Remember me
▼ Content

the atmosphere is has enough density to trap heat by conduction



Page 2 of 2<12
23-09-2016 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it's "slowing it down" in the sense of reducing the rate of emission.


It is not slowing it down at all. That is the wrong way to look at it.

It is limiting the emission. The same it would limit the absorption.

tanstaafl.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 23:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But it won't limit the absorption, will it? It'll only limit the emission, because of something to do with spectra... right? CO2 will just ignore incoming radiation, but it won't ignore outgoing radiation. That's how the 2nd LoT is "violated" - it's asymmetric?
23-09-2016 23:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: But can't emission be slowed? If I wrapped myself in a material of low emissivity, even ignoring conduction and convection, I wouldn't cool down as quickly, right?


Are you the heat source in your example?

Also, isn't the argument that CO2 is a super IR *absorber* and "radiator*? Isn't the argument that CO2 has a super *HIGH* emissivity? (hint:say "yes") Do you see what problems this causes those who want to get around Stefan-Boltzmann by claiming earth's emissivity is a variable and not a constant, and that CO2 affects earth's emissivity? (hint: it would drive emissivity the wrong way and show global cooling)

By the way, Surface Detail is one of those who tried to "go there" once upon a time out of desperation. It did not work out well for him.

It worked just fine for me. You ended up looking like an idiot with your dogged insistence that no, emissivity can't change, it's a constant I tell you, a constant!! That was funny.

Anyway, of course emissivity can change. If you change the nature of a surface, you change its emissivity. And, get this IBdaMann, emissivity can be a function of wavelength. That's right. A surface can have a low emissivity at one wavelength and a high emissivity at another. So if an object is being heated by radiation of one wavelength and is cooling though emission at a different wavelength, changing its emissivity at one of these wavelengths but not the other will change its temperature.
23-09-2016 23:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But changing the temperature of the upper atmosphere wouldn't change the temperature of the surface, necessarily. Right?
24-09-2016 04:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: But can't emission be slowed? If I wrapped myself in a material of low emissivity, even ignoring conduction and convection, I wouldn't cool down as quickly, right?


Are you the heat source in your example?

Also, isn't the argument that CO2 is a super IR *absorber* and "radiator*? Isn't the argument that CO2 has a super *HIGH* emissivity? (hint:say "yes") Do you see what problems this causes those who want to get around Stefan-Boltzmann by claiming earth's emissivity is a variable and not a constant, and that CO2 affects earth's emissivity? (hint: it would drive emissivity the wrong way and show global cooling)

By the way, Surface Detail is one of those who tried to "go there" once upon a time out of desperation. It did not work out well for him.

It worked just fine for me. You ended up looking like an idiot with your dogged insistence that no, emissivity can't change, it's a constant I tell you, a constant!! That was funny.

Anyway, of course emissivity can change. If you change the nature of a surface, you change its emissivity. And, get this IBdaMann, emissivity can be a function of wavelength. That's right. A surface can have a low emissivity at one wavelength and a high emissivity at another. So if an object is being heated by radiation of one wavelength and is cooling though emission at a different wavelength, changing its emissivity at one of these wavelengths but not the other will change its temperature.


Emissivity is a constant.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 04:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
This is probably a stupid question, but: If I wear a black shirt, and then a white, has my emissivity changed?
24-09-2016 04:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it won't limit the absorption, will it? It'll only limit the emission, because of something to do with spectra... right? CO2 will just ignore incoming radiation, but it won't ignore outgoing radiation. That's how the 2nd LoT is "violated" - it's asymmetric?


Yes, it will limit the absorption in exactly the same way you limit the emission. Spectra has no factor here. We are talking about energy, not the spectra it emits through. CO2 will not ignore incoming radiation. Incoming radiation contains infrared light.

There isn't asymmetric anything going on with energy.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 04:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Not all infrared light is absorbed by CO2, though. And if it... Somehow treats outgoing light differently from all the other gases...

Yeah, this is pretty much a lost cause, but: the energy coming in doesn't interact with CO2, because of its spectrum and CO2's absorbence spectrum. The energy going out does interact with CO2, because of its spectrum and CO2's absorbence spectrum. This is where some sort of asymmetry is supposed to jump in and make the laws of thermodynamics go away.
Edited on 24-09-2016 04:14
24-09-2016 04:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But changing the temperature of the upper atmosphere wouldn't change the temperature of the surface, necessarily. Right?


Right.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 04:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
This is probably a stupid question, but: If I wear a black shirt, and then a white, has my emissivity changed?


Yes. Each time you run S-B on your effective temperature, you must use that constant for that sheet.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 04:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But if I can change my emissivity, why can't we change Earth's emissivity?
24-09-2016 04:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Not all infrared light is absorbed by CO2, though.


Quite true. That happens both ways.

Once CO2 absorbs the light, it is no longer light. It does not bounce off, it does not reflect. in any way.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 04:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote:And, get this IBdaMann, emissivity can be a function of wavelength.]

Of course it can. We've been over this.

The fact remains that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant of emissivity for a body applies across the entire spectrum.

Yes, under laboratory conditions we can focus on specific wavelengths.

This does not apply to the sun and the earth.


.


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
24-09-2016 04:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But if I can change my emissivity, why can't we change Earth's emissivity?


You can. Indeed it changes all the time. The problem is, you can't calculate a total emissivity of the Earth any more than you can calculate its temperature. Emissivity is different for every square foot of Earth.

When you run the S-B equation, you use the emissivity as a constant.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 04:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Would adding CO2 change emissivity directly? I'm leaning toward no - anything that is absorbed either is radiated again, or stays in the atmosphere and is eventually radiated again. Neither scenario does anything to the outflow: more like changing the length of the tube. And since the energy moves quickly, equilibrium would be reached very quickly, so it wouldn't make any difference.
24-09-2016 04:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
jwoodward48 wrote: Would adding CO2 change emissivity directly? I'm leaning toward no.


Correct. Is there any claim that CO2 causes any wavelengths to be reflected?


..


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
24-09-2016 04:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, yeah. If it absorbs the radiation, then some of it will allegedly come back down. What happens to the energy that goes back down? It does go down, right?
04-02-2017 17:27
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:....you cannot make hot coffee with ice.

Surround 2 identically hot cups of coffee in vacuums, one with water ice at say, 25degF & the other with dry ice, say at -200degF. The rate of cooling will be greatest in the coffee surrounded by dry ice.
Therefore, some heat from the water ice (much warmer than the dry ice) will transfer to the coffee to slow its rate of cooling.
In truth, lesser heat from the dry ice will also transfer to the coffee to slow its rate of cooling, but not as rapidly as the coffee surrounded by water ice.
04-02-2017 23:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
jwoodward48 wrote:
A few things to note here:
1. We can actually measure the density of air.
2. You understand that all heat trapped during the day is released at night, right? This doesn't cause the overall average temperature to increase.
3. The surface isn't under constant sunlight. It's called "night."


Please don't treat Chen like an idiot. He asks pertinent questions and tries to answer them in a scientific manner.

Heat is ALSO radiated during the day when the surfaces are heated above the air temperature. And the air can be cooler from air motion bringing in colder air masses.

Depending upon conditions this heat can be conducted into the upper atmosphere and then lost through radiation to space.

If memory serves the earth ends up reflecting something like 37% of the ambient sunlight. This is why the MAIN climate variable is the amount of energy from the sun.
05-02-2017 00:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it won't limit the absorption, will it? It'll only limit the emission, because of something to do with spectra... right? CO2 will just ignore incoming radiation, but it won't ignore outgoing radiation. That's how the 2nd LoT is "violated" - it's asymmetric?


Yes but no. The incoming spectra of the Sun is far above the absorption spectra of CO2. Unfortunately the absorption spectra of CO2 is ABOVE the emission spectra of the Earth.

So CO2 in an unimportant gas.

https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html

Show the spectra comparisons. Notice the narrow absorption spectra of CO2 compared to the Sun and the Earth. O2 not only has a higher latent heat content than CO2 but it also has absorption inside the emission spectra of the Sun.

Let's cover this again: The most potent "greenhouse gas" is the 4% of the atmosphere that is H2O contains 95% of the greenhouse effect CO2 comprises only 4%. Of this CO2 96.5% of it is naturally occurring. Man is blamed for only 3.5% of the CO2 and even that is heavily disputed.

So the AMOUNT of CO2 under question is only 0.12% of the atmosphere and the so-called demon amount is only 0.03%.

The very idea that CO2 has any effect on anything other than increasing the production of plant matter is insane.

This STARTED as a hypothesis of Dr. Michael Mann. It NEVER proved to have the slightest amount of evidence to support it so how did it ever progress from a hypothesis through theory to fact without ONE SINGLE FACT to support it?
Edited on 05-02-2017 00:58
05-02-2017 01:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it won't limit the absorption, will it? It'll only limit the emission, because of something to do with spectra... right? CO2 will just ignore incoming radiation, but it won't ignore outgoing radiation. That's how the 2nd LoT is "violated" - it's asymmetric?


Yes but no. The incoming spectra of the Sun is far above the absorption spectra of CO2. Unfortunately the absorption spectra of CO2 is ABOVE the emission spectra of the Earth.

So CO2 in an unimportant gas.

https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html

Show the spectra comparisons. Notice the narrow absorption spectra of CO2 compared to the Sun and the Earth. O2 not only has a higher latent heat content than CO2 but it also has absorption inside the emission spectra of the Sun.

Let's cover this again: The most potent "greenhouse gas" is the 4% of the atmosphere that is H2O contains 95% of the greenhouse effect CO2 comprises only 4%. Of this CO2 96.5% of it is naturally occurring. Man is blamed for only 3.5% of the CO2 and even that is heavily disputed.

So the AMOUNT of CO2 under question is only 0.12% of the atmosphere and the so-called demon amount is only 0.03%.

The very idea that CO2 has any effect on anything other than increasing the production of plant matter is insane.

This STARTED as a hypothesis of Dr. Michael Mann. It NEVER proved to have the slightest amount of evidence to support it so how did it ever progress from a hypothesis through theory to fact without ONE SINGLE FACT to support it?

Why do you keep repeating obvious lies? All of this is complete drivel. For example, the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 could cause warming was not proposed by Michael Mann, but by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. This is his paper:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
06-02-2017 11:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it won't limit the absorption, will it? It'll only limit the emission, because of something to do with spectra... right? CO2 will just ignore incoming radiation, but it won't ignore outgoing radiation. That's how the 2nd LoT is "violated" - it's asymmetric?


Yes but no. The incoming spectra of the Sun is far above the absorption spectra of CO2. Unfortunately the absorption spectra of CO2 is ABOVE the emission spectra of the Earth.

So CO2 in an unimportant gas.

https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html

Show the spectra comparisons. Notice the narrow absorption spectra of CO2 compared to the Sun and the Earth. O2 not only has a higher latent heat content than CO2 but it also has absorption inside the emission spectra of the Sun.

Let's cover this again: The most potent "greenhouse gas" is the 4% of the atmosphere that is H2O contains 95% of the greenhouse effect CO2 comprises only 4%. Of this CO2 96.5% of it is naturally occurring. Man is blamed for only 3.5% of the CO2 and even that is heavily disputed.

So the AMOUNT of CO2 under question is only 0.12% of the atmosphere and the so-called demon amount is only 0.03%.

The very idea that CO2 has any effect on anything other than increasing the production of plant matter is insane.

This STARTED as a hypothesis of Dr. Michael Mann. It NEVER proved to have the slightest amount of evidence to support it so how did it ever progress from a hypothesis through theory to fact without ONE SINGLE FACT to support it?

Why do you keep repeating obvious lies? All of this is complete drivel. For example, the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 could cause warming was not proposed by Michael Mann, but by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. This is his paper:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


His theory was immediately falsified too, by the laws of thermodynamics...in the 1800s.


The Parrot Killer
06-02-2017 11:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it won't limit the absorption, will it? It'll only limit the emission, because of something to do with spectra... right? CO2 will just ignore incoming radiation, but it won't ignore outgoing radiation. That's how the 2nd LoT is "violated" - it's asymmetric?


Yes but no. The incoming spectra of the Sun is far above the absorption spectra of CO2. Unfortunately the absorption spectra of CO2 is ABOVE the emission spectra of the Earth.

So CO2 in an unimportant gas.

https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2013/02/infrared-absorbing-gases-and-earths.html

Show the spectra comparisons. Notice the narrow absorption spectra of CO2 compared to the Sun and the Earth. O2 not only has a higher latent heat content than CO2 but it also has absorption inside the emission spectra of the Sun.

Let's cover this again: The most potent "greenhouse gas" is the 4% of the atmosphere that is H2O contains 95% of the greenhouse effect CO2 comprises only 4%. Of this CO2 96.5% of it is naturally occurring. Man is blamed for only 3.5% of the CO2 and even that is heavily disputed.

So the AMOUNT of CO2 under question is only 0.12% of the atmosphere and the so-called demon amount is only 0.03%.

The very idea that CO2 has any effect on anything other than increasing the production of plant matter is insane.

This STARTED as a hypothesis of Dr. Michael Mann. It NEVER proved to have the slightest amount of evidence to support it so how did it ever progress from a hypothesis through theory to fact without ONE SINGLE FACT to support it?

Why do you keep repeating obvious lies? All of this is complete drivel. For example, the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 could cause warming was not proposed by Michael Mann, but by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. This is his paper:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


His theory was immediately falsified too, by the laws of thermodynamics...in the 1800s.

Reference?
06-02-2017 14:01
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
His theory was immediately falsified too, by the laws of thermodynamics...in the 1800s.

Reference?


I don't think you are going to get that Reference.


We might get some colourful and amusing insults though.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
06-02-2017 17:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
His theory was immediately falsified too, by the laws of thermodynamics...in the 1800s.

Reference?


I don't think you are going to get that Reference.


We might get some colourful and amusing insults though.


So you mean your normal modus operandi?

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

"Arrhenius eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates "more equable," stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation."
06-02-2017 18:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
jwoodward48 wrote:
A few things to note here:
1. We can actually measure the density of air.
2. You understand that all heat trapped during the day is released at night, right? This doesn't cause the overall average temperature to increase.
3. The surface isn't under constant sunlight. It's called "night."


Where is that coming from? "All of the heat trapped during the day is released at night"? That is a total misunderstanding. In fact that weather patterns spread that heat about and very little of it is radiated off the planet. During the day reflection from stratospheric clouds turns away about 30% of so of the Sun's energy falling on the Earth and the remainder of some 7% is radiated from the Earth into space during the 24 hour day though of course most at night.

This is why planets with atmospheres ALWAYS remain warmer than those without.

The surface of Mercury that faces the Sun and the surface of Venus are almost the same temperature. Mercury has no atmosphere and Venus has the densest atmosphere of all the planets. But this is largely because the orbit puts it close enough to the Sun to change it's original relatively thin atmosphere to a boiling cauldron of sulphuric acid through reduction of the surface mantle. The daylight side of Mercury and most of the surface of Venus are essentially lava. Now the Venusian atmosphere has struck a break even point and is reflecting off the majority of solar energy it receives.

http://www.smartconversion.com/otherInfo/Temperature_of_planets_and_the_Sun.aspx

Remember that these temperatures are in Kelvin and that the temperature of Venus is at the surface of the atmosphere and not at ground level.
06-02-2017 19:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
His theory was immediately falsified too, by the laws of thermodynamics...in the 1800s.

Reference?


I don't think you are going to get that Reference.


We might get some colourful and amusing insults though.


So you mean your normal modus operandi?

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

"Arrhenius eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates "more equable," stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation."

So your claim that Michael Mann was responsible for the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 could cause warming is clearly wrong, isn't it? Care to acknowledge your mistake?
06-02-2017 19:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it won't limit the absorption, will it? It'll only limit the emission, because of something to do with spectra... right? CO2 will just ignore incoming radiation, but it won't ignore outgoing radiation. That's how the 2nd LoT is "violated" - it's asymmetric?


Again you have a misunderstanding. The LoT is never violated. CO2 only absorbs in the energy bands at which it can synchronized. And for CO2 that is mostly in bands in which very little energy is available. The bottom of the Sun's emission and the top of the Earth's emissions. Part of the Earth's emission is surrendering heat energy from the Sun's emission and the Earth's absorbance but there is also some losses through the Earth's mantle from the molten interior left over from planetary formation.
06-02-2017 19:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
His theory was immediately falsified too, by the laws of thermodynamics...in the 1800s.

Reference?


I don't think you are going to get that Reference.


We might get some colourful and amusing insults though.


So you mean your normal modus operandi?

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

"Arrhenius eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates "more equable," stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation."

So your claim that Michael Mann was responsible for the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 could cause warming is clearly wrong, isn't it? Care to acknowledge your mistake?


Your idiotic reference to a chemist who in fact used a method of chemistry and not energy states does not relieve you of anything other than a technical triumph. The presence of the "greenhouse effect" was popularized by Dr. Mann and his interpretations turned out to be totally incorrect. But that's OK, you can pretend he was right.

After all, Snopes will tell you that he was correct. They will also tell you that there are only 11 million illegal aliens in the US. And that snow in the winter is proof of climate change or that Obama deported more illegals than any other President despite most of his "deported" illegals simply turning around and being back in the USA within one week.
06-02-2017 19:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
His theory was immediately falsified too, by the laws of thermodynamics...in the 1800s.

Reference?


I don't think you are going to get that Reference.


We might get some colourful and amusing insults though.


So you mean your normal modus operandi?

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

"Arrhenius eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates "more equable," stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation."

So your claim that Michael Mann was responsible for the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 could cause warming is clearly wrong, isn't it? Care to acknowledge your mistake?


Your idiotic reference to a chemist who in fact used a method of chemistry and not energy states does not relieve you of anything other than a technical triumph. The presence of the "greenhouse effect" was popularized by Dr. Mann and his interpretations turned out to be totally incorrect. But that's OK, you can pretend he was right.

After all, Snopes will tell you that he was correct. They will also tell you that there are only 11 million illegal aliens in the US. And that snow in the winter is proof of climate change or that Obama deported more illegals than any other President despite most of his "deported" illegals simply turning around and being back in the USA within one week.

A simple "sorry" would have sufficed.
06-02-2017 19:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Wake wrote:

"Arrhenius eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates "more equable," stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation."



Our fellow forum contributor Into the night seems to think that the laws of physics somehow disprove Arrhenius work. You can quote what we referred to if it makes you feel better. Arrhenius speculated that the effect he discovered would be beneficial nowadays of course we have better a understanding. I fail to understand what you are trying to prove though.

My own personal opinion is that Into the Night is as mad as a box of frogs.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
07-02-2017 01:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
The daylight side of Mercury and most of the surface of Venus are essentially lava. Now the Venusian atmosphere has struck a break even point and is reflecting off the majority of solar energy it receives.

Just another of Wake's little lies (he makes it up as he goes along):

Mercury - craters, not lava:



Venus - rocks, not lava:

08-02-2017 23:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The daylight side of Mercury and most of the surface of Venus are essentially lava. Now the Venusian atmosphere has struck a break even point and is reflecting off the majority of solar energy it receives.

Just another of Wake's little lies (he makes it up as he goes along):

Mercury - craters, not lava:



Venus - rocks, not lava:



Do you understand the MEANING of "essentially"? The Venus lander stopped working seconds after it touched down and measured the surface temperature as 462 degrees C. Depending upon the rock type lava temperatures can vary from 700 to 1200 degrees C. Are you telling us that there is ANY substantial difference between a surface rock cooled by the atmosphere as much as 400 degree C. is not essentially lava? Why don't you touch it and see if it burns you stupid?
08-02-2017 23:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The daylight side of Mercury and most of the surface of Venus are essentially lava. Now the Venusian atmosphere has struck a break even point and is reflecting off the majority of solar energy it receives.

Just another of Wake's little lies (he makes it up as he goes along):

Mercury - craters, not lava:



Venus - rocks, not lava:



Do you understand the MEANING of "essentially"? The Venus lander stopped working seconds after it touched down and measured the surface temperature as 462 degrees C. Depending upon the rock type lava temperatures can vary from 700 to 1200 degrees C. Are you telling us that there is ANY substantial difference between a surface rock cooled by the atmosphere as much as 400 degree C. is not essentially lava? Why don't you touch it and see if it burns you stupid?

The atmosphere of Venus is not cooling the planet; it is keeping it hot. That's why the average temperature of Venus is higher than that of Mercury, despite it being further from the sun. And 462 C is less than 700 C, as even someone of your modest mathematical talents should be able to discern. Just being hot doesn't make something "essentially lava".

I should stick to insults rather than reason if I were you; the latter is clearly not where your talents lie.
09-02-2017 03:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The daylight side of Mercury and most of the surface of Venus are essentially lava. Now the Venusian atmosphere has struck a break even point and is reflecting off the majority of solar energy it receives.

Just another of Wake's little lies (he makes it up as he goes along):

Mercury - craters, not lava:



Venus - rocks, not lava:



Do you understand the MEANING of "essentially"? The Venus lander stopped working seconds after it touched down and measured the surface temperature as 462 degrees C. Depending upon the rock type lava temperatures can vary from 700 to 1200 degrees C. Are you telling us that there is ANY substantial difference between a surface rock cooled by the atmosphere as much as 400 degree C. is not essentially lava? Why don't you touch it and see if it burns you stupid?

The atmosphere of Venus is not cooling the planet; it is keeping it hot. That's why the average temperature of Venus is higher than that of Mercury, despite it being further from the sun. And 462 C is less than 700 C, as even someone of your modest mathematical talents should be able to discern. Just being hot doesn't make something "essentially lava".

I should stick to insults rather than reason if I were you; the latter is clearly not where your talents lie.


The atmosphere of Venus IS cooling the planet. That atmosphere is so much more dense though it is far more effective at being heated by the surface. It also contains a large amount of carbon dioxide and is absorbing energy from the Sun better. It's density also helps to move the energy around. Despite the 4 month long daytime (our months) and 4 month long nighttime, temperatures from day to night on Venus remain virtually the same.

Mercury has a much shorter day length, accomplishing a complete rotation in only 58 days (our days).


The Parrot Killer
09-02-2017 11:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The daylight side of Mercury and most of the surface of Venus are essentially lava. Now the Venusian atmosphere has struck a break even point and is reflecting off the majority of solar energy it receives.

Just another of Wake's little lies (he makes it up as he goes along):

Mercury - craters, not lava:



Venus - rocks, not lava:



Do you understand the MEANING of "essentially"? The Venus lander stopped working seconds after it touched down and measured the surface temperature as 462 degrees C. Depending upon the rock type lava temperatures can vary from 700 to 1200 degrees C. Are you telling us that there is ANY substantial difference between a surface rock cooled by the atmosphere as much as 400 degree C. is not essentially lava? Why don't you touch it and see if it burns you stupid?

The atmosphere of Venus is not cooling the planet; it is keeping it hot. That's why the average temperature of Venus is higher than that of Mercury, despite it being further from the sun. And 462 C is less than 700 C, as even someone of your modest mathematical talents should be able to discern. Just being hot doesn't make something "essentially lava".

I should stick to insults rather than reason if I were you; the latter is clearly not where your talents lie.


The atmosphere of Venus IS cooling the planet. That atmosphere is so much more dense though it is far more effective at being heated by the surface. It also contains a large amount of carbon dioxide and is absorbing energy from the Sun better. It's density also helps to move the energy around. Despite the 4 month long daytime (our months) and 4 month long nighttime, temperatures from day to night on Venus remain virtually the same.

Mercury has a much shorter day length, accomplishing a complete rotation in only 58 days (our days).

Venus has an average temperature that exceeds the maximum temperature of Mercury, despite being further from the sun, yet you two geniuses think that the atmosphere of Venus is cooling the plant? How the hell do you work that out? Do you really think that Venus would be even hotter without its atmosphere?
09-02-2017 21:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it's "slowing it down" in the sense of reducing the rate of emission.


It is not slowing it down at all. That is the wrong way to look at it.

It is limiting the emission. The same it would limit the absorption.

tanstaafl.


If you dig around you will find papers to the effect that in the US man's contribution has dropped some 30%. But this is not due to the reduction in CO2 output but because industry has moved to China. So we are outsourcing out CO2 production. And to a country with essentially no rules or regulations that is not a member of the IPCC.
09-02-2017 22:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it's "slowing it down" in the sense of reducing the rate of emission.


It is not slowing it down at all. That is the wrong way to look at it.

It is limiting the emission. The same it would limit the absorption.

tanstaafl.


If you dig around you will find papers to the effect that in the US man's contribution has dropped some 30%. But this is not due to the reduction in CO2 output but because industry has moved to China. So we are outsourcing out CO2 production. And to a country with essentially no rules or regulations that is not a member of the IPCC.

China is, or course, a member of the IPCC, and it does have rules and regulations, though not to the same standard as most western countries. However, your point is a fair one. This is why it is essential for all the countries of the world to work together to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise there is indeed a risk of simply exporting emissions. Hence the need for such things as the Paris Agreement.
09-02-2017 23:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it's "slowing it down" in the sense of reducing the rate of emission.


It is not slowing it down at all. That is the wrong way to look at it.

It is limiting the emission. The same it would limit the absorption.

tanstaafl.


If you dig around you will find papers to the effect that in the US man's contribution has dropped some 30%. But this is not due to the reduction in CO2 output but because industry has moved to China. So we are outsourcing out CO2 production. And to a country with essentially no rules or regulations that is not a member of the IPCC.


Off topic use of my post. I was not talking about CO2 emissions.


The Parrot Killer
10-02-2017 02:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But it's "slowing it down" in the sense of reducing the rate of emission.


It is not slowing it down at all. That is the wrong way to look at it.

It is limiting the emission. The same it would limit the absorption.

tanstaafl.


If you dig around you will find papers to the effect that in the US man's contribution has dropped some 30%. But this is not due to the reduction in CO2 output but because industry has moved to China. So we are outsourcing out CO2 production. And to a country with essentially no rules or regulations that is not a member of the IPCC.


Off topic use of my post. I was not talking about CO2 emissions.

Do you still maintain that the atmosphere of Venus is cooling the planet, or would you rather that we quietly forget about that?
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate the atmosphere is has enough density to trap heat by conduction:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
Heat7119-04-2019 23:53
▲ 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