Remember me
▼ Content

New and 1st thoughts and questions



Page 1 of 212>
New and 1st thoughts and questions15-09-2019 18:28
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
I'm a non science educated individual. I want to discover the simple objective facts about AGW. Please pardon any lay description I may use as it's not purposeful.

All I can deduce is that CO2 is a gas that accumulates in the atmosphere and either A) acts as a reflector to aid the earth to retain the heat that has already made it to the surface OR B) acts as a solar heater wherein it can either harvest more heat from the sun than what would normally make its way to the surface or magnify or otherwise amplify heat before it reaches the surface. The paradoxes in my mind are these.

A) If CO2 is a reflector, it wouldn't seem to be able to hold heat but rather simply reflect what's already there. To do otherwise would seem to me to suggest it could be used as a source of a new highly efficient engine design.

B) If CO2 is a heater, how does it create more heat than what was already headed to the surface of the earth?

I don't mind being told I missed the mark because that's why I'm here. However I will likely redirect to enhance my understanding. Thank you for indulging my lack of understanding.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
15-09-2019 18:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
Harry C wrote:
I'm a non science educated individual.

Welcome! Me too (HS level Science education here).

Are you asking what the conventional status quo theory on AGW (Human caused global warming, that being an increase in the ground level temp of Earth as a result of primarily CO2 being release from sequestered sources of fossil fuels). I tried (without any luck yet) to get expert advice on that here:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

As for an atmosphere being able to influence the ground level temperature of a planet consider Venus: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

I didn't totally follow your question:

A ) If CO2 is a reflector: I don't think anyone alleges CO2 is a "reflector" but I think you mean that it absorbs and the re-emitts infra red.

B ) If CO2 is a heater: The source of all the energy is the Sun not the Earth. The amount of energy that is "held up" and "soaked in" to the atmosphere and ground of Earth can vary for a fixed amount of radiance from the Sun. Just look at how different we are from the Moon which is the same distance from the sun.
Edited on 15-09-2019 18:59
15-09-2019 19:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
Neither is true. Different materials have different properties the CO2 is opaque to certain bands of infra-red. energy cant be destroyed so if the Infra red is absorbed the substance absorbing it heats up.

I also think if you are really interested in learning this is the worst place to ask questions. most posters on this forum will delight in giving you false and misleading information as a joke.
15-09-2019 19:13
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
Harry C wrote:
I'm a non science educated individual. I want to discover the simple objective facts about AGW. Please pardon any lay description I may use as it's not purposeful.

All I can deduce is that CO2 is a gas that accumulates in the atmosphere and either A) acts as a reflector to aid the earth to retain the heat that has already made it to the surface OR
acts as a solar heater wherein it can either harvest more heat from the sun than what would normally make its way to the surface or magnify or otherwise amplify heat before it reaches the surface. The paradoxes in my mind are these.

A) If CO2 is a reflector, it wouldn't seem to be able to hold heat but rather simply reflect what's already there. To do otherwise would seem to me to suggest it could be used as a source of a new highly efficient engine design.

If CO2 is a heater, how does it create more heat than what was already headed to the surface of the earth?

I don't mind being told I missed the mark because that's why I'm here. However I will likely redirect to enhance my understanding. Thank you for indulging my lack of understanding.


Atmospheric CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the gasses, 400 ppm. The volume of the atmosphere is huge, don't recall the estimated number, exceeds my capacity, considerably. The atmosphere isn't contained in any way, it expands and contracts. There isn't enough CO2, regardless of any special warming properties, that may, or may not apply. Any potential warming, wouldn't have any measurable effect over all, since there are more cooling factors.

My concern about CO2, is the capture/sequester proposals. Many of are food plants need CO2 to be in the 170+ ppm range, just to be productive, less and they probably won't grow much or die. Plants do very well in the 1200-2000 ppm range. A lot of people augment the CO2 in their greenhouses, to improve quality and production of their plants. Fairly standard practice in commercial greenhouses, more high quality products, quicker too. The goal of climate change, is to reduce atmospheric CO2, down to 230 ppm, and stop adding to it. That's cutting real close to where plants aren't producing food for us, and not just humans, every living thing. Even at 400 ppm, food isn't as plentiful as we need it to be, we work at producing it, pretty hard. 60 ppm isn't much of a margin, nor is it spread out evenly across the planet.

I'd rather run my air conditioner a little more, than not have food on my table. The prediction for warming, is 1-2 degrees Celsius by 2100. That's not a whole lot of warming, considering the ice caps are part of the 'globe', and a good portion of the planet doesn't use AC. I live in Florida, even when my AC was broken, in the middle of a hot summer, it wasn't killing me or my dog, just uncomfortable. We aren't heading toward a scorched earth anytime soon, like in the hype. We are threaten by other things more likely, and sooner.
15-09-2019 19:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
HarveyH55 wrote: The prediction for warming, is 1-2 degrees Celsius by 2100. That's not a whole lot of warming,

Estimates are that the last ice age was about 7 degrees Celsius cooler so 2 degrees is actually a lot.
15-09-2019 19:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
HarveyH55 wrote:

Atmospheric CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the gasses, 400 ppm. The volume of the atmosphere is huge, don't recall the estimated number, exceeds my capacity, considerably. The atmosphere isn't contained in any way, it expands and contracts. There isn't enough CO2, regardless of any special warming properties, that may, or may not apply. Any potential warming, wouldn't have any measurable effect over all, since there are more cooling factors.


Every 410 molecules of one million molecules will be C02 but as a portion of mass its greater.
CO2 concentration by weight is obtained by the formula below:

0.0410V% x [44.0095/28.97] = 0.0622 m% CO2

However I find the argument that because something only makes up a small proportion of something it can't have an effect ridiculous. All I need to spice up a meal are a few drops of Tabasco sauce. Look at the amount of active ingredient in medication compared to the weight of the body and they can have profound effects.

The way CO2 affects temperature is well understood. I think Harvey knows this and is trying to sell you something.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
15-09-2019 19:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
spot wrote:However I find the argument that because something only makes up a small proportion of something it can't have an effect ridiculous.

I don't think Harvey was making that general argument. He probably won't be driving with a 0.08 anytime soon.

Harvey was very specific: even *if* CO2 were to have the magickal superpowers claimed by warmizombies THEN its trace quantities could not have the effect warmizombies claim.

Harvey rightly pointed out that warmizombies have not come anywhere close to establishing a prima facie case.

spot wrote:The way CO2 affects temperature is well understood.

The zero effect CO2 has on temperature is greatly misconceived by you.

I think you know this and are trying to sell something.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
15-09-2019 20:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:However I find the argument that because something only makes up a small proportion of something it can't have an effect ridiculous.

I don't think Harvey was making that general argument. He probably won't be driving with a 0.08 anytime soon.

Harvey was very specific: even *if* CO2 were to have the magickal superpowers claimed by warmizombies THEN its trace quantities could not have the effect warmizombies claim.

Harvey rightly pointed out that warmizombies have not come anywhere close to establishing a prima facie case.

spot wrote:The way CO2 affects temperature is well understood.

The zero effect CO2 has on temperature is greatly misconceived by you.

I think you know this and are trying to sell something.


.


As I said Some on this forum peddle misleading information as a Joke.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
15-09-2019 20:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
spot wrote: I find the argument that because something only makes up a small proportion of something it can't have an effect ridiculous.

The theory that greenhouse gasses exist and that it's up to 4% water vapor and the other "trace gases" actually makes them very influential. You can attack the theory of global warming but not by simply claiming there aren't much of the gases. This was the math I had for 2% water vapor:

So just 2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063).
15-09-2019 20:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
spot wrote:As I said Some on this forum peddle misleading information as a Joke.

So now you come clean. I was wondering why so much of what you write is tongue-in-cheek.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
15-09-2019 20:13
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
spot wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:

Atmospheric CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the gasses, 400 ppm. The volume of the atmosphere is huge, don't recall the estimated number, exceeds my capacity, considerably. The atmosphere isn't contained in any way, it expands and contracts. There isn't enough CO2, regardless of any special warming properties, that may, or may not apply. Any potential warming, wouldn't have any measurable effect over all, since there are more cooling factors.


Every 410 molecules of one million molecules will be C02 but as a portion of mass its greater.
CO2 concentration by weight is obtained by the formula below:

0.0410V% x [44.0095/28.97] = 0.0622 m% CO2

However I find the argument that because something only makes up a small proportion of something it can't have an effect ridiculous. All I need to spice up a meal are a few drops of Tabasco sauce. Look at the amount of active ingredient in medication compared to the weight of the body and they can have profound effects.

The way CO2 affects temperature is well understood. I think Harvey knows this and is trying to sell you something.


If the 'profound' effects of such is so well understood. Why has it never been harnessed for industrial use? We have CO2 lasers, but we have to pump in a considerable amount of energy to burn anything, not to mention that it's nearly pure CO2, encased in a glass tube. The tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't encased in anything, and dispersed throughout a huge volume, mixed with much higher concentrations of the other gasses and vapors. Why don't we take advantage of those heat trapping properties? If we encased CO2 in a thin envelope of plastic, wouldn't that make it the best heat trapping insulator on the planet. Why doesn't Dominoes Pizza use this for deliveries? Lot of homes could benefit, by being CO2 insulated, and greatly reduce the winter heating bill. Generating electricity, also generates a lot of heat, which often goes to waste, also CO2 is produced from the burning of fossil fuels. Why aren't we using the CO2 produce, to reduce the heat wasted, and greatly improving the efficiency? If a small amount of CO2 can have this huge effect, it's being under-used, since it's 'well documented' that it's powerful stuff. We've exploited everything else, that has the potential to produce energy, that can be use to perform a task cheaply, but I don't see it much for CO2. Even the perpetual motion/free energy guys don't bother with it, and they attempt to exploit some very week things.

...a few drops of Tabasco sauce


Really? That's little more than ketchup...
15-09-2019 20:23
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I'm a non science educated individual.

Welcome! Me too (HS level Science education here).

Are you asking what the conventional status quo theory on AGW (Human caused global warming, that being an increase in the ground level temp of Earth as a result of primarily CO2 being release from sequestered sources of fossil fuels). I tried (without any luck yet) to get expert advice on that here:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

As for an atmosphere being able to influence the ground level temperature of a planet consider Venus: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

I didn't totally follow your question:

A ) If CO2 is a reflector: I don't think anyone alleges CO2 is a "reflector" but I think you mean that it absorbs and the re-emitts infra red.

B ) If CO2 is a heater: The source of all the energy is the Sun not the Earth. The amount of energy that is "held up" and "soaked in" to the atmosphere and ground of Earth can vary for a fixed amount of radiance from the Sun. Just look at how different we are from the Moon which is the same distance from the sun.


Thanks for the welcome. I've been reading here and a lot of other places for a while on the subject. I've read the responses so far.

I'm not trying to be critical but severely focused on one thing. That is how does or by what physical mechanism does CO2 gas warm the atmosphere? My opening examples where my surmises. I really want to avoid all of the anecdotal information.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
15-09-2019 20:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
HarveyH55 wrote:
spot wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:

Atmospheric CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the gasses, 400 ppm. The volume of the atmosphere is huge, don't recall the estimated number, exceeds my capacity, considerably. The atmosphere isn't contained in any way, it expands and contracts. There isn't enough CO2, regardless of any special warming properties, that may, or may not apply. Any potential warming, wouldn't have any measurable effect over all, since there are more cooling factors.


Every 410 molecules of one million molecules will be C02 but as a portion of mass its greater.
CO2 concentration by weight is obtained by the formula below:

0.0410V% x [44.0095/28.97] = 0.0622 m% CO2

However I find the argument that because something only makes up a small proportion of something it can't have an effect ridiculous. All I need to spice up a meal are a few drops of Tabasco sauce. Look at the amount of active ingredient in medication compared to the weight of the body and they can have profound effects.

The way CO2 affects temperature is well understood. I think Harvey knows this and is trying to sell you something.


If the 'profound' effects of such is so well understood. Why has it never been harnessed for industrial use? We have CO2 lasers, but we have to pump in a considerable amount of energy to burn anything, not to mention that it's nearly pure CO2, encased in a glass tube. The tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't encased in anything, and dispersed throughout a huge volume, mixed with much higher concentrations of the other gasses and vapors. Why don't we take advantage of those heat trapping properties? If we encased CO2 in a thin envelope of plastic, wouldn't that make it the best heat trapping insulator on the planet. Why doesn't Dominoes Pizza use this for deliveries? Lot of homes could benefit, by being CO2 insulated, and greatly reduce the winter heating bill. Generating electricity, also generates a lot of heat, which often goes to waste, also CO2 is produced from the burning of fossil fuels. Why aren't we using the CO2 produce, to reduce the heat wasted, and greatly improving the efficiency? If a small amount of CO2 can have this huge effect, it's being under-used, since it's 'well documented' that it's powerful stuff. We've exploited everything else, that has the potential to produce energy, that can be use to perform a task cheaply, but I don't see it much for CO2. Even the perpetual motion/free energy guys don't bother with it, and they attempt to exploit some very week things.

...a few drops of Tabasco sauce


Really? That's little more than ketchup...



My point is the way it works is understood and well documented if you wish to understand just google it.

You want me to explain to you why a gas isn't used to insulate pizza boxes?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
15-09-2019 20:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
Harry C wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I'm a non science educated individual.

Welcome! Me too (HS level Science education here).

Are you asking what the conventional status quo theory on AGW (Human caused global warming, that being an increase in the ground level temp of Earth as a result of primarily CO2 being release from sequestered sources of fossil fuels). I tried (without any luck yet) to get expert advice on that here:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

As for an atmosphere being able to influence the ground level temperature of a planet consider Venus: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

I didn't totally follow your question:

A ) If CO2 is a reflector: I don't think anyone alleges CO2 is a "reflector" but I think you mean that it absorbs and the re-emitts infra red.

B ) If CO2 is a heater: The source of all the energy is the Sun not the Earth. The amount of energy that is "held up" and "soaked in" to the atmosphere and ground of Earth can vary for a fixed amount of radiance from the Sun. Just look at how different we are from the Moon which is the same distance from the sun.


Thanks for the welcome. I've been reading here and a lot of other places for a while on the subject. I've read the responses so far.

I'm not trying to be critical but severely focused on one thing. That is how does or by what physical mechanism does CO2 gas warm the atmosphere? My opening examples where my surmises. I really want to avoid all of the anecdotal information.


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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
15-09-2019 20:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1588)
Harry C wrote:...by what physical mechanism does CO2 gas warm the atmosphere?

The theory is this:

The Sun warms the earth with light in the 5000K range.
Some is reflected away but what isn't is absorbed by the ground and sea surface primarily. The Earth then radiates back out into space at a much colder infra red.

The atmosphere can have a huge impact on a planets ground level temp (see Venus and Mercury for comparison). The, let's call its "CO2 theory" is that CO2, along with water vapor, have the unique ability to absorb the infrared energy coming up off the earth (while oxygen and hydrogen do not). So they add more thermal energy transit time to that energy leaving the atmosphere.

Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy present (and not what is coming in or what is leaving). So you can absolutely increase temperature without increasing the input energy. Venus is proof.

Now the important bit by my estimation is that we know that an atmosphere results in a slowing down, evening out, and increase in temperature at the ground level of a planet just from conduction with the ground. This doesn't mean that the CO2 angle is correct.
15-09-2019 21:13
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...by what physical mechanism does CO2 gas warm the atmosphere?

The theory is this:

The Sun warms the earth with light in the 5000K range.
Some is reflected away but what isn't is absorbed by the ground and sea surface primarily. The Earth then radiates back out into space at a much colder infra red.

The atmosphere can have a huge impact on a planets ground level temp (see Venus and Mercury for comparison). The, let's call its "CO2 theory" is that CO2, along with water vapor, have the unique ability to absorb the infrared energy coming up off the earth (while oxygen and hydrogen do not). So they add more thermal energy transit time to that energy leaving the atmosphere.

Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy present (and not what is coming in or what is leaving). So you can absolutely increase temperature without increasing the input energy. Venus is proof.

Now the important bit by my estimation is that we know that an atmosphere results in a slowing down, evening out, and increase in temperature at the ground level of a planet just from conduction with the ground. This doesn't mean that the CO2 angle is correct.


Energy is still energy, regardless of what form it takes. To increase temperature, you have to increase the energy. CO2 does not create energy, at best it changes it from one form to another.

The concept of CO2, man-made, global warming, was figured out on paper first. It took many decades, and shady data, to 'prove' that it's actual a 'thing'. It never came from data, measurements, or observations. It only works, if you tweak a few numbers, and ignore everything 'cooling', and it's still just a 'maybe', at best.

It comes down to faith, who you want to believe in, since all you have, is what you are told, and what you read. The settled 'science', still goes on, searching for new ways to re-enforce the belief. Hardly settled. The consensus of scientists, is in entirety, only climate scientists, not the millions of other scientists, who are also reasonably qualified to review the work. Not all the climate scientist agree that global warming is happening, or could actually happen, just the majority of the 2,000 or so involved in forming the consensus, that 'settled' the 'science'. The Pope can quote you scripture all day, and give you arguments that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, are all real, and in control of all things. He can show you evidence, in the form of past miracles, the Saints. But at the end of the day, it still comes down to what you believe, faith.
15-09-2019 21:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
And Venus is still very hot. Hard to explain without a Greenhouse effect.
15-09-2019 22:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Harry C wrote:
I'm a non science educated individual. I want to discover the simple objective facts about AGW. Please pardon any lay description I may use as it's not purposeful.

All I can deduce is that CO2 is a gas that accumulates in the atmosphere and either A) acts as a reflector to aid the earth to retain the heat that has already made it to the surface OR
acts as a solar heater wherein it can either harvest more heat from the sun than what would normally make its way to the surface or magnify or otherwise amplify heat before it reaches the surface. The paradoxes in my mind are these.

A) If CO2 is a reflector, it wouldn't seem to be able to hold heat but rather simply reflect what's already there. To do otherwise would seem to me to suggest it could be used as a source of a new highly efficient engine design.

If CO2 is a heater, how does it create more heat than what was already headed to the surface of the earth?

I don't mind being told I missed the mark because that's why I'm here. However I will likely redirect to enhance my understanding. Thank you for indulging my lack of understanding.


CO2 is not a reflector. It is colder than the surface. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. (2nd law of thermodynamics)

CO2 is not a heater. You can't create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics)

The gas is not capable of warming the Earth at all. Zip, zero, nada.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth by using infrared light from the Earth's surface.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2019 22:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I'm a non science educated individual.

Welcome! Me too (HS level Science education here).

Are you asking what the conventional status quo theory on AGW (Human caused global warming, that being an increase in the ground level temp of Earth as a result of primarily CO2 being release from sequestered sources of fossil fuels). I tried (without any luck yet) to get expert advice on that here:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right

Repetitious lie. Your questions have already been answered.
tmiddles wrote:
As for an atmosphere being able to influence the ground level temperature of a planet consider Venus: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury

The temperature of neither planet is known.
tmiddles wrote:
I didn't totally follow your question:

A ) If CO2 is a reflector: I don't think anyone alleges CO2 is a "reflector" but I think you mean that it absorbs and the re-emitts infra red.

You can't re-emit what has been destroyed. Absorption destroys light. Emission creates light.
tmiddles wrote:
B ) If CO2 is a heater: The source of all the energy is the Sun not the Earth. The amount of energy that is "held up" and "soaked in" to the atmosphere and ground of Earth can vary for a fixed amount of radiance from the Sun. Just look at how different we are from the Moon which is the same distance from the sun.

You are locked in paradox. You have said the opposite. Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2019 22:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
spot wrote:
Neither is true. Different materials have different properties the CO2 is opaque to certain bands of infra-red. energy cant be destroyed so if the Infra red is absorbed the substance absorbing it heats up.

Correct.
spot wrote:
I also think if you are really interested in learning this is the worst place to ask questions. most posters on this forum will delight in giving you false and misleading information as a joke.

That's a problem on any forum.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2019 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: The prediction for warming, is 1-2 degrees Celsius by 2100. That's not a whole lot of warming,

Estimates are that the last ice age was about 7 degrees Celsius cooler so 2 degrees is actually a lot.


Guesses, not estimates. The global temperature of any ice age is unknown. We don't even know if there WAS an ice age.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2019 22:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
spot wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:

Atmospheric CO2 makes up about 0.04% of the gasses, 400 ppm. The volume of the atmosphere is huge, don't recall the estimated number, exceeds my capacity, considerably. The atmosphere isn't contained in any way, it expands and contracts. There isn't enough CO2, regardless of any special warming properties, that may, or may not apply. Any potential warming, wouldn't have any measurable effect over all, since there are more cooling factors.


Every 410 molecules of one million molecules will be C02 but as a portion of mass its greater.
CO2 concentration by weight is obtained by the formula below:

0.0410V% x [44.0095/28.97] = 0.0622 m% CO2

However I find the argument that because something only makes up a small proportion of something it can't have an effect ridiculous. All I need to spice up a meal are a few drops of Tabasco sauce. Look at the amount of active ingredient in medication compared to the weight of the body and they can have profound effects.
spot wrote:
CO2 is neither Tabasco sauce nor a medicine.
The way CO2 affects temperature is well understood. I think Harvey knows this and is trying to sell you something.

It doesn't. It can't.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from the surface.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2019 02:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
HarveyH55 wrote:If the 'profound' effects of such is so well understood. Why has it never been harnessed for industrial use?

It has. CO2 is an industrial refrigerant. That doesn't sit well with warmizombies so they kindly ask that you not bring it up.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
16-09-2019 02:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
HarveyH55 wrote:If the 'profound' effects of such is so well understood. Why has it never been harnessed for industrial use?

It has. CO2 is an industrial refrigerant. That doesn't sit well with warmizombies so they kindly ask that you not bring it up.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
16-09-2019 03:18
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:If the 'profound' effects of such is so well understood. Why has it never been harnessed for industrial use?

It has. CO2 is an industrial refrigerant. That doesn't sit well with warmizombies so they kindly ask that you not bring it up.


.


I know about dry ice, and fire extinguishers, few other things, but lasers are about as close as you get to warming. CO2 must not be a very good refrigerant, we use ammonia at work. But, I really can't think of one example, that exploits that special warming property, that just a tiny concentration of CO2 has on this gigantic planet, at an alarming rate... That's a very powerful effect, and afte 40 years of preaching, nobody seems interested in making use of such potent power source. Only part of the fuels we burn, turn into CO2, which we wastefully just vent into the atmosphere. If we could harness the wicked potential, our energy problems would be solved.
16-09-2019 04:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
HarveyH55 wrote:CO2 must not be a very good refrigerant, we use ammonia at work.


Second Nature – Advansor CO2


ColdLoop CO2 System


Platex India Phased CO2 Refrigeration


BCP CO2 Cascade Refrigeration System


Some Defense Department CO2 Refrigeration System


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.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
16-09-2019 08:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
And this is why this forum is useless.
16-09-2019 08:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
And this is why this forum is useless.
16-09-2019 09:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:CO2 must not be a very good refrigerant, we use ammonia at work.


Second Nature – Advansor CO2


ColdLoop CO2 System


Platex India Phased CO2 Refrigeration


BCP CO2 Cascade Refrigeration System


Some Defense Department CO2 Refrigeration System


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.

.


It is also used as an industrial refrigerant in the liquefaction of gases.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2019 09:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
spot wrote:
And this is why this forum is useless.


Depends on what you want to use it for.

If you want to use it to preach for the Church of Global Warming, you will get challenged on it, sure.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2019 10:45
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:CO2 must not be a very good refrigerant, we use ammonia at work.



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.

.


Interesting, as that all might be, pretty much any compressed gas can be used as a refrigerant. The point that I was trying to make, was that CO2 is being claimed to have a very strong impact, for such a small amount. I was trying to point out, that if CO2 packs such a strong potential, why was that potential never exploited in the past? CO2 does have it's uses, just nothing I can think of, that specifically exploits the same properties, the climatologist claim to be killing the planet. No exploit, no special property, no global warming...
16-09-2019 13:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
HarveyH55 wrote:Interesting, as that all might be, pretty much any compressed gas can be used as a refrigerant. The point that I was trying to make, was that CO2 is being claimed to have a very strong impact, for such a small amount. I was trying to point out, that if CO2 packs such a strong potential, why was that potential never exploited in the past? CO2 does have it's uses, just nothing I can think of, that specifically exploits the same properties, the climatologist claim to be killing the planet. No exploit, no special property, no global warming...

You've certainly well established this point. Why aren't we cooking with CO2 yet?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
16-09-2019 19:19
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
HarveyH55 wrote:
If the 'profound' effects of such is so well understood. Why has it never been harnessed for industrial use? We have CO2 lasers, but we have to pump in a considerable amount of energy to burn anything, not to mention that it's nearly pure CO2, encased in a glass tube. The tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't encased in anything, and dispersed throughout a huge volume, mixed with much higher concentrations of the other gasses and vapors. Why don't we take advantage of those heat trapping properties? If we encased CO2 in a thin envelope of plastic, wouldn't that make it the best heat trapping insulator on the planet. Why doesn't Dominoes Pizza use this for deliveries? Lot of homes could benefit, by being CO2 insulated, and greatly reduce the winter heating bill. Generating electricity, also generates a lot of heat, which often goes to waste, also CO2 is produced from the burning of fossil fuels. Why aren't we using the CO2 produce, to reduce the heat wasted, and greatly improving the efficiency? If a small amount of CO2 can have this huge effect, it's being under-used, since it's 'well documented' that it's powerful stuff. We've exploited everything else, that has the potential to produce energy, that can be use to perform a task cheaply, but I don't see it much for CO2. Even the perpetual motion/free energy guys don't bother with it, and they attempt to exploit some very week things.


This is more or less what I was thinking too. I've been reading here for a short while but in that time have read on more occasions than seem necessary that {and I'm paraphrasing} the "Greenhouse effect" violates the laws of Thermodynamics and Stefan–Boltzmann law.

Please let me know if I am oversimplifying.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
16-09-2019 19:22
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
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.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
16-09-2019 19:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Harry C wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
If the 'profound' effects of such is so well understood. Why has it never been harnessed for industrial use? We have CO2 lasers, but we have to pump in a considerable amount of energy to burn anything, not to mention that it's nearly pure CO2, encased in a glass tube. The tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't encased in anything, and dispersed throughout a huge volume, mixed with much higher concentrations of the other gasses and vapors. Why don't we take advantage of those heat trapping properties? If we encased CO2 in a thin envelope of plastic, wouldn't that make it the best heat trapping insulator on the planet. Why doesn't Dominoes Pizza use this for deliveries? Lot of homes could benefit, by being CO2 insulated, and greatly reduce the winter heating bill. Generating electricity, also generates a lot of heat, which often goes to waste, also CO2 is produced from the burning of fossil fuels. Why aren't we using the CO2 produce, to reduce the heat wasted, and greatly improving the efficiency? If a small amount of CO2 can have this huge effect, it's being under-used, since it's 'well documented' that it's powerful stuff. We've exploited everything else, that has the potential to produce energy, that can be use to perform a task cheaply, but I don't see it much for CO2. Even the perpetual motion/free energy guys don't bother with it, and they attempt to exploit some very week things.


This is more or less what I was thinking too. I've been reading here for a short while but in that time have read on more occasions than seem necessary that {and I'm paraphrasing} the "Greenhouse effect" violates the laws of Thermodynamics and Stefan–Boltzmann law.

Please let me know if I am oversimplifying.

You are correct. It does.

Obviously, of course, the Church of Global Warming must deny this. Their usual method is to try to change one of these laws or to deny them completely and simply chant.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2019 19:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
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 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.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-09-2019 19:40
16-09-2019 19:32
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Into the Night wrote:

CO2 is not a reflector. It is colder than the surface. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. (2nd law of thermodynamics)

CO2 is not a heater. You can't create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics)

The gas is not capable of warming the Earth at all. Zip, zero, nada.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth by using infrared light from the Earth's surface.


Thanks. From my limited reading here I have read those comments over and over (not implying they are wrong). Being a non-science guy, I'm trying to make more sense out of it than just being told you you can't do it. Would you care to enlighten me some more? Isn't that the purpose of the forum?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
16-09-2019 19:38
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Interesting, as that all might be, pretty much any compressed gas can be used as a refrigerant. The point that I was trying to make, was that CO2 is being claimed to have a very strong impact, for such a small amount. I was trying to point out, that if CO2 packs such a strong potential, why was that potential never exploited in the past? CO2 does have it's uses, just nothing I can think of, that specifically exploits the same properties, the climatologist claim to be killing the planet. No exploit, no special property, no global warming...

You've certainly well established this point. Why aren't we cooking with CO2 yet?


.


It's just one of those uneducated observations, that doesn't really come up much. Any time we find a tiny amount of anything, produces a huge change, we always exploit it. We haven't exploited that special property, even though we are told there are a lot of people who believe CO2 is going to roast us all, in a few decades.

Any thing on the list, is plants. They want to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to 230 ppm, 0.023%. But, we also know that plants start to really struggle around 170 ppm, some never mature. We also know that the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa, vary, 30-50 ppm during pretty much any month. There are annuals as well. Think we are way closer to killing off a lot plants, with too little CO2, than we are to burning up over too much. The smart guys at the IPCC set a goal, only about 60 ppm from plant killing. Do they really have the planet's best interest at heart? Or is there some other motive? Planet killing, is still planet killing. I'd rather drive my SUV, and eat a rib-eye steak on occasion, than starve to death on salad, stuffed on a bus or train.
16-09-2019 20:12
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
spot wrote:
Neither is true. Different materials have different properties the CO2 is opaque to certain bands of infra-red. energy cant be destroyed so if the Infra red is absorbed the substance absorbing it heats up.


Now I'm learning something.

spot wrote:
I also think if you are really interested in learning this is the worst place to ask questions. most posters on this forum will delight in giving you false and misleading information as a joke.


If there is a better place, please let me know what it is.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
16-09-2019 20:16
Harry C
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I know about dry ice, and fire extinguishers, few other things, but lasers are about as close as you get to warming. CO2 must not be a very good refrigerant, we use ammonia at work. But, I really can't think of one example, that exploits that special warming property, that just a tiny concentration of CO2 has on this gigantic planet, at an alarming rate... That's a very powerful effect, and afte 40 years of preaching, nobody seems interested in making use of such potent power source. Only part of the fuels we burn, turn into CO2, which we wastefully just vent into the atmosphere. If we could harness the wicked potential, our energy problems would be solved.


This pretty well sums up my wonderment.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate New and 1st thoughts and questions:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Democrat Debates - the 1st Ten301-07-2019 19:15
The Solution 1st part1209-04-2019 18:39
Change of earth surface and thoughts about its contribution for climate change and weather420-07-2018 09:12
Writer with Climatology Questions5913-08-2017 19:07
The 3 questions we should all be asking about global warming.426-04-2017 18:22
▲ 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