Remember me
▼ Content

the atmosphere is has enough density to trap heat by conduction



Page 1 of 212>
the atmosphere is has enough density to trap heat by conduction21-09-2016 06:37
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
When a bird flaps its wings, the air pushes it forward at great speed. From this, we are sure the air has great density. Even if there is no CO2 or H2O in the air that can absorb infrared radiation, there is enough O2 and N2 molecules in the air to trap heat by conduction. They pick up heat from the ground, which causes the ground to be cool otherwise the ground would be well over 100 C at day. They pass heat among themselves and with the ground otherwise the ground would be well below -100 C at night. It is conduction by molecules in the air that makes Earth hospitable to life, cool at day, warm at night.

I quote.

A piece of bare metal in space, under constant sunlight can get as hot as two-hundred-sixty (260) degrees Celsius. This is dangerous to astronauts who have to work outside the station.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/
Edited on 21-09-2016 06:40
21-09-2016 06:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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."
21-09-2016 15:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: ... there is enough O2 and N2 molecules in the air to trap heat by conduction.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy.

No substance can "trap" heat any better than a spaghetti strainer can trap water.

Conduction is a manner of transferring thermal energy, not of "trapping" it. No substance can "trap" thermal energy.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 15:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes, they can. A blanket "traps" thermal energy by reducing dissipation. GHG "trap" thermal energy by reducing dissipation.

Do you understand what specific heat is? Some objects "trap" thermal energy within themselves better than others.
21-09-2016 15:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, they can. A blanket "traps" thermal energy by reducing dissipation. GHG "trap" thermal energy by reducing dissipation.

Do you understand what specific heat is? Some objects "trap" thermal energy within themselves better than others.

You mentioned your biology professor and your kid sister in other threads, leading me to assume that you're still a student yourself. If so, I must say that I'm pretty impressed by the quality of your posts, and I'm sure you'll go on to do well.

If not, sorry for being condescending!
21-09-2016 16:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, they can. A blanket "traps" thermal energy by reducing dissipation. GHG "trap" thermal energy by reducing dissipation.

Do you understand what specific heat is? Some objects "trap" thermal energy within themselves better than others.


Perhaps either Surface Detail or yourself can list some substance that does not permit itself to thermally emit because it "traps" the thermal energy.

Then perhaps you can post the Global Warming equation.

Then perhaps you can post the science model that contains data and/or observations.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 16:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It does not trap all radiation, just some. It slows down the energy escape by back radiating some radiation to Earth again, instead of it all going to space.
21-09-2016 18:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote: It slows down the energy escape by back radiating some radiation to Earth again, instead of it all going to space.

Wait, how does the direction of escape translate into it being trapped by the substance?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 18:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Because if it "escapes" back to Earth, it hasn't escaped at all!
21-09-2016 20:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Because if it "escapes" back to Earth, it hasn't escaped at all!


This is an attempt to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics by using radiated heating.

No matter how you try, dude, you cannot make hot coffee with ice.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 21:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's not violating the 2nd. The overall heat flow is still toward cooler things. It's just that the net heat flow away from Earth is diminished.
Edited on 21-09-2016 21:25
21-09-2016 23:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It's not violating the 2nd. The overall heat flow is still toward cooler things. It's just that the net heat flow away from Earth is diminished.


This denies your own argument.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 23:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...no, it doesn't.

It's like applying insulation to a house. The heat dissipation is slowed, but still present; if you kept your heater at enough to heat the house to 70 F before the insulation, and didn't change it after the insulation, the house would heat up.
22-09-2016 00:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...no, it doesn't.

It's like applying insulation to a house. The heat dissipation is slowed, but still present; if you kept your heater at enough to heat the house to 70 F before the insulation, and didn't change it after the insulation, the house would heat up.


The Magick Blanket argument again. My response is still the same.

It doesn't work for the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 00:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
...no, it doesn't.

It's like applying insulation to a house. The heat dissipation is slowed, but still present; if you kept your heater at enough to heat the house to 70 F before the insulation, and didn't change it after the insulation, the house would heat up.


The Magick Blanket argument again. My response is still the same.

It doesn't work for the atmosphere.

Yes it does, because of the insulating effect of greenhouse gases.
22-09-2016 00:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Calling something a Magick Blanket doesn't make it any less scientific. I mean, "spooky action at a distance" - what could seem less scientific? Except that quantum entanglement is firmly grounded in science and observation.
22-09-2016 00:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
...no, it doesn't.

It's like applying insulation to a house. The heat dissipation is slowed, but still present; if you kept your heater at enough to heat the house to 70 F before the insulation, and didn't change it after the insulation, the house would heat up.


The Magick Blanket argument again. My response is still the same.

It doesn't work for the atmosphere.

Yes it does, because of the insulating effect of greenhouse gases.


No gas acts as an insulator.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 01:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That's positively false. Hydrogen is a better insulator than glass - the reason we don't use it for windows is that it has the annoying tendency to float away. More seriously, the atmosphere doesn't act as a thermal insulator because it can move around easily, forming convection currents. Why do you think that gas-filled windows exist?

Surface is saying "insulative" to refer to the analogy of a house. The atmosphere really acts more like a semitransparent thermos - some is let through, some is "bounced". The "bouncing" is made up of absorption and radiation, some of which is angled toward Earth.
Edited on 22-09-2016 01:03
22-09-2016 04:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That's positively false. Hydrogen is a better insulator than glass - the reason we don't use it for windows is that it has the annoying

He was talking about thermal radiation.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 05:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
And yet it insulates.

See, part of the radiation is absorbed. You do not deny this. Right?

The molecules that absorb the energy will re-emit, sometimes, that energy as radiation. You do not deny this. Right?

Some of this radiation will be pointed down. You do not deny this. Right?

Some of this radiation is absorbed, not reflected. You do not deny this. Right?

Now we have an increase in the amount of energy hitting the surface. This leads to an increase in temperature. You somehow deny this.
22-09-2016 12:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
And yet it insulates.

See, part of the radiation is absorbed. You do not deny this. Right?

The molecules that absorb the energy will re-emit, sometimes, that energy as radiation. You do not deny this. Right?

Some of this radiation will be pointed down. You do not deny this. Right?

Some of this radiation is absorbed, not reflected. You do not deny this. Right?

Now we have an increase in the amount of energy hitting the surface. This leads to an increase in temperature. You somehow deny this.


You somehow keep forgetting the laws of thermodynamics too.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 13:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
And yet it insulates.

See, part of the radiation is absorbed. You do not deny this. Right?

The molecules that absorb the energy will re-emit, sometimes, that energy as radiation. You do not deny this. Right?

Some of this radiation will be pointed down. You do not deny this. Right?

Some of this radiation is absorbed, not reflected. You do not deny this. Right?

Now we have an increase in the amount of energy hitting the surface. This leads to an increase in temperature. You somehow deny this.


You somehow keep forgetting the laws of thermodynamics too.

No, that would be you. Why do you think an increase in the energy absorbed by the Earth won't increase its temperature?
22-09-2016 15:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
People misuse the 2nd LoT too much. It means that the entropy of a closed system must increase. (Or maybe an isolated system?) The intuitive definitions are rarely entirely correct, or they easily lead to false assumptions.

Do you deny that absorption and radiation, some of which returns to the surface, will decrease outflow?
Edited on 22-09-2016 15:38
22-09-2016 15:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote: People misuse the 2nd LoT too much.

The 2nd LoT applies everywhere at all times. Is that too much?

jwoodward48 wrote: It means that the entropy of a closed system must increase. (Or maybe an isolated system?) Do you deny that absorption and radiation, some of which returns to the surface, will decrease outflow?

Well, if we ask Stefan-Boltzmann, the clear, obvious answer is "outflow increases if inflow increases" and "outflow increases if temperature increases."

Are you and Stefan-Boltzmann still not talking to each other?

Too funny.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 17:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote: And yet it insulates.

"Insulation" is not applicable with thermal radiation.

jwoodward48 wrote: The molecules that absorb the energy will re-emit

Will they simply "emit" or will they "re-emit" the exact same frequency that was absorbed?

I do not deny that energy is changing form, i.e. EM -> thermal -> EM -> thermal -> EM -> etc...

jwoodward48 wrote: Some of this radiation will be pointed down. You do not deny this. Right?

Radiation goes in all directions, it's just not pointed.



jwoodward48 wrote: Now we have an increase in the amount of energy hitting the surface.

You haven't shown this. You have shown that more energy leaves the surface, thus increasing surface cooling. In fact, you describe an exact offsetting balance of cooling that you strangely don't emphasize. In any event, what is clear is that you aren't accounting for everything.

I suggest you start accounting for every photon *OR* go with Stefan-Boltzmann which accounts for everything without the need to discuss photons.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 18:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: And yet it insulates.

"Insulation" is not applicable with thermal radiation.


It reduces the outflow of energy.

jwoodward48 wrote: The molecules that absorb the energy will re-emit

Will they simply "emit" or will they "re-emit" the exact same frequency that was absorbed?

I do not deny that energy is changing form, i.e. EM -> thermal -> EM -> thermal -> EM -> etc...


The amount of energy that goes back down is irrelevant. Some energy is going down.

jwoodward48 wrote: Some of this radiation will be pointed down. You do not deny this. Right?

Radiation goes in all directions, it's just not pointed.


*breath*

Radiation is defined as pointing down, going down, or having the direction of "down" if the vector that describes the velocity of the photon, when using a polar coordinate system in which a vector perpendicular to the Earth's surface is of the form <0, a> where x is a positive real number, is of the form <c, d> where d is a negative nonzero real number.

Satisfied?

jwoodward48 wrote: Now we have an increase in the amount of energy hitting the surface.

You haven't shown this. You have shown that more energy leaves the surface, thus increasing surface cooling. In fact, you describe an exact offsetting balance of cooling that you strangely don't emphasize. In any event, what is clear is that you aren't accounting for everything.


What "exact offsetting balance of cooling"? If the energy emitted from the surface increases, some of the "new" outflow will also be redirected back to the surface. I don't think you understand the mathematics underlying the equilibrium I'm describing.

I suggest you start accounting for every photon *OR* go with Stefan-Boltzmann which accounts for everything without the need to discuss photons.


Except that observation of exoplanets disproves SB when used this way. I won't use a law in a situation that it does not apply to.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
22-09-2016 18:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote: It reduces the outflow of energy.

Except that it doesn't.

jwoodward48 wrote:The amount of energy that goes back down is irrelevant. Some energy is going down.

Whatever. Yes. So what?

jwoodward48 wrote:

[quote][quote]jwoodward48 wrote: What "exact offsetting balance of cooling"?

Did you say that some energy is emitted by the atmosphere towards the earth?

Is the atmosphere thus cooling by exactly the amount the earth is warming? Does that energy then leave the surface? That's additional cooling that wouldn't have otherwise happened, yes?

The 1st LoT says that energy can only change form. Every single example of additional warming is offset by the exact amount of cooling that you aren't mentioning. Why are you omitting all that additional cooling? Why don't you want to talk about all that additional cooling? Are you afraid that if you add it up that all that additional cooling will amount to more than the additional warming?

Well fear not! The 1st LoT says that they will BOTH always balance out and the overall average temperature will remain the same.

Warming. Cooling. Exact correspondence. Good ol' 1st LoT!

jwoodward48 wrote: Except that observation of exoplanets disproves SB when used this way.

Why are you not out winning the Nobel Prize in physics with this? I'll gladly partner with you on the paper.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 18:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It disproves this use of SB. Are you saying that the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy has spread to astronomy too?
22-09-2016 19:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote: It disproves this use of SB.

We only need to disprove one, and we're set for life!

jwoodward48 wrote: Are you saying that the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy has spread to astronomy too?

If they'll help me win the Nobel Prize in physics then they can go wherever they want!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 19:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
After that, let's disprove the Ideal Gas Law! It'll be a revolutionary advancement in science!
22-09-2016 19:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
jwoodward48 wrote:
After that, let's disprove the Ideal Gas Law! It'll be a revolutionary advancement in science!

If you can do it, as you have stated you have done, then I'm with you.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-09-2016 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
And yet it insulates.

See, part of the radiation is absorbed. You do not deny this. Right?

The molecules that absorb the energy will re-emit, sometimes, that energy as radiation. You do not deny this. Right?

Some of this radiation will be pointed down. You do not deny this. Right?

Some of this radiation is absorbed, not reflected. You do not deny this. Right?

Now we have an increase in the amount of energy hitting the surface. This leads to an increase in temperature. You somehow deny this.


You somehow keep forgetting the laws of thermodynamics too.

No, that would be you. Why do you think an increase in the energy absorbed by the Earth won't increase its temperature?


There has been no significant increase in energy absorbed by the Earth. The sun has not significantly changed, and the Earth has not significantly changed.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: And yet it insulates.

"Insulation" is not applicable with thermal radiation.


It reduces the outflow of energy.

jwoodward48 wrote: The molecules that absorb the energy will re-emit

Will they simply "emit" or will they "re-emit" the exact same frequency that was absorbed?

I do not deny that energy is changing form, i.e. EM -> thermal -> EM -> thermal -> EM -> etc...


The amount of energy that goes back down is irrelevant. Some energy is going down.

jwoodward48 wrote: Some of this radiation will be pointed down. You do not deny this. Right?

Radiation goes in all directions, it's just not pointed.


*breath*

Radiation is defined as pointing down, going down, or having the direction of "down" if the vector that describes the velocity of the photon, when using a polar coordinate system in which a vector perpendicular to the Earth's surface is of the form <0, a> where x is a positive real number, is of the form <c, d> where d is a negative nonzero real number.

Satisfied?

jwoodward48 wrote: Now we have an increase in the amount of energy hitting the surface.

You haven't shown this. You have shown that more energy leaves the surface, thus increasing surface cooling. In fact, you describe an exact offsetting balance of cooling that you strangely don't emphasize. In any event, what is clear is that you aren't accounting for everything.


What "exact offsetting balance of cooling"? If the energy emitted from the surface increases, some of the "new" outflow will also be redirected back to the surface. I don't think you understand the mathematics underlying the equilibrium I'm describing.

I suggest you start accounting for every photon *OR* go with Stefan-Boltzmann which accounts for everything without the need to discuss photons.


Except that observation of exoplanets disproves SB when used this way. I won't use a law in a situation that it does not apply to.


Enjoy your hot iced coffee then.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 21:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The second law is not violated - if the Sun were not constantly supplying energy, GHG would only slow our cooling to an inevitable icy death, not stop it. "The Sun" refutes both Creationists' and GWDeniers' use of the 2nd LoT.
23-09-2016 20:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The second law is not violated - if the Sun were not constantly supplying energy, GHG would only slow our cooling to an inevitable icy death, not stop it. "The Sun" refutes both Creationists' and GWDeniers' use of the 2nd LoT.


There would be no difference.

You are now trying to justify the ability to make hot coffee with ice by redirection.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-09-2016 20:00
23-09-2016 22:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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?
23-09-2016 22:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 22:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...yes. You're right. That argument doesn't work.

Also, thank you so much for not calling anybody names or insulting people, just giving the facts and the data.
23-09-2016 22:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
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?


That's not slowing down emission. That's limiting it. That's like saying you can change the speed of light with a dimmer switch.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 22:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But it's "slowing it down" in the sense of reducing the rate of emission.
Page 1 of 212>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
▲ 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