Remember me
▼ Content

Our Fragile Planet



Page 6 of 7<<<4567>
21-09-2019 09:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Yes you do, liar. You said so.

No, I asked why we should start hydrogenating coal

No, you just started talking about the unrelated process of 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.

Paradox. Irrational statement. Which is it, dude?
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You've managed to enter another paradox.

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

Contextomy fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 13:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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.

You are interfering with the speedy transit of thermal energy away from the pot. Just as the atmosphere does with the radiance from the ground. This is why you are far less cold with a roof or cloud above you at night.

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.

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:A Repeatable Example

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

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

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

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!
That the temperature of Earth is not known exactly cannot of course render the definition invalid since nothing is ever known exactly. "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

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. Let me show you how to post so you respect the forum:
Here Richard Heinberg of Cornell reviews abiotic oil theories. The important bit is the money. As he says:
"If there are in fact vast untapped deep pools of hydrocarbons refilling the reservoirs that oil producers drill into, it appears to make little difference to actual production, as tens of thousands of oil and gas fields around the world are observed to deplete, and refilling (which is indeed very rarely observed) is not occurring "

So I was surprised to learn abiogenic oil is a thing! Interesting. It probably makes no difference today.

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

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.

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:
...
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...
.
You Keep ignoring my answer. Right here:A Repeatable Example

"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
Edited on 21-09-2019 13:17
21-09-2019 14:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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?

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

"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
21-09-2019 15:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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. 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.,

There is deliberate deception by ITN/IBD, who inexplicably deny net flow, in both the use of the terms "heat" and "flow". 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". Just as a business breaking even has no profit or loss. It remains very active .

"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
Edited on 21-09-2019 15:05
21-09-2019 15:10
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1349)
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.


I don't think I wrote the quote above, in bold type. Infrared is one word, though I make plenty of typos, not a likely one to get past. I'm not hung up on the radiance thing, or absorption, tend to leave those to the metaphysics crowd... Wouldn't have used either, and the question is more consistent with the twiddler.

Anyway, glass isn't just one material. There are many different glasses, with different characteristics. Solar panels are generally made as cheap as possible, where the intent is to convert daylight to electricity. They want to get maximum output, for the least cost in manufacturing. There are specialty panels, like for NASA, and other harsh environment applications.

Now, 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? Electrical energy, or thermal energy, there is enough light being converted to be useful for anything. Both are possible on paper, just meaningless in practice. 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.
21-09-2019 16:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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. "

Edited on 21-09-2019 16:46
21-09-2019 21:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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.

* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
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:

Repetitious Holy Link to unrelated material.

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

Repetitious question already answered.
tmiddles wrote:
And nice try attempting again to change the scenario to reverse heating.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is attempting to change the scenario to reverse heating.
tmiddles wrote:
And yet again you dodge admitting you absorb radiance from your room.

* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
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!

Not a definition. Lie. Redefinition fallacy ((subjunctive<->definition).
tmiddles wrote:
That the temperature of Earth is not known exactly cannot of course render the definition invalid since nothing is ever known exactly.

If you can't measure the temperature of a thing, you don't know if it's cooling, warming, or just staying the same. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
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

All of it. Define 'global warming'.
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.

Repetitious question already answered.
tmiddles wrote:
Let me show you how to post so you respect the forum:

You don't get to speak for the forum. You only get to speak for yourself.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted redundant quote...
So I was surprised to learn abiogenic oil is a thing! Interesting. It probably makes no difference today.

Oh no! We can't have THAT! It would destroy my belief in the Church of Global Warming!
tmiddles wrote:
Also you misrepresent the data yet again. Abiogenic oil as the majority supply is a minority opinion not accepted by oil drillers.

Irrelevance fallacy. Argument of ignorance fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.
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.

Repetitious questions already answered.
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:

Lie. Repetitious questions already answered.
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
...


Repetitious question already answered.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 21:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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?

Repetitious questions already answered. (RQAA)
tmiddles wrote:
*And no you've never answered that even remotely.

Lie.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-09-2019 21:15
21-09-2019 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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.

I see it has your Holy Blessing.
tmiddles wrote:
Net flow of heat,

There is no 'net flow of heat'.
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot.

tmiddles wrote:
with thermal energy moving in both directions,

Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy. Redefinition fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
has been the demonstrated understanding of thermodynamics since...deleted Holy Quote of Yourself

A forum thread is not a proof.

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

Lie. Redefinition fallacy (light<->heat).

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".

Paradox. Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
Just as a business breaking even has no profit or loss. It remains very active .


False equivalence. Thermal energy is not a business. Electromagnetic energy is not a business. They don't pay taxes. They don't have a profit or loss.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 21:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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. "


Random unrelated quotes. Non-sequitur fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 22:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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.


"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
Edited on 21-09-2019 22:03
21-09-2019 22:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
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:

Unfortunately NOT a repeatable example.

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

There is too much that is undefined/unknown rendering it utterly not repeatable and it doesn't isolate absorption of thermal radiation in question from a cooler body by a warmer body. This one, single, particular example just doesn't work but that's OK. The good news is that you can pick any repeatable example that isolates thermal radiation flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body so we can discuss it.

You're not having a problem finding one, are you? I notice that you cling to this one non-repeatable example like it's all you have. Is that the case? (ask me how I know it is)




(really, ask me how I know)







(c'mon, c'mon ... ask me how I know)


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

Are you only now getting the memo?

From The MANUAL:



Global Warming: proper noun
The Arch-villain of the Global Warming mythology; born out of unfettered capitalism, Global Warming acquires His power from "heat" produced by Greenhouse Effect. Global Warming is constantly at war with the goddess Climate,. His favorite weapons are CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas which he feeds to Greenhouse Effect in return for more "heat" and thus more power.


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

None of the above.

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

... because Into the Night had already taken the time to explain that in detail ... for about the third time ... maybe the fourth ... in this forum.

Please don't tell me you ignored that too. Don't tell me you won't bother to look it up in this forum!

Wow, I never saw that coming!



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2019 22:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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.



This too is a question that has already been answered.

I will answer it AGAIN,.

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.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2019 23:15
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't think I wrote the quote above, in bold type...

I miffed that one; sorry. It's hard to keep all these posts straight!

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.

We could just put mirrors around the planet to reflect the sun away. But that's a lot of mirrors for the Earth's 200 million square miles of real estate, even if we only have to shield 1% of it to balance things.
~


I dunno. The theory's sound, for a dry, uniformly-emitting planet in thermal equilibrium with its star. But oceans and changing ice cover complicate the picture on Earth. Since we're told it's warming, it's not in equilibrium; it must be getting slightly more radiation than it reflects or emits. Ocean water from the Gulf Stream sinks around Greenland, taking heat down with it that won't resurface until hundreds of years later. So even if there's an upward forcing, response to it will be delayed.

There's so much complexity I don't believe anyone really knows the climate will warm in the next 50 years instead of perversely cooling off. But adding CO2 to the air will eventually make it warmer, so I'm not eager to put any more aloft than necessary. Replacing some of the carbon-based sources now and researching new energy technology is a good idea.

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?

It's likely they're involved in some way, though I don't know how. N2 and O2 don't absorb and emit much infrared at the wavelengths the ground emits most strongly at. They do emit at other wavelengths, and contribute something toward slowing net radiation upward. In this case, N2 and O2 are warmed by contact with the ground and then re-radiate some of their warmth back down. But that would be counteracted by the N2 and O2 speeding convection losses from the surface, so I doubt a dry nitrogen Earth avoids freezing.

The climate people keep a lot of stuff opaque, presenting oversimplified, childish explanations on one hand, and arcana about the West Antarctic ice sheet or the krill and whatnot on the other. That's what I dislike.

Let's check up on the endless oil supposedly bubbling up from the mantle...

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.

Now we'll take up your mantle hydrogen business, clarify it and remind you there was no suggestion from any of the authors writing on this subject that it makes oil & gas.

Possible hydrogen in lower mantle

Dehydrogenation of goethite in Earth's deep lower mantle (your paper)
Qingyang Hu, Duck Young Kim, &c.
PNAS
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2017/01/30/1620644114.full.pdf
Carnegie Science press release on this paper
https://carnegiescience.edu/news/freeing-hydrogen-earth%E2%80%99s-lower-mantle

...in other words, new research that proposes subducting slabs carrying ocean floors downward at plate boundaries may release hydrogen at 2800 km depth, assuming the plates make it that far, and this H may participate in pyrite chemistry. No suggestion from the authors it makes oil & gas, however. Anything coming back up will be hydrated minerals or water. No oil is being drilled at the mid-ocean ridges where mantle materials resurface.

Possible hydrogen in upper mantle

In situ peridotitic diamond...sourced from hydrocarbon fluids in the mantle transition zone
S. Das, A.R. Basu, &c
Geology (2017) 45 (8)
https://doi.org/10.1130/G39100.1
Phys.org press release on this paper
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-hydrogen-oxygen-carbon-dioxide-earth.html

...in other words, new research that proposes subducting slabs carrying ocean floors downward at plate boundaries may release hydrogen at 400 km depth, near the pyroxene-olivine transition zone, and release it there, and this H helps form graphite, diamond, carbon dioxide, and hydrated minerals or water. No suggestion from the authors it makes oil & gas, however.

Oil doesn't form at the extremely high temperatures down there. All I see in those papers are iron peroxide pyrites and ferromagnesium silicates and some water. Almost all the hydrogen Earth has is near or on its surface. The concentrations involved in the mantle are small. Oil is more than 10% hydrogen and natural gas, up to 25%. The easiest place to find high concentrations of H is in living things. Hence it's nearly certain that oil & gas are biological in origin, formed when dead organisms get buried.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
21-09-2019 23:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
Unfortunately NOT a repeatable example.
...
There is too much that is undefined/unknown rendering it utterly not repeatable.


You refuse to define what qualifies. How are you not repeatable? Does your skin area change? Your skin temp while in a 70F room? Your skins emissivity? How are these unknowns?

We've never had you agree any data was useable and you've never presented any experiment or example of anything that was useable.

You're just playing games.


"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
21-09-2019 23:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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.


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


"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
21-09-2019 23:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
tmiddles wrote:You refuse to define what qualifies.

You ignore what I write.

You refuse to look up anything.

Yes, you win again.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2019 23:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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.
21-09-2019 23:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
tmiddles wrote:Oh! So you just don't know what subjunctive means!

Are you hoping you found someone else who also doesn't know?

Perhaps you misinterpreted what he wrote. After all, you don't understand what it means. How can you determine if he is correct or not? Aren't you going to ask him for clarification? Oh wait, you are preemtively ignoring him. I get it.

Carry on.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2019 00:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:

Carry on.

.


Hey debate killer. Guess what were talking about? Nothing

You and ITN are far too successful at achieving that. We need to move on in spite of you.

Climate-debate needs to move past being a debate about sanity.


"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
22-09-2019 05:48
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
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. "

I haven't heard of heat-absorbing glass. Should get some to enclose my rose bushes—and hold the CO2 inside in case I decide to follow ITN's suggestion to enrich the air. Fancy what that'll cost, and the CO2 cylinder may be the least of it. But if the bushes grow real fast and overtop my roof, then my electric bill should go down.
~


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]

I think a better model looks something like this:



The symbols are:
Radiation from sun R
Earth albedo a
Earth emissivity ε
Earth temperature T
Air emissivity e
Air temperature U,

where the air is transparent to visible light but partially opaque to infrared. Units are energy per unit of area per unit time in all equations. The air has top and bottom "surfaces," hence two terms εeσU^4 leaving it. The three outgoing terms to space total up to the radiation from the sun, so

R = aR + ε(1 – e)σRT^4 + εeσRU^4 (equation 1)

The amount absorbed by the air equals the amount it radiates, so

εeσT^4 = 2εeσU^4 (equation 2)

The amount absorbed by the ground equals the amount it radiates, so

εσT^4 = (1 – a)R + εeσU^4 (equation 3)

We can show that equation 3 is linearly dependent on the other two equations:

(1 – a)R = ε(1 –e)σT^4 + εeσU^4 (equation 1)
= εσT^4 – εeσT^4 + εeσU^4
= εσT^4 – 2εeσU^4 + εeσU^4 (by substitution from 2)
= εσT^4 – εeσU^4
(1 – a)R + εeσU^4 = εeσT^4 (this is equation 3)

Since equation 3 is linearly dependent on the others, we have a check that the labels in the diagram are correct, and we may discard it now. It carries no new information. Since

U < T and
0 < ε and e < 1, it follows that

εeσT^4 > εeσU^4,

so the ground emits more to the air than it absorbs from it and the second law of thermodynamics is preserved. This model is inadequate because the air isn't at a uniform temperature and values for the emissivities ε and e look difficult to determine. But it's slightly more realistic than my last model. And it's the farthest I can go on the subject. Those climatologists must have jobs for a reason.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
22-09-2019 06:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
VernerHornung wrote: I think a better model looks something like this:

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.

To use the black body science your model purports to be using, you cannot subdivide the atomic unit, i.e. the "body." The earth is only one body, and that includes the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, every bird in the sky, every fish in the ocean, every rock on the ground, every car on the road, etc ... all of it, indivisible ... one body.

What this means is that your attempt to subdivide the body and track every photon internally is an irrelevant red herring. The earth is not capable of generating energy, or of destroying energy, in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

All you need is earth's emissivity and Stefan-Boltzmann. If it happens that you don't know earth's emissivity, you don't get to play fantasy science on the weekends.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2019 12:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
VernerHornung wrote:
The amount absorbed by the air equals the amount it radiates, so

εeσT^4 = 2εeσU^4 (equation 2)


Excellent! I'm assuming it doesn't really matter that the air radiates in all directions and not just up/down.

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. But I wouldn't change that model for clarifying the radiance.

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

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

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


No because 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.

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



"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
Edited on 22-09-2019 12:41
22-09-2019 15:42
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
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.


It treats the atmosphere as a thin lamina above a solid surface, which can radiate separately. I did not claim it realistic. The atmosphere is for instance continuous from the ground up and density, composition and temperature vary with altitude.

If you wish to model the atmosphere as a stack with additional variables to account for this, be my guest. But the math will then be much harder than posting up a comic book supervillain as critic.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
22-09-2019 15:57
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
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.


Indeed. And there's nothing about IBdaMann's atoms and photons at all; the terms are just energy per unit of area per unit time in all equations, as originally stated.

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.


Ja. The air absorbs 78 of the average 341 W/M^2 of sunlight reaching the top of the atmosphere, according to the American Chemistry Society's diagram. This is almost half what the ground itself absorbs. The model's nowhere near good enough to make real climate calculations with.

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.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
22-09-2019 17:22
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1349)
The math is well beyond my skills, the other stuff is a little too metaphysical for me to follow. But, I do get, that it's all part of the same energy coming in from the sun, and the sun only shines on half the planet, at any given point in time. There are no hard, set numbers, on how much of the sun's energy actually even makes it to the ground surface (land/water). The planet is spheroid, not perfectly round. Any 'radiance' from greenhouse gasses will always be less than whats coming up off the ground. Gasses will only radiate in all directions. I presume photons travel in a straight lines, and aren't influenced by gravity. Only a small fraction of those re-emitted photons have a chance of actual making it back down to ground level, because the surface is curved. If photons do travel in straight lines, and immune to gravity, then the vast majority are heading away from the planet, not back down to ground surface to warm anything. It's a small angle of operatunity for those photons to be re-emitted on a path, that doesn't head back out to space.

I remain skeptical of the constants used, and the applications. I don't believe it's the same for all materials, it's just more convenient to push them all together. What works for a single material, solid, and of uniform shape, it might apply, I can accept that. But, it should get a lot more complicate as you mix things up. 'In theory' and 'in reality' aren't always the same thing.
22-09-2019 18:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
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. Someone like you is looking for this kind of flawed thinking so you can invent bogus pseudoscience and "prove" Global Warming.

Under this model, you effectively create a second body, i.e. the atmosphere, in addition to the earth with which you can draw additional absorption, radiance, thermal energy, etc. as needed. You can make the numbers do whatever you want when you throw science out the window. You can assign to the earth double its radiance if you wish, i.e. the radiance from the surface plus the atmosphere's radiance (which is actually the earth's radiance) as though it is separate.

*OR* you can do something more insidious and claim additional atmospheric absorption which reduces earth's radiance to space ...

... wait for it ...

which increases its own apparently separate thermal energy, i.e. increasing the temperature ...

... thus showing that radiance and temperature apparently move in opposite directions! Stefan-Boltzmann can be easily rendered false! All we need to do is to do is to distract people's attention towards tracking every photon so they won't notice that we now have two bodies that we are pretending to treat as one! Genius!

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.

Nope. You can't be breaking it down to any level lower than "the earth." If your scenario brings "the atmosphere" into the equation then it is summarily dismissed. If you bring "the ocean" and "water vapor" into the scenario then it is summarily dismissed.

The body is the earth, all of it, together, as a unit. If you are going to use black body science then you must use "the body" as the atomic unit and with respect to the earth, the earth is the atomic unit.

You are, of course, welcome to try to track all photons if that is your hobby. I'm not saying you can't discuss any word problems you want to discuss. It's just that if you want to bring science into it, especially black body science, you have to adhere to the science and can't be inventing your own crap on the fly.

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

Absolutely correct. However, if you were to use the term "surface" with respect to the earth, e.g. for ease of use when writing a quick post, then you would be understood to mean the volume of the atmosphere as a surface as well as all things that comprise the earth's radiating surface.

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

... and it needs to be a circle labelled "earth."


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

Nope. There is no distribution. There is only the radiance, which is power normalized over area. That is a numeric value, i.e. a number, and there is only one for the earth.

I suppose that given enough satellites (and you would need millions of them, all synchronized, in order to get a useable margin of error) you could perform a breakdown analysis of earth's radiance per topological surface area (extended into orbit)

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

You are being unclear. Would you mind parsing this and explaining to me what claim you claim I am claiming ... or what claim you claim I a supposedly won't claim ... or just what you mean?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2019 19:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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


"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
22-09-2019 19:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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.

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.

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.


"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
Edited on 22-09-2019 19:24
22-09-2019 20:18
Blair Macdonald
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
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).
22-09-2019 20:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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).

I'll admit I'm struggling to understand this so far. 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? 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? So the "non-greenhouse" gases are also greenhouse gases to some degree?

Also is the CO2 laser different from the Raman spectrometer?


"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
22-09-2019 21:02
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1349)
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).


You have to keep pumping a lot of energy into a laser to keep it working. You really have to increase the power you put in, if you want to heat or cut anything. CO2 isn't going to get anywhere near enough energy, even in direct sunlight, which only is available for half the day. Darkness earth is going to radiate a whole lot as it cools.

The surface air temperature will drop approximately 20F every night. If there was really anything to this global warming crap, it would be adding up, every day. Any thermal energy that hadn't escaped overnight, would just keep building up. Most everything has limits on far they can be scaled up, and remain functional. Climate change mechanics is no different.
22-09-2019 21:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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. .


Blair was describing the instrument used to measure.

And do you believe in that ice age crap? That things were ~7C colder covering the Earth in giant glaciers now long gone?

Why would you expect human caused global warming to be a certain speed?



"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
22-09-2019 21:25
Blair Macdonald
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
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
22-09-2019 22:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
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.

So you're saying Nitrogen contriburltes more per molecule or more because of how much there is?

Why can't this be demonstrated more professionally than what you find online? This is short, I asked about it here months ago:
tmiddles wrote:Look CO2 does get hot relative to other gases:
Hotter Co2
In the video alkaseltzer is used to boost CO2 in a soda bottle and under a heat lamp it's compared to room air.


"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
23-09-2019 01:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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


* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2019 01:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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.

No atmosphere or lack of it changes the temperature of any planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

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.

Certainly he does. I do too. You are presenting conflicts with physics, denying physics, and calling it 'physics'.
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.

RQAA


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2019 01:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
tmiddles wrote:OK surprise surprise you disqualify what's presented.

OK, surprise surprise, what you present is wrong, begging to be summarily dismissed.

Seeing as how you have no intention of presenting science but rather have every intention of presenting warmizombie gibberbabble denying science as the enemy of the people ... you should expect everything you present to be promptly dispatched.

Wait, I take that back. You don't expect what common sense dictates. You expect Global Warming to be glorified and worshipped. You strive to one day achieve the status of "Climate Scientist" (i.e. Climate Dogmatist).

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

You don't, moron, you draw a circle on the paper and you label it as "Earth." There's no "ground" involved. There's no "ocean level" involved. There's only "Earth." You apply the science to that. The moment you start subdividing the body "Earth" you should expect your glorification of Global Warming to take an immediate hit and your stupid argument to be immediately dismissed. When that happens, it's nobody else's fault.

tmiddles wrote: How exactly are Verners formulas wrong?

You have to apply the right equations, and if you are going to subdivide the "body" then you need to stop pretending to apply black body science because you have obviously chosen to violate it, i.e. Verner doesn't get to use any of those formulas at that point, and it's all his fault.

One more time ... 1) draw a circle, 2) label it "Earth", 3) draw a circle, 4) label it "the sun", 5) stop there, you're done labeling. If you continue, you don't get to use black body science unless you label every molecule as "body N."

To find an error in Verner's model, I can look no farther than the label of "the atmosphere"


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2019 07:08
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(124)
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.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 23-09-2019 07:11
23-09-2019 07:14
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
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.



I must ask you to keep things simple. isn't and mini-isn't will be confused by the earth's gravity being different at the poles than it is at the equator.
Page 6 of 7<<<4567>





Join the debate Our Fragile Planet:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Petition to pressure governments to save the planet and humankind1024-08-2019 05:16
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
UN climate chief warns of 'catastrophe' if planet continues on current path026-04-2019 15:34
If Democrats rule America then in 100 years America will be biggest CO2 emitter on the planet126-04-2019 00:41
Global Climate Strike: Meet the teenagers skipping school to fight for a greener planet913-04-2019 20:34
Articles
Barack Obama: Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact