the atmosphere is has enough density to trap heat by conduction

jwoodward48 wrote:
But it's "slowing it down" in the sense of reducing the rate of emission.

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.

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.

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?

jwoodward48 wrote:
But changing the temperature of the upper atmosphere wouldn't change the temperature of the surface, necessarily. Right?

jwoodward48 wrote:
This is probably a stupid question, but: If I wear a black shirt, and then a white, has my emissivity changed?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Not all infrared light is absorbed by CO2, though.

Surface Detail wrote:And, get this IBdaMann, emissivity can be a function of wavelength.]

jwoodward48 wrote:
But if I can change my emissivity, why can't we change Earth's emissivity?

jwoodward48 wrote: Would adding CO2 change emissivity directly? I'm leaning toward no.

"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.

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."

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?

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?

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

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.

Surface Detail wrote:

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

Reference?

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.

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."

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."

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?

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?

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.

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."

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.

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:

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.