New and 1st thoughts and questions

IBdaMann wrote:
There is a lot of attention being placed on getting all those grocery store coolers running on CO2 systems. CO2 runs around $1/lb whereas other commercial refrigerants cost over $4/lb. The Department of Energy is researching ways to make CO2 refrigeration systems more efficient as a way of exploring operational cost reductions in refrigeration nationwide while also being able to sell it as "being green" to those who are locked into the "address Climate Change" mindset.

Into the Night wrote:
spot is trying to show that absorption of infrared light emitted from Earth's surface is sufficient to warm the Earth. It isn't. He is denying the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating heat out of nothing. Earth's surface is COOLED by emitting infrared light. He also has failed to mention that the CO2 is also emitting infrared light according to it's own temperature.

It really is just a fancy way of saying that the surface heats the cooler air above it. It does so by conduction and by radiance.

At this point the Church of Global Warming will usually say that cooler CO2 gas is capable of heating the warmer Earth's surface, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I call this the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.

Another usual response to say that CO2 simply holds the heat, holds the thermal energy, or holds the light, acting like a thermal insulator. I call this the Magick Blanket argument. This violates the 1st law of thermodynamics again, since you can't destroy energy, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics since you can't slow or trap heat, trap thermal energy, or trap light (Plank's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law).

Feeling trapped, your typical Church of Global Warming faithful will condemn you as a Great Satan of their religion (they're right!), and reduce themselves to throwing insults you, bash Trump, or just resort to bulverism. To them, the religion is Truth, and therefore it is Truth. It is a circular argument. They are trying to prove a circular argument, resulting in a circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion.

spot wrote:
And Venus is still very hot. Hard to explain without a Greenhouse effect.

tmiddles wrote: The atmosphere can have a huge impact on a planets ground level temp .

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

spot wrote:
And Venus is still very hot. Hard to explain without a Greenhouse effect.

Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air.

Wake wrote: And this is entirely because heat moves more slowly through a denser material and the denser material has a higher specific heat.

Wake wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

spot wrote:
And Venus is still very hot. Hard to explain without a Greenhouse effect.

Venus has 100 times the atmosphere as Earth. Venus higher temperature can be easily explained by more air rather than by different composition of air.

You are entirely correct. The average surface temperature of Venus is higher than the sunny side of Mercury. And this is entirely because heat moves more slowly through a denser material and the denser material has a higher specific heat.

Harry C wrote:

spot wrote:

I'm going to have to use an analogy. imagine a pool table. the white ball is CO2, the colours are Oxygen Nitrogen and Argon, the Cue is IR. The Cue can only hit the white ball but once that energy is converted into heat its transferred to the other balls.

How is that debateable? I'm really looking for something more tangible.

spot wrote:

Harry C wrote:

spot wrote:

I'm going to have to use an analogy. imagine a pool table. the white ball is CO2, the colours are Oxygen Nitrogen and Argon, the Cue is IR. The Cue can only hit the white ball but once that energy is converted into heat its transferred to the other balls.

How is that debateable? I'm really looking for something more tangible.

Well it's an analogy which if it's a good one helps to understand the the thing. how Co2 interacts with infrared on the quantum level is not something you can debate. The fact that you are entertaining the idea that well established atmospheric physics violates the laws of physics shows I've failed with my analogy.

keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I've never herd you comment on E equalling MC2.
What can you say that would be interesting?

keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I've never herd you comment on E equalling MC2.
What can you say that would be interesting?

keepit wrote:
ITN,
Is E equalling MC2 something you and IBDM can talk about?

keepit wrote:
What do you and IBDM think about E=MC2?

keepit wrote: Do you think E=MC2 is a valid equation?

keepit wrote: IBDM, Do you think that nuclear mass can be converted to energy and vice versa?

keepit wrote:
I think all matter is energy too.
Do you think Einstein is correct about E=MC2?

keepit wrote:
ITN,
Do you think Einstein was/is correct about E=MC2, matter and energy are interconvertible under the right circumstances?

keepit wrote:
Could you explain that a little?
Thanks.

keepit wrote:
Thanks for your reply but that doesn't sound quite right to me.
The Large Hadron Collider converts energy into mass.

keepit wrote:
Thanks for your reply but that doesn't sound quite right to me.
The Large Hadron Collider converts energy into mass.

keepit wrote:
Thanks for your reply but that doesn't sound quite right to me.
The Large Hadron Collider converts energy into mass.

keepit wrote:
Harvey,
The LHC uses a lot of electricity and that produces a lot of CO2. That doesn't negate their findings however.
It could be that we are in such a crisis regarding global warming that there should be a moratorium on certain things like the LHC, war, production of new cars, planes, and mcmansions.

keepit wrote:
Harvey,
The LHC uses a lot of electricity and that produces a lot of CO2. That doesn't negate their findings however.
It could be that we are in such a crisis regarding global warming that there should be a moratorium on certain things like the LHC, war, production of new cars, planes, and mcmansions.

How much energy does the Large Hadron Collider use?
It's also one of the most expensive to run, clocking up around $23.5 million in electricity costs annually as it accelerates protons close to the speed of light. The CERN facility as a whole uses 1.3 terrawat hours of electricity (1.3 trillion watt hours) every year, enough to power 300,000 homes.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: The atmosphere can have a huge impact on a planets ground level temp .

..., the earth's atmosphere has a huge refrigeration effect. .

tmiddles wrote:Are you going to claim we know nothing about the temperature on the ground on Venus?