in conflict with a SINGLE theory of science, it fails the external consistency check and that destroys the theory. This model conflicts with THREE theories of science. Yes, they DO support each other, but they ARE three different theories of science.

The 'greenhouse gas' model argument generally takes one of two forms (sometimes switching in the middle!). One I call the Magick Blanket argument, where CO2 is considered to be some kind of magick thermal insulation, blocking radiant heating, and the other I call the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, in which photons keep bouncing back and forth between the surface and the CO2 forever, increasing in number and intensity simply by bouncing around.

Neither can work. CO2 is not a thermal insulator (indeed, it conducts thermal energy better than most atmospheric gases!), and it is not a one-way mirror that can somehow heat the surface using colder CO2.


This is right. People used to think heavier things fall faster than lighter things until Galileo proved it wrong. Intuition isn't always correct. In fact, often it's wrong.
29-05-2019 15:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
keepit wrote: I'm not familiar with the church of global warming.

You are a tenor in the choir.

keepit wrote: Still, i think you're misinterpreting the Stephan Boltzman law and both the 1st and 2 law of thermodynamics.

He expressed them very well. If you understand them differently then you misunderstand them.

keepit wrote: Would you mind taking, one at a time per post, the things you don't agree with.

You are the one who is clueless on science yet who laughingly refers to himself as a scientist.

You need to pick something and ask about it ... which necessarily entails facing your denial and admitting that you aren't the f-ing science genius you claim to be. Ask your questions and take notes on what you are told.

keepit wrote: A couple of quick questions;
Do you think the americans landed on the moon.

Yes, all of us. We landed on the dark side so as to be inconspicuous about it.

keepit wrote: Do you think there is a past beyond 6000 years.

Question for you: Do you believe there was a past before February 21, 1848?



keepit wrote: I'm a Christian by the way.

Officially, no, you are not. You can't be. Official Christian dogma prohibits having any other gods beside God. You worship Global Warming, Climate, Greenhouse Effect and the angels of Forcings and Feedbacks.

You must abandon your other deities before you can be a Christian. I'm sorry but I didn't make the rules.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-05-2019 15:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
keepit wrote: That was a very impressive discussion of atmospheric phenomena. But how can you be so off on climate change when you know so much other stuff?

That's your abject denial speaking.

It must be terrifying to learn that everything you believe about the world is all a pack of lies ... from Marxists you trusted who abused your trust just to manipulate you for their agenda. You had to have known what to expect when listening to Marxists. They are intellectually dishonest, all of them.

After all, they got you to abandon your Christianity for a WACKY religion and you made it easy for them. Apparently all they had to do was to tell you that their religion is "not a religion" and that it is actually "settled science." You fell for it. That really is nobody else's fault. Own it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-05-2019 19:34
keepit
★★☆☆☆
(219)
Well, i've been looking at this website for a couple of days and i've learned some science from some impressive people. Thanks for that.
I'm still a global warming believer though.
Aside from that, i've endured more insults, false accusations, and vitriol than i've endured in my entire life. Totally uncalled for.
I'm going elsewhere to learn my science.
Adios amigos
29-05-2019 20:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
keepit wrote:
Well, i've been looking at this website for a couple of days and i've learned some science from some impressive people. Thanks for that.
I'm still a global warming believer though.
Aside from that, i've endured more insults, false accusations, and vitriol than i've endured in my entire life. Totally uncalled for.
I'm going elsewhere to learn my science.
Adios amigos


To be a global warming believer, you must deny science. You must deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I've shown you what these theories are and why they don't allow for the 'greenhouse gas' model to work.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion that stems from the Church of Karl Marx. As IBdaMann quite correctly pointed out, these religions are in conflict with Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ and God.

These are not accusations. These are not insults. These are not vitriol.

If you consider this more than you can stand, then I submit your faith in Christianity is itself weak. Many people detest Christianity. To believe in it draws some truly nasty vitriol and hatred.

Shutting down economies to solve a fear that is unfounded is likewise going to draw a lot of ire from those you wish to control. If you want to continue down that line of thinking, get used to it.

Running to a kiddie pool forum is not going to make this go away. If you think it will, you have a rude awakening in your future.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate economic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
economic1604-06-2019 19:11
A new Stanford study shows the economic cost of climate change is more global inequality024-04-2019 03:05
In California, Rising Seas Pose a Bigger Economic Threat Than Wildfires, Quakes027-03-2019 17:50
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ 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