Parliament must declare a climate emergency – not ignore it

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm pointing out that even with their greatly exaggerated theory, the amount of CO2 it takes to significantly impact global temperature is astronomical and any puny efforts to reduce emissions are a waste of time and money.

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm pointing out that even with their greatly exaggerated theory, the amount of CO2 it takes to significantly impact global temperature is astronomical and any puny efforts to reduce emissions are a waste of time and money.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

First first 10 ppm CO2 absorb 98% of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. There's no way in heaven or hell doubling CO2 beyond 10 ppm increases temperature by 3 C. It would defy the laws of physics.

The ozone layer, our Earth's sunscreen, absorbs about 98 percent of this devastating UV light.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ozone-layer/

The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere. The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent).

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html

I think you missed the point of my post. I'm pointing out that even with their greatly exaggerated theory, the amount of CO2 it takes to significantly impact global temperature is astronomical and any puny efforts to reduce emissions are a waste of time and money.

Damn right. UK would have to end all automobile manufacturing like Australia did in 2017.

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?

Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?

Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.

I'm not sure of your point. The ground transfers heat to the atmosphere via convection and conduction if the surface is hotter. The atmosphere transfers heat to the ground via convection and conduction if the air is hotter. Heat always transfers from something hotter to something colder.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Jeffvw wrote:
It simply overstates the effect.

Jeffvw wrote:
What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

Jeffvw wrote:
If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface.
The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C).
To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Jeffvw wrote:
Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet.

Jeffvw wrote:
The major role they play is by redistributing heat.

Jeffvw wrote:
Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4.

Jeffvw wrote:
That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount).

Jeffvw wrote:
An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction.

Jeffvw wrote:
This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space.

Jeffvw wrote:
This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?

Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?

Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.

I'm not sure of your point. The ground transfers heat to the atmosphere via convection and conduction if the surface is hotter. The atmosphere transfers heat to the ground via convection and conduction if the air is hotter. Heat always transfers from something hotter to something colder.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/climate-change-emergency-westminster

Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

That means that if the UK managed to stop ALL CO2 emissions, they would prevent a global temperature increase of 0.0026 degrees C in 10 years.

These people need to put things in perspective. Even their overblown theory says that there is no need for quick action.

Your assumption is just exactly that...an assumption. This is an argument from randU. These are made up numbers. Calculations starting with made up numbers only results in made up numbers.

Into the Night wrote:[/b]It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The 'greenhouse' effect model violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect model does not violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. It simply overstates the effect. What happens is that over most wavelengths, radiation is escaping directly to space from the surface. At wavelengths where the 'greenhouse' gas is absorbing the radiation, the radiation escapes to space high up in the atmosphere at a much lower relative temperature (but still a higher temperature than the background of space).

If you look at the earth from space with a spectrophotometer, the bands that are invisible to CO2 and H2O will be radiating at the temperature of the earth's surface. The bands that are visible to CO2 are generally emitting radiation at a temperature of 220 K (-53 C). To balance incoming and outgoing energy, the planet has to warm up a bit to compensate for the lower radiation levels in the CO2 bands.

Gasses and vapors have a profound effect on the temperature of a planet. The major role they play is by redistributing heat. Radiation loss to space is proportional to T^4. That means that the hotter a place is, the faster is loses heat to space (by an exponential amount). An atmosphere will move heat from hot places to cold places via heating up the air by convection and conduction, the hotter air is then transferred to cooler location via wind, which warms the cooler surface (and consequently cools the air) via convection and conduction. This means that the hottest places will be cooler and will lose less heat via radiation to space. This drives up average planetary temperatures.

Into the Night wrote:However, assuming your numbers just for the sake of argument, your point is well made.

They were.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is law of conservation of energy. If air warms, ground must cool. Air cannot generate energy out of thin air. It violates law of conservation of energy.

True. Did I state otherwise?

Atmosphere absorbs heat. Air must be warmer. Ground must be cooler. Or else Earth ground be hot like Moon more than 100 C.

I'm not sure of your point. The ground transfers heat to the atmosphere via convection and conduction if the surface is hotter. The atmosphere transfers heat to the ground via convection and conduction if the air is hotter. Heat always transfers from something hotter to something colder.

Ground is not always hotter than air. Air can absorb a lot of the incoming UV and visible and IR radiations.

Into the Night wrote:
So...cooler is warmer??? WTF???

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
So...cooler is warmer??? WTF???

Radiation loss is proportional to T^4. This means that cooling hot spots with an atmosphere reduces radiation loss much more than warming cool spots.

Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at a simple example. You have a planet that has a temperature of T0 on one side and is 2*T0 on the other side. The energy it is losing via radiation to space is proportional to 0.5*T0^4 on one side and 0.5*(2*T0)^4 on the other side. That means that the planet is losing energy proportional to 8.5*T0^4.

Now, in the second case, we assume that there is a thick atmosphere that transfers some of the heat from the hot side of the planet to the cool side of the planet making temperatures the same. Let's assume average temperature is the same, so both sides will be 1.5*T0. That means that the planet is losing energy via radiation to space proportional to (1.5*T0)^4 or 5.0625*T0^4.

Jeffvw wrote:
As you can see, the average temperature is too low to balance out the energy loss.

Jeffvw wrote:
In reality you would need to bring the average temperature up to over 1.7*T0 to get an energy loss that is 8.5*T0^4.

Jeffvw wrote:
Using numbers that we are familiar with, let's set T0 to 200K (-73 C). That means that 2*T0 would be 400K (127 C) and 1.5*T0 would be 300K (27 C) and 1.7*T0 would be 340K (67 C).

The simple act of cooling the warm side and heating the cool side of this hypothetical planet with an atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 40 degrees C.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The one thing that gets overlook, is water.

HarveyH55 wrote:
80% of the surface is covered with the liquid, which when it gets warm enough, changes to gas (vapor).

HarveyH55 wrote:
Heat rises, and so does the water vapor, carrying off the heat.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It lose heat to cooler molecules in the air, as it rises, and heat is also radiated, much back out to space. When the water vapor loses enough heat,

HarveyH55 wrote:
it condenses back to the liquid form, and falls,

HarveyH55 wrote:
sometime on the 20%, we call dry land, where it rapidly picks up some more heat, and repeat.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The surface can only be heated so much,

HarveyH55 wrote:
before the water does it's job to cool us back down.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Water vapor can get really dense too, clouds, which block the sun's heat rays,

HarveyH55 wrote:
not to mention only half the planet is exposed to the sun, at anytime.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Water does it's cooling thing, anytime, day or night, if there is enough surface heat.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Doesn't get too cold either, the water simply get's turned solid, and can't do the cooling thing, until it warms up enough to melt and vaporize.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's a big planet, some of these climate changes can take a few weeks, or longer...

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
So...cooler is warmer??? WTF???

Radiation loss is proportional to T^4. This means that cooling hot spots with an atmosphere reduces radiation loss much more than warming cool spots.

Nope. You cannot create energy out of existing temperature differences. You are defying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at a simple example. You have a planet that has a temperature of T0 on one side and is 2*T0 on the other side. The energy it is losing via radiation to space is proportional to 0.5*T0^4 on one side and 0.5*(2*T0)^4 on the other side. That means that the planet is losing energy proportional to 8.5*T0^4.

Now, in the second case, we assume that there is a thick atmosphere that transfers some of the heat from the hot side of the planet to the cool side of the planet making temperatures the same. Let's assume average temperature is the same, so both sides will be 1.5*T0. That means that the planet is losing energy via radiation to space proportional to (1.5*T0)^4 or 5.0625*T0^4.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law uses absolute temperatures in deg K, not relative temperatures. Math error. You can't subtract temperatures that way using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Jeffvw wrote:
As you can see, the average temperature is too low to balance out the energy loss.

No, your calculations are a math error.

Jeffvw wrote:
In reality you would need to bring the average temperature up to over 1.7*T0 to get an energy loss that is 8.5*T0^4.

Nope. You can't create energy out of an existing temperature difference, whether there is an atmosphere or not.

Jeffvw wrote:
Using numbers that we are familiar with, let's set T0 to 200K (-73 C). That means that 2*T0 would be 400K (127 C) and 1.5*T0 would be 300K (27 C) and 1.7*T0 would be 340K (67 C).

The simple act of cooling the warm side and heating the cool side of this hypothetical planet with an atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 40 degrees C.

No. You can't create energy out of nothing.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
So...cooler is warmer??? WTF???

Radiation loss is proportional to T^4. This means that cooling hot spots with an atmosphere reduces radiation loss much more than warming cool spots.

Nope. You cannot create energy out of existing temperature differences. You are defying the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at a simple example. You have a planet that has a temperature of T0 on one side and is 2*T0 on the other side. The energy it is losing via radiation to space is proportional to 0.5*T0^4 on one side and 0.5*(2*T0)^4 on the other side. That means that the planet is losing energy proportional to 8.5*T0^4.

Now, in the second case, we assume that there is a thick atmosphere that transfers some of the heat from the hot side of the planet to the cool side of the planet making temperatures the same. Let's assume average temperature is the same, so both sides will be 1.5*T0. That means that the planet is losing energy via radiation to space proportional to (1.5*T0)^4 or 5.0625*T0^4.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law uses absolute temperatures in deg K, not relative temperatures. Math error. You can't subtract temperatures that way using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Jeffvw wrote:
As you can see, the average temperature is too low to balance out the energy loss.

No, your calculations are a math error.

Jeffvw wrote:
In reality you would need to bring the average temperature up to over 1.7*T0 to get an energy loss that is 8.5*T0^4.

Nope. You can't create energy out of an existing temperature difference, whether there is an atmosphere or not.

Jeffvw wrote:
Using numbers that we are familiar with, let's set T0 to 200K (-73 C). That means that 2*T0 would be 400K (127 C) and 1.5*T0 would be 300K (27 C) and 1.7*T0 would be 340K (67 C).

The simple act of cooling the warm side and heating the cool side of this hypothetical planet with an atmosphere will raise the average temperature by 40 degrees C.

No. You can't create energy out of nothing.

I get the feeling that you don't have a clue of what I am talking about.

Jeffvw wrote:
Your criticisms are way off base, and show that you don't understand what you are criticizing.

Jeffvw wrote:
Have you ever taken a basic physics course, or even better, a heat transfer course or a thermodynamics course?

Jeffvw wrote:
The first law of thermodynamics is not violated in my example. Tell me how it violates it instead of flatly stating that it does.

Jeffvw wrote:
I am not creating energy out of a temperature difference;

Jeffvw wrote:
I am showing that radiative energy flux is significantly different at different temperatures.

Jeffvw wrote:
I am using degrees K in my equations.

Jeffvw wrote:
I showed that in my example and translated them to degrees C since people can relate to that better.

Jeffvw wrote:
Every time I try to interact with you, I realize that it is a waste of time.

Jeffvw wrote:
I keep hoping that you will learn something, but I see no sign of that.

Jeffvw wrote:
*Sigh*

Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

You cannot create energy out of a temperature difference.
You cannot use relative temperatures in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
There is no 'deficit' in radiance that you have to recover or account for when temperatures drop. Radiance simply goes down...end of story.

The Parrot Killer

HarveyH55 wrote:
You can generate electricity from temperature differential...

IBdaMann wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

I can't believe there are still people making this same argument out of scientific illiteracy (or flat out science denial).

IBdaMann wrote:Jeffvw, the answer is "no." "Climate Sensitivity" isn't a thing. Yes, your argument egregiously violates the 1st LoT up until you pivot and violate Stefan-Boltzmann and tip your king.

Jeffvw wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:
Let's look at the UK's impact on global temperature change according to the theory. The UK emits about 400 megatons of CO2/year. If we assume a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration, their contribution is 0.00026 degrees C per year.

I can't believe there are still people making this same argument out of scientific illiteracy (or flat out science denial).

You missed the whole point of my post. I am saying that even if you use their exaggerated assumptions (3.0 degrees C of warming per doubling of CO2 concentration), there is not a problem since that amount of CO2 needed to make a significant change in temperatures is astronomical.

IBdaMann wrote:Jeffvw, the answer is "no." "Climate Sensitivity" isn't a thing. Yes, your argument egregiously violates the 1st LoT up until you pivot and violate Stefan-Boltzmann and tip your king.

The potential for a climate sensitivity (the theoretical is 1 C of warming per doubling of CO2 concentration) does not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics nor Stefan-Boltzmann. Where do you get that information?

The whole concept is based on energy balance (the first law of thermodynamics). Energy coming into the system must equal energy coming out of the system. In this case, the sun is supplying energy to the earth via radiation. The earth is losing energy via radiation. They must balance. If you look at the earth with a spectrophotometer from space, you will see that there is a spectrum of radiation coming from earth. Here is an example looking at a portion of the earth at 21 C. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

You will notice a red curve showing the ideal blackbody radiation at 21C. This is the radiation that you would expect to see leaving earth is there were no atmosphere, or an atmosphere with no H2O or CO2. The blue area is the actual radiation leaving earth. What is happening is that at some wave numbers that very little radiation is escaping. These wave numbers correspond to where the radiation is coming from CO2 or H2O or other 'greenhouse' gasses.

If you were to draw other red lines corresponding to cooler ideal blackbody temperatures, you would get an idea of how cool the CO2 and H2O are when they emit their radiation to space. They are cooler because they emit their radiation to space a much higher altitudes.

Going back to the original curves you can get an idea of the impact of greenhouse gasses. Integrating the blue area tells you the total energy that the earth is radiating to space. If you want to know the impact of CO2 and H20, you could come up with a theoretical blackbody temperature (a new red line) that would give you the exact same total energy radiating to space. You would find that this temperature is significantly lower than the 21C that we are measuring. This is using the first law of thermodynamics.

Now, how does additional CO2 impact this curve? It does it in two ways. One is that it effectively raises the elevation that the CO2 is radiating to space. Higher elevations are cooler. Instead of radiating into space at -53 C, it may radiate into space at -54 C. A second way is the additional CO2 may scatter the radiation a bit and effectively widen the CO2 band by a tiny bit.

How does this warm the earth? Going back to the first law of thermodynamics we learn that the radiation escaping to space must equal radiation coming from the sun. Since the additional CO2 means that the planet is losing slightly less radiation at the current temperature, the planet must warm up slightly to compensate (this is where Stefan-Boltzmann comes into play). This leads to the fact that a doubling of CO2 will warm the globe by about 1 C. That is very little.

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas.
You cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies everywhere, all the time, to all frequencies of light, in all substances equally.
The 1st law of thermodynamics applies everywhere, all the time, to all substances. It doesn't just apply to one or two select substances!

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas.
You cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies everywhere, all the time, to all frequencies of light, in all substances equally.
The 1st law of thermodynamics applies everywhere, all the time, to all substances. It doesn't just apply to one or two select substances!

You just summarized all the relevant physics.

We should be able to pack it up now and go home.

Jeffvw wrote:
You do not understand physics. I suggest taking physics courses instead of relying on what ITN says.

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 acts as an insulator. Take an insulated bottle as an example. You put a warm liquid inside of it and it stays warm, even if the outside surface of the bottle is very cold.

Jeffvw wrote:
The insulating material in between goes from very hot to very cold.

Jeffvw wrote:. ITN does not understand this concept.

Jeffvw wrote:
Reducing radiance is exactly how you increase temperature in something that is receiving a constant incoming radiance (1st law of thermodynamics).

IBdaMann wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:
You do not understand physics. I suggest taking physics courses instead of relying on what ITN says.

Rather than simply declaring that I don't understand physics just because I do not accept your Church's teachings, why don't you run through your standard battery of physics violations and let me help you out?

I'll start by giving you some axioms:

1. Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is a fanatical religion of hatred and intolerance
1a. There is therefore no formal, falsifiable definition of Global Warming (aka Climate Change) for science to apply to it in the first place
1b. There is therefore no science supporting Global Warming (aka Climate Change).
2. Global Warming appeals to the scientifically illiterate who are conscientious about being idiot morons and who are desperate to appear "smart"
2a. Global Warming worshippers are necessarily scientifically illiterate because they fall for the idea that the religion isn't a religion, it's actually "settled science"
2b. Global Warming worshippers are necessarily scientifically illiterate because they don't know that there is no such thing as "settled science."
2c. Global Warming worshippers are necessarily scientifically illiterate because they believe science is subjective, that it is determined by consensus or by democratic vote, and that something can be made to be science by conveniently applying the word "scientific" as a prefix.
3. Global Warming worshippers can't distinguish religion from science.
3a. They think that variations on the theme "I don't know the answer, let me refer you to my preacher because he explains it so much better than I do" are valid scientific responses, e.g. pointing to the opinions of others who s/he considers authority figures.
3b. Global Warming worshippers are therefore forever presuming that science works like a religion

So, now that I have laid it all out for you, there won't be any surprises. Let's start with you.

Do you believe in Global Warming?

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 acts as an insulator. Take an insulated bottle as an example. You put a warm liquid inside of it and it stays warm, even if the outside surface of the bottle is very cold.

Sorry, you need to first get out of the starting gate. Post here in this thread the falsifiable definition of Global Warming so that science can apply to it in the first place. At the moment you have Global Warming as completely undefined. Only a scientifically illiterate moron would believe he could discuss the science of something that is undefined.

Jeffvw wrote:
The insulating material in between goes from very hot to very cold.

You don't have a full grasp of blackbody science, do you? Your understanding is whatever Wikipedia says, right? Egregious errors and all ... and you don't what parts are erroneous. Ask me how I can tell.

Jeffvw wrote:. ITN does not understand this concept.

You should be worried more about yourself. You're about to get your bluff called.

Jeffvw wrote:
Reducing radiance is exactly how you increase temperature in something that is receiving a constant incoming radiance (1st law of thermodynamics).

Science has already answered this question. Radiance and Temperature move in the same direction. If the temperature increases then radiance increases. If you tell me that radiance has decreased then you have told me that the temperature has decreased.

You have been informed. To deny this now officially makes you a science denier.

Lest we forget, do you believe in Global Warming? Do you have a falsifiable definition for Global Warming?

Jeffvw wrote:
I have already said that I don't think Global Warming is a problem.

Jeffvw wrote:
The science backs up some warming.

Jeffvw wrote:
It does not backup catastrophic warming. I'm on your side; I just don't agree that CO2 has zero impact.

Jeffvw wrote:
The physics is solid that there is some impact.

Jeffvw wrote:
Look up statements from respected scientist that are considered deniers such as Judith Curry, Fred Singer, William Happer, Freeman Dysan, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winning physicist), and many others.

Jeffvw wrote:
They all agree that CO2 has a small impact, they just don't think it is a big enough impact to be catastrophic.

Jeffvw wrote:
I can't find any real scientists that think CO2 has no impact.

IBdaMann wrote:I'll give you a clue: there is absolutely no parameter for atmospheric composition in the determination of the earth's average global temperature. I'll let you figure out what that means.

Jeffvw wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:I'll give you a clue: there is absolutely no parameter for atmospheric composition in the determination of the earth's average global temperature. I'll let you figure out what that means.

That you don't understand the science at all.

Jeffvw wrote:
Take for example the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere and latent heat.

Jeffvw wrote:
It has a massive impact on earth's average global temperature.

Jeffvw wrote:
Have you noticed any difference between a cloudy day and a dry sunny day in terms of temperature?