Remember me
▼ Content

man made or natural



Page 3 of 8<12345>>>
12-01-2020 05:02
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
nemodawson wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
nemodawson wrote: Blackbodies and thermal radiation are not fields of physics!

Yes, those topics are certainly addressed in physics, howevr thermal radiation "thenthitivity" is not. There is no such thing.

nemodawson wrote:Let me give you some names to see if you recognize them.

That was a rather abrupt change of topic. Let's stick with physics.


.


Have you ever considered the possibility that your education in science is deficient? Have you ever considered the possibility that your professors suppress knowledge from the past because it doesn't conform with their current theories? I have written a book called "Poisoned Science" which partially documents this.

As to the topic at hand, I believe you are suggesting that the factor "emissivity," which modifies blackbody thermal radiation, doesn't exist. This is not true. Simply Google the term to see that I am correct. Emissivity is a necessary factor to make the Stefan-Boltzmann formula accurate. Also Google Stefan-Boltzmann to look at their full formula.


So you are Lawrence Dawson who wrote the books and the paper you linked in the first post? I read the paper and I wish I had more science knowledge to fully comprehend what you wrote.

Welcome. I hope you stick around and add some dimension to the discussion here.

Just a word of advice as someone who only recently joined, I'd read a little more to understand the personalities and positions that they hold.

It seems to me that the climate alarmist attribute the ability to create heat to CO2. I have been looking in earnest for someone to please explain what physical properties carbon dioxide uses to increase temperature.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
12-01-2020 16:17
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
Harry C wrote:

It seems to me that the climate alarmist attribute the ability to create heat to CO2. I have been looking in earnest for someone to please explain what physical properties carbon dioxide uses to increase temperature.


That CO2 creates energy in any way is ofcourse not correct, and has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The only source of energy we have on earth is the sun (we can basically neglect the 47TW we get from earths heat flux). The greenhouse effect is sctrictly a radiative effect where greenhouse gasses absorb the radiation the both the Earth and the atmosphere itself emit. That radiation would otherwise be radiated out to space and lost.

So what GHG's such as Water Vapour, CO2, CH4 etc does is just to keep more of the energy here in the earth/atmosphere system.

A simplified but Good explanation of the green house effect and the role of GHG's can be found here:
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect

If you want to know why i.e CO2 can absorb radiation of certain frequencies, here is a good description:
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

And if you want to see the IR spectrum of i.e CO2 and other gasses, they can be found here:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC
12-01-2020 17:06
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
James___ wrote:
jboy751 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jboy751 wrote:Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Get in line.

I would like to see a serious, unambiguous definition of the global climate that would enable a serious expert to determine whether "Climate Change" is "natural" or not.


.


Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous. And then argue on that. For example, instead of climate change, you can use global warming which is less ambiguous (?).

For example NASA claims that the solar irradiation is not enough to explain global warming. Of course there are assumptions in their analysis, since their records only go back to the late 70s.

So I was wandering whether some expert who has access to data and is sophisticated enough, has expressed the opposite conclusion. I.e. that solar irradiation does justify global warming.



This guy is an ice core researcher. His credentials are
Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
He is an expert in his field. Since we don't understand natural climate variation, we can't say how much if any warming is attributed to CO2. After all, O2 plays a role in removing heat from the atmosphere but we're not talking about it's diminished levels, are we? If you read what he has to say, there were climate ripples in the northern hemisphere during the last ice age when it warmed significantly without CO2. And today, the Arctic is the place where warming is most pronounced. I think something might be getting ready to happen but that could take a century and be quite significant. Why bread crumbs are good to follow.

He states that;
One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


James, this was a great article, where someone who has done their home work and are sober in their brain, argue both sides of the story.

What I find interesting is the concept that the very mechanisms that make the climate potentially very unstable by natural causes, are the same ones who could cause havoc with man made CO2 emissions.

When I begun this thread, I was an agnostic in terms of the origin of global warming, and largely still am. But I thought that the most fanatic missinformed side would have been the "hippies who rush to claim there is man made climate change". I don't know if this forum is representative of other forums but I completely changed my mind as to which side is a "religious fanatic", blinded by misled ideological incentives, dressing their anger and need of self-gratification, as "science".
12-01-2020 18:18
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
nemodawson wrote:
There is only one example of establishment "CO2 catastrophism" presenting direct evidence of thermal radiation being directed back at the earth by atmospheric CO2. A review of the Evans study shows that the emissivity rate for atmospheric carbon dioxide is only a 10th of 1%. CO2 can only absorb 0.1% of the earth's thermal radiation emissions. This value used the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for the 15 µ single wavelength for which CO2 is known to be sensitive and of which the data clearly identified. This measured emissivity rate for CO2 has apparently not been incorporated into any Computer Models predicting Global Warming due to atmospheric CO2. It is hard to see how a trace atmospheric gas of 4 parts per 10,000– which can absorb only a 10th of 1% of the earth's thermal radiation– can actually be a greenhouse gas.

The paper reviewing the study can be found at:
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/co2-blkbdy-data.html

ON PAGE CLICK ON: 'CO2 Radiation Data disproves "Greenhouse Gas" Claim' for a PDF of paper


Thank you, I read this and it is very interesting. Amusingly this is in line with my comment earlier on about the difference of a thermos flask to a watermellon, for which I got a lot of flames
I don't pretend that I knew the answer but at least I asked the right question, which is always a good start.

So do you think that your analysis has started a serious discussion in environmental circles about the validity of assumptions about the role of CO2? Has anyone critisized your paper?
12-01-2020 18:53
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
James,
You just gave away your "age", so to speak.



Gotta have some fun sometimes. He doesn't understand that the emissivity of the atmosphere is not determined by the Stefan-Boltzman constant. Heat in the atmosphere is released by gasses because of their emission spectrum. And as a gas like O2 moves higher in the atmosphere, are there sufficient gasses to absorb it's emission? If not then that electromagnetic radiation released by gases can radiate away from our atmosphere. That's basically the non-technical explanation.
And with O2, it is more reactive than either CO2 or N2 and this is what would allow O2 to remove heat from our atmosphere. Yet no one considers how much heat O2 removes from the troposphere or how much heat O3 removes from the lower to mid stratosphere.
And this is where the vacuum of the tropopause can allow for O2 to radiate heat into the lower stratosphere where O3 can move it further away from the surface of the earth. And while CO2 levels are increasing, O2 levels are decreasing.
And IMHO black body radiation and the Stefan-Boltzman might have little to do with it because as I mentioned, incoming IR becomes refracted.


If fun means answering sound Scientific knowledge with gobbledygook then you certainly are having fun. Nothing you have said here makes any sense, so let me review the fundamentals. It is alleged that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas." A greenhouse gas is one which absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and radiates them back, thus retaining the heat and supposedly warming the earth. The Earth thermal radiation emissions with which we are concerned are emissions which occur at nighttime. During the night, the earth cools by radiating the heat which it has acquired during the day while facing the sun. It is this Earth heat which is allegedly prevented from escaping into space by CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That is it is alleged the atmospheric CO2 absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and re-radiates them back. Thus it is alleged that CO2 is acting as a material semi blackbody and thus is subject to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, including its emissivity factor. The only measure of radiation from CO2 being returned from a clear Night sky is the Evans study from 2006.

https://www.quantum-dimension.com/co2-blkbdy-data.html

Click on "CO2 radiation data...." for a review of Evans study.



The only thing I understood was that you claim that a gas is a black body. Not possible. Want me to give you the answer? It's not technical. WTH(eck). A black body absorbs all frequencies. CO2 doesn't.
https://lco.global/spacebook/light/black-body-radiation/
I just remembered something else that's better but I can't discuss it in here. Enjoy.

@Marcus, the Nature article mentioned that temperatures started rising before CO2 levels rose. Without knowing why that happened then it's influence on warming can't really be known. This is where I support physical experiments to show definitively how altering the composition of gases in our atmosphere changes its "k" value.
Basically if CO2 levels were elevated in a cylinder, would the walls of that cylinder become warmer than a cylinder that has normal outdoor levels of CO2? Both cylinders would be open on top and exposed to direct solar radiation.
And if a container is placed in each cylinder with the same amount of water, then if CO2 intensifies warming, it could help to show it.


This new view of alleged greenhouse gases as somehow absorbing solar radiation within the "troposphere" and warming the Earth is your latest Scientific fraud. It is put forward because you couldn't justify your original argument that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas," that it absorbs and returns the earth's thermal radiation emissions. Turning to your definition of a blackbody as absorbing all wavelengths. The blackbody is the highest standard for matter absorbing and emitting thermal radiation. What might be called semi-blackbodies cannot absorb and emit all wavelengths of thermal radiation. They fit somewhere between a "whitebody" (which can absorb no thermal wavelengths) and a "blackbody." The fact that CO2 has restricted wavelengths of thermal radiation to which it is sensitive does not exclude it from having blackbody like characteristics. The standard for blackbody energy emissions is Stefan-Boltzmann. Stefan-Boltzmann incorporates an "emissivity factor" to account for the thermal radiation absorption and re-emission by non-blackbodies. "Emissivity," which some of you claim doesn't exist, can be calculated for CO2 using the 2006 Evans data and Stefan-Boltzmann.

The Evans paper may be found by the following url
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiS4JqN4szmAhXhJzQIHYluCF4QFjAAegQIBhAI&url=https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1elFd05VoWIA3AteN-fp4S
12-01-2020 19:07
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote:From the link:
"The estimated extra energy from excess CO2—the annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution—is far smaller, according to Frank, at 0.036 Wm–2,"

Well duhhh, it's obvious that greenhouse gas creates additional energy by overcoming the stupid restrictions of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I'm just wondering why Marvel Comics hasn't made a superhero with this superpower.

Anyway, it won't be long before we have a series of infomercials centered around "Cooking with CO2."

MarcusR wrote: Well... how CO2 (and other molecules) behaves is well documented:

We call that "chemistry."


.


I was unclear whether your misled answers are due to bad understanding of physics or psychotic anger explosions. I start believing that its mostly the former and less of the latter.

The above statement you are critisizing means something different. The integrated energy distribution starting from an arbitrary radius within the earth atmosphere and below totals more or less the energy coming from the sun into this volume. However the actual energy distribution within this volume varies depending on the time dependent constitution of the various layers of materials and flows in the earth atmosphere and the acutal earth matter. The properties of these layers and flows, are complex and subject to many studies. When he says that CO2 contributes 'extra energy' this is not energy produced by the CO2 but extra energy that is trapped in certain parts of the volume which are redistributed from other parts of the said volume, preserving the integral.

To say an easy to understand example, lets say you are standing in front of a radiation heater at a distance of 5m. Your friend stands between you and the radiator at a distance of 2m from the radiator. Then sooner or later you and your friend get very hot. Let's say that after 10 minutes you take a reflective 'shield' i.e. a sheet of aluminium foil and place it between you and the radiator. Then suddenly you are much cooler. But your friend gets even hotter, because now he receives the energy both directly from the radiator and from the foil. Does this mean that the foil is generating 'extra energy'? No, it only means that the energy coming from the radiator is redistributed, and now more of that energy is going to your friend and less is going to you. So you are cool and your friend is even hotter. The same concept is applicable to green houses used successfully around the world. And of course the same concept is used hypothetically for the CO2 green house effect (assuming it is as strong as purported by the climate change studies).
12-01-2020 19:26
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
James,
You just gave away your "age", so to speak.



Gotta have some fun sometimes. He doesn't understand that the emissivity of the atmosphere is not determined by the Stefan-Boltzman constant. Heat in the atmosphere is released by gasses because of their emission spectrum. And as a gas like O2 moves higher in the atmosphere, are there sufficient gasses to absorb it's emission? If not then that electromagnetic radiation released by gases can radiate away from our atmosphere. That's basically the non-technical explanation.
And with O2, it is more reactive than either CO2 or N2 and this is what would allow O2 to remove heat from our atmosphere. Yet no one considers how much heat O2 removes from the troposphere or how much heat O3 removes from the lower to mid stratosphere.
And this is where the vacuum of the tropopause can allow for O2 to radiate heat into the lower stratosphere where O3 can move it further away from the surface of the earth. And while CO2 levels are increasing, O2 levels are decreasing.
And IMHO black body radiation and the Stefan-Boltzman might have little to do with it because as I mentioned, incoming IR becomes refracted.


If fun means answering sound Scientific knowledge with gobbledygook then you certainly are having fun. Nothing you have said here makes any sense, so let me review the fundamentals. It is alleged that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas." A greenhouse gas is one which absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and radiates them back, thus retaining the heat and supposedly warming the earth. The Earth thermal radiation emissions with which we are concerned are emissions which occur at nighttime. During the night, the earth cools by radiating the heat which it has acquired during the day while facing the sun. It is this Earth heat which is allegedly prevented from escaping into space by CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That is it is alleged the atmospheric CO2 absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and re-radiates them back. Thus it is alleged that CO2 is acting as a material semi blackbody and thus is subject to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, including its emissivity factor. The only measure of radiation from CO2 being returned from a clear Night sky is the Evans study from 2006.

https://www.quantum-dimension.com/co2-blkbdy-data.html

Click on "CO2 radiation data...." for a review of Evans study.



The only thing I understood was that you claim that a gas is a black body. Not possible. Want me to give you the answer? It's not technical. WTH(eck). A black body absorbs all frequencies. CO2 doesn't.
https://lco.global/spacebook/light/black-body-radiation/
I just remembered something else that's better but I can't discuss it in here. Enjoy.

@Marcus, the Nature article mentioned that temperatures started rising before CO2 levels rose. Without knowing why that happened then it's influence on warming can't really be known. This is where I support physical experiments to show definitively how altering the composition of gases in our atmosphere changes its "k" value.
Basically if CO2 levels were elevated in a cylinder, would the walls of that cylinder become warmer than a cylinder that has normal outdoor levels of CO2? Both cylinders would be open on top and exposed to direct solar radiation.
And if a container is placed in each cylinder with the same amount of water, then if CO2 intensifies warming, it could help to show it.


This new view of alleged greenhouse gases as somehow absorbing solar radiation within the "troposphere" and warming the Earth is your latest Scientific fraud. It is put forward because you couldn't justify your original argument that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas," that it absorbs and returns the earth's thermal radiation emissions. Turning to your definition of a blackbody as absorbing all wavelengths. The blackbody is the highest standard for matter absorbing and emitting thermal radiation. What might be called semi-blackbodies cannot absorb and emit all wavelengths of thermal radiation. They fit somewhere between a "whitebody" (which can absorb no thermal wavelengths) and a "blackbody." The fact that CO2 has restricted wavelengths of thermal radiation to which it is sensitive does not exclude it from having blackbody like characteristics. The standard for blackbody energy emissions is Stefan-Boltzmann. Stefan-Boltzmann incorporates an "emissivity factor" to account for the thermal radiation absorption and re-emission by non-blackbodies. "Emissivity," which some of you claim doesn't exist, can be calculated for CO2 using the 2006 Evans data and Stefan-Boltzmann.

The Evans paper may be found by the following url
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiS4JqN4szmAhXhJzQIHYluCF4QFjAAegQIBhAI&url=https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1elFd05VoWIA3AteN-fp4S


may I butt in and say that what James says (which I haven't followed completely, possibly due to lack of knowledge), does not comment on how much of a green house gas CO2 really is. I am also not clear as to how much James' argument hinges on CO2 having a stong green house effect.
12-01-2020 20:05
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
jboy751 wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
James,
You just gave away your "age", so to speak.



Gotta have some fun sometimes. He doesn't understand that the emissivity of the atmosphere is not determined by the Stefan-Boltzman constant. Heat in the atmosphere is released by gasses because of their emission spectrum. And as a gas like O2 moves higher in the atmosphere, are there sufficient gasses to absorb it's emission? If not then that electromagnetic radiation released by gases can radiate away from our atmosphere. That's basically the non-technical explanation.
And with O2, it is more reactive than either CO2 or N2 and this is what would allow O2 to remove heat from our atmosphere. Yet no one considers how much heat O2 removes from the troposphere or how much heat O3 removes from the lower to mid stratosphere.
And this is where the vacuum of the tropopause can allow for O2 to radiate heat into the lower stratosphere where O3 can move it further away from the surface of the earth. And while CO2 levels are increasing, O2 levels are decreasing.
And IMHO black body radiation and the Stefan-Boltzman might have little to do with it because as I mentioned, incoming IR becomes refracted.


If fun means answering sound Scientific knowledge with gobbledygook then you certainly are having fun. Nothing you have said here makes any sense, so let me review the fundamentals. It is alleged that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas." A greenhouse gas is one which absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and radiates them back, thus retaining the heat and supposedly warming the earth. The Earth thermal radiation emissions with which we are concerned are emissions which occur at nighttime. During the night, the earth cools by radiating the heat which it has acquired during the day while facing the sun. It is this Earth heat which is allegedly prevented from escaping into space by CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That is it is alleged the atmospheric CO2 absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and re-radiates them back. Thus it is alleged that CO2 is acting as a material semi blackbody and thus is subject to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, including its emissivity factor. The only measure of radiation from CO2 being returned from a clear Night sky is the Evans study from 2006.

https://www.quantum-dimension.com/co2-blkbdy-data.html

Click on "CO2 radiation data...." for a review of Evans study.



The only thing I understood was that you claim that a gas is a black body. Not possible. Want me to give you the answer? It's not technical. WTH(eck). A black body absorbs all frequencies. CO2 doesn't.
https://lco.global/spacebook/light/black-body-radiation/
I just remembered something else that's better but I can't discuss it in here. Enjoy.

@Marcus, the Nature article mentioned that temperatures started rising before CO2 levels rose. Without knowing why that happened then it's influence on warming can't really be known. This is where I support physical experiments to show definitively how altering the composition of gases in our atmosphere changes its "k" value.
Basically if CO2 levels were elevated in a cylinder, would the walls of that cylinder become warmer than a cylinder that has normal outdoor levels of CO2? Both cylinders would be open on top and exposed to direct solar radiation.
And if a container is placed in each cylinder with the same amount of water, then if CO2 intensifies warming, it could help to show it.


This new view of alleged greenhouse gases as somehow absorbing solar radiation within the "troposphere" and warming the Earth is your latest Scientific fraud. It is put forward because you couldn't justify your original argument that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas," that it absorbs and returns the earth's thermal radiation emissions. Turning to your definition of a blackbody as absorbing all wavelengths. The blackbody is the highest standard for matter absorbing and emitting thermal radiation. What might be called semi-blackbodies cannot absorb and emit all wavelengths of thermal radiation. They fit somewhere between a "whitebody" (which can absorb no thermal wavelengths) and a "blackbody." The fact that CO2 has restricted wavelengths of thermal radiation to which it is sensitive does not exclude it from having blackbody like characteristics. The standard for blackbody energy emissions is Stefan-Boltzmann. Stefan-Boltzmann incorporates an "emissivity factor" to account for the thermal radiation absorption and re-emission by non-blackbodies. "Emissivity," which some of you claim doesn't exist, can be calculated for CO2 using the 2006 Evans data and Stefan-Boltzmann.

The Evans paper may be found by the following url
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiS4JqN4szmAhXhJzQIHYluCF4QFjAAegQIBhAI&url=https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1elFd05VoWIA3AteN-fp4S


may I butt in and say that what James says (which I haven't followed completely, possibly due to lack of knowledge), does not comment on how much of a green house gas CO2 really is. I am also not clear as to how much James' argument hinges on CO2 having a stong green house effect.



J, at the moment, it is not known the specific contribution to atmospheric warming that CO2 is responsible for. There is not a definitive answer, kind of why there is a debate. With the experiment that I suggested using 2 tubes (or more) open to the atmosphere and direct solar radiation (the Sun or other acceptable source of IR/heat). By varying the CO2 in such tubes (with a small container of water at the bottom) then we would have a repeatable experiment that would allow for peer review. And this could help to show what role water plays in warming. Water is said to be responsible for 60% of global warming. ODSs have the highest GWP's of all GHG's. They deplete stratospheric ozone.
Dr. Stefensen said "We believe, that this CO2 feedback has significance as even small changes in solar radiation have had great effects."
Myself, I think it's a culmination of things, not just CO2. The amount of oxygen (O2) in the troposphere has decreased by 0.06%, the ozone layer is depleted, this graph from NASA compares favorably with a global warming graph https://binged.it/2NjjzTv.
With O2 levels decreasing, it helps to remove heat from our atmosphere just as ozone stops heat from entering our atmosphere. And with CO2, as it increases so does water vapor in our atmosphere while O2 levels continue to decrease. A cumulative effect?
With that said, I am pursuing my own work having to do with Natural Climate Variation. We know the climate has natural warming and cooling cycles. And with how we've influenced our environment, we can't say what specific effect it has on warming. Science requires that to be determined. And the experiment that I mentioned would help to answer that question.
Attached image:


Edited on 12-01-2020 20:27
12-01-2020 20:38
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
jboy751 wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
James,
You just gave away your "age", so to speak.



Gotta have some fun sometimes. He doesn't understand that the emissivity of the atmosphere is not determined by the Stefan-Boltzman constant. Heat in the atmosphere is released by gasses because of their emission spectrum. And as a gas like O2 moves higher in the atmosphere, are there sufficient gasses to absorb it's emission? If not then that electromagnetic radiation released by gases can radiate away from our atmosphere. That's basically the non-technical explanation.
And with O2, it is more reactive than either CO2 or N2 and this is what would allow O2 to remove heat from our atmosphere. Yet no one considers how much heat O2 removes from the troposphere or how much heat O3 removes from the lower to mid stratosphere.
And this is where the vacuum of the tropopause can allow for O2 to radiate heat into the lower stratosphere where O3 can move it further away from the surface of the earth. And while CO2 levels are increasing, O2 levels are decreasing.
And IMHO black body radiation and the Stefan-Boltzman might have little to do with it because as I mentioned, incoming IR becomes refracted.


If fun means answering sound Scientific knowledge with gobbledygook then you certainly are having fun. Nothing you have said here makes any sense, so let me review the fundamentals. It is alleged that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas." A greenhouse gas is one which absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and radiates them back, thus retaining the heat and supposedly warming the earth. The Earth thermal radiation emissions with which we are concerned are emissions which occur at nighttime. During the night, the earth cools by radiating the heat which it has acquired during the day while facing the sun. It is this Earth heat which is allegedly prevented from escaping into space by CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That is it is alleged the atmospheric CO2 absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and re-radiates them back. Thus it is alleged that CO2 is acting as a material semi blackbody and thus is subject to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, including its emissivity factor. The only measure of radiation from CO2 being returned from a clear Night sky is the Evans study from 2006.

https://www.quantum-dimension.com/co2-blkbdy-data.html

Click on "CO2 radiation data...." for a review of Evans study.



The only thing I understood was that you claim that a gas is a black body. Not possible. Want me to give you the answer? It's not technical. WTH(eck). A black body absorbs all frequencies. CO2 doesn't.
https://lco.global/spacebook/light/black-body-radiation/
I just remembered something else that's better but I can't discuss it in here. Enjoy.

@Marcus, the Nature article mentioned that temperatures started rising before CO2 levels rose. Without knowing why that happened then it's influence on warming can't really be known. This is where I support physical experiments to show definitively how altering the composition of gases in our atmosphere changes its "k" value.
Basically if CO2 levels were elevated in a cylinder, would the walls of that cylinder become warmer than a cylinder that has normal outdoor levels of CO2? Both cylinders would be open on top and exposed to direct solar radiation.
And if a container is placed in each cylinder with the same amount of water, then if CO2 intensifies warming, it could help to show it.


This new view of alleged greenhouse gases as somehow absorbing solar radiation within the "troposphere" and warming the Earth is your latest Scientific fraud. It is put forward because you couldn't justify your original argument that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas," that it absorbs and returns the earth's thermal radiation emissions. Turning to your definition of a blackbody as absorbing all wavelengths. The blackbody is the highest standard for matter absorbing and emitting thermal radiation. What might be called semi-blackbodies cannot absorb and emit all wavelengths of thermal radiation. They fit somewhere between a "whitebody" (which can absorb no thermal wavelengths) and a "blackbody." The fact that CO2 has restricted wavelengths of thermal radiation to which it is sensitive does not exclude it from having blackbody like characteristics. The standard for blackbody energy emissions is Stefan-Boltzmann. Stefan-Boltzmann incorporates an "emissivity factor" to account for the thermal radiation absorption and re-emission by non-blackbodies. "Emissivity," which some of you claim doesn't exist, can be calculated for CO2 using the 2006 Evans data and Stefan-Boltzmann.

The Evans paper may be found by the following url
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiS4JqN4szmAhXhJzQIHYluCF4QFjAAegQIBhAI&url=https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1elFd05VoWIA3AteN-fp4S


may I butt in and say that what James says (which I haven't followed completely, possibly due to lack of knowledge), does not comment on how much of a green house gas CO2 really is. I am also not clear as to how much James' argument hinges on CO2 having a stong green house effect.


Politicians are saying we have less than 12 years to survive (AOC) because of our use of fossil fuels as an energy source. They want to eliminate fossil fuels completely. Their current attempt is already suppressing the needed industrialization of sub Sahara Africa.
12-01-2020 20:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7282)
nemodawson wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that your education in science is deficient?

Have you ever considered that you are just a dimwit?

nemodawson wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that your professors suppress knowledge from the past because it doesn't conform with their current theories?

Not in my case.

nemodawson wrote: I have written a book called "Poisoned Science" which partially documents this.

Is your book any good? I have written books by dimwits before.

nemodawson wrote: As to the topic at hand, I believe you are suggesting that the factor "emissivity," which modifies blackbody thermal radiation, doesn't exist.

Only a dimwit would assign this kind of bogus position to me. Dos this normally work for you? Is this your go-to strategy?


Why do you believe in Global Warming?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-01-2020 21:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7282)
nemodawson wrote: I have written a book called "Poisoned Science" which partially documents this.


I have read the summary of your book.

You are a fraud. You have no understanding of science, that much is clear. What you know is what you gleaned from Wikipedia. You, like many who post on this site haven't the vaguest understanding of the scientific method. You could take notes from what I tell you, but that would probably bruise your ego and would be tantamount to admitting you don't know what you are talking about.

It would be best if you weren't to mention your book anymore.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: Which one of us is the scientific fraud?12-01-2020 23:33
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
Okay so I am a fraud in science who is educated only by Wikipedia; also my book outlining the corruption which occurred in physics starting in the 60s— which includes all particle physics and most astrophysics— is garbage. You know this because you read the description blurb on Amazon. You say that I don't understand the scientific method. I don't know why you think you can come to this conclusion. If you actually read my book (Poisoned Science) you might have discovered that my objections to many 60s physics theories is the fact that they do not rely upon empirical evidence and, in fact, have suppressed data from some of the best minds from the past. By the way, none of this information is contained in Wikipedia. Further, if you had read my magnum opus "Four Dimensional Atomic Structure" you might have learned that I conducted two significant studies using the scientific method; the discovery and measurement of negative radiation and the demonstration that the rate of ß decay using U238 can be increased by the application of an external electromagnetic field. The Uranium was integrated into the negative pole. Further, the rate of decay was increased under higher field voltage. Using a t-test, the variances in rates were shown to be statistically significant under scientific standards. The data was submitted to the chairman of the Nuclear Engineering Department, ISU, for peer review.

I am really tired of presenting my scientific bona fides and would like to get back to the discussion of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The issue is:
did the 2006 Evans measurement of 15 µ thermal radiation coming from the clear night sky identify the greenhouse gas capacity of CO2?
When the Evans measurement is applied to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, using the 193 °K temperature for a 15 µ peak wavelength, an emissivity for CO2 is calculated as 1/10 of 1%. The 15 µ peak thermal radiation wavelength is the only wavelength within the earth's peak thermal radiation band to which CO2 is sensitive. The emissivity ratio calculated for atmospheric CO2 indicates that atmospheric CO2 can only absorb and re-radiate 1/10 of 1% of the earth's thermal radiation. Atmospheric CO2 cannot function as an earth-warming greenhouse gas
Edited on 12-01-2020 23:38
13-01-2020 00:10
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
nemodawson wrote:
Okay so I am a fraud in science who is educated only by Wikipedia; also my book outlining the corruption which occurred in physics starting in the 60s— which includes all particle physics and most astrophysics— is garbage. You know this because you read the description blurb on Amazon. You say that I don't understand the scientific method. I don't know why you think you can come to this conclusion. If you actually read my book (Poisoned Science) you might have discovered that my objections to many 60s physics theories is the fact that they do not rely upon empirical evidence and, in fact, have suppressed data from some of the best minds from the past. By the way, none of this information is contained in Wikipedia. Further, if you had read my magnum opus "Four Dimensional Atomic Structure" you might have learned that I conducted two significant studies using the scientific method; the discovery and measurement of negative radiation and the demonstration that the rate of ß decay using U238 can be increased by the application of an external electromagnetic field. The Uranium was integrated into the negative pole. Further, the rate of decay was increased under higher field voltage. Using a t-test, the variances in rates were shown to be statistically significant under scientific standards. The data was submitted to the chairman of the Nuclear Engineering Department, ISU, for peer review.

I am really tired of presenting my scientific bona fides and would like to get back to the discussion of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The issue is:
did the 2006 Evans measurement of 15 µ thermal radiation coming from the clear night sky identify the greenhouse gas capacity of CO2?
When the Evans measurement is applied to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, using the 193 °K temperature for a 15 µ peak wavelength, an emissivity for CO2 is calculated as 1/10 of 1%. The 15 µ peak thermal radiation wavelength is the only wavelength within the earth's peak thermal radiation band to which CO2 is sensitive. The emissivity ratio calculated for atmospheric CO2 indicates that atmospheric CO2 can only absorb and re-radiate 1/10 of 1% of the earth's thermal radiation. Atmospheric CO2 cannot function as an earth-warming greenhouse gas



Umm, yet didn't you say that CO2 is a black body while it doesn't absorb all frequencies? You ignored what I said because? Wouldn't allowing an acceptable source of IR heating gases in 2 open tubes be empirical evidence?
If what water is placed in each container becomes to some extent water vapor and were to increase the density of that volume of gases in the tubes, I don't think such an experiment has been pursued. After all, when one tube has more CO2 than the other, a comparative analysis becomes possible. Does that decrease the amount of O2 while increasing the amount of water vapor?
If so, then we could say that a ratio is observed based on the results of these experiments which can easily be replicated.
And the best part ? If something like tin, glass, etc. is used then the ratio of warming might be shown to be consistent. You see, an IR thermometer could measure the heat of the tube because the tube itself would act as a black body.
And with me, I think it'd be cool to see an experiment like that tried. And if more water vapor is a part of the feedback mechanism, then we would know it.
Instead when you say "The emissivity ratio calculated for atmospheric CO2", that is how climate models are made today. They say the same thing that you are saying. This allows for the debate which exists today.
Edited on 13-01-2020 00:23
RE: Your proposed experiment.13-01-2020 01:34
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
Your idea of using tubes with various levels of CO2 and seeing if the variance makes a difference in thermal radiation emissions from the tube has some interesting aspects. You must first identify the expected results of the hypothesis. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then the tube with more CO2 density should absorb more thermal radiation from the tube which you say is acting as a black body. I suggest you paint the interior of your tubes black to increase their approximation of a blackbody. An authentic scientific hypothesis must have the capacity of disproving itself. Your experiment can be an authentic test of a scientific hypothesis. If you measure no IR temperature differences between tubes containing different levels of CO2 density, then you can conclude that the density differences did not affect absorption of the tubes' thermal radiation emissions. I don't think advocates of CO2 catastrophism would want to live by the results of your experiment, however.
13-01-2020 01:53
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
nemodawson wrote:
Your idea of using tubes with various levels of CO2 and seeing if the variance makes a difference in thermal radiation emissions from the tube has some interesting aspects. You must first identify the expected results of the hypothesis. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then the tube with more CO2 density should absorb more thermal radiation from the tube which you say is acting as a black body. I suggest you paint the interior of your tubes black to increase their approximation of a blackbody. An authentic scientific hypothesis must have the capacity of disproving itself. Your experiment can be an authentic test of a scientific hypothesis. If you measure no IR temperature differences between tubes containing different levels of CO2 density, then you can conclude that the density differences did not affect absorption of the tubes' thermal radiation emissions. I don't think advocates of CO2 catastrophism would want to live by the results of your experiment, however.



The hypothesis is that "trapped" IR (ie, warmer air) would be absorbed by the tube raising its thermal temperature. If no significant difference is observed then what the Scripps Institute of Oceanography said, clouds form because of the system and not the cloud creating the weather might need to be considered. Will edit and add their quote.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

What this could suggest is that something other than CO2 significantly increases global temperatures but not CO2.
This is because according to Scripps,
>> As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. <<

And if CO2 plays a role in it, then an experiment like I have suggested could help to clarify what that role is.
Edited on 13-01-2020 02:16
13-01-2020 02:21
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
jboy751 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Well duhhh, it's obvious that greenhouse gas creates additional energy by overcoming the stupid restrictions of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I'm just wondering why Marvel Comics hasn't made a superhero with this superpower.

Anyway, it won't be long before we have a series of infomercials centered around "Cooking with CO2."
.


I was unclear whether your misled answers are due to bad understanding of physics or psychotic anger explosions. I start believing that its mostly the former and less of the latter.

The above statement you are critisizing means something different. The integrated energy distribution starting from an arbitrary radius within the earth atmosphere and below totals more or less the energy coming from the sun into this volume. However the actual energy distribution within this volume varies depending on the time dependent constitution of the various layers of materials and flows in the earth atmosphere and the acutal earth matter. The properties of these layers and flows, are complex and subject to many studies. When he says that CO2 contributes 'extra energy' this is not energy produced by the CO2 but extra energy that is trapped in certain parts of the volume which are redistributed from other parts of the said volume, preserving the integral.

To say an easy to understand example, lets say you are standing in front of a radiation heater at a distance of 5m. Your friend stands between you and the radiator at a distance of 2m from the radiator. Then sooner or later you and your friend get very hot. Let's say that after 10 minutes you take a reflective 'shield' i.e. a sheet of aluminium foil and place it between you and the radiator. Then suddenly you are much cooler. But your friend gets even hotter, because now he receives the energy both directly from the radiator and from the foil. Does this mean that the foil is generating 'extra energy'? No, it only means that the energy coming from the radiator is redistributed, and now more of that energy is going to your friend and less is going to you. So you are cool and your friend is even hotter. The same concept is applicable to green houses used successfully around the world. And of course the same concept is used hypothetically for the CO2 green house effect (assuming it is as strong as purported by the climate change studies).


Mr. Mann was being extremely sarcastic. Unfortunately, he assumes that every new person coming in is a fanboy of global warming. He doesn't allow anyone to get through his net. You almost have to pledge an allegiance to his view of science that is more extreme than just a simple attest that there is no material effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's really too bad because I'd like to pull my chair up to the big boys table and hear all the stories about the science to defeat this hoax.

We just get lectured that the only thing we need to know is that CO2 can't violate the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics and must subordinate to the Stefan Boltzmann Constant. Also there no such thing as a GHG or fossil fuels, which most people use as a euphemism for hydrocarbons. That's all well and good and I want to believe but we can't seem to have any discourse about practical application.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
13-01-2020 03:29
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
This is for clarification on the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Please note that energy can be transferred from one location to another. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics does allow for an outside source of energy. An example is the Moon at night shining it's light on us. That radiance can be conserved which the law, Conservation of Energy allows for. Science can be interesting.
With me, one thing I want to demonstrate is that when my brother Harold told me that timing changes dwell but dwell can't change timing, that understanding such mechanics does matter.
And with some of this debate, can CO2 change (cause) global warming or does global warming change (increase the PPM of) CO2? You know how it is working on cars all of the time. From my brother's perspective. RIP Harold


The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can, however, be transferred from one location to another and converted to and from other forms of energy.
Edited on 13-01-2020 03:34
13-01-2020 03:37
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Your idea of using tubes with various levels of CO2 and seeing if the variance makes a difference in thermal radiation emissions from the tube has some interesting aspects. You must first identify the expected results of the hypothesis. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then the tube with more CO2 density should absorb more thermal radiation from the tube which you say is acting as a black body. I suggest you paint the interior of your tubes black to increase their approximation of a blackbody. An authentic scientific hypothesis must have the capacity of disproving itself. Your experiment can be an authentic test of a scientific hypothesis. If you measure no IR temperature differences between tubes containing different levels of CO2 density, then you can conclude that the density differences did not affect absorption of the tubes' thermal radiation emissions. I don't think advocates of CO2 catastrophism would want to live by the results of your experiment, however.



The hypothesis is that "trapped" IR (ie, warmer air) would be absorbed by the tube raising its thermal temperature. If no significant difference is observed then what the Scripps Institute of Oceanography said, clouds form because of the system and not the cloud creating the weather might need to be considered. Will edit and add their quote.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

What this could suggest is that something other than CO2 significantly increases global temperatures but not CO2.
This is because according to Scripps,
>> As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. <<

And if CO2 plays a role in it, then an experiment like I have suggested could help to clarify what that role is.


Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.
Edited on 13-01-2020 04:02
13-01-2020 05:25
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Your idea of using tubes with various levels of CO2 and seeing if the variance makes a difference in thermal radiation emissions from the tube has some interesting aspects. You must first identify the expected results of the hypothesis. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then the tube with more CO2 density should absorb more thermal radiation from the tube which you say is acting as a black body. I suggest you paint the interior of your tubes black to increase their approximation of a blackbody. An authentic scientific hypothesis must have the capacity of disproving itself. Your experiment can be an authentic test of a scientific hypothesis. If you measure no IR temperature differences between tubes containing different levels of CO2 density, then you can conclude that the density differences did not affect absorption of the tubes' thermal radiation emissions. I don't think advocates of CO2 catastrophism would want to live by the results of your experiment, however.



The hypothesis is that "trapped" IR (ie, warmer air) would be absorbed by the tube raising its thermal temperature. If no significant difference is observed then what the Scripps Institute of Oceanography said, clouds form because of the system and not the cloud creating the weather might need to be considered. Will edit and add their quote.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml

What this could suggest is that something other than CO2 significantly increases global temperatures but not CO2.
This is because according to Scripps,
>> As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. <<

And if CO2 plays a role in it, then an experiment like I have suggested could help to clarify what that role is.


Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.



You might find this interesting. And after you read it, search "blob and Pacific Ocean" and "blob and ocean warming again". Actually I'll just post the links, okay?

Global Warming Hiatus
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12534

About 2013 and 2014;
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/the-blob-pacific-ocean-temperatures

And it's back;
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-12-30-new-zealand-above-average-warm-water-pacific

I hope scientists aren't saying it's the Pacific Ocean. At the same time the ozone layer is still depleted. I have an affinity for the ozone layer. It helps to prevent skin cancer and keeps phytoplankton which is extremely important to the marine ecosystem from being killed off.
Still, ever think about putting a small block 400 crank in a 327 and making a 383 c.i. small block Chevy engine that you can add a turbocharger to? We all have our dreams, don't we? I mean a Muncie 4 speed or a 400 auto instead of a 350 behind it? Slamming gears can be fun. A 3.89 rear axle or higher? 4.11 is popular for the 1/4 mile but coming off the line or top end or even a daily driver?
And with a turbo, 11:1 compression might be a bit much. Maybe go with 8:5 or 9:1? Gotta allow for the extra atmosphere. Running no boost then it's 14.7 psia but with a turbo, how many atmospheres of pressure to increase both compression and horsepower? That's what I'm talking about!
For me though. It would need to be a daily driver. So for petrol heads or gear heads, a bit of a bummer, I know. The US doesn't have many public access tracks to open up something with a little kick behind the pedal.

And with phytoplankton, it is at the bottom of the food chain unlike a small block Chevy engine (very interchangeable). And it also produces O2 while a slightly modified 327 doesn't. Sorry about getting off track but the IPCC has been saying that the missing heat is found specifically in the Pacific and not in a Ford (or for Americans a Fjord
)(Fix Or Repair Daily) vehicle. Notice the capital letters? My brother's joke. There's also Found On Roadside Dead.
He tried his best to save me from pursuing an understanding of physics. He never knew that he made my life better. And for that I will always be grateful.


p.s., if ya'all need a clue, all this hints to is that tectonic plates have been shifting and releasing geothermal heat into the seafloor. And heat rises, right?
Kind of why I would like to see an experiment that demonstrates in real time the effect that CO2 and water vapor have on warming. And this could also account for the climate ripples that Dr. Pedersen of Denmark refereed to in his "blog" that I have previously cited.
And if you don't know what a fjord is, really?
Edited on 13-01-2020 05:44
13-01-2020 05:42
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
nemodawson wrote:
Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.


I would love to hear your falsification of GHG theory, if that's where you are going.

Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained. There's a great deal of people that are taking advantage of what has long been accepted as the function of GHGs.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
13-01-2020 05:55
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
Harry C wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.


I would love to hear your falsification of GHG theory, if that's where you are going.

Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained. There's a great deal of people that are taking advantage of what has long been accepted as the function of GHGs.


I think he's actually on your side. His opinion is that because CO2 is only sensitive to a wavelength of 15 angstroms so it doesn't matter. If I were an emperor penguin watching over an egg, this might matter. If CO2 wasn't as sensitive then that wouldn't be good for the chick or would it?
In reality, emperor penguins incubate their chicks when it's about 193º kelvin. After I saw neo mention 193º kelvin I've been wanting to say that. Thank You.
If CO2 behaved differently then that could affect the mating habits and incubation of penguins. I am being totally serious here. Some animals can't mate or incubate their chicks unless environmental conditions allow for it.
In here I am hated for being an environmentalist. I try to keep quiet about that.

Harry, you'll need to forgive me for this. I doubt few people associate 15 angstroms, 193 kelvins with something other than CO2. Anyone can check and they'll probably find out that the only place on Earth that cold is Antarctica in the middle of winter and that male emperor penguins will be incubating eggs that will become chicks. It seems no one else in here is aware of that. (as an environmentalist I am laughing my ass of on that one, do you know what is 193º kelvins and creates methane? A penguin farting!!!). That's friggin hilarious!!!
I am thinking that right now neo is thinking (I wasn't talking about the south pole). But it does help with perspective.
Still, the south pole during winter gives a perspective of CO2. Does that agree with warmer climates? I don't know if it does. The information is lacking.
Edited on 13-01-2020 06:20
13-01-2020 06:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7282)
nemodawson wrote:— is garbage. You know this because you read the description blurb on Amazon.

Yes. You give yourself away by writing things that no one with any grasp of the scientific method would write. Since you are cleary a Wikipedia-ranger you have no idea why your Amazon blurb tells serious researchers to look elsewhere. Don't count on anyone with any scientific understanding to take your book seriously.

If you had only had someone such as myself review it first I could have identified the parts you would need to remove that kill it ... or at least what to NOT write in your blurb so that people would have to at least read a chapter before discarding it.


nemodawson wrote: You say that I don't understand the scientific method.

It's more like I am informing you. I wonder where you ever got the idea that you did.

nemodawson wrote: I don't know why you think you can come to this conclusion.

I am well aware that you don't.

nemodawson wrote: I am really tired of presenting my scientific bona fides and would like to get back to the discussion of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.


[hint: I'll give you a huge clue right here about what gives you away]

In your books, what completely unambiguous definition do you use for "Greenhouse Effect" such that physics can apply?

Feel free to write the Greenhouse Effect equation right here ... you can take it from the internet if you want.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 06:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7282)
James___ wrote:The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy,

James__,

No, heat is not a form of energy. Heat is a FLOW of a particular form of energy (specifically THERMAL energy which is a form of energy)

... and it is the zeroth law of thermodynamics that discusses thermal equilibrium.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 06:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7282)
Harry C wrote:I would love to hear your falsification of GHG theory, if that's where you are going.

You are going to have a long wait.

Only falsifiable theories can be falsified. "GHG theory" is nothing more than WACKY unfalsifiable religious dogma.

The higher you get your hopes on this one, the more you will be disappointed.

... and btw, nemodawson is a fraud. He is just one of the many who are in this "debate" because it affords them an opportunity to live out a fantasy of being an authority on something using gibber-babble of their preference.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 07:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
MarcusR wrote:
Harry C wrote:

It seems to me that the climate alarmist attribute the ability to create heat to CO2. I have been looking in earnest for someone to please explain what physical properties carbon dioxide uses to increase temperature.


That CO2 creates energy in any way is ofcourse not correct, and has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The only source of energy we have on earth is the sun (we can basically neglect the 47TW we get from earths heat flux). The greenhouse effect is sctrictly a radiative effect where greenhouse gasses absorb the radiation the both the Earth and the atmosphere itself emit. That radiation would otherwise be radiated out to space and lost.

* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a cooler gas. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't trap thermal energy.
MarcusR wrote:
So what GHG's such as Water Vapour, CO2, CH4 etc does is just to keep more of the energy here in the earth/atmosphere system.

Not possible. All these gases do is allow heating of the atmosphere by the surface by radiance. This is in addition to heating by conduction. This cools the surface. The CO2 also radiates. You can't trap light. Not all photons are the same.
MarcusR wrote:
A simplified but Good explanation of the green house effect and the role of GHG's can be found here:
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
MarcusR wrote:
If you want to know why i.e CO2 can absorb radiation of certain frequencies, here is a good description:
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

And if you want to see the IR spectrum of i.e CO2 and other gasses, they can be found here:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC

Irrelevant. Absorption is not warming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 07:05
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy,

James__,

No, heat is not a form of energy. Heat is a FLOW of a particular form of energy (specifically THERMAL energy which is a form of energy)

... and it is the zeroth law of thermodynamics that discusses thermal equilibrium.


.



Technically speaking, heat is the flow of conserved energy in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics. It can move from its source to?
This simply means that heat content has been converted (according to the 1st law of thermodynamics) to a flow of heat. If heat was not stored then it cannot be become a flow.
An example of this is the snow in the Cascade mountains of Washington (Hi ITN).It is stored energy. When it melts in the spring it becomes as heat, it flows because it is. As snow, it is not. It is conserved.
When water is snow pack, it is nothing. But when it flows it becomes heat, it does generate electricity which is an example of heat. You have given an example of how IR can excite other matter and become heat.
This is why research needs to be pursued so we can know the difference between what is and what matters. You shouldn't be so helpful IBDM. I have noticed ITN's absence of late and do hope he is okay.
13-01-2020 07:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
jboy751 wrote:
James___ wrote:
jboy751 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jboy751 wrote:Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Get in line.

I would like to see a serious, unambiguous definition of the global climate that would enable a serious expert to determine whether "Climate Change" is "natural" or not.


.


Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous. And then argue on that. For example, instead of climate change, you can use global warming which is less ambiguous (?).

For example NASA claims that the solar irradiation is not enough to explain global warming. Of course there are assumptions in their analysis, since their records only go back to the late 70s.

So I was wandering whether some expert who has access to data and is sophisticated enough, has expressed the opposite conclusion. I.e. that solar irradiation does justify global warming.



This guy is an ice core researcher. His credentials are
Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
He is an expert in his field. Since we don't understand natural climate variation, we can't say how much if any warming is attributed to CO2. After all, O2 plays a role in removing heat from the atmosphere but we're not talking about it's diminished levels, are we? If you read what he has to say, there were climate ripples in the northern hemisphere during the last ice age when it warmed significantly without CO2. And today, the Arctic is the place where warming is most pronounced. I think something might be getting ready to happen but that could take a century and be quite significant. Why bread crumbs are good to follow.

He states that;
One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/


James, this was a great article, where someone who has done their home work and are sober in their brain, argue both sides of the story.

What I find interesting is the concept that the very mechanisms that make the climate potentially very unstable by natural causes, are the same ones who could cause havoc with man made CO2 emissions.

When I begun this thread, I was an agnostic in terms of the origin of global warming, and largely still am. But I thought that the most fanatic missinformed side would have been the "hippies who rush to claim there is man made climate change". I don't know if this forum is representative of other forums but I completely changed my mind as to which side is a "religious fanatic", blinded by misled ideological incentives, dressing their anger and need of self-gratification, as "science".

CO2 does not affect the weather.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 07:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy,

James__,

No, heat is not a form of energy. Heat is a FLOW of a particular form of energy (specifically THERMAL energy which is a form of energy)

... and it is the zeroth law of thermodynamics that discusses thermal equilibrium.


.



Technically speaking, heat is the flow of conserved energy in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics. It can move from its source to?
Heat is the flow of thermal energy, and only thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
This simply means that heat content has been converted (according to the 1st law of thermodynamics) to a flow of heat.
Heat is not contained in anything. It has no content.
James___ wrote:
If heat was not stored then it cannot be become a flow.
Flow is not storage.
James___ wrote:
An example of this is the snow in the Cascade mountains of Washington (Hi ITN).It is stored energy. When it melts in the spring it becomes as heat, it flows because it is. As snow, it is not. It is conserved.
Snow is not flow. Snow is not heat. Water is not flow. Water is not heat. Neither are thermal energy.
James___ wrote:
When water is snow pack, it is nothing.
Yes it is. It's ice.
James___ wrote:
But when it flows it becomes heat,
Nope. Flowing water is not heat.
James___ wrote:
it does generate electricity which is an example of heat.
Electricity is not heat.
James___ wrote:
You have given an example of how IR can excite other matter and become heat.
Light is not heat. Conversion to other forms of energy is not heat.
James___ wrote:
This is why research needs to be pursued so we can know the difference between what is and what matters. You shouldn't be so helpful IBDM. I have noticed ITN's absence of late and do hope he is okay.

Just fine, thanks.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 07:45
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy,

James__,

No, heat is not a form of energy. Heat is a FLOW of a particular form of energy (specifically THERMAL energy which is a form of energy)

... and it is the zeroth law of thermodynamics that discusses thermal equilibrium.


Can we deal with your first statement?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_plasma_emit_electromagnetic_radiation_If_it_does_could_black_body_radiation_method_be_used_to_describe_the_spectrum_of_the_radiation

see? Burning wood emits plasma and as we all know, plasma emits electromagnetic radiation. We'll need to answer your post one statement at a time, okay?
This is so Kkkeeewwwllll!!! (cool!!). 1st neo brings emperor penguins into the subject and now you bring in the EU burning trees into it. Are you sure you're not an environmentalist?

Next is;
Heat is not contained in anything. It has no content.

Heat can be conserved. This was one of Wake's arguments with CO2. Because of it's "k" value (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html) that CO2 actually cooled the atmosphere. Basically it doesn't propagate heat very well.

This is kind of why myself and some others think that empirical testing needs to be done. Then we wouldn't have these questions. Instead we would have answers.
Edited on 13-01-2020 07:51
13-01-2020 08:29
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
@ITN, you say heat "is". I say yang becomes yin. You ignore yang. It is in everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
Edited on 13-01-2020 08:43
13-01-2020 09:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7282)
IBdaMann wrote:James__,

No, heat is not a form of energy. Heat is a FLOW of a particular form of energy (specifically THERMAL energy which is a form of energy)

... and it is the zeroth law of thermodynamics that discusses thermal equilibrium.



James___ wrote:
Technically speaking, heat is the flow of conserved energy in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Nope. The 1st LoT has nothing to do with energy flow and only deals with energy conservation.

I kid you not.

James___ wrote: This simply means that heat content has been converted

"Heat content" is a contradiction in terms thus there is no such thing. I'll spare you the warmizombie definition from The Manual.

Heat is a flow of thermal energy. Thermal energy cannot be contained or trapped. A flow is the opposite of content.
The term doesn't even pass the common sense test.

James___ wrote: This is why research needs to be pursued ...

James__, research is great and I hope yours is fruitful ... but the reason for it is not because of any contradiction in terms or any misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 17:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy,

James__,

No, heat is not a form of energy. Heat is a FLOW of a particular form of energy (specifically THERMAL energy which is a form of energy)

... and it is the zeroth law of thermodynamics that discusses thermal equilibrium.


Can we deal with your first statement?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_plasma_emit_electromagnetic_radiation_If_it_does_could_black_body_radiation_method_be_used_to_describe_the_spectrum_of_the_radiation

see? Burning wood emits plasma and as we all know, plasma emits electromagnetic radiation. We'll need to answer your post one statement at a time, okay?
This is so Kkkeeewwwllll!!! (cool!!). 1st neo brings emperor penguins into the subject and now you bring in the EU burning trees into it. Are you sure you're not an environmentalist?

Next is;
Heat is not contained in anything. It has no content.

Heat can be conserved. This was one of Wake's arguments with CO2. Because of it's "k" value (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html) that CO2 actually cooled the atmosphere. Basically it doesn't propagate heat very well.

This is kind of why myself and some others think that empirical testing needs to be done. Then we wouldn't have these questions. Instead we would have answers.

CO2 has no capability to cool the atmosphere. You cannot destroy energy into nothing.
Radiance by itself is not heat.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 17:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
James___ wrote:
@ITN, you say heat "is". I say yang becomes yin. You ignore yang. It is in everything.
...deleted Holy Wikipedia Link...


Nope. Heat is not contained in anything. False authority fallacy. False equivalence fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 18:18
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
James___ wrote:
Still, ever think about putting a small block 400 crank in a 327 and making a 383 c.i. small block Chevy engine that you can add a turbocharger to? We all have our dreams, don't we? I mean a Muncie 4 speed or a 400 auto instead of a 350 behind it? Slamming gears can be fun. A 3.89 rear axle or higher? 4.11 is popular for the 1/4 mile but coming off the line or top end or even a daily driver?
And with a turbo, 11:1 compression might be a bit much. Maybe go with 8:5 or 9:1? Gotta allow for the extra atmosphere. Running no boost then it's 14.7 psia but with a turbo, how many atmospheres of pressure to increase both compression and horsepower? That's what I'm talking about!
For me though. It would need to be a daily driver. So for petrol heads or gear heads, a bit of a bummer, I know. The US doesn't have many public access tracks to open up something with a little kick behind the pedal.



Now you're talking something I can sink my teeth in to. It takes a small block 350 with a 400 crank to make a 383. However it's not the best configuration to Turbo. A stock 327 is better due to the bore:stroke. We talk about PSI of boost and it depends upon compression, cam and engine size. You can't use any boost with 11:1 compression.

Back to your regular programming...


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
13-01-2020 19:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7282)
James___ wrote:
@ITN, you say heat "is". I say yang becomes yin. You ignore yang. It is in everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang


Yang becomes Yin ... which is Yang ... becoming Yin ... which is Yang ...


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-01-2020 20:57
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
James___ wrote:
Heat is not contained in anything. It has no content.

Heat can be conserved. This was one of Wake's arguments with CO2. Because of it's "k" value (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html) that CO2 actually cooled the atmosphere. Basically it doesn't propagate heat very well.

This is kind of why myself and some others think that empirical testing needs to be done. Then we wouldn't have these questions. Instead we would have answers.


Actually, the greenhouse effect is strictly speaking a radiative effect and empirical testing has been done. The latter was made by i.e Feldman et al., 2015 "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010"
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
It was published in Nature so there is a paywall..... But if You want to read more abouth the tech used for the meassurement take a look here:
https://www.arm.gov/capabilities/instruments/aeri
13-01-2020 21:20
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.


I would love to hear your falsification of GHG theory, if that's where you are going.

Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained. There's a great deal of people that are taking advantage of what has long been accepted as the function of GHGs.


I think he's actually on your side. His opinion is that because CO2 is only sensitive to a wavelength of 15 angstroms so it doesn't matter. If I were an emperor penguin watching over an egg, this might matter. If CO2 wasn't as sensitive then that wouldn't be good for the chick or would it?
In reality, emperor penguins incubate their chicks when it's about 193º kelvin. After I saw neo mention 193º kelvin I've been wanting to say that. Thank You.
If CO2 behaved differently then that could affect the mating habits and incubation of penguins. I am being totally serious here. Some animals can't mate or incubate their chicks unless environmental conditions allow for it.
In here I am hated for being an environmentalist. I try to keep quiet about that.

Harry, you'll need to forgive me for this. I doubt few people associate 15 angstroms, 193 kelvins with something other than CO2. Anyone can check and they'll probably find out that the only place on Earth that cold is Antarctica in the middle of winter and that male emperor penguins will be incubating eggs that will become chicks. It seems no one else in here is aware of that. (as an environmentalist I am laughing my ass of on that one, do you know what is 193º kelvins and creates methane? A penguin farting!!!). That's friggin hilarious!!!
I am thinking that right now neo is thinking (I wasn't talking about the south pole). But it does help with perspective.
Still, the south pole during winter gives a perspective of CO2. Does that agree with warmer climates? I don't know if it does. The information is lacking.


Okay. I get the very distinct impression that I have to educate you guys on thermal radiation dynamics. Let us start with the comment that 15 µ peak thermal radiation is a temperature of 193 °K (-112° F) and temperatures in this range have only been recorded in Antarctica. While this is true it misses the fact that 15 µ thermal radiation is a curve under which many other temperatures are covered. Please consult a black body thermal radiation graph for multiple temperatures. You will notice that the area under the 15 µ curve contains the range of typical earth night temperatures from 12 µ to 9.5 µ (-25° F to 90° F). This curve has been integrated by Planck Constant energy values for each wavelength under the curve. That integration confirmed the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for Watts per meter squared. The 15 µ peak wavelength thermal radiation curve incorporates typical earth thermal radiation temperatures as well. Therefore using measurements in W/cm^2 for 15 µ thermal radiation emissions (indicating CO2) is completely credible to define CO2's capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the earth during the night.
13-01-2020 21:49
James___
★★★★★
(2966)
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.


I would love to hear your falsification of GHG theory, if that's where you are going.

Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained. There's a great deal of people that are taking advantage of what has long been accepted as the function of GHGs.


I think he's actually on your side. His opinion is that because CO2 is only sensitive to a wavelength of 15 angstroms so it doesn't matter. If I were an emperor penguin watching over an egg, this might matter. If CO2 wasn't as sensitive then that wouldn't be good for the chick or would it?
In reality, emperor penguins incubate their chicks when it's about 193º kelvin. After I saw neo mention 193º kelvin I've been wanting to say that. Thank You.
If CO2 behaved differently then that could affect the mating habits and incubation of penguins. I am being totally serious here. Some animals can't mate or incubate their chicks unless environmental conditions allow for it.
In here I am hated for being an environmentalist. I try to keep quiet about that.

Harry, you'll need to forgive me for this. I doubt few people associate 15 angstroms, 193 kelvins with something other than CO2. Anyone can check and they'll probably find out that the only place on Earth that cold is Antarctica in the middle of winter and that male emperor penguins will be incubating eggs that will become chicks. It seems no one else in here is aware of that. (as an environmentalist I am laughing my ass of on that one, do you know what is 193º kelvins and creates methane? A penguin farting!!!). That's friggin hilarious!!!
I am thinking that right now neo is thinking (I wasn't talking about the south pole). But it does help with perspective.
Still, the south pole during winter gives a perspective of CO2. Does that agree with warmer climates? I don't know if it does. The information is lacking.


Okay. I get the very distinct impression that I have to educate you guys on thermal radiation dynamics. Let us start with the comment that 15 µ peak thermal radiation is a temperature of 193 °K (-112° F) and temperatures in this range have only been recorded in Antarctica. While this is true it misses the fact that 15 µ thermal radiation is a curve under which many other temperatures are covered. Please consult a black body thermal radiation graph for multiple temperatures. You will notice that the area under the 15 µ curve contains the range of typical earth night temperatures from 12 µ to 9.5 µ (-25° F to 90° F). This curve has been integrated by Planck Constant energy values for each wavelength under the curve. That integration confirmed the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for Watts per meter squared. The 15 µ peak wavelength thermal radiation curve incorporates typical earth thermal radiation temperatures as well. Therefore using measurements in W/cm^2 for 15 µ thermal radiation emissions (indicating CO2) is completely credible to define CO2's capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the earth during the night.



If we accept what you say as being correct, then 15 µ is about 200 w/m^2, right? https://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-2-solar-energy-reaching-the-earths-surface/#2.4.-The-Solar-Spectrum
Then if we consider a value of 0.04% of say 200 w/m^2 then we have an effect of about 8 w/m^2. That's actually an insignificant amount of heat.
Of course if that is added on to natural warming, then it intensifies that some.
From here we would need to associate w/m^2 with temperature which could include relative humidity or humiture as it's called any more if you live in some place like Florida. Then we could establish the significance or lack there of of the 8 w/m^2 increase.
13-01-2020 22:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
MarcusR wrote:
James___ wrote:
Heat is not contained in anything. It has no content.

Heat can be conserved. This was one of Wake's arguments with CO2. Because of it's "k" value (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html) that CO2 actually cooled the atmosphere. Basically it doesn't propagate heat very well.

This is kind of why myself and some others think that empirical testing needs to be done. Then we wouldn't have these questions. Instead we would have answers.


Actually, the greenhouse effect is strictly speaking a radiative effect

Nope. You cannot decrease the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
MarcusR wrote:
and empirical testing has been done.

None.
MarcusR wrote:
The latter was made by i.e Feldman et al., 2015 "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010"
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
It was published in Nature so there is a paywall..... But if You want to read more abouth the tech used for the meassurement take a look here:
https://www.arm.gov/capabilities/instruments/aeri

While this instrument does measure IR from the atmosphere, that IR is not necessarily getting absorbed by the surface. You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-01-2020 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
James___ wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harry C wrote:
nemodawson wrote:
Okay. I'll buy it that the current unproved explanation for CO2 causing global warming has changed to some kind of atmospheric nonsense. I will stick however with what we know about the dynamics of thermal radiation, using hard data and solid mathematics. I will not enter into the "gooey" current unproven speculations which ignore actual blackbody thermal radiation Science. I am pushing well-founded knowledge, not speculation.


I would love to hear your falsification of GHG theory, if that's where you are going.

Everything I've read about GHG, the actual physical process and properties are never explained. There's a great deal of people that are taking advantage of what has long been accepted as the function of GHGs.


I think he's actually on your side. His opinion is that because CO2 is only sensitive to a wavelength of 15 angstroms so it doesn't matter. If I were an emperor penguin watching over an egg, this might matter. If CO2 wasn't as sensitive then that wouldn't be good for the chick or would it?
In reality, emperor penguins incubate their chicks when it's about 193º kelvin. After I saw neo mention 193º kelvin I've been wanting to say that. Thank You.
If CO2 behaved differently then that could affect the mating habits and incubation of penguins. I am being totally serious here. Some animals can't mate or incubate their chicks unless environmental conditions allow for it.
In here I am hated for being an environmentalist. I try to keep quiet about that.

Harry, you'll need to forgive me for this. I doubt few people associate 15 angstroms, 193 kelvins with something other than CO2. Anyone can check and they'll probably find out that the only place on Earth that cold is Antarctica in the middle of winter and that male emperor penguins will be incubating eggs that will become chicks. It seems no one else in here is aware of that. (as an environmentalist I am laughing my ass of on that one, do you know what is 193º kelvins and creates methane? A penguin farting!!!). That's friggin hilarious!!!
I am thinking that right now neo is thinking (I wasn't talking about the south pole). But it does help with perspective.
Still, the south pole during winter gives a perspective of CO2. Does that agree with warmer climates? I don't know if it does. The information is lacking.


Okay. I get the very distinct impression that I have to educate you guys on thermal radiation dynamics. Let us start with the comment that 15 µ peak thermal radiation is a temperature of 193 °K (-112° F) and temperatures in this range have only been recorded in Antarctica. While this is true it misses the fact that 15 µ thermal radiation is a curve under which many other temperatures are covered. Please consult a black body thermal radiation graph for multiple temperatures. You will notice that the area under the 15 µ curve contains the range of typical earth night temperatures from 12 µ to 9.5 µ (-25° F to 90° F). This curve has been integrated by Planck Constant energy values for each wavelength under the curve. That integration confirmed the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for Watts per meter squared. The 15 µ peak wavelength thermal radiation curve incorporates typical earth thermal radiation temperatures as well. Therefore using measurements in W/cm^2 for 15 µ thermal radiation emissions (indicating CO2) is completely credible to define CO2's capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the earth during the night.



If we accept what you say as being correct, then 15 µ is about 200 w/m^2, right? https://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-2-solar-energy-reaching-the-earths-surface/#2.4.-The-Solar-Spectrum
Then if we consider a value of 0.04% of say 200 w/m^2 then we have an effect of about 8 w/m^2. That's actually an insignificant amount of heat.
Of course if that is added on to natural warming, then it intensifies that some.
From here we would need to associate w/m^2 with temperature which could include relative humidity or humiture as it's called any more if you live in some place like Florida. Then we could establish the significance or lack there of of the 8 w/m^2 increase.


Define 'natural warming'. Where is this additional energy coming from, assuming the Sun is the same putting out the same power?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 3 of 8<12345>>>





Join the debate man made or natural:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming16103-06-2020 20:20
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming21629-01-2020 05:52
The Only Way To End The Economic Trade War Is Avoid The "Currency Middle Man"120-01-2020 06:06
A Part of Natural Climate Variation?827-11-2019 22:29
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact