Remember me
▼ Content

Nils-Axel Mörner



Page 7 of 10<<<56789>>>
12-05-2020 00:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 15...26...20a2...20q...20k...20l...25a...20g...20b3...20q...10d...20e2...lie...29...29...25a...20a2...20b3...20q...20h...20e2...20j...25f...20b5...
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote:
The hydrocarbons got in the ground when organic matter (aka formerly living organisms) got sedimented.

So Mr. Genius, why are all oil and gas wells miles below the fossil record, beneath impermeable rock? Hydrocarbons seep upward from where they are created and they require great heat and pressure to form. That rules out your stupid theory. The impermeable rock is what prevents the hydrocarbons from seeping upward any further, causing them to accumulate in a "well." How can this be a result of previously living organisms?

You've kind of answered your own question. They're buried as deep as they are because they couldn't drift upwards any further.

Sedimentary rock is not deep rock, dumbass. Fossils form in sedimentary rock. Further, no fossils are found that deep.
JackFou wrote:
Also if you've ever seen a coal mine, you'd know that a lot of coal isn't buried terribly deep.

The deepest operating coal mine is about 2 miles deep, well below any fossil layer.
JackFou wrote:
Some of it can be dug up with surface mining techniques. We've definitely found fossils deeper than that.
There are almost certainly lots of fossils still buried *way* deeper.

Nope. No fossils have been found that deep.
JackFou wrote:
The fossil record doesn't have a specific depth.

Actually, they do. That's how people that examine the fossil record became convinced that life arrived on Earth in stages.
JackFou wrote:
But since fossils are not easy to locate,

They are easy to locate. They form in sedimentary rock. They are made of sand and calcites. They do not burn.
JackFou wrote:
paleontologists don't generally blindly dig holes kilometres deep hoping to find something.

The deepest fossil ever found was about 1/2 a mile deep. I guess some dinosaur fell into a deep pit. The oil well it was found in eventually went down to 2 miles deep. They found no further fossils, and that well is producing oil today.
JackFou wrote:
Therefore, the known fossil record is biased towards shallower depths.

There are no fossils below a certain layer of rock. None. Zero. We know this because we found out by excavating down to a shallow depth.
JackFou wrote:
Now neither paleontology nor geology are subjects that particularly interest me

Obviously, since you deny both.
JackFou wrote:
but a quick search reveals the following:
Fossils go from a few thousand years ago all they way to billions of years ago and the depth at which you'll find them can vary from a few meters to kilometres.

Nope. No fossil has been found any deeper than 1/2 mile down. It was isolated and no other fossils were found around it.
JackFou wrote:
Coal, gas and oil on the other hand are around 200-300+ million years old

Carbon has no age. It is an element.
No one knows when hydrocarbons are form. They are fairly simple compounds.
JackFou wrote:
and have all been found at shallower depths than the deepest fossils we've found.

Lie.
JackFou wrote:
So your claims don't quite add up, I'm afraid.

Lie.
JackFou wrote:
I'm sure you'll dispute all of these numbers. In which case, feel free to show your radioiosotpe dating results that disprove all those claims.

Radioisotope dating isn't a proof, and is useless for 'dating' elements like carbon or compounds like hydrocarbons.
JackFou wrote:
But now I'm really curious to hear what *you* think where those hydrocarbon fuels come from. Did god put them there?

RQAA. Mantra 29.
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If you are telling me that the world is full of mistaken people blissfully unaware of their operating misconceptions ... and that you are one of them ... sure, I agree.

You're the one who's apparently unaware of the difference between adjectives and nouns and what a dictionary is and how it works, so I wouldn't get too cocky.

Since you apparently do not understand English, I imagine your school never taught you, or you flunked.

No dictionary owns any word. No dictionary defines any word.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 04:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
JackFou wrote: Issuing "warnings" across the internet from behind a keyboard is one of the most pathetic things I can think of.

Nonetheless, you have been warned. You ignored the warning, now I get to sit back and enjoy watching you stew in your own frustration. It's no skin off my nose to not clarify something for you.

JackFou wrote: If you insist on bringing up more counter examples to your own theory, feel free

They aren't counterexamples. You just don't understand why they are not, and I'm not going to explain to you for a third time.

JackFou wrote: ... but for now I'm still waiting to hear from you how you think a laser heats any material if no atom can absorb photons of an energy less than what the atom already has.

Just don't hold your breath while you are waiting. I told you, I will not explain a third time, nor will I explain anything even a second time for you if I have already explained it once. You were warned.

Dumbass.

JackFou wrote: The laser emits only one wavelength of light.
There's a reason for that. Look into it.

JackFou wrote: You can measure this as a temperature increase.
Hint: Herein lies your disconnect.

JackFou wrote: I'm asking again because you haven't yet answered.

I have answered twice. You apparently skipped right over it, even as I was telling you to not ignore it because I wasn't going to repeate it, ... but you preferred to scoff at my warning. So be it. Go figure it out on your own.

JackFou wrote: Where is the thermal energy coming from?

Now just answer this question correctly and you'll be able to move forward. The answer lies in my example of microwave ovens, not in your model of photon absorption.

JackFou wrote: How can a laser continue to add ... blah, blah, blah...


JackFou wrote: Radiance of the surface goes up therefore temperature goes up.

Nope. You insist that earth's radiance is decreased by greenhouse gas thus causing earth's temperature increase. You don't get to claim that earth's radiance is somehow both increased and decreased by greenhouse gas through the creation of imaginary separate physics-violation zones.

Also, you appear to want to combine your violation of Stefan-Boltzmann with a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics by claiming that the atmosphere somehow divides into separate zones, one near the surface that increases in temperature while one at a higher elevation does not or something like that. It's entirely bogus.

You're going in the wrong direction. You're supposed to be fixing your physics violations, not backing yourself into a corner and digging your hole deeper.

JackFou wrote: This is exactly what the Stefan-Boltzmann law dictates.

You don't have a clue what Stefan-Boltzmann dictates.

Planet earth is a body. The atmosphere is an integral part of that body. You can't claim, as you do, that greenhouse gas decreases radiance while simultaneously claiming that temperature increases. Temperature and raidance for earth must move in the same direction. If you tell me that earth's radiance has decreased then you have necessarily told me that earth's temperature has decreased, not increased.

... and you don't get to divide the atmosphere into fictitious "zones" that, in aggregate, violate any laws of thermodynamics.

JackFou wrote: You're trying to twist the Stefan-Boltzmann law by conflating the radiance of the surface with the radiance of the upper atmosphere.

Right, ... you don't get to somehow subdivide the earth into separate bodies. Your attempt to divide the atmosphere into zones is bogus and is summarily dismissed.

The earth as a whole ... does greenhouse gas affect earth's radiance or does it not. Earth does not have two radiances ... presuming you are adhereing to blackbody science. If you are denying blackbody science and are instead playing with your own invented fantasies then sure, the earth can have as many of whatever you wish ... and your conclusions are similarly dismissed.


JackFou wrote: Also if you've ever seen a coal mine,

Coal is not a hydrocarbon. A scientist would know the difference.

Coal is carbon with impurities. The carbon is combustible. The impurities are not. Coal that is purer carbon burns better. The impurities might even include fossils, and fossils of course do not burn and are simply impurities among the carbon.

Petroleum and natural gas are hydrocarbons and are produced deep in the earth where carbon is plentiful on a far more enormous scale than humans have readily available, obviously. Also, deep in the crust and upper mantle exists the high temperatures and pressure needed to create hydrocarbons, especially in the massive quantities needed to fill oil wells.

JackFou wrote: Fossils go from a few thousand years ago all they way to billions of years ago and the depth at which you'll find them can vary from a few meters to kilometres.

Let's round out this information for a fuller understanding. Once you get down to the depth of, say, one kilometer, what is the frequency of fossils at that depth. Extremely rare? Perhaps onsies-twosies over a continent? Is that anywhere near enough to produce an oil well? Is it anywhere near enough to produce an oil well at two and a half kilometers beneath the surface?

You should be shaking your head "No, it isn't ... it isn't even close."

Now, address how ANY fossils manage to get beneath a quarter mile of impermeable rock. Hmmm?


JackFou wrote: Coal, gas and oil on the other hand are around 200-300+ million years old

Please tell me that, when you wrote this, you had at least a momentary occurrence that you might be giving away that you aren't a scientist.

Please tell me that you anticipated my response that no scientist would ever claim to be able to tell the age of a hydrocarbon molecule, that you know that they don't come with birth certificates. Please tell me that you realize that no one has ever observed hydrocarbons form deep in the earth and that no one can tell how long any hydrcarbons have been around.


JackFou wrote: I'm sure you'll dispute all of these numbers.

Really? So it never occurred to you that you are being a dumbass.


JackFou wrote: But now I'm really curious to hear what *you* think where those hydrocarbon fuels come from. Did god put them there?

Read above. Let me know if you have any specific questions but I will not be reexplaining any of this post to you.

.
Attached image:

12-05-2020 05:46
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(260)
I have learned this
.The term fossil fuel is incorrect
.A lazer does nothing till you plug it in
12-05-2020 06:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
duncan61 wrote:
I have learned this
.The term fossil fuel is incorrect
.A lazer does nothing till you plug it in

duncan, JackFou's problem is that he doesn't bother to read anything he finds inconvenient. Into the Night and I have been discussing thermal energy flow, and JackFou keeps trying to talk about electromagnetic energy. In his mind, all electromagnetic radiation generates thermal energy via photon absorption.

I specified that the only temperature increases to be considered will be those caused by thermal energy flow and not by other means. But he thinks ALL electromagnetic energy generates temperature increases via direct photon absorption. He doesn't know how microwave ovens operate, i.e. by forcing all the water molecules to shift dipoles and thus to "grind" against each other and to generate thermal energy via friction at the molecular level.

JackFou also doesn't understand that electronic devices are POWERED devices. I'm not sure how this fact escapes him but escape him it does.

----

Oh yes, you are correct, no fossils can be used as any sort of fuel. Petroleum and natural gas are "hydrocarbons" while coal is just "carbon" (with impurities).

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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: sun12-05-2020 08:26
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(260)
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
Attached image:

12-05-2020 08:31
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(260)
This is the veiw I have out the window.I am warmer because of the sun shining through the glass.When I go out side to work on my jeep it will be much cooler.At night it will be cooler again.If it was raining it would be warmer than now.I have a lot to learn.Does the Earth emit infrared light at night and the CO2 is blocking it from leaving???
12-05-2020 09:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
duncan61 wrote: Does the Earth emit infrared light at night and the CO2 is blocking it from leaving???

1) Yes, the earth and all matter above absolute zero radiates. The amount (power) of that radiation is determined by its temperature alone and is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Temperature and radiance move in the same direction. If temperature increases then radiance increases. If temperature decreases then radiance decreases.

If anyone ever tells you that greenhouse gas causes a reduction in radiance (i.e. it prevents some from escaping into space) with a corresponding increase in temperature, then you know right away that he is full of chit.

2) Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. A body's radiance, e.g. that of the earth, is dependent upon temperature alone (note: all bodies have an emissivity constant that factors into the equation ... but it is a constant for each body. Temperature is the only variable). This means that the atmospheric composition is not a factor. So the answer is "No. No atmospheric gas blocks any of the earth's radiance to space."

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
12-05-2020 11:12
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Well, you've ignored his warning. You might as well settle in for his caustic humor being directed against you.

Must be his caustic humor that eroded his brain. That would explain a thing or two.

Into the Night wrote:
More or less true, but only if the laser device is plugged in.


You claimed previously that no heat can flow from a warm object to a cold object and that a cold object cannot warm a warmer object.
Therefore, according to you, the laser must be warmer than the object it warms.
According to your narrow understanding of temperature, what is the temperature of the device that emits laser light and how would you determine it?

Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
b) Any object that can be heated with a laser keeps absorbing more and more photons of the same wavelengths. This is proof beyond doubt that atoms can in fact absorb photons of an energy less than what the atom already has.
Nope. The material can only heat so far.


The limit to how far you can heat any object with a laser depends on the power output of the laser. If you supply an object with more energy than it emits into the environment, its temperature will increase, thereby increasing the rate at which it cools itself until the rate of energy dissipation is again equal to the rate of energy input.
This depends on the power of the laser device, not on the wavelength of the laser photons.
That's why a 1 mW handheld laser pointer which emits in the visible range (higher energy photons) struggles to even singe plastic whereas a 1kW CO2 laser (lower energy photons) melts or even vaporizes metals.
If your laser is powerful enough you can heat the substrate to millions K. That's why you can even induce nuclear fusion with lasers.

You have also claimed previously that no atom or molecule can absorb a photon of less energy than what the atom/molecule already has.
Since every object above 0 K contains *some* thermal energy, no atom could absorb more than 1 laser photon. The second photon would necessarily already have to be less energy than what the atom already has since x < x+ε for positive x and ε.
There is no way you can heat metals like iron from room temp to their melting point and beyond with a single 10.6 µm photon per atom.

Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:
So if it's not the photons from the laser being absorbed and converted into thermal energy, where does the thermal energy come from?
Absorption does not create energy, dude. Light does not have a temperature.

Absorption doesn't *create* energy, it *converts* energy. In this case, electromagnetic energy to thermal energy, to stay with your preferred nomenclature.
So if it's not through absorption of photons then how does the substrate acquire thermal energy that we can measure with a thermometer?

Into the Night wrote:
We can and do synthesize both oil and natural gas from inorganic compounds. All you need is carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide), hydrogen, heat, and pressure, in the presence of an iron catalyst...all conditions found naturally within the Earth.


Where do you find large natural reservoirs of hydrogen? Atmospheric conditions that create CO2 aren't particularly suitable for keeping large quantities of elemental hydrogen around, in particular at high temperatures and in the presence of metal catalysts.

Are you arguing that the hydrocarbons formed below ground or that they formed above ground and then got buried? Because I'm having issues with both mechanisms. Above ground you'll not find particularly high pressures. To form them below ground you'd need to trap *vast* amounts of gas under ground somehow. Oil contains hydrocarbon chains of dozens of carbon atoms. The volume reduction you'd get if you were to make them from CO2 and H2 is pretty darn high.
Furthermore, oil curiously contains other more complex molecules which do resemble known molecules found in living organisms such as porphyrins. Feel free to demonstrate how you synthesize those via Fischer-Tropsch.

Into the Night wrote:
Coal is primarily carbon. Carbon is an element. It is not a fossil.

The term "fossil fuels" includes coal. You know that because you've brought it up previously.

Into the Night wrote:
False authority fallacy. Dictionaries do not define words. They are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation, and to give examples of how a word might be used. No dictionary is authoritative over the definition of any word. No dictionary owns any word.

No one "owns" a word (unless you want to include trademarks and brand names but let's not get too silly, shall we).
Language relies on a shared understanding of what words mean in order to communicate. If everyone got to redefine words to their liking whenever they please, communication would be mostly impossible. I know that you like to do that but that's really *your* issue, not mine. I'm sticking with the commonly accepted definitions of words and terms, both in terms of every day language as well as in science.

Into the Night wrote:
'Fossil' is a noun. It is nothing other than a noun.

Language changes over time. If you look at the etymology, you'll find that "fossil" was used in the past as an adjective meaning "dug from the ground" (if you follow the link you have to scroll down a bit).

You can also look at other languages to get a hint. In German, fossil fuels are called "fossile Brennstoffe". If you know anything about German, it's probably that they capitalize their nouns. The word "fossile" in "fossile Brennstoffe" is not a noun, it's an adjective.
If a word or term exists in several languages but your etymology only works in one language and fails in other languages, that's generally a good sign that it's bunk.

Into the Night wrote:
Why then is oil found well below any fossil layer?


There is no dedicated fossil layer. Fossils are found at different depths, depending on the age of the fossil and the geological conditions.
The deepest fossils found so far were buried several kilometres deep.
Edited on 12-05-2020 11:39
12-05-2020 12:34
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(260)
You claimed previously that no heat can flow from a warm object to a cold object and that a cold object cannot warm a warmer object.
Therefore, according to you, the laser must be warmer than the object it warms.
According to your narrow understanding of temperature, what is the temperature of the device that emits laser light and how would you determine it?

You have bent the rules a bit to now include the tool itself.As a plumber I have 2 sets of heating equipment for soldering copper pipe.A full size set and a miniature one for climbing in roofs and small jobs.They both get to between 2500-3000 degree C but the handpiece does not warm up unless you have it going for a very long time.Are you adding random elements into all your debate.I kind of skip the debate on theoretical physics as in my mind all that matters is did god create the planet.Probably not and is AGW/CC real.Probably not as I have said before it is a good theory but not real and there is not one shred of evidence that it is true but Jesus will come back and save all the good people wont he.As long as they are American from the bible belt
12-05-2020 12:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
duncan61 wrote:
This is the veiw I have out the window.I am warmer because of the sun shining through the glass.When I go out side to work on my jeep it will be much cooler.At night it will be cooler again.If it was raining it would be warmer than now.I have a lot to learn.Does the Earth emit infrared light at night and the CO2 is blocking it from leaving???


Earth emits infrared light at all times, 24 hours a day. The sunlight only warms one side of the Earth. Everywhere gets a daytime (except a pole during it's winter) so everyone gets a chance at the sunlight and its warmth (unless you at a pole during it's winter).

It is not possible to trap light. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

CO2 has no magick capability to trap light or thermal energy. While it does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light, it is just another way for the warmer surface to heat a colder atmosphere. The surface is cooled by doing so.

Everything, surface, atmosphere, etc. emit blackbody light. To do so, that substance is cooled. It takes energy to emit light.

The International Space Station is in orbit around Earth. It's sunlit skin temperature can approach 250 deg F. It has no appreciable atmosphere or CO2. On Earth, no station ever measured a temperature anywhere near this high. Here there is an atmosphere and CO2.

If CO2 warms the Earth, why is surface temperatures so much colder?

A night the opposite is true. The ISS skin temperature on it's dark side can easily drop to -250 deg F. No where on Earth has a station ever recorded a temperature that cold. Why?

The answer is the atmosphere. It has mass. It takes time to heat and cool it. Thus the temperature spread in the atmosphere is narrower than that in open space at the ISS. Indeed, there is so much mass that it takes longer then the 12 hours or so you get at night with no sunlight available to drop to such temperatures. It also takes much longer then the 12 hours or so you get during the day to reach temperatures that high.

The thicker the atmosphere, the better the warmer surface can thermally couple to it and heat it. This is why you see the highest temperatures recorded in places below sea level, and why you see freezing temperatures at mountain peaks, even in summer.

It's also why Venus is so freakin' hot. That atmosphere is so thick it has a pressure 900 times that of Earth at sea level.

Sunlight consists of a very wide spectrum, ranging from radio waves, through infrared, through the visible bands, and on into ultraviolet and X rays. Fortunately, our atmosphere shields out the higher frequency (and far more dangerous rays) by absorbing them. The result of that absorption is not thermal energy, but is in conversion chemical energy or even direct ionization. Visible light, when absorbed, generally converts to chemical energy (think photosynthesis to get the idea).

Infrared light, when absorbed converts to thermal energy. This is a very wide band. Most of the light reaching the surface from the Sun is infrared light.

CO2 can absorb some frequencies of infrared light. It too converts that absorption to thermal energy. Like the surface, the Sun does heat CO2 a bit as it enters the atmosphere.

However, attempting to heat the Earth using Earth's own emitted infrared energy is essentially attempting to construct a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order. It's not possible.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 13:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 1...lie...30...20a1...20a2...20g...20q...29...20q...20g...20v...20be...20s...10 (laser photon->buzzword)...25j...25k...25h...25f...29...29...20r...29...20r...29...15...20r...20r...20r...denial of etymology...4d...4b...non-English portion...non-German portion...21...31...25g...29...


No argument presented. Use of non-English as 'English'. Use of non-German as German. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 13:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
duncan61 wrote:
You claimed previously that no heat can flow from a warm object to a cold object and that a cold object cannot warm a warmer object.
Therefore, according to you, the laser must be warmer than the object it warms.
According to your narrow understanding of temperature, what is the temperature of the device that emits laser light and how would you determine it?

You have bent the rules a bit to now include the tool itself.As a plumber I have 2 sets of heating equipment for soldering copper pipe.A full size set and a miniature one for climbing in roofs and small jobs.They both get to between 2500-3000 degree C but the handpiece does not warm up unless you have it going for a very long time.Are you adding random elements into all your debate.I kind of skip the debate on theoretical physics as in my mind all that matters is did god create the planet.Probably not and is AGW/CC real.Probably not as I have said before it is a good theory but not real and there is not one shred of evidence that it is true but Jesus will come back and save all the good people wont he.As long as they are American from the bible belt

This is due to his comparing two systems as if they were the same system. He keeps conveniently forgetting that a laser device that is not plugged in does nothing to cut metal or even produce laser light at all. He is also still trying to assign a temperature to light.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 13:38
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(260)
I have a better understanding of infrared light/energy.I see how the theory works that if we increase the CO2 levels in the air from top to bottom of the atmosphere it should potentially make the planet warmer.It just does not in reality.Can the CO2 be less in some areas and greater in others.Of course it can.We have proven it can not be tested or measured in a real life application.I am close to getting a new hobby this one is nearly over
12-05-2020 13:57
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
now I get to sit back and enjoy watching you stew in your own frustration. It's no skin off my nose to not clarify something for you.

You've ignored my questions before and you will continue to do so. So nothing's really changed.

IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. You insist that earth's radiance is decreased by greenhouse gas thus causing earth's temperature increase. You don't get to claim that earth's radiance is somehow both increased and decreased by greenhouse gas through the creation of imaginary separate physics-violation zones.


The radiance of a surface is determined at the surface, not in the atmosphere above it. What happens to the photons emitted by the surface *after* they have been emitted is irrelevant for the radiance of the surface.
The radiance at the surface of the earth is determined by the energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation.
Without greenhouse gases, the outgoing radiation would be equal to the incoming radiation from the sun.
Once you introduce greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they absorb some of the outgoing radiation from the surface and send some of it back down to the surface. As a result there is now more incoming radiation at the surface. To balance this, you need to increase the outgoing radiation of the surface. This can only happen if the temperature of the surface *increases*.

IBdaMann wrote:
Right, ... you don't get to somehow subdivide the earth into separate bodies. Your attempt to divide the atmosphere into zones is bogus and is summarily dismissed.

For the temperature of a surface according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, I only care about the radiance of the surface of the earth, nothing else.

Let's say you have a piece of metal that you're heating to white hot surrounded by an argon atmosphere. You can determine the temperature of the piece of metal with a thermometer.
You measure the emission spectrum from outside the argon atmosphere, looking at the piece of metal.
Next you replace the argon atmosphere with a CO2 atmosphere and you adjust the temperature of the piece of metal as determined by the thermometer to be the same as before. You measure the emission spectrum again. What do you see? The same spectrum as before minus the absorption wavelengths of CO2. Therefore, the radiance of the piece of metal has decreased, according to you. Yet the thermometer still reads the same temperature.
Of course the radiance of the surface hasn't actually decreased. It's still the same if you measure it *at* the surface. If you measure it from behind a layer of gas that absorbs some of the wavelengths, you're not measuring the radiance of the surface anymore.

IBdaMann wrote:
Please tell me that you anticipated my response that no scientist would ever claim to be able to tell the age of a hydrocarbon molecule, that you know that they don't come with birth certificates.


I hope I don't need to explain to you how radiometric dating works.
Edited on 12-05-2020 13:59
12-05-2020 14:15
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
duncan61 wrote:
You have bent the rules a bit to now include the tool itself.As a plumber I have 2 sets of heating equipment for soldering copper pipe.A full size set and a miniature one for climbing in roofs and small jobs.They both get to between 2500-3000 degree C but the handpiece does not warm up unless you have it going for a very long time.Are you adding random elements into all your debate.I kind of skip the debate on theoretical physics as in my mind all that matters is did god create the planet.Probably not and is AGW/CC real.Probably not as I have said before it is a good theory but not real and there is not one shred of evidence that it is true but Jesus will come back and save all the good people wont he.As long as they are American from the bible belt


In the case of your soldering equipment, the tip of the heating equipment will get measurably hot, hotter in fact than the substrate you're trying to heat.
In the case of a laser, which part gets hotter than the substrate?
You can stick a thermometer directly on the laser tube or the laser cavity but you won't find temperatures in the thousand let alone million Kelvin range. laser tubes are often made from glass, laser cavities include mirrors. If any part of the laser got that hot it would instantly get destroyed and the laser would stop working.

Now the trick to lasers is that they're making use of population inversion of energy levels. This makes the atoms emitting the laser light effectively "infinitely hot". But of course that requires a somewhat deeper understanding of what temperature is than just "a measure of average thermal energy".
And since ITN and IBD have repeatedly claimed that electronic energy levels and electromagnetic energy don't correspond to thermal energy and temperature they won't find any part of the laser that is hotter than the substrate.

Regarding AGW, the greenhouse gas is just simple physics. From the laws of physics follows that increased levels of greenhouse gases must result in a higher temperature at the planet's surface.
Since the greenhouse gases emit some of their thermal emission back to the surface of the earth, the surface receives effectively more radiative power than it would without the greenhouse gases. Therefore, the surface must itself increase its radiative power to maintain energy balance. This results in an increased surface temperature.
Whether you trust the average global temperature measurements by NASA or not, the physics doesn't change. Even if we couldn't measure the temperature increase because our instruments aren't good enough or our coverage of the surface is not good enough, it still follows from the laws of physics that more greenhouse gases means higher surface temperatures.
There exists no magic that prevents the earth from absorbing the radiation sent back down by the greenhouse gases. Photons are photons and if the wavelength can be absorbed by the surface it will be absorbed. The surface doesn't know whether the photon came from a hot or a cold object.
12-05-2020 14:16
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 1...lie...30...20a1...20a2...20g...20q...29...20q...20g...20v...20be...20s...10 (laser photon->buzzword)...25j...25k...25h...25f...29...29...20r...29...20r...29...15...20r...20r...20r...denial of etymology...4d...4b...non-English portion...non-German portion...21...31...25g...29...


No argument presented. Use of non-English as 'English'. Use of non-German as German. RQAA.


How do you heat iron from room temperature to melting with just a single 10.6µm photon per atom?
12-05-2020 14:20
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
The International Space Station is in orbit around Earth. It's sunlit skin temperature can approach 250 deg F. It has no appreciable atmosphere or CO2. On Earth, no station ever measured a temperature anywhere near this high. Here there is an atmosphere and CO2.

If CO2 warms the Earth, why is surface temperatures so much colder?


The reason is of course that the ISS doesn't have any air around it for conductive/convective cooling. Therefore it runs hotter during the day.

Into the Night wrote:
A night the opposite is true. The ISS skin temperature on it's dark side can easily drop to -250 deg F. No where on Earth has a station ever recorded a temperature that cold. Why?

Because greenhouse gases partially hinder the earth from cooling itself.

In fact, a decrease in the difference between day and night temperatures is exactly what you'd predict from the greenhouse gas effect.

If what you say is true, how can the colder atmosphere result in a warmer surface at night? I thought heat couldn't flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer earth?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't care whether your heat transfer is conductive or radiative.

Into the Night wrote:
The thicker the atmosphere, the better the warmer surface can thermally couple to it and heat it. This is why you see the highest temperatures recorded in places below sea level, and why you see freezing temperatures at mountain peaks, even in summer.
It's also why Venus is so freakin' hot. That atmosphere is so thick it has a pressure 900 times that of Earth at sea level.


The reason why you see the highest temperature recorded below sea level is due to heat from inside the earth, not due to heat from the sun.
If the thicker atmosphere of venus means better thermal coupling and therefore better heat transport away from the surface, the surface should be *colder* not *significantly* warmer than earth.
Edited on 12-05-2020 14:23
12-05-2020 17:27
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:

No argument presented. Use of non-English as 'English'. Use of non-German as German. RQAA.


Well, would you look at that! "fossil" is indeed an adjective in German, even today. Looks like you're full of shit not only when it comes to physics but also when it comes to languages!
But I'm sure you know German better than *actual* Germans.
Edited on 12-05-2020 17:30
12-05-2020 18:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
JackFou wrote: The radiance of a surface is determined at the surface, not in the atmosphere above it.

You are a science denier. Get back to me when you want to discuss physics, not your fantasy Climate miracles.

The atmosphere is an integral part of the body. There is nothing special about the solid part of the planet at the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. the atmosphere is just as much part of the "surface". Put the atmosphere back into your model and then we can reengage.

Until then, your crap is dismissed. You are in desperate need of a clue.

JackFou wrote:I hope I don't need to explain to you how radiometric dating works.

In fact, you apparently need me to explain it to you.

Any radiometric dating will, at best, provide an approximate maximum age of the materials present where the petroleum was formed, which far precedes the production of the petroleum in that location. The hydrocarbons simply inherit the "age" of the surrounding earth upon creation.

Ergo, radiometric dating cannot give you the age of the hydrocarbon, only the age of its birthplace. Hopefully you can see that these are two different ages. In fact, hydrocarbons take hours to form (not millions of years, ask me how we know) and any pertroleum pulled out of the ground could have been produced last week while nonetheless showing an Re-Os value of twelve million years, give or take.

You welcome.

.
Attached image:

12-05-2020 19:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
JackFou wrote:Well, would you look at that! "fossil" is indeed an adjective in German, even today[/url]

Would you look at that! Fossil is only a noun in German. You were correct about the equivalent adjective in German being "fossile" (or variants) or "versteinert" (or variants) ... but then you had to push your luck with your "it's on the internet therefore it must be true" philosophy and strangely insisted on trusting an error that you found on the internet over Into the Night who is trying to help you out.

You are a moron.

... and now I take it you believe you speak German better than native speakers?

Too funny!
.
Attached image:

12-05-2020 19:48
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: The radiance of a surface is determined at the surface, not in the atmosphere above it.

You are a science denier. Get back to me when you want to discuss physics, not your fantasy Climate miracles.

The atmosphere is an integral part of the body. There is nothing special about the solid part of the planet at the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. the atmosphere is just as much part of the "surface". Put the atmosphere back into your model and then we can reengage.

Until then, your crap is dismissed. You are in desperate need of a clue.


You do realize that there is a temperature gradient from the surface to outer space, right? The temperature isn't just all the same until you hit outer space. The atmosphere gets colder the higher up you get.
It's entirely possible for the temperature on the surface to increase while other parts of the atmosphere get colder (or warmer or whatever, I don't care about the temperature up there because I don't live there).
So what I'm interested is not the temperature somewhere up in the atmosphere but the temperature on the solid surface where I live.
That's where all the ice is melting, that's where our food is produced etc. Therefore that is the only temperature I care about.
And the temperature of the surface has to increase due to the greenhouse effect, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law which you love so much.
*Your* favourite law is actually confirming what I'm saying. Amazing, right?

Now, one thing I will admit is that I realized after I had written my post that my example doesn't quite work the way I originally wrote it.

JackFou wrote:
Let's say you have a piece of metal that you're heating to white hot surrounded by an argon atmosphere. You can determine the temperature of the piece of metal with a thermometer.
You measure the emission spectrum from outside the argon atmosphere, looking at the piece of metal.
Next you replace the argon atmosphere with a CO2 atmosphere and you adjust the temperature of the piece of metal as determined by the thermometer to be the same as before. You measure the emission spectrum again. What do you see? The same spectrum as before minus the absorption wavelengths of CO2. Therefore, the radiance of the piece of metal has decreased, according to you. Yet the thermometer still reads the same temperature.
Of course the radiance of the surface hasn't actually decreased. It's still the same if you measure it *at* the surface. If you measure it from behind a layer of gas that absorbs some of the wavelengths, you're not measuring the radiance of the surface anymore.


Let's say we do the same thing but instead of a metal we use an object that actually has a high emissivity (e.g. >0.9). And instead of heating it to white hot, we heat it only to about 100-200°C.
I initially went with an argon atmosphere because it has a similar heat conductivity as CO2 but if you control the temperature with a thermometer in both cases that's irrelevant. So instead of argon you can use any gas you want (assuming no chemical reaction with the object and no absorption within the window of thermal radiation of the object). You could even do it under vacuum.

So in both situations we have the same object at the same temperature (as measured by a thermometer). When you measure the spectrum through a gas that absorbs some of the thermal radiation (e.g. CO2) you'll find lower radiance than before. Yet the temperature of the object is the same.
How is that possible, Mr. physics understander?
According to what you claim this would mean that the temperature must have *decreased*

IBdaMann wrote:
In fact, hydrocarbons take hours to form (not millions of years, ask me how we know) and any pertroleum pulled out of the ground could have been produced last week while nonetheless showing an Re-Os value of twelve million years, give or take.

Okay, Mr. chemistry expert, if you think fossil fuels just are just formed within a few hours inside the ground, let's see you make porphyrins and other biomarkers from CO2 and H2 via Fischer-Tropsch.

Oh and since ITN apparently cannot explain how it is possible to heat iron from room temp to its melting point with just a single 10.6 µm photon per atom, maybe you can help him out?
Surely, two science understanding super brains you like guys can figure it out together!
Edited on 12-05-2020 20:04
12-05-2020 22:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: The radiance of a surface is determined at the surface, not in the atmosphere above it.

You are a science denier. Get back to me when you want to discuss physics, not your fantasy Climate miracles.

The atmosphere is an integral part of the body. There is nothing special about the solid part of the planet at the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. the atmosphere is just as much part of the "surface". Put the atmosphere back into your model and then we can reengage.

Until then, your crap is dismissed. You are in desperate need of a clue.


You do realize that there is a temperature gradient from the surface to outer space, right?

There are many of them.
JackFou wrote:
The temperature isn't just all the same until you hit outer space. The atmosphere gets colder the higher up you get.

WRONG. Sometimes the temperature increases with increased altitude, such as in the stratosphere. The total thermal energy decreases with increased altitude, however, due to thinning air.
JackFou wrote:
It's entirely possible for the temperature on the surface to increase while other parts of the atmosphere get colder (or warmer or whatever, I don't care about the temperature up there because I don't live there).

Lie. You are constantly talking about the upper atmosphere. Apparently you DO care.
JackFou wrote:
So what I'm interested is not the temperature somewhere up in the atmosphere but the temperature on the solid surface where I live.

False equivalence. Mantra 20h.
JackFou wrote:
That's where all the ice is melting,

All the ice is not melting. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth.
JackFou wrote:
that's where our food is produced etc.

Food is still being produced. We produce more food than ever right now. We've even developed crops that can grow in soils where very few crops could be sustained.
JackFou wrote:
Therefore that is the only temperature I care about.

Just three months ago, my area experienced a temperature of 25 deg F. Just last week, it experienced a temperature of 82 deg F. In three short months, it has warmed 57 deg F. Imagine what it will be like by summer! It'll be 139 freakin' deg F! Must be the sasquatch farts.

Despite our radical warming over the last three months, the corn has been planted and the shoots are starting to come up. People are still growing potatoes, carrots, beans, wheat, and all manner of crops. The cattle, pigs, and chickens are doing quite well too.

Guess we will have food after all, despite a 57 deg warming in the space of just three months!

JackFou wrote:
And the temperature of the surface has to increase due to the greenhouse effect, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law which you love so much.

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no sequence in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Mantras 20b1...20b3...20b5...
JackFou wrote:
*Your* favourite law is actually confirming what I'm saying. Amazing, right?

Mantra 7...20b1...20b3...20b5...
JackFou wrote:
Now, one thing I will admit is that I realized after I had written my post that my example doesn't quite work the way I originally wrote it.

Mantra 25f.
JackFou wrote:
Let's say you have a piece of metal that you're heating to white hot surrounded by an argon atmosphere. You can determine the temperature of the piece of metal with a thermometer.
You measure the emission spectrum from outside the argon atmosphere, looking at the piece of metal. ...deleted remaining contrivance...
So in both situations we have the same object at the same temperature (as measured by a thermometer). When you measure the spectrum through a gas that absorbs some of the thermal radiation (e.g. CO2) you'll find lower radiance than before. Yet the temperature of the object is the same.
How is that possible, Mr. physics understander?
According to what you claim this would mean that the temperature must have *decreased*

WRONG. You are measuring the combined radiance of the metal and the gas surrounding it. Radiance is not frequency. Mantras 25k...25f...25b...20b5...20b1...20b3...
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
In fact, hydrocarbons take hours to form (not millions of years, ask me how we know) and any pertroleum pulled out of the ground could have been produced last week while nonetheless showing an Re-Os value of twelve million years, give or take.

Okay, Mr. chemistry expert, if you think fossil fuels just are just formed within a few hours inside the ground, let's see you make porphyrins and other biomarkers from CO2 and H2 via Fischer-Tropsch.

They are formed by the Fischer-Tropsch process. Apparently you don't know what 'organic chemistry' means. Mantra 20r.
JackFou wrote:
Oh and since ITN apparently cannot explain how it is possible to heat iron from room temp to its melting point with just a single 10.6 µm photon per atom, maybe you can help him out?
Surely, two science understanding super brains you like guys can figure it out together!

Light has no temperature. Mantra 25k...25j...20q...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-05-2020 22:05
12-05-2020 22:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
JackFou wrote:
The radiance of a surface is determined at the surface, not in the atmosphere above it. What happens to the photons emitted by the surface *after* they have been emitted is irrelevant for the radiance of the surface.

The radiance at the surface of the earth is determined by the energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation.

Nope. It's determined by the temperature of the radiating surface. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law that you keep denying.
JackFou wrote:
Without greenhouse gases, the outgoing radiation would be equal to the incoming radiation from the sun.

You are comparing two different systems as the same system again. Mantra 20h.
JackFou wrote:
Once you introduce greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they absorb some of the outgoing radiation from the surface and send some of it back down to the surface. As a result there is now more incoming radiation at the surface.

Attempt to create a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order. Mantras 20a2...20b3...33b...
JackFou wrote:
To balance this, you need to increase the outgoing radiation of the surface. This can only happen if the temperature of the surface *increases*.

Attempt to create a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order. There is no sequence. Mantras 20a1...20b3...20h...20q...
JackFou wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Please tell me that you anticipated my response that no scientist would ever claim to be able to tell the age of a hydrocarbon molecule, that you know that they don't come with birth certificates.


I hope I don't need to explain to you how radiometric dating works.

Radiometric dating does not measure the age of a molecule.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
JackFou wrote:
In the case of your soldering equipment, the tip of the heating equipment will get measurably hot, hotter in fact than the substrate you're trying to heat.
In the case of a laser, which part gets hotter than the substrate?
You can stick a thermometer directly on the laser tube or the laser cavity but you won't find temperatures in the thousand let alone million Kelvin range. laser tubes are often made from glass, laser cavities include mirrors. If any part of the laser got that hot it would instantly get destroyed and the laser would stop working.

I bet you have no idea how an LED emits light either. White LED's are not white hot. Red LED's are not red hot. Light has no temperature, dumbass. Not all light has to be emitted by blackbody radiance either.
Mantras 20a2...20b6...
JackFou wrote:
Now the trick to lasers is that they're making use of population inversion of energy levels.

Buzzword fallacy. Mantra 10.
JackFou wrote:
This makes the atoms emitting the laser light effectively "infinitely hot".

Obviously not. Mantra 20b6...20a2...20e2...10...
JackFou wrote:
But of course that requires a somewhat deeper understanding of what temperature is than just "a measure of average thermal energy".

Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 10b...
JackFou wrote:
And since ITN and IBD have repeatedly claimed that electronic energy levels

There is no such thing as 'electronic energy level'. Electrons are not electronics.
JackFou wrote:
and electromagnetic energy don't correspond to thermal energy and temperature they won't find any part of the laser that is hotter than the substrate.

Guess what? There is no part of the laser device that is hotter than it's final amplifiers. Simple passive heatsinks are enough to protect them. Mantra 20b6...29...
JackFou wrote:
Regarding AGW, the greenhouse gas is just simple physics.

It is not even a theory, much less a theory of science, dumbass. Mantra 33b.
JackFou wrote:
From the laws of physics follows that increased levels of greenhouse gases must result in a higher temperature at the planet's surface.

You are not using physics. You are denying physics, particularly the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Mantras 33b...20b1...20b3...20b5...20b6...20a2...20a1...29...
JackFou wrote:
Since the greenhouse gases emit some of their thermal emission back to the surface of the earth, the surface receives effectively more radiative power than it would without the greenhouse gases.

Mantra 20a2.
JackFou wrote:
Therefore, the surface must itself increase its radiative power to maintain energy balance. This results in an increased surface temperature.

Mantra 20b3...
JackFou wrote:
Whether you trust the average global temperature measurements by NASA or not,

Mantras 25g...4e...37a...
JackFou wrote:
the physics doesn't change.

Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b1...20b3...20b5...20b6...29...10b...33b... You are denying physics.
JackFou wrote:
Even if we couldn't measure the temperature increase because our instruments aren't good enough or our coverage of the surface is not good enough, it still follows from the laws of physics that more greenhouse gases means higher surface temperatures.

Mantras 20a2...20a1...20b1...20b3...20b5...20b6...29...10b...33b... You are denying physics.
JackFou wrote:
There exists no magic that prevents the earth from absorbing the radiation sent back down by the greenhouse gases.

Mantra 20q... Quantum mechanics is not magick.
JackFou wrote:
Photons are photons

Not all photons are the same. Mantra 20v.
JackFou wrote:
and if the wavelength can be absorbed by the surface it will be absorbed.

No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has. Mantra 20q...20a2...
JackFou wrote:
The surface doesn't know whether the photon came from a hot or a cold object.

Photons have no temperature and do not carry temperature information.
Mantras 25k...25j...20v...

No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 22:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 1...lie...30...20a1...20a2...20g...20q...29...20q...20g...20v...20be...20s...10 (laser photon->buzzword)...25j...25k...25h...25f...29...29...20r...29...20r...29...15...20r...20r...20r...denial of etymology...4d...4b...non-English portion...non-German portion...21...31...25g...29...


No argument presented. Use of non-English as 'English'. Use of non-German as German. RQAA.


How do you heat iron from room temperature to melting with just a single 10.6µm photon per atom?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 23:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2936)
Hey IBD still waiting on some clarification on the "Thermal Radiation" you believe in.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: A transfer of thermal energy through space is radiance IBD.
What I see is your attempt to redefine thermal energy flow as electromagnetic emission.
...
Why do you use the term "thermal radiation" yourself?
IBdaMann wrote:Thermal radiation is governed by temperature and nothing else.
link
IBdaMann wrote:The sun does not provide enough thermal radiation to increase the temperature of the earth's mantle or core,
link
12-05-2020 23:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The International Space Station is in orbit around Earth. It's sunlit skin temperature can approach 250 deg F. It has no appreciable atmosphere or CO2. On Earth, no station ever measured a temperature anywhere near this high. Here there is an atmosphere and CO2.

If CO2 warms the Earth, why is surface temperatures so much colder?


The reason is of course that the ISS doesn't have any air around it for conductive/convective cooling. Therefore it runs hotter during the day.

The Earth does not have any air around it for conductive/convective cooling either. Like the ISS, the Earth can only be cooled by radiance. It's space out there, dope. Mantra 20h.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A night the opposite is true. The ISS skin temperature on it's dark side can easily drop to -250 deg F. No where on Earth has a station ever recorded a temperature that cold. Why?

Because greenhouse gases partially hinder the earth from cooling itself.

It is not possible to trap light. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. Mantra 20a2...20b3...20b5...29...33b...
JackFou wrote:
In fact, a decrease in the difference between day and night temperatures is exactly what you'd predict from the greenhouse gas effect.

Mantra 33b. Paradox.
1) Greenhouse gases make the daytime surface warmer.
2) Greenhouse gases make the daytime surface cooler.
Which is it, dude?
JackFou wrote:
If what you say is true, how can the colder atmosphere result in a warmer surface at night? I thought heat couldn't flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer earth?

It doesn't, and it can't. The surface generally cools off at night. Didn't you know that? [/quote]
Mantra 20a2.
JackFou wrote:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't care whether your heat transfer is conductive or radiative.

There is no such thing as 'heat transfer'. Mantra 10b.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The thicker the atmosphere, the better the warmer surface can thermally couple to it and heat it. This is why you see the highest temperatures recorded in places below sea level, and why you see freezing temperatures at mountain peaks, even in summer.
It's also why Venus is so freakin' hot. That atmosphere is so thick it has a pressure 900 times that of Earth at sea level.


The reason why you see the highest temperature recorded below sea level is due to heat from inside the earth, not due to heat from the sun.

Nope. Rock is a great thermal insulator. That's why we aren't standing in lava. Incidentally, why is the bottom of most ocean water so cold? Why does Death Valley get so cold at night? Temperatures drop to below freezing pretty easily, even in summer. Here in the Seattle area temperatures rarely get below freezing at all, and we're at sea level, a mere 300 ft difference. Aircraft flying at 3000 ft over Death Valley still experience pretty high temperatures during the day and very cold temperatures at night.
JackFou wrote:
If the thicker atmosphere of venus means better thermal coupling and therefore better heat transport away from the surface, the surface should be *colder* not *significantly* warmer than earth.

The emissivity of Venus is unknown. The thick atmosphere is also absorbing infrared light from the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
JackFou wrote:
...deleted non-English portion...deleted non-German portion...


No argument presented. RQAA. Mantra 26.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 23:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
tmiddles wrote:
Hey IBD still waiting on some clarification on the "Thermal Radiation" you believe in.


RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2020 23:28
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Sometimes the temperature increases with increased altitude, such as in the stratosphere. The total thermal energy decreases with increased altitude, however, due to thinning air.

That's true. The thermosphere is way hotter still. But you won't feel any of it. In fact you'll feel pretty cold up there. The air is too thin for conduction and so the concept of temperature kind of departs from the common everyday understanding at this point.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes the total amount of energy emitted by a body (per unit of time) as a function of temperature. This energy has the form of photons. More photons means more energy/power, fewer photons means less energy/power. The frequencies of the photons are irrelevant. Whether it's infrared or visible or UV photons is irrelevant. Only the total energy matters.

Therefore, if the surface of the earth receives more energy per unit of time, it must also emit more energy per unit of time to maintain energy balance. More energy being emitted means higher temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Only energy matters, the frequency is irrelevant. All photons have an energy equal to E=hf (with h being Planck's constant and f being the frequency). You can directly calculate the additional energy for all photons from this equation, regardless of their frequency.
Since all photons have energy, additional photons necessarily means *more* energy, hence higher temperature.
That's exactly what I'm claiming and it is confirmed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:
You are measuring the combined radiance of the metal and the gas surrounding it.

And the "combined radiance" -- is it higher or lower than the radiance of only the surface itself without the absorbing gas present?
Hint: You might want to look at atomic/molecular absorption spectroscopy.

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. It's determined by the temperature of the radiating surface.

Ding ding ding!
In fact, temperature and radiance determine each other. It's not like one is the boss of the other, they cannot move independently.
Now guess what the radiating surface is in this case. That's right, the surface of planet earth! *gasp*
Therefore, if the radiance goes up -- and it must go up to make up for the energy sent back from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- so must the temperature.
If the radiance of the surface of the earth didn't up as a result of photons sent back down from greenhouse gases, you'd be destroying energy and thereby violating the first law of thermodynamics. You know... the *actual* first law of thermodynamics, not your imaginary first law of thermodynamics.

Into the Night wrote:
Not all photons are the same.

Correct!
Some have different wavelengths than others. However, two photons of the same wavelengths are 100% identical, regardless of the temperature of the object they came from. You cannot differentiate them.

Into the Night wrote:
Photons have no temperature and do not carry temperature information.

Another thing we can agree on! Must be some kind of record.
And since photons do not carry temperature information, the absorbing surface doesn't know or care whether the photon came from a hotter or from a colder object. The surface only cares about the energy of the photon. If there's a matching energy gap, the photon shall be absorbed, even if it came from a colder object! That's exactly how greenhouse gases transfer energy back to the surface of the earth.

Oh, since I have you here, have you figured out yet how you can heat iron from room temp to its melting point with just a single 10.6 µm photon per atom?
I'm dying to hear your insight! I crunched the numbers and it just doesn't work out. Like not even close. Even 2 photons per atom won't get you there. Your theory is completely hopeless.
13-05-2020 01:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sometimes the temperature increases with increased altitude, such as in the stratosphere. The total thermal energy decreases with increased altitude, however, due to thinning air.

That's true. The thermosphere is way hotter still. But you won't feel any of it. In fact you'll feel pretty cold up there. The air is too thin for conduction and so the concept of temperature kind of departs from the common everyday understanding at this point.

Nope. All mass has a temperature. You can't suspend temperature because the air is thin. False dichotomy fallacy. Mantras 20e2...29... Buzzword fallacy ('common'). Mantra 37e.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes the total amount of energy emitted by a body (per unit of time) as a function of temperature. This energy has the form of photons. More photons means more energy/power, fewer photons means less energy/power. The frequencies of the photons are irrelevant. Whether it's infrared or visible or UV photons is irrelevant. Only the total energy matters.

Therefore, if the surface of the earth receives more energy per unit of time, it must also emit more energy per unit of time to maintain energy balance. More energy being emitted means higher temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Only energy matters, the frequency is irrelevant. All photons have an energy equal to E=hf (with h being Planck's constant and f being the frequency). You can directly calculate the additional energy for all photons from this equation, regardless of their frequency.

Nope. The energy of a photon is dependent on the frequency. You cannot calculate the energy of all photons. You can only calculate the energy of a photon at a known frequency. Mantra 20v.
JackFou wrote:
Since all photons have energy, additional photons necessarily means *more* energy, hence higher temperature.

Photons do not have a temperature. Not all photons are necessarily absorbed. Not all photons that are absorbed necessarily convert to thermal energy. Mantras 20g...20v...20b6...20e2...29...
JackFou wrote:
That's exactly what I'm claiming and it is confirmed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

It is NOT what you are claiming. You are attempting to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Mantra 20a2. You are attempting to create energy out of nothing. Mantra 20a1. You are attempting to declare all emitted light as blackbody radiation. Mantra 20b6. You are attempting to assign a temperature to light. Mantra 25k...20q.
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You are measuring the combined radiance of the metal and the gas surrounding it.

And the "combined radiance" -- is it higher or lower than the radiance of only the surface itself without the absorbing gas present?

Unknown. Mantra 25f.
Hint: You might want to look at atomic/molecular absorption spectroscopy.[/quote]
Buzzword fallacy. Spectroscopy doesn't measure this. Mantras 25k...25f...10...20b1...
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. It's determined by the temperature of the radiating surface.

Ding ding ding!
In fact, temperature and radiance determine each other. It's not like one is the boss of the other, they cannot move independently.

They can, and they do. Blackbody radiance isn't the only way to generate light. Mantra 20b6.
JackFou wrote:
Now guess what the radiating surface is in this case. That's right, the surface of planet earth! *gasp*
Therefore, if the radiance goes up -- and it must go up to make up for the energy sent back from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- so must the temperature.

Mantra 20a2...20a1...20b1...20b3...20b5...20b6...29...25b...25f...25a...25k...33b...
JackFou wrote:
If the radiance of the surface of the earth didn't up as a result of photons sent back down from greenhouse gases, you'd be destroying energy and thereby violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Apparently you still don't get the idea about reflection and transparency. Mantras 20q...9a...10b...20a1...20a2...20v...
JackFou wrote:
You know... the *actual* first law of thermodynamics, not your imaginary first law of thermodynamics.

Sorry, dude. You cannot build a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order and claim it's the 1st law of thermodynamics. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20v...20q...
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Not all photons are the same.

Correct!
Some have different wavelengths than others. However, two photons of the same wavelengths are 100% identical, regardless of the temperature of the object they came from. You cannot differentiate them.

You can differentiate them. One might be absorbed, the other, not. NOTHING guarantees they will be absorbed at all.
Mantras 9a...20e2...33b...
JackFou wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Photons have no temperature and do not carry temperature information.

Another thing we can agree on! Must be some kind of record.
And since photons do not carry temperature information, the absorbing surface doesn't know or care whether the photon came from a hotter or from a colder object. The surface only cares about the energy of the photon. If there's a matching energy gap, the photon shall be absorbed, even if it came from a colder object! That's exactly how greenhouse gases transfer energy back to the surface of the earth.

Paradox.
1) Photons have no temperature information.
2) Photons have temperature information.
Which is it, dude?

Mantras 20a2...9a...20q...29...33b...
JackFou wrote:
Oh, since I have you here, have you figured out yet how you can heat iron from room temp to its melting point with just a single 10.6 µm photon per atom?

Mantra 29...
JackFou wrote:
I'm dying to hear your insight! I crunched the numbers and it just doesn't work out. Like not even close. Even 2 photons per atom won't get you there. Your theory is completely hopeless.

Lie. Mantras 25k...25g...7...10b...10f...29...

No argument presented. Math errors. Denial of science. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
13-05-2020 02:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
JackFou wrote: You do realize that there is a temperature gradient from the surface to outer space, right?

Please tell me that you didn't just realize this now. Oh, and I hope you aren't going to get thrown off by the word "surface." It would probably work so much better for you if you were to avoid the word. Instead, use "the top of the atmosphere" and "the bottom of the atmosphere."

Yes, temperature varies as you move along the temperature curve between the top of the atmosphere and the bottom of the atmosphere, as does the temperture curve when you move horizontally across any altitude within the atmosphere. I am encouraged that you are picking up on these things. Well done.

JackFou wrote: So what I'm interested is not the temperature somewhere up in the atmosphere but the temperature on the solid surface where I live. That's where all the ice is melting,

Nope. I would be inclined to add that the bottom of the atmosphere is where all the ice is forming as well, however this would not be accurate either. Ice forms every moment all over the world within the atmosphere and ice melts every moment all over the world within the atmosphere.

Anyway, warmizombies seem to be fixated on "ice" and its a loser topic for them. It doesn't support their stupid WACKY religious dogma ... but they do keep on trying, that's for sure. I have never seen a more gullible bunch.

JackFou wrote: that's where our food is produced etc. Therefore that is the only temperature I care about.

Your food is not produced where I live. Can I safely assume that you only care about the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere where you happen to be?

If so, congratulations, you are like every other person on the planet who checks the weather forecast.

JackFou wrote:And the temperature of the surface has to increase due to the greenhouse effect,

There is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect. It's an urban legend intended to con gullible people like yourself into handing over your mind, your voice and your political power. It's like the Nigerian Banker scheme. There isn't any Nigerian multimillionaire who needs your help getting his wealth out of Africa. Similarly, there is no Greenhouse Effect. You've been conned. In fact, you were probably an easy target seeing as how you are so certain that you are a scientific genius when you know absolutely nothing. You were probably targetted the moment you first made a post claiming to be "scientist" and made it clear that you were scientifically illiterate.

I'm sorry, once you fall for the Greenhouse Effect scam, there's no way to unpost all the stupid things you posted trying to fit your square peg of physics violations into a round hole.

There is, however, something you can do. You can abandon the church of Global Warming altogether and have nothing to do with it ever again, i.e. free yourself. I say the same thing to Scientology indoctrinees and to men who have been roped into attending baby showers.

JackFou wrote:Okay, Mr. chemistry expert, if you think fossil fuels just are just formed within a few hours inside the ground, let's see you make porphyrins and other biomarkers from CO2 and H2 via Fischer-Tropsch.

Mr. impetuous student wasn't paying attention again and rushed to open his yap to let everyone know.

Pay attention for I will not repeat this. I specifically asserted that no one has ever observed hydrocarbons form deep within the earth. I am also asserting that no one except omniscient tmiddles knows exactly how that process transpires ... in the earth.

I also asserted that hydrocarbons can be created within hours ... and I asked you to ask me how I know ... but you never asked. This tells me that you already know, which makes me wonder why you asked in the first place, Mr. impetuous student.

JackFou wrote: Oh and since ITN apparently cannot explain how it is possible to ...

You have not shown this. Assertion dismissed.

Also, it is you who has trouble recognizing how the difference between powered and passive objects makes all the difference in what we're talking about on many levels. You are in desperate need of highschool science fundamentals that you should not have been allowed to take my class. Keep that in mind before you start worrying about what others might or might not be able to explain.

I have an idea. Enroll in GasGuzzler's course and he can bring you up to speed. Then enroll in GFM 7175 and do the labs. You should be fine then.

JackFou wrote: Surely, two science understanding super brains you like guys can figure it out together!

Consider it figured out. Just pay attention when it is explained.
.
Attached image:


Edited on 13-05-2020 02:40
13-05-2020 02:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
tmiddles wrote: Hey IBD still waiting on some clarification on the "Thermal Radiation" you believe in.

You have this strange habit of demanding nouns be explained, e.g. explain Venus. Could I get you to stop doing that? It makes no sense. Concepts require clarification, not objects.

"Explain a hammer." Yep, pretty stupid.

[No, I do not know what you mean or what you are thinking. You are the only one on this board who is omniscient]


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
13-05-2020 05:07
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(260)
JackFou wrote:
In the case of your soldering equipment, the tip of the heating equipment will get measurably hot, hotter in fact than the substrate you're trying to heat.

Not even close the tip is the end result of combining the oxygen and LPG there is always a blue cone of unburnt gas at the tip.The tip will warm up over time by being in close proximity to the work.I can solder a few joints at 2500 degrees C and still handle the tip with my bare hands straight after.Again theory does not line up with reality and I like reality.Cutting steel with oxy acytelene can get up to 3500 degrees C and the brass tip does not melt
13-05-2020 06:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2936)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Hey IBD still waiting on some clarification on the "Thermal Radiation" you believe in.

You have this strange habit ...
.
No Answer again.

You and ITN have made it very clear you do not follow dictionary definitions for words and have your own custom meanings.

Case in point:
Earth is a closed system (energy comes and goes but not matter)
You redefined "closed system" to mean "isolated system" (not even energy comes or goes). Makes a total mess of the vocabulary but as you said it:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Sure. Within the context of thermodynamics, if no energy can enter or exit then it is a closed system.
Actually IBD that's an "Isolated System"
Only when I say it is. When you are presenting your arguments you can define your terms. Since I am making my points, I will use the words as I choose to use them.

So who knows what you ever mean with words since you mix them up and defy convention so often.

So why do you say "Thermal Radiation" when you've made it clear that in your view radiance is never thermal?
Edited on 13-05-2020 06:16
13-05-2020 09:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
tmiddles wrote: Case in point:
Earth is a closed system (energy comes and goes but not matter)
You redefined "closed system" to mean "isolated system" (not even energy comes or goes).

What is the problem? I have defined my terms. You simply whine.

Do you have any salient point to make?


tmiddles wrote:So who knows what you ever mean with words since you mix them up and defy convention so often.

You are supposed to follow along. If you can't keep up with the adults then I suggest you move to a forum geared to your cognitive sluggishness.

When I define my terms, it is your responsibility to pay attention.

Now let's talk about you and how you refuse to define your terms, e.g. Global Warming, Climate Change, Greenhouse Effect, etc... such that they don't violate science. Your intention is obvious, i.e. to ruin threads by expecting others to conform to your meaningless buzzwords and thus destroy the expression of intended semantics.

You'll just have to deal with my terms. STFU.

tmiddles wrote: So why do you say "Thermal Radiation" when you've made it clear that in your view radiance is never thermal?

I never expressed that. Thermal radiation is electromagnetic energy generated by a body's thermal energy, i.e. a change in form of energy. Stefan-Boltzmann governs this event.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

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
13-05-2020 10:34
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
duncan61 wrote:
JackFou wrote:
In the case of your soldering equipment, the tip of the heating equipment will get measurably hot, hotter in fact than the substrate you're trying to heat.

Not even close the tip is the end result of combining the oxygen and LPG there is always a blue cone of unburnt gas at the tip.The tip will warm up over time by being in close proximity to the work.I can solder a few joints at 2500 degrees C and still handle the tip with my bare hands straight after.Again theory does not line up with reality and I like reality.Cutting steel with oxy acytelene can get up to 3500 degrees C and the brass tip does not melt


Apparently "soldering" means something entirely different to a plumber because it sounds to me like you're describing a blowtorch. In that case, the combustion happens outside of the device you're holding and the force of the gasflow directs the flame away from the tip.
Stick a thermometer in the flame for me, will you?
13-05-2020 11:25
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
Into the Night wrote:
Nope. The energy of a photon is dependent on the frequency. You cannot calculate the energy of all photons. You can only calculate the energy of a photon at a known frequency.

I'll let you in on a cute little trick I've learned in high-school. It's called "integration" and it lets you figure out the surface area under a curve.
Now if you integrate over all frequencies in a thermal emission spectrum, you get a number that is *proportional* to the total amount of energy being emitted.

You could also sit down and calculate the energies for all the different wavelengths that you detect and calculate the sum by hand to figure out the total energy being emitted. It's effectively the same but since that's rather tedious to do manually I'll stick to integration.

Into the Night wrote:
Not all photons are necessarily absorbed. Not all photons that are absorbed necessarily convert to thermal energy.

No, not all photons are necessarily absorbed unless you have a perfect blackbody.
However, if a material can absorb one photons of one wavelength, it can absorb other photons of the same wavelength, regardless whether they came from a hotter or a colder object.
If you know from measuring it that an object absorbs photons of a certain wavelength from a warmer body, the same object *will* absorb photons of the same wavelength from a colder body. In fact it *has* to be like that. Quantum mechanics tells us that. Since photons don't carry information about the temperature of the source object, the absorbing object doesn't know where the photons came from so it treats all photons of the same wavelength identical, regardless of whether they came from a hotter or from a colder body.

Into the Night wrote:
It is NOT what you are claiming. You are attempting to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

At least occasionally you're honest about your dishonesty. Like in this case when you're publicly announcing that you're redefining my claim to mean something else which you can then easily refute. It's like you're trying to build a fake version of my argument made from straw or something which you can easily knock over. There should really be a name for this kind of fallacy... something like "strawpuppet" or so...

I've explained to you about a dozen times or so that it's not the gas in the atmosphere that heats the surface. It's the sun that heats the surface. The gas partially prevents the surface from cooling itself.

Into the Night wrote:
Unknown.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You're cute, actually. I almost admire your dedication to your world-view. You'd rather fake being completely oblivious than to admit being wrong.

Of course it's not unknown, you silly.
You were *so close* to figuring it out.
Maybe the teacher will still give you a D- out of sympathy if you cry in front of her.

This is what an emission spectrum of an ideal blackbody looks like at different temperatures:


Here's what an approximate blackbody looks like as measured in a lab, compared with a theoretical blackbody of the same temeprature. In fact you can hardly tell that there are two curves overlaid in this figure because the match is that good(!):


The reason why it looks inverted to the first image (with the hump being on the right rather than on the left) is simply that they flipped the x-axis.

Now again, the total energy emitted is *proportional* to the area under the curve.

Now what might we get when we absorb some of the wavelengths of light with the surrounding gas and measure the emission spectrum of our approximate blackbody from behind the gas?
The result might look something like this:


In this case we're looking at the emission spectrum of earth as seen from space. The dashes lines are theoretical blackbody emission spectra and the solid line is the emission from earth.
Notice how the solid curve follows the ideal blackbody spectrum at 320 K (nice toasty mid-day temperature in northern Africa above which this spectrum was measured) quite well between 800 and 1000 cm^-1 and between around 1100 and 1300 cm^-1?
The rest of the spectrum looks quite messy, almost as if someone took a few bites out of the blackbody spectrum.
Well that "someone" are greenhouse gases.

Here's another measurement of the same effect, this time measured over a different, colder location which is why the emission spectrum seems to follow a 290K blackbody spectrum:

The areas shaded in grey are the parts that are effectively "missing" from a blackbody spectrum due to absorption by greenhouse gases.
Since we know the absorption spectra of the gasses in our atmosphere from laboratory experiments we can even identify which part of the spectrum being absorbed is due to which gas.
This is the same technique that astronomers use to figure out the composition of interstellar gas clouds. They look at the light of a bright body shining through the cloud and then determine the composition of the cloud based on the wavelengths that are missing.

Now what do you think will I find when I integrate the area under the solid line compared to the dashed line curve of a blackbody at 320K in the above figure?
Will it be a) larger b) smaller c) the same?

I'll save you the head scratching, the answer is b, of course. The surface area under the solid line curve is smaller. This means we're seeing less energy being emitted.
Yet the temperature at the surface is the same as that for the ideal blackbody curve.
Now if you were to measure the radiance *at the surface* instead of from behind a layer of gas, the resulting spectrum would be much closer to the ideal blackbody curve for the same temperature.

Into the Night wrote:
You can differentiate them.

You cannot differentiate two photons of the same wavelength. They are identical.
If I send photons of the same wavelength from different objects at different temperatures to you at the same angle via a mirror, there is no experiment you can do to figure out which is which.

Into the Night wrote:
Paradox.
1) Photons have no temperature information.
2) Photons have temperature information.

That's easy. It's 1. That's why you cannot tell two photons of the same wavelength apart.

And finally, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how a laser beam of 10.6 µm photons can heat up iron until it melts. A single 10.6 µm photon per atom just doesn't get you there.
It's okay to admit that you cannot figure it out, I'll gladly explain to you how the laser heats the metal. There's just no way for me to not destroy your silly theory in the process, I'm afraid.
Edited on 13-05-2020 12:15
13-05-2020 11:27
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(260)
Yes it is called silver soldering copper joints with a rod that is a % of silver and other alloys that melt below brass and copper.Soldering also means soft soldering with a tin/lead bar and a hot iron also electrical stuff can be soldered with a thin tin/lead wire with flux in the core and direct heat or an small electric iron.In Europe most copper work is done with clean copper and soft solder Australia is the only place I am aware we do what should really be called Brazing.I was fortunate in England in 1988 to be part of a restoration of a 1920s motorcycle and the lugs on the frame were pinned on then hearth brazed where a bed of coke is heated by bellows and the piece is placed in the coke hearth.When the steel is at the right temperature a filler rod solders the lug in place.Very time consuming but interesting


































Brazing is a metal-joining process in which two or more metal items are joined together by melting and flowing a filler metal into the joint, the filler metal having a lower melting point than the adjoining metal.
13-05-2020 11:54
JackFou
★☆☆☆☆
(114)
IBdaMann wrote:
Please tell me that you didn't just realize this now. Oh, and I hope you aren't going to get thrown off by the word "surface." It would probably work so much better for you if you were to avoid the word. Instead, use "the top of the atmosphere" and "the bottom of the atmosphere."

Nah, I'll stick with the word "surface", thank you very much.

IBdaMann wrote:
Your food is not produced where I live. Can I safely assume that you only care about the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere where you happen to be?

What makes you so sure about that? You do realize that a lot of food is imported and exported, right? I don't think they grow coffee naturally in Scandinavia for example.
Either way, it doesn't really matter where the food is produced. If there is less food over all, everyone starts to notice eventually. Once some places become uninhabitable, people living there will leave, starting migration routes and refugee streams.
Think it's bad now with people coming into your country illegally? It's gonna get much worse over the course of this century. So much worse!

IBdaMann wrote:
Pay attention for I will not repeat this. I specifically asserted that no one has ever observed hydrocarbons form deep within the earth. I am also asserting that no one except omniscient tmiddles knows exactly how that process transpires ... in the earth.

So you're just resorting to claiming ignorance as usual when the answer flies in the face of your world-view.
Jeez, man. How can you live like this, just not knowing anything about anything other than "it just happens"? You don't know how radiative energy transfer happens, you don't know how to figure out the temperature of a laser and now you don't even know how fossil fuels are produced inside the earth. What a sad existence.
But maybe you can inform ITN that we *don't* actually know where fossil fuels come from because he claims to know that they're definitely 100% not made from formerly living organisms.

Of course no one has ever observed it, you silly. It takes a pretty long time and the hydrocarbons we're digging up these days were formed millions of years ago.

If it was really just some sort of natural Fischer-Tropsch that makes hydrocarbons in just a few hours, that should be pretty easy to observe. Just dig a hole and watch it happen in real time. So the fact that no one has seen it yet tells me it's probably not that.

IBdaMann wrote:
You have not shown this. Assertion dismissed.

Oh you want me to show it to you? That's easy. Laser cutters are pretty common. Link.

IBdaMann wrote:
JackFou wrote: Surely, two science understanding super brains you like guys can figure it out together!

Consider it figured out. Just pay attention when it is explained.

Oh, are you planning on publishing your results? It's gonna be awesome to finally see how you prove that 1=2!

Until then, I'm forced to assume that according to your theory a CO2 laser cannot possibly cut through iron. Which is odd because I can literally observe it happening. Must be something wrong with your theory.
Edited on 13-05-2020 11:55
Page 7 of 10<<<56789>>>





Join the debate Nils-Axel Mörner:

Remember me

▲ 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