Our Fragile Planet

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Our Fragile Planet > Page 5

Page 5 of 7

18-09-2019 01:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Maybe they use the greenhouse analogy, because it's a fairly common to enrich greenhouses with CO2, to improve growth rate, and quality. Been doing it for decades, it works very well, and cheap too. Of course, the plants don't get baked in the greenhouse, with 5 times the ambient level of CO2, but I'm sure the IPCC has a reason for that. Another fun IPCC 'fact', while higher levels of CO2 increase plant growth, it reduces the nutritional value and content. I'm sure the marijuana growers can prove that false. Their plants grow from seed to flower, just like normal, just faster and better. The seeds are viable too. I'm pretty sure is anything was lacking, you couldn't use the seeds produced...
18-09-2019 03:24
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	HarveyH55 wrote: Maybe they use the greenhouse analogy, because it's a fairly common to enrich greenhouses with CO2, to improve growth rate, and quality....Of course, the plants don't get baked in the greenhouse, with 5 times the ambient level of CO2... Another fun IPCC 'fact', while higher levels of CO2 increase plant growth, it reduces the nutritional value and content. I'm sure the marijuana growers can prove that false.... A glass greenhouse simply shuts the warm air inside. Greenhouses up north have to be heated if used in winter to keep plants alive, especially at night when there's no sun. There's not enough CO2 inside to do much, nor does the glass block much of the infrared (it blocks ultraviolet instead, so your arms don't sunburn in the car on a long drive despite being lit by the sun). In summer, the plants get too hot only because there's too much sun and it's hot outdoors. Most greenhouses have fans for that. *Water vapor* is the Earth's main greenhouse gas. Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, enough to boost the sun's heating power about 1%, causing surface absolute temp to hike 0.25%, less than 1˚C, to keep the same amount of radiation outgoing. And only a quarter of CO2 in our air is manmade, the rest was there already. If it was naught but our CO2, we'd be warming the planet only a quarter of a degree after all these years of burning fuels. Problem is CO2 may interact *synergistically* with H2O, causing more H2O in the air, and heat from CO2 effects may be stored in the ocean for later transfer to the air. Things like that are why climatologists peg human-caused warming close to a full degree. It's not a trivial matter; we really ought to damp our emissions to cut risks. No climate doomsday is needed for us to have unpleasant side results. Forget about AOC under the waves in the Bronx; six extra inches of sea will hurt Miami. They get *saltwater* in their taps sometimes as it is, since the limestone aquifer it sits on is porous; ocean can invade it. CO2 enrichment helps plants, but you'll want to add fertilizer to profit from it; plants need nitrogen, potassium & phosphorus, which I imagine the pot growers supply their wares. Climate change moderates get squeezed from both sides. We want onus on Business as Usual about cleaning up our energy, so the right bashes us. But we *don't* want the fearmongering. We think actions should be gradual, and implemented according to industry's ability to adapt. So the left bashes us. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 18-09-2019 03:38
18-09-2019 04:53
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	You are certainly more educated than I. However, I know some basics and I am learning when to call bullshit. VernerHornung wrote: Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, enough to boost the sun's heating power about 1%, causing surface absolute temp to hike 0.25%, less than 1˚C, to keep the same amount of radiation outgoing. Energy can't be created or destroyed. It would seem you have just created some. If CO2 can boost heating power, isn't this the answer to the worlds energy needs? I call bullshit. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
18-09-2019 05:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	*VernerHornung wrote:Water vapor* is the Earth's main greenhouse gas. There's no such thing as a "greenhouse gas." It's nothing but a fantasy concocted in your mind. There are no gases with magickal superpowers to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Notice that you cannot unambiguously define "greenhouse effect" without defying physics. VernerHornung wrote: Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, enough to boost the sun's heating power about 1%, There is no such thing as a "forcing" outside the religious dogma of the Church of Global Warming. "Forcings" is just another way of saying "miracle" in warmizombie gibberbabble. Miracles, of course, are violations of physics attributed to the deities of the religion. From The Manual: Forcing*: noun According to the Global Warming* mythology, a forcing is a miracle performed by Climate in discharging Her duties as the central planner and administrator of all weather systems, ecosystems and local climates across the globe, of all interactions thereof and in caring for the wellbeing of all life on earth. This falls under Climate Science. Feedback: noun A feedback is a specific type of forcing employed by Climate that overcomes the physical limitations of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics by creating additional usable energy. Feedbacks come in various subcategories, e.g. thermal, climate, hydrostatic, radiative, etc.. This falls under Settled Science. CO2 can oonly "boost the sun's heating power" by violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. I realize you think this religious dogma is settled science but that would merely be the delusion with which you need to deal. VernerHornung wrote: Problem is CO2 may interact *synergistically* with H2O, causing more H2O in the air, and heat from CO2 effects may be stored in the ocean for later transfer to the air. Things like that are why climatologists peg human-caused warming close to a full degree. Climatologists are just scientifically illiterate political activists. You would be stupid to pay them or their violations of physics any heed. VernerHornung wrote: It's not a trivial matter; we really ought to damp our emissions to cut risks. The risk of what you are describing is already at zero, i.e. it cannot be reduced any further. There really isn't any chance that your Global Warming religion will suddenly become true. If you are hooked on the fear/panic-adrenaline rush, just keep believing/fearing/panicking ... but I recommend you keep it to yourself to spare yourself embarassment. VernerHornung wrote: Climate change moderates get squeezed from both sides. There's no such thing as a moderate WACKO. Would you care to guess why you cannot unambiguously define "Climate Change" without violating physics? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-09-2019 11:02
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	GasGuzzler wrote: You are certainly more educated than I. However, I know some basics and I am learning when to call bullshit. Energy can't be created or destroyed. It would seem you have just created some. If CO2 can boost heating power, isn't this the answer to the worlds energy needs? I call bullshit. Not much more educated; I was a monkey climbing ladders at a phosphate plant when in career. "Junior engineer," they call this niche. I did have science at school, but never used radiation physics on the job and rarely solved math problems, using tables to tell whether a gauge reading was okay and using ears to tell if the vorticity in that pipe elbow (Navier-Stakes equations) sounded too loud. ~ But the CO2 doesn't heat or heat-boost anything or supply any energy—which comes from the *sun. 8 Watts per square meter forcing means the CO2 above every square meter absorbs about 16 Watts from the sun-warmed Earth and re-radiates half of it back to the ground, the other half on to space. Like a blanket, it impedes heat loss. You can't warm your kitchen table by tossing a blanket atop it; you need a warm body under the blanket to get higher temperatures. 8 Watts ain't a lot of power anyway, if distributed over a yard of fabric. Direct sun hits us with 1400 Watts at the top of the atmosphere, and Stefan-Boltzmann requires 16 times the radiation to double the absolute temperatures; it's a 4th-power law. Like you, I've some deep doubts about this walnut. The ululating tribe never uttered on the comparative greenhouses of Venus, Earth & Mars as Tai Chen noted on this thread: The Only Straw... https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-only-straw-the-church-of-agw-can-grasp-is-venus-d6-e2801.php Mars has more forcing from CO2 than we do despite its lower sunlight levels, but it's only a few degrees warmer than if it were airless blackbody, whilst Earth is 33 Kelvin warmer than blackbody: Blackbody Earth at Stefan-Boltzman: Sun output = 4 x 10^26 Watts Earth distance from sun = 1.5 x 10^11 meters area of sphere this radius = 4πr^2 = 2.9 x 10^23 m^2 Earth radius r = 6.4 x 10^6 m cross section area is thus πr^2 = 1.3 x 10^14 m^2 and surface area, 4πr^2 = 5.2 x 10^14 m^2 Dividing the areas, (1.3 x 10^14 m^2) / (2.9 x 10^23 m^2) = 4.5 x 10^-10 times the sun power, 4.5 x 10^-10 4 x 10^26 W = 1.8 x 10^17 Watts divided by Earth surface area, (1.8 x 10^17 W) / (5.2 x 10^14 m^2) = 350 W/m^2 Stefan-Boltzman power = σ times area times temperature to the 4th σ = 5.7 x 10^-8 W/(m^2 * Kelvins^4) so temperature = 4th root of ((350 W/m^2) / (5.7 x 10^-8 W/(m^2 * Kelvins^4)) = 280 Kelvins This is an *ideal. Real objects radiate at less than blackbody, so the radiation temperature of the Earth must be lower. If it's 257K as the stated greenhouse implies, then its emissivity constant must be (257/280)^4 or 0.71 at its effective radiation surface, which will be somewhere above the ground. Blackbody Mars at Stefan-Boltzman at 40% of Earth sunlight is fourth root of 0.4, or 79% of our 257K, or 204K. This is a mere six Kelvin less what Wikipedia reports for Mars, and it tells me Mars may not be getting much forcing except what its lower overall albedo gives it—in spite of the boatload of CO2 wafting there. (On the other thread, I showed that Mars has more greenhouse gases by mass per square meter than we do—in spite of its thin atmosphere.) --- To me, the real fly in the orange juice is we're looking for small contributions the manmade CO2 adds to the power levels we see. Out of the 8 Watts forcing from all earthly CO2, only 2 come from our tailpipes because CO2 was already 290 ppm when we started in 1850, versus 400 ppm now. On the other hand, albedo shifts from snowfall or ice retreat, clearing of forests or soot on the ice, plus work done by moving air & water, storage and release of energy from oceans and so on will alter the simple arithmetic I did. The Earth isn't at thermal equilibrium with its radiation, and adding CO2 to the mix might amplify the other forcings enough to matter. Do thermal inertia and resonance effects play on the stage? The science writers aren't saying because they think it's too much for a peon's brain to digest. And the media are all about scare story or shaming. So I dunno. I hope politics isn't* driving the damn bus here. The science on how planets are heated by their stars shouldn't vary by what's itching Vox on Tuesday morning. When the issue's too close for an amateur to call, trustworthy professionals are essential. Into the Night wrote: "Forcings" is just another way of saying "miracle" in warmizombie gibberbabble. >sigh< You can push forcings with your feet on the *swingset. The mechanical kind. Your little forcings, if they resonate with the period of the swing, make you swing higher and higher. Please don't tell me forcings can't enter a thermal system as well. But that must be "kidsatrecessbabble" to you. ~ Never* try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.

18-09-2019 13:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Standard. Violate the 1st law of thermodynamics until called on it. Then shift goalposts and violate Stefan-Boltzmann. VernerHornung wrote: But the CO2 doesn't heat or heat-boost anything or supply any energy—which comes from the *sun. 8 Watts per square meter forcing means the CO2 above every square meter absorbs about 16 Watts from the sun-warmed Earth and re-radiates half of it back to the ground, the other half on to space. Like a blanket, it impedes heat loss. So, you claim there is a reduction in radiance. This can only result from a decrease in temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann law. Temperature and Radiance move in the same direction. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit* A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-09-2019 15:50
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	I'm also learning how to spot a paradox. VernerHornung wrote: Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, enough to boost the sun's heating power about 1% VernerHornung wrote: But the CO2 doesn't heat or heat-boost anything or supply any energy— Edited on 18-09-2019 15:59
18-09-2019 19:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	VernerHornung wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: You are certainly more educated than I. However, I know some basics and I am learning when to call bullshit. Energy can't be created or destroyed. It would seem you have just created some. If CO2 can boost heating power, isn't this the answer to the worlds energy needs? I call bullshit. Not much more educated; I was a monkey climbing ladders at a phosphate plant when in career. "Junior engineer," they call this niche. I did have science at school, but never used radiation physics on the job and rarely solved math problems, using tables to tell whether a gauge reading was okay and using ears to tell if the vorticity in that pipe elbow (Navier-Stakes equations) sounded too loud. ~ But the CO2 doesn't heat or heat-boost anything or supply any energy—which comes from the *sun. 8 Watts per square meter forcing means the CO2 above every square meter absorbs about 16 Watts from the sun-warmed Earth and re-radiates half of it back to the ground, the other half on to space. You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't make heat flow backwards. (2nd law of thermodynamics) VernerHornung wrote: Like a blanket, it impedes heat loss. You can't warm your kitchen table by tossing a blanket atop it; you need a warm body under the blanket to get higher temperatures. * You can't create energy out of nothing. Putting a blanket on a rock does not keep it warm. VernerHornung wrote: 8 Watts ain't a lot of power anyway, if distributed over a yard of fabric. Direct sun hits us with 1400 Watts at the top of the atmosphere, and Stefan-Boltzmann requires 16 times the radiation to double the absolute temperatures; it's a 4th-power law. Like you, I've some deep doubts about this walnut. The ululating tribe never uttered on the comparative greenhouses of Venus, Earth & Mars as Tai Chen noted on this thread: Argument from randU. You are making up numbers. The reason you don't trust the Stefan-Boltzmann law is because you are trying to deny it. VernerHornung wrote: Mars has more forcing There is no forcing. CO2 is not a force. * You can't create energy from nothing. VernerHornung wrote: from CO2 than we do despite its lower sunlight levels, but it's only a few degrees warmer than if it were airless blackbody, Bad math. VernerHornung wrote: whilst Earth is 33 Kelvin warmer than blackbody Argument from randU fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: Blackbody Earth at Stefan-Boltzman: ...deleted bad math based on randU numbers... This is an *ideal. Real objects radiate at less than blackbody, so the radiation temperature of the Earth must be lower. If it's 257K as the stated greenhouse implies, then its emissivity constant must be (257/280)^4 or 0.71 at its effective radiation surface, which will be somewhere above the ground. Argument from randU fallacy. You cannot determine the emissivity of Earth by simply pulling numbers out of your left nostril. VernerHornung wrote:* Blackbody Mars at Stefan-Boltzman at 40% of Earth sunlight is fourth root of 0.4, or 79% of our 257K, or 204K. This is a mere six Kelvin less what Wikipedia reports for Mars, and it tells me Mars may not be getting much forcing except what its lower overall albedo gives it—in spite of the boatload of CO2 wafting there. (On the other thread, I showed that Mars has more greenhouse gases by mass per square meter than we do—in spite of its thin atmosphere.) It is not possible to measure the global CO2 of any planet, including Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: --- To me, the real fly in the orange juice is we're looking for small contributions the manmade CO2 adds to the power levels we see. Out of the 8 Watts forcing from all earthly CO2, only 2 come from our tailpipes because CO2 was already 290 ppm when we started in 1850, versus 400 ppm now. * You can't create energy out of nothing. There is not forcing. CO2 is not a force. VernerHornung wrote: On the other hand, albedo shifts from snowfall or ice retreat, clearing of forests or soot on the ice, plus work done by moving air & water, storage and release of energy from oceans and so on will alter the simple arithmetic I did. The simple arithmetic you did is based on pulling numbers out of your left nostril to begin with. Argument from randU fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: The Earth isn't at thermal equilibrium with its radiation, Yes it is. VernerHornung wrote: and adding CO2 to the mix might amplify the other forcings enough to matter. * You can't create energy out of nothing. CO2 is not a force. No gas of vapor is capable of warming the Earth. VernerHornung wrote: Do thermal inertia and resonance effects play on the stage? The science writers aren't saying because they think it's too much for a peon's brain to digest. And the media are all about scare story or shaming. There is no magick resonance. Light is simply light. VernerHornung wrote: So I dunno. I hope politics *isn't* driving the damn bus here. It is. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which stems from the Church of Karl Marx. VernerHornung wrote: The science on how planets are heated by their stars Planets are not heated by stars. They are heated by the Sun. Stars are too far away and the energy from them is less than the planet already has. * You can't reduce entropy in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics) VernerHornung wrote: shouldn't vary by what's itching Vox on Tuesday morning. When the issue's too close for an amateur to call, trustworthy professionals are essential. WRONG. Theories of science are essential. You need to stop denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: "Forcings" is just another way of saying "miracle" in warmizombie gibberbabble. I did not say this. VernerHornung wrote: >sigh< You can push forcings with your feet on the *swingset. The mechanical kind. Your little forcings, if they resonate with the period of the swing, make you swing higher and higher. Please don't tell me forcings can't enter a thermal system as well. False equivalence fallacy. There is no perfectly timed 'push' to heating a planet by radiance. There is no 'resonance'. Buzzword fallacy. There are no 'forcings'. CO2 is not a force. You can't create energy out of nothing. VernerHornung wrote:* But that must be "kidsatrecessbabble" to you. YALIF. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-09-2019 19:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GasGuzzler wrote: I'm also learning how to spot a paradox. VernerHornung wrote: Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, enough to boost the sun's heating power about 1% VernerHornung wrote: But the CO2 doesn't heat or heat-boost anything or supply any energy— Very good. That is indeed a paradox. Until he clears the conflict by choosing one and only one of his arguments and utterly rejecting the other and never uses it again, he is locked in paradox, and in irrationality when using either argument, for it is irrational to argue both sides of a paradox. How about it Verner? Which is it? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-09-2019 20:20
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: I'm also learning how to spot a paradox. VernerHornung wrote: Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, enough to boost the sun's heating power about 1% VernerHornung wrote: But the CO2 doesn't heat or heat-boost anything or supply any energy— Very good. That is indeed a paradox. Until he clears the conflict by choosing one and only one of his arguments and utterly rejecting the other and never uses it again, he is locked in paradox, and in irrationality when using either argument, for it is irrational to argue both sides of a paradox. How about it Verner? Which is it? Thanks! Always nice to get a good comment from one of the professors. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
18-09-2019 20:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: I'm also learning how to spot a paradox. VernerHornung wrote: Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, enough to boost the sun's heating power about 1% VernerHornung wrote: But the CO2 doesn't heat or heat-boost anything or supply any energy— Very good. That is indeed a paradox. Until he clears the conflict by choosing one and only one of his arguments and utterly rejecting the other and never uses it again, he is locked in paradox, and in irrationality when using either argument, for it is irrational to argue both sides of a paradox. How about it Verner? Which is it? Thanks! Always nice to get a good comment from one of the professors. humble bow the credit for spotting it goes to you! I have logged this particular paradox in my database. Other than the usual ones made by the Church of Global Warming, this is the first one for Verner. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-09-2019 21:52
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	IBdaMann wrote: You are pretending the earth doesn't create hydrocarbons through natural geological activities. Perfectly natural & geological to die, drop in the muck, get buried under five miles of sediment, get tapped by a Rockefeller rig looking to trump whale oil, and come back to the surface to live again—as petroleum! Let's twiddle our thumbs a couple hundred million years waiting for the cycle to repeat. IBdaMann wrote: So, to honestly address this topic, what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you know? Honestly, I don't. Must be enough for your Land Rover in the works this year, assuming half trillion metric tons of world biomass carbon and one trip through the geological wringer every 200 million years. That gives your local Texaco station 2500 tons. But we're burning a *lot* more than that, so we may see a "No Gas" sign there one day. Hydrocarbons at pressure oxidize above 250˚C, limiting their formation to the uppermost 10 or 15 km of the crust at most. The deepest producing well to date, on Sakhalin Island, is about 12 km. The hot inorganic processes down in the mantle make CO2 for volcanism and diamonds for De Beers. The lovely ring on her finger was natural & geologic, too. And gee, they're even drilling sideways to get that last drink... ~ Biomass distribution on Earth PNAS https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 Temperature gradient for wells Schlumberger https://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/t/temperature_gradient.aspx Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 18-09-2019 21:56
18-09-2019 22:17
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are pretending the earth doesn't create hydrocarbons through natural geological activities. Perfectly natural & geological to die, drop in the muck, get buried under five miles of sediment, get tapped by a Rockefeller rig looking to trump whale oil, and come back to the surface to live again—as petroleum! Let's twiddle our thumbs a couple hundred million years waiting for the cycle to repeat. IBdaMann wrote: So, to honestly address this topic, what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you know? Honestly, I don't. Must be enough for your Land Rover in the works this year, assuming half trillion metric tons of world biomass carbon and one trip through the geological wringer every 200 million years. That gives your local Texaco station 2500 tons. But we're burning a *lot* more than that, so we may see a "No Gas" sign there one day. Synthetic. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
18-09-2019 22:35
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are pretending the earth doesn't create hydrocarbons through natural geological activities. Perfectly natural & geological to die, drop in the muck, get buried under five miles of sediment, get tapped by a Rockefeller rig looking to trump whale oil, and come back to the surface to live again—as petroleum! Let's twiddle our thumbs a couple hundred million years waiting for the cycle to repeat. IBdaMann wrote: So, to honestly address this topic, what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you know? Honestly, I don't. Must be enough for your Land Rover in the works this year, assuming half trillion metric tons of world biomass carbon and one trip through the geological wringer every 200 million years. That gives your local Texaco station 2500 tons. But we're burning a *lot* more than that, so we may see a "No Gas" sign there one day. Synthetic. Ethanol.
18-09-2019 22:45
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are pretending the earth doesn't create hydrocarbons through natural geological activities. Perfectly natural & geological to die, drop in the muck, get buried under five miles of sediment, get tapped by a Rockefeller rig looking to trump whale oil, and come back to the surface to live again—as petroleum! Let's twiddle our thumbs a couple hundred million years waiting for the cycle to repeat. IBdaMann wrote: So, to honestly address this topic, what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you know? Honestly, I don't. Must be enough for your Land Rover in the works this year, assuming half trillion metric tons of world biomass carbon and one trip through the geological wringer every 200 million years. That gives your local Texaco station 2500 tons. But we're burning a *lot* more than that, so we may see a "No Gas" sign there one day. Synthetic. Ethanol. No. I don't want to be the greatest nation that burns food while millions starve. Just my opinion. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan

19-09-2019 01:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are pretending the earth doesn't create hydrocarbons through natural geological activities. Perfectly natural & geological to die, drop in the muck, get buried under five miles of sediment, get tapped by a Rockefeller rig looking to trump whale oil, and come back to the surface to live again—as petroleum! Nope. No biomass necessary. Oil is found well below any fossil layer. Direct synthesis of crude oil from CO2 and hydrogen is possible on an industrial level. The conditions required are similar to those found naturally underground. VernerHornung wrote: Let's twiddle our thumbs a couple hundred million years waiting for the cycle to repeat. Nope. Just a few hours. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So, to honestly address this topic, what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you know? Honestly, I don't. The first honest answer you've given. VernerHornung wrote: Must be enough for your Land Rover in the works this year, assuming half trillion metric tons of world biomass carbon and one trip through the geological wringer every 200 million years. That gives your local Texaco station 2500 tons. But we're burning a *lot* more than that, so we may see a "No Gas" sign there one day. Hydrocarbons at pressure oxidize above 250˚C, limiting their formation to the uppermost 10 or 15 km of the crust at most. The deepest producing well to date, on Sakhalin Island, is about 12 km. Unfortunately, you follow it up with a bunch of randU fallacies. VernerHornung wrote: The hot inorganic processes down in the mantle make CO2 for volcanism and diamonds for De Beers. The lovely ring on her finger was natural & geologic, too. And gee, they're even drilling sideways to get that last drink... ~ Biomass distribution on Earth PNAS https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 Temperature gradient for wells Schlumberger https://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/t/temperature_gradient.aspx Oil wells are capable of directional drilling. It makes it easier to tap multiple resources for the price of one drilling. Did you know that? The world is awash in oil right now. Oil has never been cheaper by commodity price. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-09-2019 01:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are pretending the earth doesn't create hydrocarbons through natural geological activities. Perfectly natural & geological to die, drop in the muck, get buried under five miles of sediment, get tapped by a Rockefeller rig looking to trump whale oil, and come back to the surface to live again—as petroleum! Let's twiddle our thumbs a couple hundred million years waiting for the cycle to repeat. IBdaMann wrote: So, to honestly address this topic, what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you know? Honestly, I don't. Must be enough for your Land Rover in the works this year, assuming half trillion metric tons of world biomass carbon and one trip through the geological wringer every 200 million years. That gives your local Texaco station 2500 tons. But we're burning a *lot* more than that, so we may see a "No Gas" sign there one day. Synthetic. No need. It's easier to drill. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-09-2019 02:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are pretending the earth doesn't create hydrocarbons through natural geological activities. Perfectly natural & geological to die, drop in the muck, get buried under five miles of sediment, get tapped by a Rockefeller rig looking to trump whale oil, and come back to the surface to live again—as petroleum! Let's twiddle our thumbs a couple hundred million years waiting for the cycle to repeat. IBdaMann wrote: So, to honestly address this topic, what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you know? Honestly, I don't. Must be enough for your Land Rover in the works this year, assuming half trillion metric tons of world biomass carbon and one trip through the geological wringer every 200 million years. That gives your local Texaco station 2500 tons. But we're burning a *lot* more than that, so we may see a "No Gas" sign there one day. Synthetic. Ethanol. Ethanol is lower in energy per gallon than gasoline. Gasoline has the most energy by volume. Kerosene has the most energy by weight. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-09-2019 02:17
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are pretending the earth doesn't create hydrocarbons through natural geological activities. Perfectly natural & geological to die, drop in the muck, get buried under five miles of sediment, get tapped by a Rockefeller rig looking to trump whale oil, and come back to the surface to live again—as petroleum! Let's twiddle our thumbs a couple hundred million years waiting for the cycle to repeat. IBdaMann wrote: So, to honestly address this topic, what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you know? Honestly, I don't. Must be enough for your Land Rover in the works this year, assuming half trillion metric tons of world biomass carbon and one trip through the geological wringer every 200 million years. That gives your local Texaco station 2500 tons. But we're burning a *lot* more than that, so we may see a "No Gas" sign there one day. Synthetic. No need. It's easier to drill. Yup. I was more arguing against the fear-mongering scare tactic that we're going to run out and everybody will be pedaling bicycles to get their groceries.. Should that day ever come for some reason, we can create gas and oil through synthetic processes. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
19-09-2019 03:12
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	IBdaMann wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann law. Temperature and Radiance move in the same direction. And they do. But planets aren't blackbodies. In the celestial realm, only stars—balls of electrified gas—come close. A planet, you see, often comes enveloped by greenhouse gases that absorb and emit at wavelengths the *planet itself* is emitting. Exchanges of photons between a globally-toasted planet, its sun, and outer space are modulated by these gases. The Stefan-Boltzmann law must be applied carefully in such circumstances. S-B is written for a blackbody, realized in the lab as a cavity radiator, a hollow tungsten tube with a tiny hole in its side. Because of the hole's small size, the radiation from the bore of the tube is independent of the material the tube's made of; that's why Max Planck chose it for his quantization of energy demonstration at the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1900. Please do read about the cavity radiator; a fascinating story it is. IBdaMann wrote:So, you claim there is a reduction in radiance. This can only result from a decrease in temperature. No, I'm claiming there's radiance from the ground, some of which *returns* to the ground. The amount received from the sun escapes to space. I'm afraid you're leaving out the middleman, the greenhouse gases, that is. The reduction you're referring to is only that between the three photons the ground emits and the two that reach outer space. *Those* two are the photons it received from the sun. Into the Night wrote: You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. We're not heating the warmer surface with the cooler gas. Count the photons. One up to the gas, one back down, therefore no net flow and no heating of ground by the gas. Into the Night wrote: You can't create energy out of nothing. We're not creating any energy. Count the photons. Two from the sun, two back up, therefore no new energy. The fact that some of the ones going up are returned to Earth, forcing it to radiate at a higher temp to get them past the blanket of gases, doesn't matter. Temperature is *not* energy. The energy for the "extra" photons the surface trades with the gas envelope came from the sun at an earlier time, or from the gravitational collapse of planetesimals which formed the Earth, if you prefer to assign a locus. So it was already available, not new. Into the Night wrote: Putting a blanket on a rock does not keep it warm. I already said that, except it was a kitchen table instead of a rock. But putting a blanket on a body that emits energy will make things toasty. Try it with your kitchen rangetop, and time how long it takes the blanket to catch fire. And the Earth is emitting energy because it receives energy from the sun, although it doesn't catch fire—except in Brazil, Bolivia, San Diego County and Utah's very own Tank Fire of 1996. We Western boys name wildfires the way Miami's NHC names hurricanes. Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Message unclear. Into the Night wrote: You are making up numbers. No, I *looked them up. And no, my arithmetic doesn't prove anything. I present it by way of example of how difficult a subject the radiation budget of a planet is. Into the Night wrote:* There is no forcing. CO2 is not a force. I never said CO2 was a force. It's a gas, I think, unless chilled to –109F, when it's dry ice instead. The term "forcing" is used in a different context, that of a variable which influences the behavior of a physical system. Mechanical force is just one such variable. Into the Night wrote: You cannot determine the emissivity of Earth by simply pulling numbers out of your left nostril. Then I'll have to pull the 0.71 from my right nostril. Seems better than joining the Know-Nothing Party. Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Argument from randU. r...ndU... ...U.. ...... Omigosh, Pyotr, we've lost contact with the lander! Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 19-09-2019 03:53
19-09-2019 03:54
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Into the Night wrote: Putting a blanket on a rock does not keep it warm. VernerHornung wrote:I already said that, except it was a kitchen table instead of a rock. But putting a blanket on a body that emits energy will make things toasty. OK, but a table or a rock are not emitting energy unless it was received by the sun before the blanket went on. It will give up what thermal energy it has and then become COOLER. VernerHornung wrote: Try it with your kitchen rangetop, and time how long it takes the blanket to catch fire. The Earth is not a heat source. VernerHornung wrote:And the Earth is emitting energy because it receives energy from the sun Not if it has a blanket on it. CO2 is no "blanket" anyway. A blanket reduces heat because it is a poor conductor. CO2 absorbs heat quite well, cooling the surface at the same time, before radiating out to the closest cooler item. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 19-09-2019 04:02
19-09-2019 04:29
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	That's all fine a good, when the sun is shining... It's only a half truth though, since only half the planet is facing the sun at any point in time. Seems like there is a lot of points in a 24 hour period to pick the temperatures you want to use to make a point. Takes more than half the daylight hours, to reach the highest temperature of the day. Stays warm at night, for hours after sunset. How come solar panels can't capture those photons, before CO2, and convert them to electricity? Seems like it would solve the 'warming' issue, and produce something useful, not to mention, it would work 24/7. The warmers already are willing to cover a lot of real estate with solar panels, which aren't all that good on a sunny day anyway. It just doesn't work out that way at all. CO2 isn't that concentrated to begin with, to do much of any warming, if it could. Not all the radiation is in that special band, that only effects CO2. Doubtful everything else, more predominant in the air, is transparent to that special band. From the illustration above, two photons are entering, two leaving, who cares is if CO2 is playing bouncy ball with a spare, it's the same spare, probably lose it in the storm gutter, or on the greenhouse roof anyway...
19-09-2019 07:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann law. Temperature and Radiance move in the same direction. And they do. But planets aren't blackbodies. All bodies emit blackbody radiance. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing the emissivity constant. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. VernerHornung wrote: In the celestial realm, only stars—balls of electrified gas—come close. No. ALL bodies emit blackbody radiance. VernerHornung wrote: A planet, you see, often comes enveloped by greenhouse gases that absorb and emit at wavelengths the *planet itself* is emitting. Exchanges of photons between a globally-toasted planet, its sun, and outer space are modulated by these gases. Now you are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a frequency term. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. VernerHornung wrote: The Stefan-Boltzmann law must be applied carefully in such circumstances. No difference. It applies to ALL bodies. VernerHornung wrote: S-B is written for a blackbody, You are trying to again change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing the emisivity constant. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. VernerHornung wrote: realized in the lab as a cavity radiator, a hollow tungsten tube with a tiny hole in its side. Irrelevance fallacy. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So, you claim there is a reduction in radiance. This can only result from a decrease in temperature. No, I'm claiming there's radiance from the ground, some of which *returns* to the ground. Paradox. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: The amount received from the sun escapes to space. Paradox. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: I'm afraid you're leaving out the middleman, the greenhouse gases, that is. The reduction you're referring to is only that between the three photons the ground emits and the two that reach outer space. [/quote] Irrational. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: *Those* two are the photons it received from the sun. * You can't destroy energy into nothing. * You can't trap light. VernerHornung wrote: ...deleted Holy Image... Into the Night wrote: You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. We're not heating the warmer surface with the cooler gas. You are trying to heat the surface using a colder gas. You can't do it. VernerHornung wrote: Count the photons. One up to the gas, one back down, therefore no net flow and no heating of ground by the gas. Irrational. Which is it, dude? * You cannot heat the surface by using a colder gas. * You cannot trap light. * You cannot destroy energy into nothing. VernerHornung wrote: ...deleted Holy Image... Into the Night wrote: You can't create energy out of nothing. We're not creating any energy. Count the photons. Two from the sun, two back up, therefore no new energy. Irrational. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: The fact that some of the ones going up are returned to Earth, forcing it to radiate at a higher temp to get them past the blanket of gases, doesn't matter. There is no sequence. You are being irrational. VernerHornung wrote: Temperature is *not* energy. It is a measurement of thermal energy. VernerHornung wrote: The energy for the "extra" photons the surface trades with the gas envelope came from the sun at an earlier time, * There is no sequence. * You cannot trap light. * You cannot trap heat. * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. VernerHornung wrote: or from the gravitational collapse of planetesimals which formed the Earth, if you prefer to assign a locus. So it was already available, not new. Irrational. Which is it, dude? * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. * You cannot trap light. VernerHornung wrote: ...deleted Holy Image... Into the Night wrote: Putting a blanket on a rock does not keep it warm. I already said that, except it was a kitchen table instead of a rock. But putting a blanket on a body that emits energy will make things toasty. Lie. False equivalence fallacy. All rocks emit energy. VernerHornung wrote: Try it with your kitchen rangetop, and time how long it takes the blanket to catch fire. Strawman fallacy. Extreme argument fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: And the Earth is emitting energy because it receives energy from the sun, although it doesn't catch fire—except in Brazil, Bolivia, San Diego County and Utah's very own Tank Fire of 1996. We Western boys name wildfires the way Miami's NHC names hurricanes. Irrational. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU. Message unclear. Lie. I've already explained what randU is to you. You are making up numbers. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are making up numbers. No, I *looked them up. So you are quoting someone else that made up numbers. Same thing. VernerHornung wrote:* And no, my arithmetic doesn't prove anything. It proves you don't have a clue. VernerHornung wrote: I present it by way of example of how difficult a subject the radiation budget of a planet is. Appeal to complexity fallacy. You are still being irrational. Which is it, dude? You must clear you paradoxes. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: There is no forcing. CO2 is not a force. I never said CO2 was a force. Lie. You are now locked in another paradox. VernerHornung wrote: It's a gas, I think, unless chilled to –109F, when it's dry ice instead. The term "forcing" is used in a different context, that of a variable which influences the behavior of a physical system. Mechanical force is just one such variable. You are using CO2 as a forcing. Irrational. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You cannot determine the emissivity of Earth by simply pulling numbers out of your left nostril. Then I'll have to pull the 0.71 from my right nostril. Seems better than joining the Know-Nothing Party. Argument from randU fallacy. YALIF. VernerHornung wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Argument from randU. r...ndU... ...U.. ...... Omigosh, Pyotr, we've lost contact with the lander! You've lost contact with yourself. You are being irrational. You are gong to have to clear your paradoxes before you make sense anymore. For each paradox, you must accept one and only one argument and utterly discard the other and never use it again. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-09-2019 07:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	HarveyH55 wrote: That's all fine a good, when the sun is shining... It's only a half truth though, since only half the planet is facing the sun at any point in time. Seems like there is a lot of points in a 24 hour period to pick the temperatures you want to use to make a point. Takes more than half the daylight hours, to reach the highest temperature of the day. Stays warm at night, for hours after sunset. How come solar panels can't capture those photons, before CO2, and convert them to electricity? Seems like it would solve the 'warming' issue, and produce something useful, not to mention, it would work 24/7. The warmers already are willing to cover a lot of real estate with solar panels, which aren't all that good on a sunny day anyway. It just doesn't work out that way at all. CO2 isn't that concentrated to begin with, to do much of any warming, if it could. Not all the radiation is in that special band, that only effects CO2. Doubtful everything else, more predominant in the air, is transparent to that special band. From the illustration above, two photons are entering, two leaving, who cares is if CO2 is playing bouncy ball with a spare, it's the same spare, probably lose it in the storm gutter, or on the greenhouse roof anyway... Capturing a photo of a photon would require light to shine on the photon, no? Which one is the photon you wanted to take a picture of? You are quite right. Earth's emissions are 24 hour a day from all points on the surface. Only part of the surface is exposed to the Sun at any given moment and is absorbing energy from it. There is one saving grace at night. The daylit side of Earth heats the nighttime side through air movements and the conductivity of ocean water and air. In addition, liquid water has a high specific heat. A lot of thermal energy is contained in the oceans. Thus, the nights are pleasant, not extremely cold like on the Moon. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 19-09-2019 07:18
19-09-2019 11:02
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	The thing about global warming, is I can't remember seeing much detail on what temperatures they are basing their claims of warming on. They most certainly don't have a complete, consistent, or even accurate records, for what locations they have on hand. Basically, I always got the impression they just used whatever they could manage to scrape up, and reaching pretty deep in the trash bin for it, at that. I presumed they focused mainly on daytime highs, since they are only interested in warming. Personally, I'm skeptical, that someone would actual go out, and manually read a thermometer, even once a day, without fail, ever. But, to do it hourly? Over many points, around the world? Daytime warming isn't even half the story, how much night time cooling is significant. Weather factors in, since there are storms that can hang around for a week or two, often enough, occasional heat waves that can last a month. Doesn't really matter, since they pack it altogether in a yearly, global average. Who would actually care enough to look and see what parts and pieces they are actually using to come up with these averages.
19-09-2019 19:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	HarveyH55 wrote: The thing about global warming, is I can't remember seeing much detail on what temperatures they are basing their claims of warming on. Exactly. This is why I insist on having the actual raw data available before accepting any summary made from it. HarveyH55 wrote: They most certainly don't have a complete, consistent, or even accurate records, for what locations they have on hand. Unknown. Probably not, for some of the reasons you describe below, and also because stations go offline, new ones are built, etc. HarveyH55 wrote: Basically, I always got the impression they just used whatever they could manage to scrape up, and reaching pretty deep in the trash bin for it, at that. I presumed they focused mainly on daytime highs, since they are only interested in warming. Excellent point. It is unknown, since they don't show the raw data used. Time is significant. It's bias must be removed from the raw data. HarveyH55 wrote: Personally, I'm skeptical, that someone would actual go out, and manually read a thermometer, even once a day, without fail, ever. Meteorologists are hired to do just exactly that. The thermometer usually has a relay, so they watch the thing from the comfort of indoors much of the time. HarveyH55 wrote: But, to do it hourly? Even hourly. Most U.S. airports, for example, update the temperature hourly or whenever it changes by more than a few degrees. Many of those stations operate 24 hours a day. Smaller airports use an automated system, of rely on the reports from a nearby airport. Depending the weather station, they too read the thing at least every 4 hours, at least in the U.S. HarveyH55 wrote: Over many points, around the world? There ARE a lot of airports, and a lot of meteorologists that work at weather stations. Different governments, of course, use different standards in time interval or whether the station is a 24 hour watch. HarveyH55 wrote: Daytime warming isn't even half the story, how much night time cooling is significant. Again, you bring up the excellent point that time is significant. HarveyH55 wrote: Weather factors in, since there are storms that can hang around for a week or two, often enough, occasional heat waves that can last a month. Another reason that time is significant. HarveyH55 wrote: Doesn't really matter, since they pack it altogether in a yearly, global average. Yes it does. Different years produce different weather at each location on Earth. A simple average by itself is meaningless. Again, the raw data must be available, and the margin of error must again be calculated and accompany the average. HarveyH55 wrote: Who would actually care enough to look and see what parts and pieces they are actually using to come up with these averages. I would, and so would you. It is a reasonable request for accepting any statistical summary. Otherwise, without the data and only the summary, it's just pulling numbers out of one's left nostril. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-09-2019 20:10
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	GasGuzzler wrote: Not if it has a blanket on it. CO2 is no "blanket" anyway. A blanket reduces heat because it is a poor conductor. CO2 absorbs heat quite well, cooling the surface at the same time, before radiating out to the closest cooler item. I think I've argued enough over how CO2 works. The blanket was an *analogy, not a simulacrum. Like the CO2, it need not heat the object it is keeping warm. Consulting an authority on the topic beats going back and forth with me on it, as I'm not a climatologist. One such source is Climate Change and Climate Modeling* J. David Neelin Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN 9781139491372 Into the Night wrote: Oil is found well below any fossil layer. Direct synthesis of crude oil from CO2 and hydrogen is possible on an industrial level. The conditions required are similar to those found naturally underground. Please show me *where. Lack of fossils does not mean "sterile" and oil is never found in plutonic rocks. No hydrogen in the mantle, either. The Germans of WWII heated coal and steam under pressure to make synthetic diesel for tanks, wasting a lot of the coal input as byproduct CO2. Plus more coal to fire up those reaction vessels. The Wehrmacht had little choice but sponsor this program, after the Allies ran 'em out of Libya and bombed Ploesti. We're not in that kind of jam. Why do it here just to keep our love affair with the automobile in full swing? ~ By the way, the text cited above includes a discussion of waves* in the atmosphere and ocean and their thermodynamics: gravity waves, Kelvin waves and Rossby waves (chapter 3). So lot of the equations for oscillations and standing waves you see in mechanics occur in similar form in thermodynamic systems. Into the Night wrote: All bodies emit blackbody radiance...You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Earth ain't a lump of cobalt. Emissivity constants apply to individual materials, and each one has its own. With a planet you have things like albedo that involve *reflection, not thermal emission. To obtain the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you integrate to find the area under a body's Planck curve at all wavelengths. This curve is nice and smooth for blackbodies, somewhat like the bell curve, but has dips for materials (corresponding to their spectral lines), and worse, for planets is constantly changing as the nature of a planet's surface changes. In other words, Stefan-Boltzmann plays a role in determining how a planet's radiation to space depends on its temperature, but we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann alone; we must do other computations as well. That's why CESM models are so complex. And that's why an eternal argument about it with you is fruitless. Neither of us is schooled in planetary science or climatology. I'm hankering to move on to the question of what it means for energy policy, though that may be hard, with someone who doesn't* believe a planet's atmosphere affects its temperature. That's a position Exxon itself didn't take in 1972, when company researches did a few preliminary workups indicating that industrial CO2 caused a global temperature rise. Into the Night wrote: You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing the emissivity constant. All that does is change the result by a constant factor, and my diagram has no numbers in it at all—it's plain illustration. HarveyH55 wrote: How come solar panels can't capture those photons, before CO2, and convert them to electricity? Because they use visible light. Terrestrial emissions are infrared. HarveyH55 wrote: The warmers already are willing to cover a lot of real estate with solar panels... They're sure doing that! Solar is *way* overblown. I think it's fine for rooftops and spare land, but we can't really carpet the US with panels. I'm looking more at a diversified energy portfolio with solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and yes, some fossil fuels, especially the cleaner natural gas. People have been suggesting this idea for 40 years now and it's horse sense, the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" thing. The US already has diversified to an extent, but we're still more than 2/3 on fossil fuels when 1/3 might be achievable. Efficiency also matters, vehicles that get better mpg, buildings with lower utility bills. It's like that with transportation, too. And urban development. More trains and transit but yes, some cars and planes. More condo-style housing. The US is becoming a crowded nation. If we won't have the life of Jimmy Dean forever, best get a head start on setting up less-consumptive patterns that meet our needs for comfort, safety and recreation. HarveyH55 wrote: CO2 isn't that concentrated to begin with, to do much of any warming, if it could... Forum's riddled with sloppy student physics as it is, including mine. I have been going back through the books I used at school, and wow! I've forgotten how to do all those problems. A planet has radiation, convection in fluids, phase changes, standing waves and perturbations enough to require a team effort from young'uns with working knowledge of that stuff, which I lack. So I'll avoid adding much more to the science debates here. But yeah. I've a hunch agendas from politics have affected climatology long enough to bring studies designed, even if unconsciously, to reach predetermined conclusions. I'm having a hard time seeing why 0.04% CO2 at 50 to 100 kPa matters so much. *Water vapor, not CO2, is the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth. Albedo is important. The climate scientists are getting so invested in details I think they're losing their ability to stand back and look at the big picture, and they've got little tweety birds like Ola Polerowicz perched on their shoulders day and night. "12 more years...12 more years...," except it's 18 months now. That's no way to do science. Nonetheless, given the uncertain and potentially adverse consequences of "experimenting" with the atmosphere on an industrial scale, I'll vote for curbing our emissions come sundown. Never* try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 19-09-2019 20:24
19-09-2019 21:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	VernerHornung wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Not if it has a blanket on it. CO2 is no "blanket" anyway. A blanket reduces heat because it is a poor conductor. CO2 absorbs heat quite well, cooling the surface at the same time, before radiating out to the closest cooler item. I think I've argued enough over how CO2 works. The blanket was an *analogy, not a simulacrum. Like the CO2, it need not heat the object it is keeping warm. Increasing the temperature means more energy. You are trying to create energy out of nothing. You can't do that. Blankets will not keep a rock warm. VernerHornung wrote:* Consulting an authority on the topic beats going back and forth with me on it, as I'm not a climatologist. One such source is Climate Change and Climate Modeling J. David Neelin Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN 9781139491372 David Neelin denies science and mathematics, the same as any other climate 'scientist'. False authority fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Oil is found well below any fossil layer. Direct synthesis of crude oil from CO2 and hydrogen is possible on an industrial level. The conditions required are similar to those found naturally underground. Please show me *where. Lack of fossils does not mean "sterile" Why? VernerHornung wrote:* and oil is never found in plutonic rocks. Yes it is. VernerHornung wrote: No hydrogen in the mantle, either. Yes there is. VernerHornung wrote: The Germans of WWII heated coal and steam under pressure to make synthetic diesel for tanks, wasting a lot of the coal input as byproduct CO2. They also synthesized crude oil directly from CO and hydrogen, using conditions very similar to that underground. CO2 works as source material too. VernerHornung wrote: Plus more coal to fire up those reaction vessels. The did use coal as the heat source, true. Germany has a LOT of coal. VernerHornung wrote: The Wehrmacht had little choice but sponsor this program, after the Allies ran 'em out of Libya and bombed Ploesti. We're not in that kind of jam. True. We can drill for oil and natural gas. It's easier and cheaper. It's also renewable. VernerHornung wrote: Why do it here just to keep our love affair with the automobile in full swing? ~ Love affair? Yes, some people do really like cars or trucks, but they are also a necessary part of life. Sure beats the mess horses made, and it's a lot faster as well. Imagine how long your Amazon shipment might take by horse and cart! VernerHornung wrote: By the way, the text cited above includes a discussion of *waves* in the atmosphere and ocean and their thermodynamics: gravity waves, Kelvin waves and Rossby waves (chapter 3). So lot of the equations for oscillations and standing waves you see in mechanics occur in similar form in thermodynamic systems. So what? The author denies science and mathematics. You are also just mashing together a bunch of buzzwords to sound 'scientific'. Thermodynamics doesn't have waves. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: All bodies emit blackbody radiance...You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Earth ain't a lump of cobalt. Never said it was. Strawman fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: Emissivity constants apply to individual materials, and each one has its own. No, they apply to the surface. Even the same material can have different emissivities. VernerHornung wrote: With a planet you have things like albedo that involve *reflection, not thermal emission. Albedo is just the inverse of emissivity. You are attempting to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law again by removing the emissivity constant and even the temperature variable this time. VernerHornung wrote:* To obtain the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you integrate to find the area under a body's Planck curve at all wavelengths. Nope. You simply integrate Planck's law over all wavelengths. VernerHornung wrote: This curve is nice and smooth for blackbodies, somewhat like the bell curve, but has dips for materials (corresponding to their spectral lines), and worse, for planets is constantly changing as the nature of a planet's surface changes. Irrelevant. Makes no difference. VernerHornung wrote: In other words, Stefan-Boltzmann plays a role in determining how a planet's radiation to space depends on its temperature, but we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann alone; You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann alone. That's what it does. VernerHornung wrote: we must do other computations as well. Appeal to complexity fallacy. Void argument fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: That's why CESM models are so complex. Appeal to complexity fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: And that's why an eternal argument about it with you is fruitless. It will be fruitless for you since you are a fundamentalist in the Church of Global Warming. VernerHornung wrote: Neither of us is schooled in planetary science or climatology. Because there isn't any. VernerHornung wrote: I'm hankering to move on to the question of what it means for energy policy, YOU don't get to dictate energy markets. You are not the king. VernerHornung wrote: though that may be hard, with someone who *doesn't* believe a planet's atmosphere affects its temperature. It doesn't. It matters not whether a body has an atmosphere or not. The temperature remains the same. All that changes is what happens at individual locations on the surface. VernerHornung wrote: That's a position Exxon itself didn't take in 1972, when company researches did a few preliminary workups indicating that industrial CO2 caused a global temperature rise. This again??? Exxon fired those idiots, dude. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth using IR from the surface of Earth. No gas or vapor does. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing the emissivity constant. All that does is change the result by a constant factor, and my diagram has no numbers in it at all—it's plain illustration. Contextomy fallacy. You seem to have lost context completely here. VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: The warmers already are willing to cover a lot of real estate with solar panels... They're sure doing that! Solar is *way* overblown. I think it's fine for rooftops and spare land, but we can't really carpet the US with panels. I'm looking more at a diversified energy portfolio with solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and yes, some fossil fuels, especially the cleaner natural gas. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Natural gas is not a fossil. It's a renewable fuel. VernerHornung wrote: People have been suggesting this idea for 40 years now and it's horse sense, the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" thing. The US already has diversified to an extent, but we're still more than 2/3 on fossil fuels when 1/3 might be achievable. We don't burn any fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. VernerHornung wrote: Efficiency also matters, vehicles that get better mpg, buildings with lower utility bills. True, but you can't create energy out of nothing. Efficiency only takes you so far. VernerHornung wrote: It's like that with transportation, too. And urban development. More trains and transit but yes, some cars and planes. Passenger trains are too impractical in the United States. There is just too much land, and aircraft are faster. That's why passenger train service in the United States is not profitable. Even local transit systems are not profitable in most cases. Since they are run by governments, they do not know how to run and maintain them. Rail ring is the biggest problem they usually fail to handle when it comes to maintenance. BART, for example, loses a lot of money, and they have a terrible rail ring problem, especially in the Oakland switching center. Who are you to decide how people get around? You are not the king. VernerHornung wrote: More condo-style housing. Who are you to decide what people are going to live in? You are not the king. VernerHornung wrote: The US is becoming a crowded nation. You obviously have never traveled the U.S. I have. I've been to every State in the Union, and to the SOTC. VernerHornung wrote: If we won't have the life of Jimmy Dean forever, best get a head start on setting up less-consumptive patterns that meet our needs for comfort, safety and recreation. Who are YOU to decide how people shall live? You are not the king. You don't get to dictate energy markets, housing markets, transportation markets, or any other market. VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: CO2 isn't that concentrated to begin with, to do much of any warming, if it could... Forum's riddled with sloppy student physics as it is, including mine. So far, you have denied physics. You continue to do so. You also deny mathematics. VernerHornung wrote: I have been going back through the books I used at school, and wow! I've forgotten how to do all those problems. A planet has radiation, convection in fluids, phase changes, standing waves and perturbations enough to require a team effort from young'uns with working knowledge of that stuff, which I lack. So I'll avoid adding much more to the science debates here. More mashups of buzzwords. Also bigotry. Age makes no difference understanding this stuff. VernerHornung wrote: But yeah. I've a hunch agendas from politics have affected climatology long enough to bring studies designed, even if unconsciously, to reach predetermined conclusions. Irrational. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: I'm having a hard time seeing why 0.04% CO2 at 50 to 100 kPa matters so much. It doesn't. It has absolute ZERO effect. None. Zero. Nada. VernerHornung wrote: *Water vapor, not CO2, is the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface. VernerHornung wrote:* Albedo is important. Buzzword fallacy. Buzzwords aren't important. VernerHornung wrote: The climate scientists are getting so invested in details I think they're losing their ability to stand back and look at the big picture, and they've got little tweety birds like Ola Polerowicz perched on their shoulders day and night. "12 more years...12 more years...," except it's 18 months now. They've been saying '12 more years' for at least 40 years. VernerHornung wrote: That's no way to do science. There is no science in the Church of Global Warming or the Church of Green. Both religions deny science. VernerHornung wrote: Nonetheless, given the uncertain and potentially adverse consequences of "experimenting" with the atmosphere on an industrial scale, I'll vote for curbing our emissions come sundown. Pascal's wager fallacy. Emissions of CO2 do nothing to warm the Earth. Science isn't up to a vote. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 19-09-2019 21:16
19-09-2019 22:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	VernerHornung wrote: Like the CO2, it need not heat the object it is keeping warm. Do you think you could knock out a few unambiguous sentences explaining how CO2 can keep something warm without heating it and without violating physics? To the rational, educated, native English speakers that I just asked, that makes no sense. I'd like to offer them your explanation without pretending to speak for you. VernerHornung wrote: Consulting an authority on the topic beats going back and forth with me on it, as I'm not a climatologist. One such source is Climate Change and Climate Modeling J. David Neelin Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN 9781139491372 Congratulations! You just pulled the standard fundamentalist Christian move of "I don't know the answer to your question but you should talk to my minister because he explains it so much better than I can. I'm leaving now." I presume you did this because you recognize the religious nature of your WACKY dogma and you need to sluff inquisitive people off to your Climate Priest. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Oil is found well below any fossil layer. Direct synthesis of crude oil from CO2 and hydrogen is possible on an industrial level. The conditions required are similar to those found naturally underground. Please show me *where. Did you just ask in which labs can crude oil be synthesized or are you asking which oil reserves exist below the fossil layer? Nevermind. The answer to both is "all of them." Why don't you specify which ones your Climate Priests direct you to believe don't meet the criteria? Go on, identify one. Do you have any idea why there wouldn't be an oil well if there weren't impermeable, fossil-blocking rock atop? Any idea whatsoever? VernerHornung wrote:* No hydrogen in the mantle, either. Are you sure? ... or has new work from a team led by Carnegie's Dave Mao identified that hydrogen can escape from the water under conditions found in Earth's lower mantle leading to a new paradigm in lower-mantle chemistry? Were their results published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. ? Just wondering. Significance We found at high pressure–temperature (P-T) that the goethite FeO2H transforms to P-phase FeO2 via a two-step dehydrogenation process. First it releases some hydrogen to form P-phase FeO2Hx, and then it continuously releases the remaining hydrogen through prolonged heating. This work provides an important example that the dehydration reaction changes to dehydrogenation of FeO2H at the lower mantle conditions and the cycles of hydrogen and water become separated. Abstract The cycling of hydrogen influences the structure, composition, and stratification of Earth's interior. Our recent discovery of pyrite-structured iron peroxide (designated as the P phase) and the formation of the P phase from dehydrogenation of goethite FeO2H implies the separation of the oxygen and hydrogen cycles in the deep lower mantle beneath 1,800 km. Here we further characterize the residual hydrogen, x, in the P-phase FeO2Hx. Using a combination of theoretical simulations and high-pressure–temperature experiments, we calibrated the x dependence of molar volume of the P phase. Within the current range of experimental conditions, we observed a compositional range of P phase of 0.39 < x < 0.81, corresponding to 19–61% dehydrogenation. Increasing temperature and heating time will help release hydrogen and lower x, suggesting that dehydrogenation could be approaching completion at the high-temperature conditions of the lower mantle over extended geological time. Our observations indicate a fundamental change in the mode of hydrogen release from dehydration in the upper mantle to dehydrogenation in the deep lower mantle, thus differentiating the deep hydrogen and hydrous cycles. I'm sure they must have gotten it wrong if you say there is no hydrogen in the mantle, either the upper or lower. What are they trying to pull, right? VernerHornung wrote: The Earth ain't a lump of cobalt. Are you just now learning this? It turns out that the earth is an entire planet with hydrogen in its mantle! Who'd-a-thunk? VernerHornung wrote: Emissivity constants apply to individual materials, Incorrect. When you are relegated to copy-pasting from warmizombie church material, you make bonehead statements like this. Absorptivity and Radiativity are material and wavelength (band)-specific. Emissivity pertains to "bodies" per black body science. The moment you start conflating semantics is the day you start saying stupid things. Yes, there are a bajillion warmizombies out there conflating those semantics ... they are boneheads too. Say it with me: "The radiativity and absorptivity of aluminum at 500nm is 0.0774 but the emissivity of that body we think is made of aluminum is 0.21" Did you notice how there is no wavelength term in emissivity and that with bodies, we don't care about its material composition, just its emissivity as determined by nature (regardless of what any sort of "table/matrix" might say). VernerHornung wrote: With a planet you have things like albedo that involve *reflection, not thermal emission. "Albedo" is used almost exclusively by scientifically illiterate warmizombies. Actual scientists don't use that term ... or misuse that term as you are. Hint: any energy affected by "albedo" ceases to play any part in the scenario in question. There's no reason to be concerned about that which is, by your own definition, playing no part in what you are considering. A word of wisdom: if you see the word "albedo" then you know you are dealing with a clueless idiot. VernerHornung wrote:* ... somewhat like the bell curve, but has dips for materials (corresponding to their spectral lines), and worse, for planets is constantly changing as the nature of a planet's surface changes. Let me catch my breath here. It's difficult to type when I'm laughing this hard. You say this like you have seen real-time dynamic graphs of SB-radiation curves for planets with their emissivities known. Think for a moment about how much is wrong with this. Hint: it is so utterly absurd that I can't imagine you typing this with a straight face. VernerHornung wrote: In other words, Stefan-Boltzmann plays a role in determining how a planet's radiation to space depends on its temperature, but we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann alone; we must do other computations as well. False. Ask me how I know that you haven't the vaguest clue what you're talking about. Hint: Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science is the only science governing a planet's radiance. There's nothing else. Physics does not somehow make exceptions for planets. VernerHornung wrote: That's why CESM models are so complex. Nope. There are very different reasons for all the unnecessary complexity. Hint: It's roughly the same reason the Catholic Church used to conduct masses in Latin while the priests avoided facing the congregation. VernerHornung wrote:And that's why an eternal argument about it with you is fruitless. Neither of us is schooled in planetary science or climatology. You should probably stop projecting. All you have told us is that you admit to being clueless about astronomy and astrophysics ... and that you are hoping beyond hope that nobody on this board has background in any of that. Are you prepared for some bad news? Also, speaking only for myself, I will readily admit to not having been indoctrinated into the Church of Scientology, the Church of Global Warming or any time-share scheme. I'm not gullible so there are many pastimes that I am unable to enjoy. VernerHornung wrote: I'm hankering to move on to the question of what it means for energy policy, though that may be hard, with someone who *doesn't* believe a planet's atmosphere affects its temperature. No, you are not hankering to unambiguously specify about which temperature you are referring. On a separate note, about which temperature are you referring specifically? VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing the emissivity constant. All that does is change the result by a constant factor, and my diagram has no numbers in it at all—it's plain illustration. ... and it's an unknown factor at that. Ergo, you are at least acknowleging that your perception is incorrect, and that you don't have any idea how far off you are. All you know is that you are mistaken by an unknown constant factor. OK, we're getting somewhere. VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: How come solar panels can't capture those photons, before CO2, and convert them to electricity? Because they use visible light. Terrestrial emissions are infrared. https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/infrared-solar-panel.html VernerHornung wrote: Nonetheless, given the uncertain and potentially adverse consequences of "experimenting" with the atmosphere on an industrial scale, I'll vote for curbing our emissions come sundown. Translation: "Because I'm gullible, I fall easy prey for the baseless, Marxist fear-mongering and will gladly vote to crush the global economy come sundown!" . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2019 02:33
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	There was too much to just quote and trim, for the little bit I wanted... VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: How come solar panels can't capture those photons, before CO2, and convert them to electricity? Because they use visible light. Terrestrial emissions are infrared. https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/infrared-solar-panel.html Hope that worked... Silicon is great stuff, you can just mix in a few trace things, and change how it reacts to different thing. I'm sure are installation solar panels are tuned for a wide spectrum, but as cheap as possible, since they are made by the acre (or is that metric acre?). Most digital photo-sensors are highly reactive to IR, and require an IR cut filter, even if they are to be used for IR (noisy world). I'm not sure about the specific bands and ranges, but if a camera can image the CO2 warming effect, then the silicon exists to capture the light at that frequency, which is converted to the electricity form. A sensor only captures a tiny sample, a panel converts a lot more. Now, I'm very sure such panels would be extremely expensive, consider the cost of some sensors, the deal in that range of IR. And of course, the electricity produced by solar panels, has always been a little disappointing, but it's free energy, heavily subsidized, and 'green-trendy'. But, with many trillions of dollars up for grabs to save the planet, stealing those earth-emitted, CO2 warming, planet-killing photons, before powering up the CO2, would make good sense, possible. Makes better sense than carbon capture, which is an actually thing, and being deployed. It's past the test prototype phase, didn't see if they are being mass produced yet, or custom made to order. Wonder how the effect the crops and plant growth in the areas they are deployed in. I get side-tracked so easy... Have to look up the energy usages as well, least two of the more popular schemes used a lot of fans. I haven't read much yet, just saw the spam photos, advertisements I suppose, grabbed my attention. Plants need 170 ppm just to survive, 150 ppm is starvation and death. Food wise, there really hasn't been a huge surplus of CO2, and cutting it down to the 200-300 range is a little scary, and irresponsible. Our current 400 ppm is a reasonable margin, double would be great for plants, but I'm not greedy.

20-09-2019 20:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: There are no gases with magickal superpowers to violate the laws of thermodynamics. But you have invented your own laws. They are not found in any textbook or any scientific research. Even now the radiance from gases around you, cooler than your skin, radiate to you and that radiance is absorbed. VernerHornung wrote: , I showed that Mars has more greenhouse gases by mass per square meter than we do Don't the other gases my a real difference? Thermal energy is moving through them via conduction with the ground and the greenhouse gases. Doesn't Nitrogen get warmed up and radiate as well? Wake wrote: .... at this point each molecule has to be excited to the point of radiation by absorbing incoming radiation from the Sun. This is why there couldn't be any greenhouse effect So the radiation comes in and goes out, but at a different wavelength right? I'm not clear on what you're saying but it sounds interesting. VernerHornung wrote: A glass greenhouse simply shuts the warm air inside. But does a greenhouse have the "Greenhouse Effect" of allowing visible light in through the glass while infra red radiance off the plants is absorbed by the glass? VernerHornung wrote: Climate change moderates get squeezed from both sides. The two "sides" are simply at war so both want to prevent any real debate or discussion. As with every hot button issue. GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, .... Energy can't be created or destroyed. It would seem you have just created some. No this is no different that insulation. Does your sweater create energy? Into the Night wrote: Oil is not the result of plant growth. And they are the result of ____________? IBdaMann wrote: 1. Marxists hate ... All petroleum and natural gas reserves are kilometers under the surface, More BS psychoanalysis. So what? Are you claiming oil came from where? That more is being produced how? How does what you claim alter the prospects for a drilling company 200 years from now? IBdaMann wrote: what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you have any evidence that we should worry? . What theory is this? How would geological activity create fossil fuels? Go ask big foot if he can explain it since you seem tounge tied. IBdaMann wrote: Would you care to unambiguously define this "Climate Change" concept . The Earth has an average temperature as does every planet. The atmosphere effects the ground level temperature (at times dramatically:Venus). A change in average annual temperature is a change in climate. HarveyH55 wrote: Likely a lot more farms will be growing more of it, for fuel production, to replace petroleum, when those carbon taxes get forced on us. Growing fuel is realistic: 2012 bio fuel cost analysis Fuel Price B20 $4.18 Gasoline $3.82 GasGuzzler wrote: I'm also learning how to spot a paradox. VernerHornung wrote: boost the sun's heating power If you put the lid on a pot of water on your stove did you not boost the heating power of you stove for that water? Was energy created? I wish you'd learn how to spot a text book as well as how to spot the fraud of ITN/IBD. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. We're not heating the warmer surface with the cooler gas. Count the photons. One up to the gas, one back down, therefore no net flow and no heating of ground by the gas. Just remember that ITN's made up law of thermodynamics has already been debunked on this board. Their explanation for the temperature of Venus is that we know nothing about Venus! IBdaMann wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Like the CO2, it need not heat the object it is keeping warm. Do you think you could knock out a few unambiguous sentences explaining how CO2 can keep something warm without heating it .... VernerHornung wrote: Consulting an authority... Climate Change and Climate Modeling J. David Neelin Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN 9781139491372 Congratulations! You just pulled the standard fundamentalist Christian move ... VernerHornung, ITN/IBD have actually refused to endorse ANY textbooks on thermodynamics. See here:12 references rejected Also the presumably violated laws of physics were invented by these clowns. But most importantly nothing is ever put on the table other than disqualifications. IBD can't even tell you what happens to the radiant energy from the walls around him when it reaches his skin. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
20-09-2019 21:17
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, .... Energy can't be created or destroyed. It would seem you have just created some. Tmiddles wrote: No this is no different that insulation. Does your sweater create energy? CO2 is not an insulator. It conducts heat quite well. A sweater does not. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 20-09-2019 21:20
20-09-2019 21:34
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	] tmiddles wrote: If you put the lid on a pot of water on your stove did you not boost the heating power of you stove for that water? Was energy created? I wish you'd learn how to spot a text book as well as how to spot the fraud of ITN/IBD. No I didn't boost the heating power of my stove. Assuming the burner is on and constant, and I put a lid on the pan, I have raised the temperature by reducing heat. Specifically convective heat. I have spotted the fraud, in your math. 1 + 1 does not equal 3.7. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 20-09-2019 21:35
20-09-2019 21:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:But you have invented your own laws. They are not found in any textbook or any scientific research. They are not found by you who cannot be bothered to look. tmiddles wrote:Even now the radiance from gases around you, cooler than your skin, radiate to you and that radiance is absorbed. Even now the thermal energy is flowing from me to the gases around me, and not the other way around. Would you care to discuss the specifics of this scenario? Would you be interested in getting the discussion started with a repeatable example of isolated radiance from a cooler object heating a warmer object so we can use it as our base discussion scenario? [hint: the reason you changed your profile picture is the reason that the answer to this question is "no." You came here to preach the good news of Global Warming and not to discuss anything] tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 1. Marxists hate ... All petroleum and natural gas reserves are kilometers under the surface, More BS psychoanalysis. So what? Are you claiming oil came from where? That more is being produced how? Seriously? I have to ask ... are you dyslexic and simply cannot read? Is that the reason you seem to ignore everything I write? Do you have someone type your posts? I was clear in answering this. Additionally, both Into the Night and I have made numerous posts on the subject on this forum that you could have easily researched. One last time for you. Yes, hydrocarbons are made from good ol' planet earth through natural geological processes. The hydrogen and carbon are plentiful in the mantle, carbon very much so. There is iron as well. These also exist in the crust but to lesser extents. Hydrocarbons seep upward (as can be witnessed in the Gulf of Mexico) and so oil wells can only exist where there is impermeable rock preventing the seepage and causing the hydrocarbons to accumulate below. This, of course, happens kilometers below the surface, far below any fossil record which wouldn't be able to penetrate the impermeable rock even if it somehow did extend that far down. There, I will not repeat this for you. You have enough information to research this topic on your own. tmiddles wrote:How does what you claim alter the prospects for a drilling company 200 years from now? They might very well discover a massive well of 200 years worth of hydrocarbon accumulation that does not exist today but is just starting to form. tmiddles wrote: The Earth has an average temperature as does every planet. I happen to be very familiar with the mean value theorem, thank you. Your problem is that you are claiming to know what the earth's average global temperature is ... and with zero margin of error no less. You also base your conclusions on the subjunctive which renders them invalid. Marxism and critical thinking don't work together. tmiddles wrote:The atmosphere effects the ground level temperature (at times dramatically:Venus). Yes, we've been over and over the unmatched power of earth's atmospheric refrigeration. You are well aware that our daytime ocean not only does not boil away but globally ranges from cool to freezing. Yes, you and I totally agree. tmiddles wrote: A change in average annual temperature is a change in climate. So by your definition, if the average annual temperature does not change as far as anyone can tell then there is no Climate Change as far as anyone can tell. OK, you and I are agreeing more and more. tmiddles wrote:VernerHornung, ITN/IBD have actually refused to endorse ANY textbooks on thermodynamics. This thread shows you are lying. tmiddles wrote: But most importantly nothing is ever put on the table other than disqualifications. I agree that it is disappointing and frustrating that you only put on the table completely invalid Marxist warmizombie church material to virtue signal to the rest of the world just how incompetent you are. You have every right to feel like people you trusted bent you over a credenza. I'm sitting here feeling sorry for you. Really I am. tmiddles wrote: IBD can't even tell you what happens to the radiant energy from the walls around him when it reaches his skin. I'm poised to tell you exactly what happens when you provide that repeatable example of isolated thermal energy flowing from a cooler object to a warmer object, even though more thermal energy is flowing the other way. When can we expect that, by the way? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2019 23:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: There are no gases with magickal superpowers to violate the laws of thermodynamics. But you have invented your own laws. They are not found in any textbook or any scientific research. Repetitious lie. Repetitious false authority fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Even now the radiance from gases around you, cooler than your skin, radiate to you and that radiance is absorbed. * You cannot heat a warmer object with a cooler one. You can't make hot coffee with ice. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: , I showed that Mars has more greenhouse gases by mass per square meter than we do Don't the other gases my a real difference? Thermal energy is moving through them via conduction with the ground and the greenhouse gases. Doesn't Nitrogen get warmed up and radiate as well? They make the same difference: zero. tmiddles wrote: Wake wrote: .... at this point each molecule has to be excited to the point of radiation by absorbing incoming radiation from the Sun. This is why there couldn't be any greenhouse effect So the radiation comes in and goes out, but at a different wavelength right? I'm not clear on what you're saying but it sounds interesting. So now you want to insert a frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. You've already tried to do this. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: A glass greenhouse simply shuts the warm air inside. But does a greenhouse have the "Greenhouse Effect" of allowing visible light in through the glass while infra red radiance off the plants is absorbed by the glass? No. Question has already been answered. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Climate change moderates get squeezed from both sides. The two "sides" are simply at war so both want to prevent any real debate or discussion. As with every hot button issue. False dichotomy fallacy. True Scotsman fallacy. It is YOU that is not discussing anything. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: Atmospheric CO2 itself provides roughly 8 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, .... Energy can't be created or destroyed. It would seem you have just created some. No this is no different that insulation. Does your sweater create energy? Into the Night wrote: Oil is not the result of plant growth. And they are the result of ____________? Question already answered. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 1. Marxists hate ... All petroleum and natural gas reserves are kilometers under the surface, More BS psychoanalysis. So what? Are you claiming oil came from where? That more is being produced how? Repetitious questions already answered. tmiddles wrote: How does what you claim alter the prospects for a drilling company 200 years from now? It doesn't. Straw man fallacy. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: what is the rate at which planet earth is creating more hydrocarbons? Do you have any evidence that we should worry? . What theory is this? How would geological activity create fossil fuels? Repetitious question already answered. tmiddles wrote: Go ask big foot if he can explain it since you seem tounge tied. YALIF. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Would you care to unambiguously define this "Climate Change" concept . The Earth has an average temperature as does every planet. The atmosphere effects the ground level temperature (at times dramatically:Venus). A change in average annual temperature is a change in climate. The atmosphere does not change the temperature of a planet. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Likely a lot more farms will be growing more of it, for fuel production, to replace petroleum, when those carbon taxes get forced on us. Growing fuel is realistic: 2012 bio fuel cost analysis Not particularly. tmiddles wrote: Fuel Price B20 $4.18 Gasoline $3.82 B20 per gallon has less energy by volume AND by weight than gasoline. B20 is 80% petroleum oil, dumbass. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: I'm also learning how to spot a paradox. VernerHornung wrote: boost the sun's heating power If you put the lid on a pot of water on your stove did you not boost the heating power of you stove for that water? Was energy created? No. Neither did you boost the heating power. tmiddles wrote: I wish you'd learn how to spot a text book as well as how to spot the fraud of ITN/IBD. tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. We're not heating the warmer surface with the cooler gas. Irrational. You are locked in paradox. Which is it, dude? tmiddles wrote: Count the photons. One up to the gas, one back down, therefore no net flow and no heating of ground by the gas. Irrational. Which is it, dude? tmiddles wrote: Just remember that ITN's made up law of thermodynamics has already been debunked on this board. Their explanation for the temperature of Venus is that we know nothing about Venus! We know some things about it, liar. We don't know it's temperature. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]VernerHornung wrote: Like the CO2, it need not heat the object it is keeping warm. Do you think you could knock out a few unambiguous sentences explaining how CO2 can keep something warm without heating it .... VernerHornung wrote: Consulting an authority... Climate Change and Climate Modeling J. David Neelin Cambridge University Press, 2010 ISBN 9781139491372 Congratulations! You just pulled the standard fundamentalist Christian move ... VernerHornung, ITN/IBD have actually refused to endorse ANY textbooks on thermodynamics. Repetitious lie. Repetitious false authority fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Also the presumably violated laws of physics were invented by these clowns. Repetitious lie. tmiddles wrote: But most importantly nothing is ever put on the table other than disqualifications. Repetitious lie. tmiddles wrote: IBD can't even tell you what happens to the radiant energy from the walls around him when it reaches his skin. Repetitious question already answered. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-09-2019 01:30
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: David Neelin denies science and mathematics, the same as any other climate 'scientist'. Show me where he denies it. He has the equations written out. Up to this point in the debate, you've yet to offer a single source for any of your wild assertions. The American Chemical Society agrees with Neelin on the basics; they've got a page with the same kind of diagrams he does. Into the Night wrote: Why? Because you're making a *claim of fact* no one in the oil business is making. I wanna know where all this inorganically-generated oil and gas in infinite supply are found, so I can tell my kids to invest in BP. Then we'll watch BP drill for oil and gas in granite. Into the Night wrote: They also synthesized crude oil directly from CO and hydrogen. CO2 works as source material too. IG Farben used coal and steam to make hydrogen and carbon monoxide as intermediate products. Carbon monoxide and steam yields more hydrogen. Then the hydrogen was used to render more coal into liquid hydrocarbons via the Bergius process. That's how I believe the Leuna Works did it. As you say here, CO + H works as well and was used at the same plant. But CO2 is fully oxidized. You'd need more energy to change CO2 + H back to methane than you'd get from burning the methane. Into the Night wrote: Germany has a LOT of coal. They did have plenty of coal. That's why they wanted a way to turn it into motor fuel, which their brilliant engineers did. It's expensive, so we don't do it today. Into the Night wrote: Yes, some people do really like cars or trucks, but they are also a necessary part of life. Yeah, they're necessary for now, and I don't favor abolishing them out of the blue. But who says they must remain necessary forever? I'm sure the stables and harness makers said that of horses, back when we were going by stagecoach. Into the Night wrote: Thermodynamics doesn't have waves. But waves have thermodynamics. Hence you must study them if you're figuring out the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. The only thing about the radiation by itself is the amount going out must equal the amount coming in. Into the Night wrote: Albedo is just the inverse of emissivity. No, it's the amount of incoming radiation that is *reflected. If my bathroom mirror reflects 80% of the light from my face at 10˚C, then it will reflect 80% of the light from my face at 20˚C. Of course the mirror does have an emissivity, too, and it will emit more if warmer. But that's not the mirror's albedo. Into the Night wrote:* You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann alone. That's what it does. Sadly, we cannot. We must do other computations as well, if we want to know the temperature of the surface. Into the Night wrote: It will be fruitless for you since you are a fundamentalist in the Church of Global Warming. [swelling of organ music in background] Let us pray. Into the Night wrote: Contextomy fallacy. [music stops] We're so glad you've decided to be with us this Sunday. Indeed, we reveal fallacies of every stripe here. Including the argument from ignorance. IBdaMann wrote: ...relegated to copy-pasting from warmizombie church material...Emissivity pertains to "bodies" per black body science. Emissivity pertains only to the total energy emitted per unit of time. The equation is E per unit of time = σεAT^4, where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant ε is the emissivity constant for the material in question A is the area of the emitting surface, and T is the temperature I retrieved this from Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics 9ed, an ordinary physics textbook, not a climate change group's website. H & R don't discuss climate at all. IBdaMann wrote: Absorptivity and Radiativity are material and wavelength (band)-specific. True, but they're not the *emissivity* ε. Absorptivity and radiativity relate to Planck's law, not Stefan-Boltzmann. To get Stefan-Boltzmann from Planck's law, you integrate over all wavelengths just as I told you. IBdaMann wrote: You obviously have never traveled the U.S. You've no idea where I've been, or even whether I'm from the US at all versus posing from Russia. Likewise, I've no information about your biographical details. Let's not make assumptions about one another beyond what's need for purposes of debate here. That's a bit of online etiquette worth applying. IBdaMann wrote: Who are YOU to decide how people shall live? I'm only deciding how I will live, and what I will imagine regarding how people may live in the future. Whether you and I like it or not, governments will have a lot of say in that question. The only thing I've mentioned is more trains and condos (both growing in number already), not that everyone will ride trains or live in condos. I think we should encourage that trend to cut the odds of going bust and ending up with a king instead. Other people think differently, and that's fine with me. I avoid black and white thinking. And right now I think it's time for my nap. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 21-09-2019 01:40
21-09-2019 02:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: David Neelin denies science and mathematics, the same as any other climate 'scientist'. Show me where he denies it. Already done. Pay attention. He denies them the same way you do. VernerHornung wrote: He has the equations written out. He has the wrong equations written out. You can't just change the equations of a theory of science on a whim. VernerHornung wrote: Up to this point in the debate, you've yet to offer a single source for any of your wild assertions. I am no making wild assertions. YOU are. Inversion fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: The American Chemical Society agrees with Neelin on the basics; they've got a page with the same kind of diagrams he does. Consensus is not used in science. Political groups are not science nor can they be used to deny a theory of science. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Why? Because you're making a *claim of fact* no one in the oil business is making. Argument of ignorance fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: I wanna know where all this inorganically-generated oil and gas in infinite supply are found, Right under your feet. VernerHornung wrote: so I can tell my kids to invest in BP. Go ahead. VernerHornung wrote: Then we'll watch BP drill for oil and gas in granite. Okay. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: They also synthesized crude oil directly from CO and hydrogen. CO2 works as source material too. IG Farben used coal and steam to make hydrogen and carbon monoxide as intermediate products. Describing an unrelated process that is not synthesis is a redirection fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: But CO2 is fully oxidized. Yes it is. VernerHornung wrote: You'd need more energy to change CO2 + H back to methane than you'd get from burning the methane. True. Fortunately, the Earth does it for us for free. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Germany has a LOT of coal. They did have plenty of coal. They still do. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Yes, some people do really like cars or trucks, but they are also a necessary part of life. Yeah, they're necessary for now, and I don't favor abolishing them out of the blue. Yes you do, liar. You said so. VernerHornung wrote: But who says they must remain necessary forever? Extreme argument fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: I'm sure the stables and harness makers said that of horses, back when we were going by stagecoach. Extension of extreme argument fallacy using unrelated elements. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Thermodynamics doesn't have waves. But waves have thermodynamics. No. Thermodynamics is not waves. VernerHornung wrote: Hence you must study them Nothing to study. VernerHornung wrote: if you're figuring out the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. There is nothing magickal about the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. It is the same as thermodynamics anywhere else. VernerHornung wrote: The only thing about the radiation by itself is the amount going out must equal the amount coming in. Irrational. Which is it, dude? You are still locked in paradox on this one. VernerHornung wrote: If my bathroom mirror reflects 80% of the light from my face at 10˚C, then it will reflect 80% of the light from my face at 20˚C. Of course the mirror does have an emissivity, too, and it will emit more if warmer. But that's not the mirror's albedo. Okay. You've managed to enter another paradox. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann alone. That's what it does. Sadly, we cannot. We must do other computations as well, if we want to know the temperature of the surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature. I never said it did. To get the temperature of the Earth, you must take a lot of measurements with a lot of thermometers. * They must be read at the same time by the same authority. * They must be uniformly spaced. Statistical summaries require select must be by randN. You cannot use cooked data. Only raw data may be used. All biasing influences must be removed from the data by the collection method. Statistical summaries must also include the margin of error calculation as part of the summary. You have declare your source of variance. Temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile. You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth with one thermometer, ten thermometers or even thousands of thermometers. The margin of error that results is greater than the highest and lowest recorded temperatures on Earth. There is no record of a global temperature of Earth. Anyone that says otherwise is full of shit. Yes, that includes NASA. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: It will be fruitless for you since you are a fundamentalist in the Church of Global Warming. [swelling of organ music in background] Let us pray. No thanks. I'm the Great Satan against your religion. I spit on the Church of Global Warming. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Contextomy fallacy. [music stops] We're so glad you've decided to be with us this Sunday. Indeed, we reveal fallacies of every stripe here. Including the argument from ignorance. Buzzword fallacy. YALIF. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...relegated to copy-pasting from warmizombie church material...Emissivity pertains to "bodies" per black body science. Emissivity pertains only to the total energy emitted per unit of time. No. It doesn't pertain to energy at all. VernerHornung wrote: The equation is E per unit of time = σεAT^4, where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant ε is the emissivity constant for the material in question A is the area of the emitting surface, and T is the temperature I retrieved this from Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics 9ed, an ordinary physics textbook, not a climate change group's website. H & R don't discuss climate at all. Great. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Absorptivity and Radiativity are material and wavelength (band)-specific. True, but they're not the *emissivity* ε. Absorptivity and radiativity relate to Planck's law, Emissivity is part of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, not Planck's law. VernerHornung wrote: not Stefan-Boltzmann. Emissivity is part of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are trying to remove the emissivity constant from the law. VernerHornung wrote: To get Stefan-Boltzmann from Planck's law, you integrate over all wavelengths just as I told you. While assuming an emissivity of 1. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You obviously have never traveled the U.S. You've no idea where I've been, or even whether I'm from the US at all versus posing from Russia. Likewise, I've no information about your biographical details. Let's not make assumptions about one another beyond what's need for purposes of debate here. That's a bit of online etiquette worth applying. Makes not difference. Since you think traveling the U.S. is offensive to you, you have greater psychological problems than I thought. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Who are YOU to decide how people shall live? I'm only deciding how I will live, and what I will imagine regarding how people may live in the future. Whether you and I like it or not, governments will have a lot of say in that question. Compositional error fallacy. A dictatorship is not the same as a republic. Neither are the same as anarchy. VernerHornung wrote: The only thing I've mentioned is more trains and condos (both growing in number already), not that everyone will ride trains or live in condos. Compositional error fallacy. This is not happening everywhere. VernerHornung wrote: I think we should encourage that trend to cut the odds of going bust and ending up with a king instead. Try to stay on a topic. It works better. VernerHornung wrote: Other people think differently, and that's fine with me. I avoid black and white thinking. Lie. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-09-2019 03:31
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	HarveyH55 wrote: Silicon is great stuff, you can just mix in a few trace things, and change how it reacts to different thing. I'm sure are installation solar panels are tuned for a wide spectrum, but as cheap as possible, since they are made by the acre (or is that metric acre?). Most digital photo-sensors are highly reactive to IR, and require an IR cut filter, even if they are to be used for IR (noisy world). Charge-coupled devices in cameras respond to IR and silicon absorbs and emits it, but visible light photons are what get converted into juice in solar panels. Which ultimately becomes heat, too, after it's used in appliances. HarveyH55 wrote: But does a greenhouse have the "Greenhouse Effect" of allowing visible light in through the glass while infra red radiance off the plants is absorbed by the glass? I doubt the glass absorbs much infrared. It keeps the greenhouse warm by physically containing the air inside. So the sun shines in, heats surfaces on the floor which then heat the air. People forget that visible light heats things, too. We don't notice that because indoor lights aren't really bright like the sun. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
21-09-2019 03:43
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: Yes you do, liar. You said so. No, I asked why we should start hydrogenating coal just to keep the American love affair with the automobile in full swing. Hardly the same thing as calling for a ban on cars. Into the Night wrote: You've managed to enter another paradox. No paradox, because albedo and emissivity are two different phenomena. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
21-09-2019 09:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Silicon is great stuff, you can just mix in a few trace things, and change how it reacts to different thing. I'm sure are installation solar panels are tuned for a wide spectrum, but as cheap as possible, since they are made by the acre (or is that metric acre?). Most digital photo-sensors are highly reactive to IR, and require an IR cut filter, even if they are to be used for IR (noisy world). Charge-coupled devices in cameras respond to IR and silicon absorbs and emits it, but visible light photons are what get converted into juice in solar panels. There are such things as IR solar panels, dude. VernerHornung wrote: Which ultimately becomes heat, too, after it's used in appliances. Visible light does very little to no heating. It causes chemical reactions instead. VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: But does a greenhouse have the "Greenhouse Effect" of allowing visible light in through the glass while infra red radiance off the plants is absorbed by the glass? I doubt the glass absorbs much infrared. It absorbs some. VernerHornung wrote: It keeps the greenhouse warm by physically containing the air inside. So the sun shines in, heats surfaces on the floor which then heat the air. People forget that visible light heats things, too. We don't notice that because indoor lights aren't really bright like the sun. Visible light does little to no heating. It causes chemical reactions instead. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 5 of 7

Join the debate Our Fragile Planet:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Methane big part of 'alarming' rise in planet-warming gases	1	06-04-2023 21:46
Quickest way to cool down the planet	20	07-06-2020 01:13
Global Warming, Planet Temperature Rising Is Like Road Traffic Congestion	1	20-01-2020 06:32
Does anyone knew that plastic bags were made to save the planet ?	2	15-11-2019 02:19
Petition to pressure governments to save the planet and humankind	10	24-08-2019 05:16