Remember me
▼ Content

Must read letter



Page 4 of 4<<<234
28-07-2019 21:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenhouse. It does it by REDUCING heat. Go figure!


Stop running away

Come on

Which garden, from a tomato plants POV has a warmer CLIMATE?


Climate isn't a temperature.

Greenhouses work by reducing heat, specifically convective heat. Like everything else, they still cool off at night. That's why a lot of greenhouses have heaters in them.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 22:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
To follow that analogy:
Two cups of room temp coffee, Cup A and Cup B
Each cup of coffee is put onto a burner for 20 min, and then left off the burner for 20 min, the cycle repeating for 10 hours (total of 5 hours on and 5 hours off). A cycle just like our sun exposure.
The cups are identical except Cup A has a foam sheet wrapped around it.
Which cup gets to 102 degrees faster?
Which cup has a higher stasis temperature?
Cup A of course. Insulation is real.


Sorry, I did not address this last night...it was 2AM something and I shoulda been sleeping.

Cup B would reach 102 degrees much faster. You have insulated cup A from your heat source.

Yes, insulation is real.


Assuming he doesn't melt the foam insulation by putting it on a heat source of course!
yeah, and he accused me of burning the kitchen down!!



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
29-07-2019 02:50
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:
yeah, and he accused me of burning the kitchen down!!


Still waiting for an answer


29-07-2019 03:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
yeah, and he accused me of burning the kitchen down!!


Still waiting for an answer


What's your question? I've had a few adult beverages but I'll give it a go!


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
29-07-2019 03:23
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's your question? I've had a few adult beverages but I'll give it a go!


Two gardens, one covered by a greenhouse the other not, same question.

Which would reach a higher temperature faster, which would have a higher mean temperature?


29-07-2019 03:59
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's your question? I've had a few adult beverages but I'll give it a go!


Two gardens, one covered by a greenhouse the other not, same question.

Which would reach a higher temperature faster, which would have a higher mean temperature?


Already answered that. Go back and look.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
29-07-2019 04:05
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's your question? I've had a few adult beverages but I'll give it a go!


Two gardens, one covered by a greenhouse the other not, same question.

Which would reach a higher temperature faster, which would have a higher mean temperature?


Already answered that. Go back and look.


I thought you were a gas guzzler or is that what you call beer?
He doesn't get this. Greenhouses have more O2 and less CO2 so naturally they'll warm faster. That's if we don't consider the barrier.
I'll leave you guys to your fun.

p.s., scientists have the means to do physical testing but don't. Since CO2 is heavier than both N2 and O2 it would be slower to leave a walled off space into the atmosphere around it. Then actual solar radiation, cloud cover, etc. would allow for the effects of increased CO2 to be observed.
Edited on 29-07-2019 04:09
29-07-2019 04:10
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's your question? I've had a few adult beverages but I'll give it a go!


Two gardens, one covered by a greenhouse the other not, same question.

Which would reach a higher temperature faster, which would have a higher mean temperature?


Already answered that. Go back and look.


I thought you were a gas guzzler or is that what you call beer?
He doesn't get this. Greenhouses have more O2 and less CO2 so naturally they'll warm faster. That's if we don't consider the barrier.
I'll leave you guys to your fun.


Actually green houses pump in MORE CO2. If memory serves me I think 1,000-2,000 ppm is cinsidered optimum for most plants around here.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
29-07-2019 04:15
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Already answered that. Go back and look.


Ah so you did I expected more explanation.
So you believe in the greenhouse effect for greenhouses but not for an atmosphere ? If not why not?


29-07-2019 04:18
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Actually green houses pump in MORE CO2.


Yes the extra plant growth observed on earth is a pretty funny "side effect" of evil CO2.

tmiddles wrote:
Ironically there is increased plant growth NASA has documented as a result.
This is proof of dramatic results:
co2-is-making-earth-greener



29-07-2019 04:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Already answered that. Go back and look.


Ah so you did I expected more explanation.
So you believe in the greenhouse effect for greenhouses but not for an atmosphere ? If not why not?


It works in a green house because greenhouses work by reducing convective heat. There is nothing in the atmosphere to stop convection when lapse rates allow for convective heat.

If you are comparing glass to gas, u r an ass.



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
29-07-2019 04:46
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote: There is nothing in the atmosphere to stop convection when lapse rates allow for convective heat.


"Convective heat transfer, often referred to simply as convection, is the transfer of heat from one place to another by the movement of fluids. "

Gravity stops convection to space. The gasses aren't drifting out into space just as the gas in a greenhouse isn't able to drift off into the atmosphere at large.

The atmosphere of earth does not transfer heat beyond earth through convection. That would requite the gases of the atmosphere to depart the planet.

NASA says about the CLIMATE:
"Earth returns an equal amount of energy back to space by reflecting some incoming light and by radiating heat (thermal infrared energy). Most solar energy is absorbed at the surface, while most heat is radiated back to space by the atmosphere."



Edited on 29-07-2019 04:46
29-07-2019 04:52
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Actually green houses pump in MORE CO2.


Yes the extra plant growth observed on earth is a pretty funny "side effect" of evil CO2.

tmiddles wrote:
Ironically there is increased plant growth NASA has documented as a result.
This is proof of dramatic results:
co2-is-making-earth-greener


The IPCC report (bible) addresses this, and surprisingly, they figure it's a bad thing, some how plants will do much worse, as the CO2 levels rise. Then again, in another section, addressing alternative fuel, they praise bio-fuels derived from plants. Bio-fuels would be a bad business to get into, if CO2 is going to kill off the plants. Wonder what we all are going to use for food? They do encourage a vegan diet, since farm animals produce methane, another potent 'greenhouse'. No meat, no plants, Soylent Green?
29-07-2019 05:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote: There is nothing in the atmosphere to stop convection when lapse rates allow for convective heat.


"Convective heat transfer, often referred to simply as convection, is the transfer of heat from one place to another by the movement of fluids. "

Gravity stops convection to space. The gasses aren't drifting out into space just as the gas in a greenhouse isn't able to drift off into the atmosphere at large.

The atmosphere of earth does not transfer heat beyond earth through convection. That would requite the gases of the atmosphere to depart the planet.

NASA says about the CLIMATE:
"Earth returns an equal amount of energy back to space by reflecting some incoming light and by radiating heat (thermal infrared energy). Most solar energy is absorbed at the surface, while most heat is radiated back to space by the atmosphere."


I don't understand your post. I've had few, Monday could be rough, but it appears you're confusing radiation and convection. Hell, I should dismiss the whole thing, you went straight to Wiki to learn what convection is. Air is gas last I checked. What the shit about moving thermal energy with fluids? Is there fluid in your convection oven?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
29-07-2019 05:01
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:Bio-fuels would be a bad business to get into, if CO2 is going to kill off the plants.


I don't agree with the CO2 bad for plants assessment by the powers that be. That's a really tough sell.

However Bio Fuels are CO2 neutral since you pull CO2 out of the air to grow the plant and then return it when you burn it. (assuming the plant wouldn't have existed anyway)


29-07-2019 05:03
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
tmiddles wrote:Gravity stops convection to space.


No, thermal profiles stop convection.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
29-07-2019 05:04
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:Is there fluid in your convection oven?


I copy/pasted the definition. Gas is a fluid (distinct meaning from liquid). Convection is the movement of in this case hot air from one place to another. So convection can cool a location on a planet, the heat moving up or elsewhere, cook something in an oven, hot air moving to contact the food, but not explain the transfer of heat off of a planet. That's only from radiation. The same thing the roof of the greenhouse does.


29-07-2019 05:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Is there fluid in your convection oven?


I copy/pasted the definition. Gas is a fluid (distinct meaning from liquid). Convection is the movement of in this case hot air from one place to another. So convection can cool a location on a planet, the heat moving up or elsewhere, cook something in an oven, hot air moving to contact the food, but not explain the transfer of heat off of a planet. That's only from radiation. The same thing the roof of the greenhouse does.


Told ya I was drinking. I mixed up fluid and liquid.


So wrap it up, what your main point?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
29-07-2019 05:22
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:
So wrap it up, what your main point?


There is ZERO controversy about if an atmosphere results in a planet having a higher temperature than it would have without one. This was first called the greenhouse effect.

The only place that is in question is on this board.

So you believe it works for a greenhouse do you believe it does for a planet?

This is NOT about CO2, but an atmosphere at all.

It is why Venus is so much hotter than Mercury mainly, as Mercury has almost no atmosphere.



Edited on 29-07-2019 05:23
29-07-2019 05:50
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1319)
tmiddles wrote:
There is ZERO controversy about if an atmosphere results in a planet having a higher temperature than it would have without one. This was first called the greenhouse effect.

The sunlit side of the moon reaches temps around 260F. Why?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
29-07-2019 07:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
There is ZERO controversy about if an atmosphere results in a planet having a higher temperature than it would have without one. This was first called the greenhouse effect.

The sunlit side of the moon reaches temps around 260F. Why?

We can apply the scientific method and see if the ocean boils away at noon every day.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-07-2019 08:06
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The sunlit side of the moon reaches temps around 260F. Why?


The moon's peak is 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) and it drops to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) when there's no sun. Not sure about the average temp.

link

The temperature that the Earth ought to have, given it's distance from the sun is -18 C mean.


We aren't talking about peak temperature but mean temperature:

"During the day, temperatures on Mercury's surface can reach 800 degrees Fahrenheit (430 degrees Celsius). Because the planet has no atmosphere to retain that heat, nighttime temperatures on the surface can drop to minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 180 degrees Celsius)." link

But notice, Mercury is CLOSER to the sun yet:
The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).

The AVERAGE on Venus is HOTTER than the PEAK on Mercury.



Edited on 29-07-2019 08:18
29-07-2019 11:25
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The sunlit side of the moon reaches temps around 260F. Why?


Also the extremes are due to a lack of atmosphere, so the reason the earth doesn't hit peak temperatures as the moon does is because we have an atmosphere:
because Earth's moon has no atmosphere to hold in heat at night or prevent the surface from getting so hot during the day.

I think it makes sense that in a way we are beneath the surface of earth, and the surface of gas could be considered the real surface. So we're underneath a layer of fluid we call the atmosphere.



Edited on 29-07-2019 11:29
29-07-2019 18:53
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
Earth isn't enclosed in a greenhouse, really not understanding that analogy, other than marketing value. We associate greenhouses with warmer inside, than out. In the atmosphere, there is no barrier, the air moves freely around the entire planet, all the time. The sun on hit half the planet and any given time, warming it up. The night time half is cooling. Were the cool air meats the warm air, we general get weather. The greater the difference in temperature, and the force driving those two together, determines how intense. Had some angry weather just last night, easily hundreds of lightning strikes, just in my area.

Apparently, CO2's super power, is warming. You say that having an atmosphere keeps us cooler than the moon (least the sunny side). So, how does CO2 get so much energy, to keep half a planet warmer. Something else (water vapor) in the atmosphere, likely does the cooling magic. I'm fairly sure it's the same every where, but very obvious her in Florida. The temperature drops a great deal when the clouds form, pretty much every day. Temperature drops even more, when it rains. Still kind of sucks, because the humidity still keeps you sweating. It's still better, than direct sun, and high humidity though.
29-07-2019 18:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The sunlit side of the moon reaches temps around 260F. Why?


The moon's peak is 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) and it drops to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) when there's no sun. Not sure about the average temp.

The temperatur of the Moon is unknown. For temperatures we have measured at these few landing sights, temperatures do swing this wildly.
tmiddles wrote:
The temperature that the Earth ought to have, given it's distance from the sun is -18 C mean.

You don't know what it 'should be'. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
We aren't talking about peak temperature but mean temperature:

The temperature of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
"During the day, temperatures on Mercury's surface can reach 800 degrees Fahrenheit (430 degrees Celsius). Because the planet has no atmosphere to retain that heat, nighttime temperatures on the surface can drop to minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 180 degrees Celsius)." link
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
But notice, Mercury is CLOSER to the sun yet:
The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).

The AVERAGE on Venus is HOTTER than the PEAK on Mercury.

Neither the temperature of Mercury nor Venus is known. Venus does seem to have a higher emissivity though, allowing it to absorb and radiate energy better.


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 18:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The sunlit side of the moon reaches temps around 260F. Why?


Also the extremes are due to a lack of atmosphere, so the reason the earth doesn't hit peak temperatures as the moon does is because we have an atmosphere:
because Earth's moon has no atmosphere to hold in heat at night or prevent the surface from getting so hot during the day.

I think it makes sense that in a way we are beneath the surface of earth, and the surface of gas could be considered the real surface. So we're underneath a layer of fluid we call the atmosphere.


That's one way to look at it.


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 18:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Earth isn't enclosed in a greenhouse, really not understanding that analogy, other than marketing value. We associate greenhouses with warmer inside, than out. In the atmosphere, there is no barrier, the air moves freely around the entire planet, all the time. The sun on hit half the planet and any given time, warming it up. The night time half is cooling. Were the cool air meats the warm air, we general get weather. The greater the difference in temperature, and the force driving those two together, determines how intense. Had some angry weather just last night, easily hundreds of lightning strikes, just in my area.

Apparently, CO2's super power, is warming. You say that having an atmosphere keeps us cooler than the moon (least the sunny side). So, how does CO2 get so much energy, to keep half a planet warmer. Something else (water vapor) in the atmosphere, likely does the cooling magic. I'm fairly sure it's the same every where, but very obvious her in Florida. The temperature drops a great deal when the clouds form, pretty much every day. Temperature drops even more, when it rains. Still kind of sucks, because the humidity still keeps you sweating. It's still better, than direct sun, and high humidity though.


No, it's simpler than that. The atmosphere has mass. Like any mass, it takes time to heat it up and time to cool it down.


The Parrot Killer
29-07-2019 23:41
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Earth isn't enclosed in a greenhouse, ...In the atmosphere, there is no barrier,


The gases of our atmosphere collectively have a greenhouse effect and yes there is a barrier created by gravity. The gasses can only stretch out away from the surface so far before they reach the limit. The atmosphere CANNOT convectively cool into the void of space, it can on radiate just like the roof of a greenhouse.

NOTE: This is NOT NOT NOT about CO2 only but about ANY atmosphere. Getting into the contributions of particular gases is a more detailed and specific topic.

You don't have to talk about CO2 with a glass greenhouse either!


30-07-2019 01:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Earth isn't enclosed in a greenhouse, ...In the atmosphere, there is no barrier,


The gases of our atmosphere collectively have a greenhouse effect

Not possible. You are again denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

tmiddles wrote:
and yes there is a barrier created by gravity.

Gravity is not a barrier.

You cannot trap light.
tmiddles wrote:
The gasses can only stretch out away from the surface so far before they reach the limit. The atmosphere CANNOT convectively cool into the void of space, it can on radiate just like the roof of a greenhouse.

Nobody is saying it does. Convection does cool the surface though. That seems to be the temperature you are always interested in. You are moving the goalposts again.
tmiddles wrote:
NOTE: This is NOT NOT NOT about CO2 only but about ANY atmosphere.

It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
Getting into the contributions of particular gases is a more detailed and specific topic.

An irrelevant topic. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
You don't have to talk about CO2 with a glass greenhouse either!

No one is. Pay attention.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2019 02:11
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(982)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Earth isn't enclosed in a greenhouse, ...In the atmosphere, there is no barrier,


The gases of our atmosphere collectively have a greenhouse effect and yes there is a barrier created by gravity. The gasses can only stretch out away from the surface so far before they reach the limit. The atmosphere CANNOT convectively cool into the void of space, it can on radiate just like the roof of a greenhouse.

NOTE: This is NOT NOT NOT about CO2 only but about ANY atmosphere. Getting into the contributions of particular gases is a more detailed and specific topic.

You don't have to talk about CO2 with a glass greenhouse either!


We are talking about 'Climate Change', which is focused on the 'Greenhouse Effect', centered on man-made CO2. We are being sold on the concept of reducing CO2, by eliminating fossil fuels, will stop the warming, Without CO2, there would be nothing to talk about here, no crisis...

But there will always be some sort of environmental threat, which needs immediate attention, or we will all die a horrible death, sometime in the near future. It's in the bible, so it must be true. Scare tactics have been used throughout recorded history, sometimes to justify some really bad things, like human sacrifice. Fortunately, Climate Change only calls on us. to sacrifice the contents of our wallets, and not our lives, unless our pockets are empty...

Best I understand it, everything expands when heated. There is also atmospheric pressure, which changes a lot. Gravity doesn't act as a barrier, the atmosphere is still free to expand and contract as needed. A greenhouse doesn't have that capacity. The walls of a greenhouse keeps the warm air inside, from mixing with the cold air outside. The atmosphere gasses are always mixing. One half the planet is warming in the sun, the other is cooling in the night.
30-07-2019 02:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:The gases of our atmosphere collectively have a greenhouse effect

You know that it doesn't, which is why you never define "greenhouse effect." As long as you never define it, you can plausibly delude yourself into believing that it could actually be true.

tmiddles wrote: ... and yes there is a barrier created by gravity.

What does this "barrier" block?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-07-2019 11:40
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Without CO2, there would be nothing to talk about here, no crisis...

But there will always be some sort of environmental threat, which needs immediate attention... Gravity doesn't act as a barrier, the atmosphere is still free to expand and contract as needed.


Gravity is holding the gases here but yeah I guess it would be an elastic limit. At the end of the day the thermal energy that goes in has to come out. If the atmosphere heated it has to radiate the heat out into space somehow. It can't transfer the thermal energy any other way. ONLY infrared radiation is an option in the end. This resembles a greenhouse.

I'm not an advocate for CO2 hysteria. You can't challenge or critique something without having a good handle on it and I'm still working on that.

Head in the sand or up in the clouds on this and you've effectively exited the real debate.

I think nuclear radiation (flavor of the month a while back) is illustrative of how to challenge unjustified public panic.

We have to put CO2 in it's place, proportional to everything that's going on.

If we do dumb shit like pretend that atmospheres have no effect on temperature (which is of course air temperature, no one shove a thermometer into the dirt) we just make the group skeptical of global warming mania look like a bunch of crackpots.

One barrel of oil equates to 25,000 hours of human labour (12.5 years at 40 hours per week).

You better know your shit if you're going to either take that away or give it up.



Edited on 30-07-2019 11:41
30-07-2019 18:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Earth isn't enclosed in a greenhouse, ...In the atmosphere, there is no barrier,


The gases of our atmosphere collectively have a greenhouse effect and yes there is a barrier created by gravity. The gasses can only stretch out away from the surface so far before they reach the limit. The atmosphere CANNOT convectively cool into the void of space, it can on radiate just like the roof of a greenhouse.

NOTE: This is NOT NOT NOT about CO2 only but about ANY atmosphere. Getting into the contributions of particular gases is a more detailed and specific topic.

You don't have to talk about CO2 with a glass greenhouse either!


We are talking about 'Climate Change', which is focused on the 'Greenhouse Effect', centered on man-made CO2. We are being sold on the concept of reducing CO2, by eliminating fossil fuels, will stop the warming, Without CO2, there would be nothing to talk about here, no crisis...

But there will always be some sort of environmental threat, which needs immediate attention, or we will all die a horrible death, sometime in the near future. It's in the bible, so it must be true. Scare tactics have been used throughout recorded history, sometimes to justify some really bad things, like human sacrifice. Fortunately, Climate Change only calls on us. to sacrifice the contents of our wallets, and not our lives, unless our pockets are empty...

Best I understand it, everything expands when heated. There is also atmospheric pressure, which changes a lot. Gravity doesn't act as a barrier, the atmosphere is still free to expand and contract as needed. A greenhouse doesn't have that capacity. The walls of a greenhouse keeps the warm air inside, from mixing with the cold air outside. The atmosphere gasses are always mixing. One half the planet is warming in the sun, the other is cooling in the night.


Actually, an actual greenhouse DOES have that capacity. None of them are airtight. They all leak.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2019 18:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Without CO2, there would be nothing to talk about here, no crisis...

But there will always be some sort of environmental threat, which needs immediate attention... Gravity doesn't act as a barrier, the atmosphere is still free to expand and contract as needed.


Gravity is holding the gases here but yeah I guess it would be an elastic limit. At the end of the day the thermal energy that goes in has to come out. If the atmosphere heated it has to radiate the heat out into space somehow. It can't transfer the thermal energy any other way. ONLY infrared radiation is an option in the end. This resembles a greenhouse.

Nope. A greenhouse reduces heat, specifically convective heating. An open atmosphere has convective heating. That cools the surface.
ALL of it, the surface, the sea, the air, is at a temperature greater than absolute zero, so ALL of it radiates into space.

Most of Earth's radiance is from the surface itself.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm not an advocate for CO2 hysteria. You can't challenge or critique something without having a good handle on it and I'm still working on that.

Basic clue: CO2 has absolutely NO capability to warm the Earth using radiance from the Earth's surface.
tmiddles wrote:
Head in the sand or up in the clouds on this and you've effectively exited the real debate.

Like you?
tmiddles wrote:
I think nuclear radiation (flavor of the month a while back) is illustrative of how to challenge unjustified public panic.

We have to put CO2 in it's place, proportional to everything that's going on.

Zero over any nonzero number is still zero.
tmiddles wrote:
If we do dumb shit like pretend that atmospheres have no effect on temperature (which is of course air temperature, no one shove a thermometer into the dirt)

Actually, people DO put thermometers in dirt. Sometimes you need to know the temperature of dirt. These don't tell you the temperature of Earth either.
tmiddles wrote:
we just make the group skeptical of global warming mania look like a bunch of crackpots.

Define 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
One barrel of oil equates to 25,000 hours of human labour (12.5 years at 40 hours per week).

Unit conversion problem. Argument from randU. Watts are not joules. I'll clean this up later.
tmiddles wrote:
You better know your shit if you're going to either take that away or give it up.

You obviously don't know your shit.

Let's see if I can clear some of your shit up (this is a public service for your benefit and the benefit of others reading here).

A typical human being doing moderate physical work consumes about 2500kcal in a day (averaged between men and women that are reasonably fit, remember, this is a very simplistic figure). This is equivalent to about 10.5 million joules.
Each year of work contains approx 2000 hours, or 260 days. A period of 12.5 years means 3250 days (or 26000 hours, not 25000). So in that time, our sample human being will have produced 32.125 billion joules.

A barrel of oil contains approx. 6.12 billion joules (depending on various impurities in it). Our human wins. They will have produced over five times the energy that is in a barrel of oil.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-07-2019 18:58
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Must read letter:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Our leaders should read this204-12-2018 23:19
An open letter to the Prime Minister on the climate crisis, from 154 scientists - August 24, 20161216-12-2017 01:03
Letter to NASA From Skeptical NASA Employees426-07-2017 02:13
Read this and think4924-09-2016 06:26
An open letter to all members of Climate-debate.com7202-11-2015 22:55
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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