Google And Fake News

Jeffvw wrote:
It's true that Google has a political bias, but they also use your browsing history to predict what you are looking for. So if you have a history of clicking on a certain viewpoint, they will mainly give you results that match that viewpoint. If you have a viewpoint that is mainstream, there is almost no chance that you will be given links to opposing viewpoints.

I recently switched to duckduckgo for my searches and since they do not track anything, I get unbiased results. I used the search you suggested on duckduckgo.com and the first result was the one you were looking for.

Avoid google, unless you want their targeted ads and don't want to see any results that conflict with your predicted viewpoint.

Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

Jeffvw wrote:

Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.

I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.

I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.

Higher or lower amounts of absorption is not affected by frequency, dude.

It is affected by intensity at the absorption frequencies.

Emission is the same way. Hotter materials still emit on the same frequencies they always do, it's just more intense while any higher frequencies (if any) also begin to emit. The atoms within the molecule also emit on their own, and at many lines of spectra higher than infrared.

That's why a gas (any gas) begins to glow into the visible range when it gets hot enough.

I thought you said you understood a spectroscopy.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.

I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.

Higher or lower amounts of absorption is not affected by frequency, dude.

It is affected by intensity at the absorption frequencies.

Emission is the same way. Hotter materials still emit on the same frequencies they always do, it's just more intense while any higher frequencies (if any) also begin to emit. The atoms within the molecule also emit on their own, and at many lines of spectra higher than infrared.

That's why a gas (any gas) begins to glow into the visible range when it gets hot enough.

I thought you said you understood a spectroscopy.

Let me answer this. Your answer is partly true, but irrelevant. According to Kirchhoff's laws, luminous dense gases can produce a continuous spectrum. The CO2 we are talking about is neither dense nor luminous, but is rather cold, so it will stick to its absorption bands.

Spectral analysis shows that CO2 is emitting at a relatively constant 220 K. Here's a graph showing the modeled difference between 300 ppm and 600 ppm of CO2:

You see that the CO2 spectra is just under 220 K in both instances. The difference is on the edges where the additional molecules cause more scattering. The theoretical difference works out to about 3.39 W/m^2 or about 1.1 C at a global average temperature.

What's interesting is if you look under any conditions; clouds, deserts, the poles, this holds constant at about 220 K. The spectra that are not blocked by CO2 will reflect the ground (or cloud) temperature whether it be higher or lower than 220 K. Wake's point holds up since the additional CO2 does not increase intensity.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.

I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.

Higher or lower amounts of absorption is not affected by frequency, dude.

It is affected by intensity at the absorption frequencies.

Emission is the same way. Hotter materials still emit on the same frequencies they always do, it's just more intense while any higher frequencies (if any) also begin to emit. The atoms within the molecule also emit on their own, and at many lines of spectra higher than infrared.

That's why a gas (any gas) begins to glow into the visible range when it gets hot enough.

I thought you said you understood a spectroscopy.

Let me answer this. Your answer is partly true, but irrelevant. According to Kirchhoff's laws, luminous dense gases can produce a continuous spectrum. The CO2 we are talking about is neither dense nor luminous, but is rather cold, so it will stick to its absorption bands.

Spectral analysis shows that CO2 is emitting at a relatively constant 220 K. Here's a graph showing the modeled difference between 300 ppm and 600 ppm of CO2:

You see that the CO2 spectra is just under 220 K in both instances. The difference is on the edges where the additional molecules cause more scattering. The theoretical difference works out to about 3.39 W/m^2 or about 1.1 C at a global average temperature.

What's interesting is if you look under any conditions; clouds, deserts, the poles, this holds constant at about 220 K. The spectra that are not blocked by CO2 will reflect the ground (or cloud) temperature whether it be higher or lower than 220 K. Wake's point holds up since the additional CO2 does not increase intensity.

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Jeff, that would be a very good excuse save that I continually am looking up anti-AGW sites and they are always giving me only positive AGW sites.

Now it isn't a case of my having a viewpoint. I'm a scientist and I do not have a viewpoint that doesn't follow the data. So if I truly thought the data save us some sort of real warming that wasn't completely normal I would say so.

Here is a good video that shows the problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

Interesting; reinforces that google has a political bias on top of the known issue of filtering results to match your perceived interests. I will continue to avoid google.

BTW, I am what you would call a lukewarmist. CO2 may contribute a little bit to warming, but if so, it is a good thing. I am an engineer and am driven nuts by the AGW hysteria.

I designed gas and liquid chromatography machines and programmed them so I know spectroscopy. CO2 has three quite narrow absorption bands and the position they are in with regard to the emissions in the lower IR from the Earth almost entirely absorb that energy in the area of between 200 and 250 parts per million. Above this level there is no energy left to absorb so higher percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere have no effects.

Or I should say that CO2 have a cooling effect since CO2 has a lower heat capacity than the other most common gases and hence elevates convection. But since CO2 is a trace gas and at 0.04% of the atmosphere is vanishingly small it has really no measurable effect.

Higher or lower amounts of absorption is not affected by frequency, dude.

It is affected by intensity at the absorption frequencies.

Emission is the same way. Hotter materials still emit on the same frequencies they always do, it's just more intense while any higher frequencies (if any) also begin to emit. The atoms within the molecule also emit on their own, and at many lines of spectra higher than infrared.

That's why a gas (any gas) begins to glow into the visible range when it gets hot enough.

I thought you said you understood a spectroscopy.

Let me answer this. Your answer is partly true, but irrelevant. According to Kirchhoff's laws, luminous dense gases can produce a continuous spectrum. The CO2 we are talking about is neither dense nor luminous, but is rather cold, so it will stick to its absorption bands.

Spectral analysis shows that CO2 is emitting at a relatively constant 220 K. Here's a graph showing the modeled difference between 300 ppm and 600 ppm of CO2:

You see that the CO2 spectra is just under 220 K in both instances. The difference is on the edges where the additional molecules cause more scattering. The theoretical difference works out to about 3.39 W/m^2 or about 1.1 C at a global average temperature.

What's interesting is if you look under any conditions; clouds, deserts, the poles, this holds constant at about 220 K. The spectra that are not blocked by CO2 will reflect the ground (or cloud) temperature whether it be higher or lower than 220 K. Wake's point holds up since the additional CO2 does not increase intensity.

Nightmare will spend his time looking for any oddity that might establish anything he can present as proof that I am wrong.

Wake wrote:
He is really an anti-scientist of the worst sort.

Wake wrote:
He has no understanding of what you just wrote

Wake wrote:
and I wouldn't be surprised if he were to argue with you.

Wake wrote:
First I tried to explain to him what the Stefan-Boltzmann law was

Wake wrote:
and how it worked but he rejected it outright

Wake wrote:
and continued to use it in a manner that showed that he is completely unaware of what it means.

Wake wrote:
He states that he is an "operational engineer"

Wake wrote:
which would mean that he has to have an understanding of statistical analysis.

Wake wrote:
But it doesn't take much questioning to discover that he doesn't even know what statistical analysis is.

Wake wrote:
He doesn't appear to be stupid, but he has such a psychological need to be "right" that he will not bother to look anything up.

Wake wrote:
And then if he accidentally reads something that agrees with my analysis he will state that he always knew that and never said otherwise.

Wake wrote:
Try and get him to understand that weather satellites can directly measure the average global mean temperature and watch him.

Wake wrote:
Try to get him to understand that the precise measure of MGT isn't as important as being able to distinguish changes and watch.

It does not decrease it either. Wakes point does not hold up for the reasons I've described.

You are forgetting that while a substance absorbs only one way (through conversion by harmonic absorption) it can emit it two ways (either through harmonic emission or by translational emission, otherwise known as Planck emission).

CO2 will visibly glow just like any other gas when you get it hot enough. That happens at the same temperature REGARDLESS of what the gas is. That is not harmonic emission, that is Planck emission, coming from the translational vibration of the entire molecule (instead of the molecule stretching or bending). This translation vibration is thermal energy.

Either form of emission allows the molecule to lose energy. A molecule may lose energy by conducting it's thermal energy to another molecule. Energy in many molecules can be dissipated (spread out over a larger area) by being convected upwards too.

All the while ALL molecules are emitting light. ALL molecules are above absolute zero.

Remember all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron or a proton around. That can happen as a whole molecule moves, or when a molecule vibrates in a bending or twisting way.

Jeffvw wrote:

It does not decrease it either. Wakes point does not hold up for the reasons I've described.

You are forgetting that while a substance absorbs only one way (through conversion by harmonic absorption) it can emit it two ways (either through harmonic emission or by translational emission, otherwise known as Planck emission).

CO2 will visibly glow just like any other gas when you get it hot enough. That happens at the same temperature REGARDLESS of what the gas is. That is not harmonic emission, that is Planck emission, coming from the translational vibration of the entire molecule (instead of the molecule stretching or bending). This translation vibration is thermal energy.

Either form of emission allows the molecule to lose energy. A molecule may lose energy by conducting it's thermal energy to another molecule. Energy in many molecules can be dissipated (spread out over a larger area) by being convected upwards too.

All the while ALL molecules are emitting light. ALL molecules are above absolute zero.

Remember all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron or a proton around. That can happen as a whole molecule moves, or when a molecule vibrates in a bending or twisting way.

Your points are still irrelevant. CO2 only absorbs long wave radiation from the ground. It will not get any hotter than the ground. Therefore it will not get hot enough to visibly glow.

CO2's role in keeping the planet warm is to simply block a small portion of the long wave radiation that would normally escape into space. The wavelengths that it blocks are 100% blocked at current CO2 concentrations. Higher concentrations will not block any more than 100% in those bands. What higher concentrations do is make the band a tiny bit wider due to more scattering. They also lower the elevation at which 100% of the radiation in this narrow bandgap is blocked. CO2 also emits radiation almost immediately after it absorbs it.

It should also be noted that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. A few percent change in humidity will cancel out a doubling of CO2 concentration.

The way you are writing, you seem to be thinking that the CO2 is intercepting high intensity short wave radiation from the sun similar to O3. Short wave radiation passes straight through CO2 just as is does N2 and O2. CO2 blocks low intensity radiation from the earth and hence cannot get very hot.

Jeffvw wrote:

It does not decrease it either. Wakes point does not hold up for the reasons I've described.

You are forgetting that while a substance absorbs only one way (through conversion by harmonic absorption) it can emit it two ways (either through harmonic emission or by translational emission, otherwise known as Planck emission).

CO2 will visibly glow just like any other gas when you get it hot enough. That happens at the same temperature REGARDLESS of what the gas is. That is not harmonic emission, that is Planck emission, coming from the translational vibration of the entire molecule (instead of the molecule stretching or bending). This translation vibration is thermal energy.

Either form of emission allows the molecule to lose energy. A molecule may lose energy by conducting it's thermal energy to another molecule. Energy in many molecules can be dissipated (spread out over a larger area) by being convected upwards too.

All the while ALL molecules are emitting light. ALL molecules are above absolute zero.

Remember all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron or a proton around. That can happen as a whole molecule moves, or when a molecule vibrates in a bending or twisting way.

Your points are still irrelevant.

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 only absorbs long wave radiation from the ground.

Jeffvw wrote:
It will not get any hotter than the ground.

Jeffvw wrote:
Therefore it will not get hot enough to visibly glow.

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2's role in keeping the planet warm is to simply block a small portion of the long wave radiation that would normally escape into space.

Jeffvw wrote:
The wavelengths that it blocks are 100% blocked at current CO2 concentrations. Higher concentrations will not block any more than 100% in those bands.

Jeffvw wrote:
What higher concentrations do is make the band a tiny bit wider due to more scattering. They also lower the elevation at which 100% of the radiation in this narrow bandgap is blocked.

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 also emits radiation almost immediately after it absorbs it.

Jeffvw wrote:
It should also be noted that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas.

Jeffvw wrote:
A few percent change in humidity will cancel out a doubling of CO2 concentration.

Jeffvw wrote:
The way you are writing, you seem to be thinking that the CO2 is intercepting high intensity short wave radiation from the sun similar to O3.

Short wave radiation passes straight through CO2 just as is does N2 and O2.

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 blocks low intensity radiation from the earth and hence cannot get very hot.

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

It does not decrease it either. Wakes point does not hold up for the reasons I've described.

You are forgetting that while a substance absorbs only one way (through conversion by harmonic absorption) it can emit it two ways (either through harmonic emission or by translational emission, otherwise known as Planck emission).

CO2 will visibly glow just like any other gas when you get it hot enough. That happens at the same temperature REGARDLESS of what the gas is. That is not harmonic emission, that is Planck emission, coming from the translational vibration of the entire molecule (instead of the molecule stretching or bending). This translation vibration is thermal energy.

Either form of emission allows the molecule to lose energy. A molecule may lose energy by conducting it's thermal energy to another molecule. Energy in many molecules can be dissipated (spread out over a larger area) by being convected upwards too.

All the while ALL molecules are emitting light. ALL molecules are above absolute zero.

Remember all you have to do to make light is to shake an electron or a proton around. That can happen as a whole molecule moves, or when a molecule vibrates in a bending or twisting way.

Your points are still irrelevant. CO2 only absorbs long wave radiation from the ground. It will not get any hotter than the ground. Therefore it will not get hot enough to visibly glow.

CO2's role in keeping the planet warm is to simply block a small portion of the long wave radiation that would normally escape into space. The wavelengths that it blocks are 100% blocked at current CO2 concentrations. Higher concentrations will not block any more than 100% in those bands. What higher concentrations do is make the band a tiny bit wider due to more scattering. They also lower the elevation at which 100% of the radiation in this narrow bandgap is blocked. CO2 also emits radiation almost immediately after it absorbs it.

It should also be noted that water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas. A few percent change in humidity will cancel out a doubling of CO2 concentration.

The way you are writing, you seem to be thinking that the CO2 is intercepting high intensity short wave radiation from the sun similar to O3. Short wave radiation passes straight through CO2 just as is does N2 and O2. CO2 blocks low intensity radiation from the earth and hence cannot get very hot.

I told you nightmare would try to argue with you. He hasn't even a trace of an understanding that the only way to add enough energy to CO2 to cause it to "glow" is to heat it to around 620 degree F.

Of course that's everywhere in the atmosphere. We often see temperatures of gas molecules at the North Pole at 620 degree F (eyes rolling). What do you bet that he doesn't understand why I would pick the North Pole? He without a doubt would think that it is because it is cold there and that somehow I am trying to mock him. Well, I am trying to mock him but not in that manner.

Into the Night wrote:
It cannot warm the Earth either.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It cannot warm the Earth either.

CO2 does not directly warm the earth.

Jeffvw wrote:
It slows the cooling process.

Jeffvw wrote:
Additional CO2 makes very little difference. The effect is logarithmic.

Jeffvw wrote:
I still cannot tell what you are arguing.

Jeffvw wrote:
Do you think CO2 has an effect on temperature?

Jeffvw wrote:
I seriously can't tell if you are a believer that CO2 is the source of all evil, or if you think that it has no impact.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It cannot warm the Earth either.

CO2 does not directly warm the earth. It slows the cooling process. Additional CO2 makes very little difference. The effect is logarithmic.

I still cannot tell what you are arguing.

Do you think CO2 has an effect on temperature? I seriously can't tell if you are a believer that CO2 is the source of all evil, or if you think that it has no impact.

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 does not directly warm the earth.

I does not directly or indirectly warm the Earth. It can't. No gas or vapor has that capability.

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:
It slows the cooling process.

It can't. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas in the atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:
It has no impact whatsoever.

Wake wrote:
This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him. No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said. At one point he said he was American Indian. But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

So I finally put him on ignore because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

Jeffvw wrote:

Wake wrote:
This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him. No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said. At one point he said he was American Indian. But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

So I finally put him on ignore because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

I think I finally understand his point of view. He doesn't believe that CO2 (or even water vapor, or anything else) has any impact at all on global temperature. Definitely a unique opinion.

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It cannot warm the Earth either.

CO2 does not directly warm the earth. It slows the cooling process. Additional CO2 makes very little difference. The effect is logarithmic.

I still cannot tell what you are arguing.

Do you think CO2 has an effect on temperature? I seriously can't tell if you are a believer that CO2 is the source of all evil, or if you think that it has no impact.

This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him.

Wake wrote:
No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Wake wrote:
Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said.

Wake wrote:
At one point he said he was American Indian.

Wake wrote:
But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife

Wake wrote:
who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

Wake wrote:
So I finally put him on ignore

Wake wrote:
because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Wake wrote:
Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 does not directly warm the earth.

I does not directly or indirectly warm the Earth. It can't. No gas or vapor has that capability.

Are you saying the the atmosphere has no impact on planetary temperature?

Jeffvw wrote:
The atmosphere has a large impact.

Jeffvw wrote:
Even an atmosphere with no GHG's brings up average global temperatures by significantly cooling the hot spots by convection.

Jeffvw wrote:
This reduces the outgoing radiation significantly per the Stefan Boltzmann law, which brings up the average temperature.

Jeffvw wrote:
Look at the Moon as an example.

Jeffvw wrote:
One reason that the average is so much cooler than predicted

Jeffvw wrote:
is because the day time side gets very hot which drastically increased the outgoing radiation (the T^4 relationship).

Jeffvw wrote:
If there were an atmosphere, it would reduce the high temperature by cooling the surface and transferring some of the energy to cooler locations in an attempt to equalize temperatures.

Jeffvw wrote:
Even slight cooling of the high temperature has a large impact on outgoing radiation.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:
It slows the cooling process.

It can't. CO2 is not a thermal insulator. It actually conducts heat better than almost any other gas in the atmosphere.

CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation in certain bandwidths.

Jeffvw wrote:
Some of the re-emitted radiation comes back to earth.

Jeffvw wrote:
If you look at a spectrum looking at earth from space, you will see that there is lower intensity coming from those bandwidths.

Jeffvw wrote:
For example, if the surface is 320 K, the thermal spectra will match the profile, except at the bands that are absorbed by CO2 and other GHG's.

Jeffvw wrote:
The CO2 bands match a profile of 220 K, which is much cooler.

Jeffvw wrote:
This is a result of much of the energy being re-radiated back to the earth.

Jeffvw wrote:
This means that the earth warms slightly to compensate.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It has no impact whatsoever.

Thanks, I'm clear on what you think.

Jeffvw wrote:

Wake wrote:
This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him. No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said. At one point he said he was American Indian. But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

So I finally put him on ignore because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

I think I finally understand his point of view. He doesn't believe that CO2 (or even water vapor, or anything else) has any impact at all on global temperature. Definitely a unique opinion.

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Wake wrote:
This is the idiotic sort of statements that come from him. No one, not the most ardent True Believer has EVER said that CO2 "warms the Earth" but he will make statements like this.

Initially I simply thought that he couldn't understand English and didn't know what was being said. At one point he said he was American Indian. But then suddenly he was married and had a Jewish wife who told him that Yiddish is nothing but German.

So I finally put him on ignore because I can't make heads or tales out of what the hell he thinks he knows and what he is saying simply to be adverse.

Then I found a picture of him:

http://student.unifr.ch/philo/

I think I finally understand his point of view. He doesn't believe that CO2 (or even water vapor, or anything else) has any impact at all on global temperature. Definitely a unique opinion.

Nightare isn't stupid but he refuses to learn.

Wake wrote:
That is certainly unique in my experience.

Wake wrote:
I had many problems with other engineers under my management but it was never that they were afraid that learning something would affect their opinions.

Wake wrote:
I found it shocking that among his statements were that you couldn't measure the Earth's MGT because all you could measure was "light" and "light isn't temperature".

Wake wrote:
This from a man who cannot stop from talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

Wake wrote:
If you ask him how we can measure the surface temperature of the Sun

Wake wrote:
he will tell you that it is a blackbody and so you can use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

Wake wrote:
But somehow he doesn't understand that inasmuch as the Earth has an energy balance of 1:1 that it too is a blackbody

Wake wrote:
and that precisely the same method of measuring the Sun's temperature

Wake wrote:
works equally well for the Earth.

Wake wrote:
I have simply given up the hope of ever getting him to understand anything because he is anti-science for no other reason than to argue with others.

The only thing an atmosphere does is limit the temperature swing at the surface and provide some absorption of energy from the Sun. An atmosphere has mass. It behaves like any mass. It takes time to change temperature.

The Earth rotates once every 24 hours.

The Moon rotates once every 28 days.

If the daytime on Earth lasted 14 days, how hot do you think our daytime temperatures would get?

If the nighttime on Earth lasted 14 days, how cold do you think our nighttime would get?

The Moon does not have an atmosphere to limit temperature swing either. Neither does the ISS. The Earth does.

The Parrot Killer

Jeffvw wrote:

The only thing an atmosphere does is limit the temperature swing at the surface and provide some absorption of energy from the Sun. An atmosphere has mass. It behaves like any mass. It takes time to change temperature.

The Earth rotates once every 24 hours.

The Moon rotates once every 28 days.

If the daytime on Earth lasted 14 days, how hot do you think our daytime temperatures would get?

If the nighttime on Earth lasted 14 days, how cold do you think our nighttime would get?

The Moon does not have an atmosphere to limit temperature swing either. Neither does the ISS. The Earth does.

The Parrot Killer

For a 14 day daytime earth's peak temperature would be much higher than it is,

Jeffvw wrote:
but would not be as high as the moon's since the earth has an atmosphere to limit temperature swing.

Jeffvw wrote:
Earth's nighttime temperatures would also drop a lot, but not as much as the moons since it has an atmosphere.

Jeffvw wrote:
Earth's average temperatures would drop significantly due to the much higher peak temperatures, but would not be as low as the moon's for the same reasons.

Jeffvw wrote:
Here's a simple illustration to show how this works. First, we have to agree that total incoming radiation must equal total outgoing radiation.

Jeffvw wrote:
Take a fictional planet that has an uniform average temperature of 293.15 K. Assuming it is a perfect black-body, it is emitting an average of 419 W/m^2. This means that the radiation received is also 419 W/m^2.

Jeffvw wrote:
Now, let's take a fictional planet that has an average temperature of 293.15 K, but with one side with a uniform temperature of 93.15 K and the other side with a uniform temperature of 493.15 K. This means that the side at 93.15 K is emitting to space an average of 4.3 W/m^2, and the side at 493.15 is emitting to space an average of 3354 W/m^2. Averaging the two sides together you get 1679.15 W/m^2 that the planet is emitting. This is much higher than the 419 W/m^2 that the planet is receiving; so this cannot be. From a radiation perspective, the planets average temperature equates to 415 K.

Jeffvw wrote:
You will notice that the average emissions are not even close between the 2 planets.

Jeffvw wrote:
In order to get the two planets to match total emissions, we need to cool the entire planet significantly.

Jeffvw wrote:
To make this simple, I'll assume that the cold side will be 0K and calculate the highest possible temperature on the warm side. That would be twice the average black-body temperature of the uniform planet or 2*419 W/m^2 or 838 W/m^2. This equates to 349 K on one side and 0 K on the other side for an average temperature of 174.5 K.

Given a fixed incoming radiation of 419 W/m^2, the uniform temperature planet would have an average temperature of 293.15 K. The planet with the ultimate extremes in temperature would only average 174.5 K, or a 118.65 K difference.

Jeffvw wrote:
This is the effect of the T^4 term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This makes average temperatures meaningless.

Jeffvw wrote:
This is why an atmosphere that limits temperature swings makes a huge difference.

Jeffvw wrote:
That is also why runaway warming is not possible.

Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

Jeffvw wrote:

Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.

Jeffvw wrote:

Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.

When he says "math error" that means he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Wake wrote:
Very soon he will resort to using words from his "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart". I saw one in a used book store and opened it up and it had all of his fake terms in it. It was hilarious.

Wake wrote:
I think that one time I used "math" as short for a trig calculation and he said that it wasn't math - it was trig.

Wake wrote:
He didn't even understand that when I show the work that obviously I know it's trig.

Wake wrote:
He isn't even aware that math is ANY use of numbers to discover patterns.

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.

Your average temperatures failed to include the 4th power and you equivocated with radiance, which is not to the 4th power.

You should apply Kirchoff's law, which handles situations like this.

The end result is that you should calculate the average temperature of the entire body before calculating the radiance.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.

Your average temperatures failed to include the 4th power and you equivocated with radiance, which is not to the 4th power.

No, I said that the blackbody energy flux at 293.15 K (20 degrees C) is 419 W/m^2. You get that by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is P/A = σ * ε * T⁴. In this case σ = 5.670367 * 10⁻⁸ W/m^2 K^4. ε = 1, and T=293.15. Using your favorite calculator or spreadsheet you get 419 W/M^2. I used the same equation for my other numbers.

You should apply Kirchoff's law, which handles situations like this.

I did. Kirchoff's law states that 'any body at thermal equilibrium emits as much heat radiation as it receives at any given wavelength and temperature'. That is why I said that incoming energy flux must equal outgoing energy flux. In my example I said that the total averaged flux (both incoming and outgoing) must equal 419 W/m^2.

The end result is that you should calculate the average temperature of the entire body before calculating the radiance.

You entirely missed the point of my post and example. An average temperature is meaningless for calculating radiance. The only way an average temperature would have any meaning is if there was a linear relationship between energy and temperature. Since there is a T^4 relationship, an average temperature means nothing.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.

Your average temperatures failed to include the 4th power and you equivocated with radiance, which is not to the 4th power.

No, I said that the blackbody energy flux at 293.15 K (20 degrees C) is 419 W/m^2. You get that by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is P/A = σ * ε * T⁴. In this case σ = 5.670367 * 10⁻⁸ W/m^2 K^4. ε = 1, and T=293.15. Using your favorite calculator or spreadsheet you get 419 W/M^2. I used the same equation for my other numbers.

You should apply Kirchoff's law, which handles situations like this.

I did. Kirchoff's law states that 'any body at thermal equilibrium emits as much heat radiation as it receives at any given wavelength and temperature'. That is why I said that incoming energy flux must equal outgoing energy flux. In my example I said that the total averaged flux (both incoming and outgoing) must equal 419 W/m^2.

The end result is that you should calculate the average temperature of the entire body before calculating the radiance.

You entirely missed the point of my post and example. An average temperature is meaningless for calculating radiance. The only way an average temperature would have any meaning is if there was a linear relationship between energy and temperature. Since there is a T^4 relationship, an average temperature means nothing.

Wake wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Wups. Math error. You failed to transfer the exponent through your averaging.

No, I was doing a simple arithmetic average of temperature, and then a simple arithmetic average of black-body radiation at those temperatures. You'll have to show me specifically what I did wrong.

Remember, I'm trying to show how a simple arithmetic average of temperature is meaningless in relation to black-body radiation.

Your average temperatures failed to include the 4th power and you equivocated with radiance, which is not to the 4th power.

No, I said that the blackbody energy flux at 293.15 K (20 degrees C) is 419 W/m^2. You get that by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is P/A = σ * ε * T⁴. In this case σ = 5.670367 * 10⁻⁸ W/m^2 K^4. ε = 1, and T=293.15. Using your favorite calculator or spreadsheet you get 419 W/M^2. I used the same equation for my other numbers.

You should apply Kirchoff's law, which handles situations like this.

I did. Kirchoff's law states that 'any body at thermal equilibrium emits as much heat radiation as it receives at any given wavelength and temperature'. That is why I said that incoming energy flux must equal outgoing energy flux. In my example I said that the total averaged flux (both incoming and outgoing) must equal 419 W/m^2.

The end result is that you should calculate the average temperature of the entire body before calculating the radiance.

You entirely missed the point of my post and example. An average temperature is meaningless for calculating radiance. The only way an average temperature would have any meaning is if there was a linear relationship between energy and temperature. Since there is a T^4 relationship, an average temperature means nothing.

Did I not tell you that he would argue with you? And from a position of almost complete ignorance. He has absolutely no understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, Planck's equations, Wein's law etc. He has no understanding of how they are all intertwined.