Global warming is not anthropogenic

tmiddles wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:...all those frequencies of UV that can be absorbed by atmospheric gases are absorbed before they reach the Troposphere. The Troposphere ...is heated entirely by conduction from the surface because it is transparent to all UV reaching it.

That seems to describe the entire radiance from the Sun as being UV. Here:

it shows, in yellow, the atmospheric absorption and plenty of it is in the infrared. The divots left by H2O and CO2 absorption are visible. So this is absorption, in the Troposphere of inbound Solar radiance is it not?
If so then I would think "heated entirely by conduction from the surface" is not the case.

Pete Rogers. Thanks for that, it is new to me. There is something odd though. I think it is fair to say that everyone; including the proponents of a potent GE: accept that only a small % of IR is intercepted by GG's and that with this exception all the gases in the Atmoshere are transparent to all but these few frequencies. As far as the IR radiating from the surface is concerned all that is capable of absorption is absorbed close to the ground, incidentally. Here is some evidence for this.

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

Pete Rogers. The problem with your diagram for me is that it seems to depend upon and argue for wholesale absorption of IR coming in. I'm going to ask you what you think of this inconsistency if you wouldn't mind because the science behind this diagram seems to conflict with everything so far put forward by both sides of the debate. Here is the relevant science I have been using so far.

https://whyclimatechanges.com/HeatingAir.pdf

Surely it must be the case that only insofar as the IR coming in is of a frequency that can be absorbed will it be absorbed, and that should be limited to the same frquencies we know about that get absorbed going out; a tiny part of the spectrum only in other words: and the absorption of that incoming should take place in the upper atmosphere if Clive Best is scientifically correct about the outgoing.

To put it another way - if mass absorption of IR takes place on the way in, then mass absorption of IR would have to occur on the way out wouldn't you agree, whereas all detection, including from Satellites shows this not to be the case. Please let me know what you think.

Pete Rogers wrote:...the Atmosphere is bounded by vacuum,...is therefore adiabatic

Radiant heat is emitted into space. All of the planets reach thermal equilibrium with the sun by losing energy to space by radiance. On Venus this excludes the surface as an emitter to space and on Earth only a fraction of the ground/water level's radiance makes it directly to space. So the gas atmosphere radiates out into space. I don't see how it's different than the gas cylinder. Also you seemed to describe the pressurized gas cylinder as having energy it needed to lose. It didn't. It was at room temperature already, or maybe even colder. If dry ice is in a sealed tube and warms to room temperature the pressure goes way up but not the temperature.

Pete Rogers. My understanding is that every Planet - including Venus and Earth radiates pretty much all the IR produced by the planet out to space from the planetary surface because - with that small GG exception the Atmosphere is transparent to IR. If you think there is more than this to consider please clarify.

Pete Rogers wrote:...only the Sun and Gravity...are the sources [of energy]

I'm sort of thinking of Gravity as a rubber band in this. The Sun's energy can be transferred to gravity, just as you'd stretch out a rubber band. I really don't understand at this point though how this all works. It's very interesting though.

Pete Rogers. Perhaps my message to IBdaMann where I point out that the compressibility of the Atmosphere causes Gravity to perform negative work, thus converting its Force into enhanced temperature. I haven't thought it fully through, but I think an illustrative analogy might be a river where gravity has the comparitive effect of narrowing the width so the energy per unit volume is increased and the river gets faster. I hope all this helps - let me know what you think

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

Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise. Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE leaving nothing for the GE to account for so CO2 is of no consequence, including our 3% of it.

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Please examine the following proof for soundness and feel free to dismantle it if possible. Letme begin by saying that there is no empirical proof that the Greenhouse Effect (GE) has a thermal consequence though both sides agree that the presence of the atmosphere raises the planetary temperature of Earth by at least 33C which amount is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE). The IPCC say the ATE proves the thermal potency of the GE since there can be no other explanation for it. If the IPCC were right to say this it would not be unreasonable of them to claim this circumstantial evidence as proof of their position. The problem is that there is indeed a much better explanation for the ATE and here it is. Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise. Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE leaving nothing for the GE to account for so CO2 is of no consequence, including our 3% of it. Since the 33C ATE is more or less constant it means that all temperature ups and downs over history are the result of variations in net insolation due to the interplay between alterations in solar output, the Milankovic Cycles and Albedo effects.

So you're saying that at 285 ppm CO2, we had a global annual temperature of 287 kelvins, right? And now with 400+ ppm, the global average temperature is now 287.9 kelvins.
As far as the Milankovic Cycles go, I think he got the basic idea right but the details wrong. And I think science is a long way off in understanding what they're missing. Basically scientists can't explain the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

@IBDM, Einstein showed that light bends when moving past a dense astral body like a brown dwarf. Even in looking at his actual notes and he scribbled it on a piece of paper, it's in a museum in NYC, he didn't know which was the change in course. Some scientists have said that when light bent, it moved away from the Sun while you'd expect gravity to have light seem to move closer to it.
Of course this gets back into if there is dark matter and it's denser closer to the Sun so a photon lacking such density reacts to the aether (what Einstein called it) as light moves past the Sun. Einstein's calculations and theory where proven around 1927, about 20 years after he first wrote his paper. Enjoy

DRKTS wrote: You have been listening to nonsense about planetary temperatures and their atmospheric pressures by Steven Goddard (or is it Tony Heller today?) or one of his disciples of deception. They are tricking you.

The act of compressing a gas heats because you are doing work on it. The amount of work you do (i.e., the more you pump) translates directly to the temperature increase. Stop pumping and it soon cools back down to ambient temperatures.

DRKTS wrote: What actually happens is the extra GHGs and aerosols change the Earth's energy balance by trapping more heat energy (IR). They act like an additional blanket. The thicker the blanket the more it warms.

DRKTS wrote: The blanket on your bed does not get hot and warm you (unless it is electric!) it just inhibits the heat loss from your body making you warmer.

DRKTS wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise. Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE leaving nothing for the GE to account for so CO2 is of no consequence, including our 3% of it.

You have been listening to nonsense about planetary temperatures and their atmospheric pressures by Steven Goddard (or is it Tony Heller today?) or one of his disciples of deception. They are tricking you.

The act of compressing a gas heats because you are doing work on it. The amount of work you do (i.e., the more you pump) translates directly to the temperature increase. Stop pumping and it soon cools back down to ambient temperatures.

Leave it at the higher pressure and it does not stay warm (otherwise your car tyres would be permanently hot).

There is no pumping action on the atmosphere. Yes, the pressure changes but as often goes down (cools) as it goes up (warms). Net effect zero.

Your 3% figure for CO2 is wrong - it more like 50%. Where you have been misled is that we add about 3% per year. As the years pass the CO2 level builds up because we are adding extra each year.

Some falsely tell you that an atmospheric gas cannot heat the planet.

DRKTS wrote:
They base their arguments on the fallacy that the heating mechanism that the gas itself become hot and the thermal capacity of the gas is too small to hold enough heat to warm the oceans and land. That is true but the fallacy comes in that this in not the heating mechanism.

DRKTS wrote:
What actually happens is the extra GHGs and aerosols change the Earth's energy balance by trapping more heat energy (IR).

DRKTS wrote:
They act like an additional blanket.

DRKTS wrote:
The thicker the blanket the more it warms.

DRKTS wrote:
The blanket on your bed does not get hot and warm you (unless it is electric!) it just inhibits the heat loss from your body making you warmer.

DRKTS wrote:
That is what the GHGs and aerosols are doing for the Earth to warm up.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers. I am indeed saying that any change in global temperature; you put it at 0.9K here: is due to changes in net insolation.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I completely agree with you that the thermal results of the interplay between the many varying factors that affect them (solar output, degree of eccentricity of our orbit, degree of obliquity of our axis, state of precession of our axis, extent of ice, snow and cloud cover (accounting for most of the Albedo Effect) etc.) are beyond our powers to predict.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I don't think we need to go any further than the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics to rule out any thermal contribution from the GE.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The extraordinary nature of gas bodies, including our atmosphere; in being compressible:

Pete Rogers wrote:
have their temperatures raised when under pressure - without exception.

Pete Rogers wrote:
This compressibility causes gravity to do the negative work of reducing volume and so increasing heat content per unit volume and therefore temperature- thus accounting for the ATE.

Into the Night wrote:

Heat is not energy. You cannot trap heat. You cannot create energy out of nothing either. Mantras 20b...20a1.
....

You can't heat something with a blanket. It will not warm a rock or a dead body.

DRKTS wrote:
There is no pumping action on the atmosphere. Yes, the pressure changes but as often goes down (cools) as it goes up (warms). Net effect zero.

DRKTS wrote:
[ITN seems] to be struggling even with the basics like what heat actually is.

tmiddles wrote:If the net mean temperature doesn't change but the lower atmosphere temp increases, balanced out by a drop in temp in the upper atmosphere there would be no change in the mean but a higher global temp as we define it anyway right?

IBdaMann wrote:
...You can't have the upper atmosphere cooling while the lower atmospehre warms....

tmiddles wrote:Doesn't a blanket result in less thermal energy on the outer side?

IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?

If an ovens heating element was at the top and you placed something in the oven then the top of the oven would get hotter and the base, beyond this obstruction, cooler.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?

If an ovens heating element was at the top and you placed something in the oven then the top of the oven would get hotter and the base, beyond this obstruction, cooler.

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Heat is not energy. You cannot trap heat. You cannot create energy out of nothing either. Mantras 20b...20a1.
....

You can't heat something with a blanket. It will not warm a rock or a dead body.

Heat is IR radiation - the formula is E = hc/wavelength

DRKTS wrote:
So heat is a form of energy

DRKTS wrote:
Indeed you cannot heat something with a blanket (unless you set it on fire!) but the presence of a blanket round a hot rock will keep it warmer for longer.

DRKTS wrote:
I don't know what you think the 1st law says but it is stated (on website site for high-school kids) "The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy [just like I said and you just denied],

DRKTS wrote:
and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy.

DRKTS wrote:
This means that heat energy

DRKTS wrote:
cannot be created or destroyed.

DRKTS wrote:
It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy."

DRKTS wrote:
The Earth is the warm rock - the atmosphere its blanket.

DRKTS wrote:
The difference is that this rock is continuously being heated by the Sun.

DRKTS wrote:
No energy is being created or destroyed,

DRKTS wrote:
merely being transported, redirected, and morphed into different forms of energy (thermal, kinetic, potential, or IR (heat)

DRKTS wrote:
at a different wavelength or direction)

DRKTS wrote:
Its so simple a HS student is supposed to be able to understand it,

DRKTS wrote:
but you seem to be struggling even with the basics like what heat actually is.

tmiddles wrote:
Well said as usual. This is a "net effect" on the atmosphere as a whole.

tmiddles wrote:
If the net mean temperature doesn't change
but the lower atmosphere temp increases,

tmiddles wrote:
balanced out by a drop in temp in the upper atmosphere there would be no change in the mean but a higher global temp as we define it anyway right? (The "global temperature" being defined as the ground level temp).

tmiddles wrote:
I'd really like to understand this better:
space.com/amp/7685-earth-upper-atmosphere-cooling-dramatically.html

tmiddles wrote:

DRKTS wrote:
[ITN seems] to be struggling even with the basics like what heat actually is.

ITN/IBD deny science textbooks at all grade levels:
...deleted Holy Quotes and spam...
They are just here to waste everyone's time.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
...You can't have the upper atmosphere cooling while the lower atmospehre warms....

Why not?

tmiddles wrote:
Doesn't a blanket result in less thermal energy on the outer side?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?

If an ovens heating element was at the top and you placed something in the oven then the top of the oven would get hotter and the base, beyond this obstruction, cooler.

James___ wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
When you turn on an oven, which parts inside get colder?

If an ovens heating element was at the top and you placed something in the oven then the top of the oven would get hotter and the base, beyond this obstruction, cooler.

You shouldn't take the bait. Convection heating is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. A body or mass interfering with the radiance of electromagnetic radiation absorbs it.
This allows for the temperature anomaly which you just described. Why play their game? As for me, I am thinking to myself I am Gul Dukat and the Obsidian Order is listening. What do I tell them?
Hopefully you understand how serious this is. The Obsidian Order will demand answers. What do I tell them?

DRKTS wrote:
What you all seem to be ignoring is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system.

DRKTS wrote:
"Heat is not a form of energy"

Scientific definitions of heat:

"a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature"

"A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid medium"

"heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter"

"energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature"

"Heat is thermal energy transferred from a hotter system to a cooler system"

Notice a common term mentioned in all these different definitions of "heat" - spoiler alert its "energy"

So into the night can turn in his credibility on all other scientific issues, if he does not even know the scientific definition of "heat"

DRKTS wrote:
"Heat is not a form of energy"

Scientific definitions of heat:

"a form of energy that is transferred by a difference in temperature"

"A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid medium"

"heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter"

"energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature"

"Heat is thermal energy transferred from a hotter system to a cooler system"

Notice a common term mentioned in all these different definitions of "heat" - spoiler alert its "energy"

So into the night can turn in his credibility on all other scientific issues, if he does not even know the scientific definition of "heat"

duncan61 wrote:
Can I have your definition of heat ITN so I can use it correctly in future

duncan61 wrote:

I am with you on this one. Putting hot beer on ice is transference of heat energy.

Into the Night wrote:
The Earth is a closed system. The Sun-Earth-space system is another closed system. The entire observable Universe is another closed system.

DRKTS wrote: The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

The definition of a "closed system" is determined by the speaker. There is no person, organization or institution that owns science. I fully realize that you believe Wikipedia owns science ... and that's why you spew error-filled crap.

When I speak/write, I use my defintion and you are welcome to translate my terms into your terms.

The earth is a closed system if the speaker frames the context as such. You probably sucked at math word problems.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

DRKTS wrote: The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

The definition of a "closed system" is determined by the speaker. There is no person, organization or institution that owns science. I fully realize that you believe Wikipedia owns science ... and that's why you spew error-filled crap.

When I speak/write, I use my defintion and you are welcome to translate my terms into your terms.

The earth is a closed system if the speaker frames the context as such. You probably sucked at math word problems.

.

DRKTS wrote:

duncan61 wrote:

I am with you on this one. Putting hot beer on ice is transference of heat energy.

I come from a family with 4 generations associated with the brewing industry. Good beer does not need to be put on ice. Manufactures do that to dull the taste buds because what they make has little or poor flavor. let your beer get to room temperature and then ask yourself is this drinkable?

In our pub, we used to serve locally brewed ales which tasted wonderful, in fact in winter we had a roaring fire in the main bar with pokers sitting in the flames so people could heat their drinks if they wanted to. Many did.

Which is, of course, another example of energy transference

duncan61 wrote:
Can I have your definition of heat ITN so I can use it correctly in future

DRKTS wrote:

duncan61 wrote:

I am with you on this one. Putting hot beer on ice is transference of heat energy.

I come from a family with 4 generations associated with the brewing industry.

DRKTS wrote:
Good beer does not need to be put on ice.

DRKTS wrote:
Manufactures do that to dull the taste buds because what they make has little or poor flavor. let your beer get to room temperature and then ask yourself is this drinkable?

DRKTS wrote:
In our pub, we used to serve locally brewed ales which tasted wonderful, in fact in winter we had a roaring fire in the main bar with pokers sitting in the flames so people could heat their drinks if they wanted to. Many did.

DRKTS wrote:
Which is, of course, another example of energy transference

DRKTS wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The Earth is a closed system. The Sun-Earth-space system is another closed system. The entire observable Universe is another closed system.

The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

DRKTS wrote:
Does the Earth have inflowing or outflowing energy or mass? (answer aid: think about sunlight, starlight, neutrinos, solar wind, cosmic rays, meteors, atmospheric loss, ....)

DRKTS wrote:
Then it is not a closed system.

DRKTS wrote:
Nor is the Sun-Earth system.

DRKTS wrote:
The Universe, by definition, is.