Our Fragile Planet

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Yes you do, liar. You said so.

No, I asked why we should start hydrogenating coal

VernerHornung wrote:
just to keep the American love affair with the automobile in full swing. Hardly the same thing as calling for a ban on cars.

VernerHornung wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You've managed to enter another paradox.

No paradox, because albedo and emissivity are two different phenomena.

GasGuzzler wrote:

tmiddles wrote: If you put the lid on a pot of water

I have raised the temperature by reducing heat. Specifically convective heat.

GasGuzzler wrote:

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Even now the radiance from gases around you, cooler than your skin, radiate to you and that radiance is absorbed.

Would you care to discuss the specifics of this scenario?
.

IBdaMann wrote:

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.
.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
All petroleum and natural gas reserves are kilometers under the surface,

....Are you claiming oil came from where?

Yes, hydrocarbons are made from good ol' planet earth through natural geological processes. .

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:The atmosphere effects the ground level temperature (at times dramatically:Venus).

Yes, we've been over and over

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:VernerHornung, ITN/IBD have actually refused to endorse ANY textbooks on thermodynamics.

This thread shows you are lying.
.

tmiddles wrote:
...
Do all 5 of these textbook teach net radiance wrong?
1 -Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE
2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person
3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao
4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my
5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29
...

IBdaMann wrote:
...you provide that repeatable example...
.

Into the Night wrote:

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.

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.

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. 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.

HarveyH55 wrote:

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.

I don't think I wrote the quote above, in bold type.

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

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.

Any object that does not transmit (allow to pass through) radiance is an insulator to radiance. The radiance is absorbed and some comes back when re-emitted.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Even now the radiance from gases around you, cooler than your skin, radiate to you and that radiance is absorbed.

Would you care to discuss the specifics of this scenario?
.

Yes right here:

tmiddles wrote:
Why don't you simply give your calculation for human heat loss in a 70F room. That is certainly repeatable.

tmiddles wrote:
And nice try attempting again to change the scenario to reverse heating.

tmiddles wrote:
And yet again you dodge admitting you absorb radiance from your room.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

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.
.

IBD has accepted a definition of GLOBAL WARMING!

tmiddles wrote:
That the temperature of Earth is not known exactly cannot of course render the definition invalid since nothing is ever known exactly.

tmiddles wrote:
"Global Warming" isn't mood based, subjunctive in any way it is entirely indicative and based on facts. Which of the following is subjunctive?
An iron bar warming
The moon cooling
The Earth cooling
The temperature of the Earth increasing

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
All petroleum and natural gas reserves are kilometers under the surface,

....Are you claiming oil came from where?

Yes, hydrocarbons are made from good ol' planet earth through natural geological processes. .

Obviously I read what you wrote I asked you about it. You haven't answered "how" yet but no matter.

tmiddles wrote:
Let me show you how to post so you respect the forum:

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted redundant quote...
So I was surprised to learn abiogenic oil is a thing! Interesting. It probably makes no difference today.

tmiddles wrote:
Also you misrepresent the data yet again. Abiogenic oil as the majority supply is a minority opinion not accepted by oil drillers.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:The atmosphere effects the ground level temperature (at times dramatically:Venus).

Yes, we've been over and over

IBD dodges discussing Venus yet again.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:VernerHornung, ITN/IBD have actually refused to endorse ANY textbooks on thermodynamics.

This thread shows you are lying.
.

No it shows you are. You never answered at all:

tmiddles wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
...
Do all 5 of these textbook teach net radiance wrong?
1 -Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE
2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person
3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao
4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my
5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29
...

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

ITN, why won't you simply answer? What happens to radiance in the cooler room around you when it reaches your skin?:
Absorbed?
Transmitted?
Reflected?
Other?

tmiddles wrote:
*And no you've never answered that even remotely.

tmiddles wrote:

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.

Excellent graphic.

tmiddles wrote:
Net flow of heat,

tmiddles wrote:
with thermal energy moving in both directions,

tmiddles wrote:
has been the demonstrated understanding of thermodynamics since...deleted Holy Quote of Yourself

tmiddles wrote:
There is deliberate deception by ITN/IBD, who inexplicably deny net flow, in both the use of the terms "heat" and "flow".

tmiddles wrote:
Radiance between two bodies is exchanged as Provost explained. The "flow" has meant "net flow" to describe the difference. "Heat" as well describes the difference. Two identical bodies of the same temperature exchange radiance, it is absorbed, but there is no "flow" and no "heat".

tmiddles wrote:
Just as a business breaking even has no profit or loss. It remains very active .

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

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.

I don't think I wrote the quote above, in bold type.

Thanks Harvey, yeah that was my question Varner.
My understanding is that glass will not transmit infrared of the wavelength coming of the ground in sunlight. This is why Tyndall couldn't use glass for his discovery of CO2.
Looking this up it seems regular glass doesn't do much (I wonder why Tyndall couldn't use it):

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74638/transmittance-of-glass
"it depends on the type of glass. Depicted is solar transmittance through glas. For greenhouses special heat absorbing glas may be used. The diagram shows a dip of transmittance at ≈1200nm. "

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
..... Which of the following is subjunctive?
An iron bar warming
....

All of it. .

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Even now the radiance from gases around you, cooler than your skin, radiate to you and that radiance is absorbed.

Would you care to discuss the specifics of this scenario?
.

Yes right here:

tmiddles wrote:Why don't you simply give your calculation for human heat loss in a 70F room. That is certainly repeatable.

tmiddles wrote: IBD has accepted a definition of GLOBAL WARMING!

tmiddles wrote: Which of the following is subjunctive?
An iron bar warming
The moon cooling
The Earth cooling
The temperature of the Earth increasing

IBdaMann wrote: You haven't answered "how" yet

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
..... Which of the following is subjunctive?
An iron bar warming
....

All of it. .

How is "an iron bar warming" subjunctive?

Examples of subjunctive in a Sentence
Adjective

In "I wish it were Friday," the verb "were" is in the subjunctive mood.
Noun

"I wish it were not so" is in the subjunctive.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think I wrote the quote above, in bold type...

HarveyH55 wrote:
...I'm not buying the CO2 warming proposition at all. This is kind of the same thing. It's technically possible to make solar panels that would suck up the IR that CO2 uses to kill the planet, but they would be very expensive, with little usable electricity to show for the expense. Do you understand the parallel here?

Between the natural variances and mitigating factors, that 1 C temperature rate should be imperceptible. It just would stand out, and it doesn't. The patch-work data used, doesn't support the theory at all, there is a much larger margin of error. All the marketing and hype used to sell the idea, tends to convince people to ignore that it's based purely on speculation, and the core only actually works on paper, if you ignore a few factual events.

tmiddles wrote:
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?

IBdaMann wrote:
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?... Just wondering.

IBdaMann wrote:
Unfortunately NOT a repeatable example.
...
There is too much that is undefined/unknown rendering it utterly not repeatable.

Into the Night wrote:

Warming (or cooling) from when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time significant?

Since you refuse to answer any of these questions, this leaves 'warming' or 'cooling' subjunctive.

tmiddles wrote:You refuse to define what qualifies.

VernerHornung wrote:
I doubt a dry nitrogen Earth avoids freezing.

tmiddles wrote:Oh! So you just don't know what subjunctive means!

IBdaMann wrote:

Carry on.

.

tmiddles wrote:
"it depends on the type of glass. Depicted is solar transmittance through glas. For greenhouses special heat absorbing glass may be used. The diagram shows a dip of transmittance at ≈1200nm. "

tmiddles wrote:
Excellent graphic. Net flow of heat, with thermal energy moving in both directions, has been the demonstrated understanding of thermodynamics since Provost's experiments 239 years ago.[/url]

VernerHornung wrote: I think a better model looks something like this:

VernerHornung wrote:
The amount absorbed by the air equals the amount it radiates, so

εeσT^4 = 2εeσU^4 (equation 2)

IBdaMann wrote:
The error with your "better" model is that it treats the atmosphere as though it is not part of the earth, i.e. that it is somehow separate from the earth.

IBdaMann wrote:
...your attempt to subdivide the body and track every photon internally is an irrelevant red herring.

IBdaMann wrote:
The error with your "better" model is that it treats the atmosphere as though it is not part of the earth, i.e. that it is somehow separate from the earth.

tmiddles wrote:
...the calculation is for the distribution and activity of radiance. That the absorption = the emittance is assumed and used to check the equations are correct.

tmiddles wrote:
However I think that you're dealing with a significant portion of radiance from the sun which is directly thermalized by gases on the way in as well as conduction from ground to gas.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The error with your "better" model is that it treats the atmosphere as though it is not part of the earth, i.e. that it is somehow separate from the earth.

No that is a trivial point.

tmiddles wrote: You can substitute "ground" for "Earth" in the model but it's ocean water more often than not. So it's the vocabulary choices that is an issue.

tmiddles wrote: I always avoid "Surface" since that should mean just the absorbing/emitting matter that includes gases.

tmiddles wrote: What is clearly shown in the diagram is the combination of ground and air as the absorbing and emitting body.

tmiddles wrote: No because the calculation is for the distribution and activity of radiance.

tmiddles wrote: Interesting you pass on making the claim radiance cannot rain down onto the ground from the gases!

VernerHornung wrote:
But it does one thing. It puts the 2nd law of thermodynamics to bed for good. There's none of the cold air heating the Earth I keep hearing about here; all the heat comes from the sun.
~

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:What happens at equilibrium when two bodys have the same temperature?

No thermal energy is exchanged. The 0th law of thermodynamics sort of establishes that.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Only a small fraction of those re-emitted photons have a chance of actual making it back down to ground level,

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The error with your "better" model is that it treats the atmosphere as though it is not part of the earth, i.e. that it is somehow separate from the earth.

No that is a trivial point.

It is a major error..

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
I doubt a dry nitrogen Earth avoids freezing.

How would a planet with only Nitrogen compare with its ground level temperature to the same planet with no atmosphere at all.
I would think there would a warmer dark side as the gases radiated down as they connected up.

I think understanding how 95-99% of the atmosphere behaves without greenhouse gases is worthwhile.

Blair Macdonald wrote:
Raman spectrometers... In the CO2 laser, ...N2's 2338cm-1 mode is 'radiated' by electrons by electrical discharge...H2O is both a Raman observed molecule and IR (thermoelectric).

Blair Macdonald wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
I doubt a dry nitrogen Earth avoids freezing.

How would a planet with only Nitrogen compare with its ground level temperature to the same planet with no atmosphere at all.
I would think there would a warmer dark side as the gases radiated down as they connected up.

I think understanding how 95-99% of the atmosphere behaves without greenhouse gases is worthwhile.

N2 has an IR absorption/emission spectra at 2338cm-1, and O2 at 1556cm-1. Raman spectrometers can measure these spectra and measure the temperature of the molecules. Thus, such a planet would behave the same as Earth.

In the CO2 laser, (metastable - longlasting absorption) N2's 2338cm-1 mode is 'radiated' by electrons by electrical discharge (and can be by photons too); and this energy is passed onto CO2's close 2349cm-1 mode. This also concurs with the quantum mechanics foundation experiment the Frank-Hertz experiment.

I argue this is what is happening in the atmosphere too. But as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is trivial, so the process is trivial.

BTW, H2O is both a Raman observed molecule and IR (thermoelectric).

HarveyH55 wrote:

Blair Macdonald wrote:
In the CO2 laser, (metastable - longlasting absorption) N2's 2338cm-1 mode is 'radiated.

You have to keep pumping a lot of energy into a laser to keep it working. .... If there was really anything to this global warming crap, it would be adding up, every day. .

tmiddles wrote:

Blair Macdonald wrote:
Raman spectrometers... In the CO2 laser, ...N2's 2338cm-1 mode is 'radiated' by electrons by electrical discharge...H2O is both a Raman observed molecule and IR (thermoelectric).

The air gains thermal energy through conduction with the ground/ocean and through absorption of radiance from the sun, other gas molecules, and the ground/ocean correct?

Yes.

Nitrogen and Oxygen are absorbing 2338cm-1 and 1556cm-1 while the major sources of radiance, the sun and ground/water have some radiance in those ranges correct?

Yes.

So the "non-greenhouse" gases are also greenhouse gases to some degree?

Absolutely. I argue the major ones. Nonetheless, they behave as all other matter.

Also is the CO2 laser different from the Raman spectrometer?

My bringing in the N2/CO2 laser is to show how by practical demonstration the N2's spectra radiates and responds to the radiation of 'heat' (photons). It is real and fits our knowledge of radiation. It should work in the atmosphere too, and it does. N2 in the thermosphere absorbs (as measured by RS detectors) and it does at ground level too, corresponding with quantum understanding of radiation.

"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

Blair Macdonald wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]So the "non-greenhouse" gases are also greenhouse gases to some degree?

Absolutely. I argue the major ones. Nonetheless, they behave as all other matter.

tmiddles wrote:Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
But it does one thing. It puts the 2nd law of thermodynamics to bed for good. There's none of the cold air heating the Earth I keep hearing about here; all the heat comes from the sun.
~

Oh but the ITN/IBD strategy is far more sweeping. It's an addendum to the 2nd LTD claiming a hotter object may not exchange energy with a cooler one. As IBD claims:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object

Not even at equilibrium! link

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:What happens at equilibrium when two bodys have the same temperature?

No thermal energy is exchanged. The 0th law of thermodynamics sort of establishes that.

This is not a debate killer of their own invention it's been floating around a while. It's weird, makes no sense but is an effective way to claim global warming is impossible.Climate Myth: 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Only a small fraction of those re-emitted photons have a chance of actual making it back down to ground level,

Just the gases of the atmosphere heating up will impact temperature. A hot atmosphere will effect conduction, convection and radiance. We do have the Moon, Venus, Mercury and human visits to the void of space as references.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The error with your "better" model is that it treats the atmosphere as though it is not part of the earth, i.e. that it is somehow separate from the earth.

No that is a trivial point.

It is a major error..

OK surprise surprise you disqualify what's presented.

tmiddles wrote:
How would you represent radiance through the atmosphere and ground/ocean level? How exactly are Verners formulas wrong?

The objection that there is an error is easily shown by identifying the erroneous result.

tmiddles wrote:OK surprise surprise you disqualify what's presented.

tmiddles wrote: How would you represent radiance through the atmosphere and ground/ocean level?

tmiddles wrote: How exactly are Verners formulas wrong?

IBdaMann wrote:
One more time ... 1) draw a circle, 2) label it "Earth", 3) draw a circle, 4) label it "the sun", 5)

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
One more time ... 1) draw a circle, 2) label it "Earth", 3) draw a circle, 4) label it "the sun", 5)

Oops! The Earth isn't a circle. It's a spheroid. The sun isn't a circle, either. By drawing shapes, you've already introduced complications. If you want indivisible bodies, draw them as points. Then show us your own calculation.