Remember me
▼ Content

The Atmosphere's Ability to Absorb and Release Heat



Page 2 of 4<1234>
09-05-2017 20:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
One reason why I believe CO2 changes in our atmosphere goes back to when I was in the U.S. Navy. I went to school for Propulsion Engineering and worked in an engine room on the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk.
An observation that I made was that water even when hot does not expand in a vacuum. This is important. In order for gas to become a gas it has to be able to expand. An example is when it's foggy outside. This is because there is a lot of water in the atmosphere at ground level.
Driving over the Kentucky River on a cold day the fog will be so dense that it's not possible to see the river creating the fog. And current belief is that the fog exists because a sufficient heat transfer according to the Laws of Thermodynamics has happened. It hasn't. What allows us to know this is that the fog is anything but warm.
What does allow for it is Conservation of Momentum. It is possible that atmospheric gases are transferring angular momentum to water molecules. If so then when a water molecule has sufficient angular momentum then it could have sufficient kinetic energy absent of a heat transfer to become a gas.
And at the end of the day it would take an actual scientist(s) to determine something like this happens. This is because of the amount of work which includes the math to properly illustrate such relationships.
I have let Dr. Guzman know my opinion and if I am right it would be nice. And if there is some way that he is able and willing to become involved with this experiment then I would be lucky in a way. After all, he does have other work that he has already been involved with.

Jim

p.s., a link to a thread where I posted a link to an ice core researcher's opinion about climate change. Mine is the 2nd post.
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/postify.php?post=reply&error=0&forum_id=6&thread_id=1412&post_id=19804
Edited on 09-05-2017 20:47
09-05-2017 21:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
@All,
One reason why I believe CO2 changes in our atmosphere goes back to when I was in the U.S. Navy. I went to school for Propulsion Engineering and worked in an engine room on the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk.
An observation that I made was that water even when hot does not expand in a vacuum. This is important. In order for gas to become a gas it has to be able to expand. An example is when it's foggy outside. This is because there is a lot of water in the atmosphere at ground level.
Driving over the Kentucky River on a cold day the fog will be so dense that it's not possible to see the river creating the fog. And current belief is that the fog exists because a sufficient heat transfer according to the Laws of Thermodynamics has happened. It hasn't. What allows us to know this is that the fog is anything but warm.
What does allow for it is Conservation of Momentum. It is possible that atmospheric gases are transferring angular momentum to water molecules. If so then when a water molecule has sufficient angular momentum then it could have sufficient kinetic energy absent of a heat transfer to become a gas.
And at the end of the day it would take an actual scientist(s) to determine something like this happens. This is because of the amount of work which includes the math to properly illustrate such relationships.
I have let Dr. Guzman know my opinion and if I am right it would be nice. And if there is some way that he is able and willing to become involved with this experiment then I would be lucky in a way. After all, he does have other work that he has already been involved with.

Jim

p.s., a link to a thread where I posted a link to an ice core researcher's opinion about climate change. Mine is the 2nd post.
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/postify.php?post=reply&error=0&forum_id=6&thread_id=1412&post_id=19804


During the day sunlight can give sufficient energy to nearby bodies of water to increase the atmospheric humidity. Remember that this requires quite a bit of energy because initially the liquid is converted to a gas - a state change - without raising the heat of the gas.

Why is this? Because the gaseous form of water is less dense. And so in order to have the equal heat the original heat of the water has been spread thin by the change into the thinner gas phase. So in order to retain the same temperature you have a lot of energy added to the new form.

As the air cools in the evening it is removing heat from the gas and if the air temperature falls to the point where the air falls below the dew point the humidity in the air exceeds 100% and the phase of the water goes from gas to liquid and water droplets are suspended in the air mass.

This has nothing to do with a vacuum or angular momentum at all. It only has to do with the presence of H2O and its temperature.

Water would turn from liquid to gas in a vacuum for the same reason it does so in an atmosphere - you must add sufficient energy to cause a change of state.

Perhaps you are explaining your ideas too roughly.
11-05-2017 17:59
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

During the day sunlight can give sufficient energy to nearby bodies of water to increase the atmospheric humidity. Remember that this requires quite a bit of energy because initially the liquid is converted to a gas - a state change - without raising the heat of the gas.



Wade,
This is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why I am hoping a research scientist will work with me. Then if Conservation of Momentum can be considered as to what can allow a change in state without raising the temperature then it would be "our" experiment, that is mine and the researcher willing to help demonstrate this. And then any further research would be if they have any such desire. As for myself I have wood working I wish to pursue and would require my focusing on that.


Jim
11-05-2017 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

During the day sunlight can give sufficient energy to nearby bodies of water to increase the atmospheric humidity. Remember that this requires quite a bit of energy because initially the liquid is converted to a gas - a state change - without raising the heat of the gas.



Wade,
This is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why I am hoping a research scientist will work with me. Then if Conservation of Momentum can be considered as to what can allow a change in state without raising the temperature then it would be "our" experiment, that is mine and the researcher willing to help demonstrate this. And then any further research would be if they have any such desire. As for myself I have wood working I wish to pursue and would require my focusing on that.


Jim


It is easy to demonstrate. Put a saucer of water on the counter and leave it for several days. The water evaporates. Where did it go?

It is part of the humidity of the air. Water does not have to become steam to be a vapor. Simple diffusion of water into the air is possible, even at temperatures well below freezing.

When ice 'evaporates', we call it sublimation. When liquid water evaporates, we call it 'evaporation'.

Water diffuses into the air and the air condenses into water (or deposits as ice). It is an equilibrium reaction. The higher the temperature of the air, the more water vapor it can hold. As temperature moves up, the equilibrium favors more humidity. As temperature drops, the equilibrium favors less humidity.


The Parrot Killer
11-05-2017 19:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

During the day sunlight can give sufficient energy to nearby bodies of water to increase the atmospheric humidity. Remember that this requires quite a bit of energy because initially the liquid is converted to a gas - a state change - without raising the heat of the gas.



Wade,
This is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why I am hoping a research scientist will work with me. Then if Conservation of Momentum can be considered as to what can allow a change in state without raising the temperature then it would be "our" experiment, that is mine and the researcher willing to help demonstrate this. And then any further research would be if they have any such desire. As for myself I have wood working I wish to pursue and would require my focusing on that.


Jim


It is easy to demonstrate. Put a saucer of water on the counter and leave it for several days. The water evaporates. Where did it go?

It is part of the humidity of the air. Water does not have to become steam to be a vapor. Simple diffusion of water into the air is possible, even at temperatures well below freezing.

When ice 'evaporates', we call it sublimation. When liquid water evaporates, we call it 'evaporation'.

Water diffuses into the air and the air condenses into water (or deposits as ice). It is an equilibrium reaction. The higher the temperature of the air, the more water vapor it can hold. As temperature moves up, the equilibrium favors more humidity. As temperature drops, the equilibrium favors less humidity.


Again, this violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. To convert 100.0 g of water at 20.0 °C to steam at 100.0 °C requires 259.5 kJ of energy.

For this problem, there are only two heats to consider:
q1 = heat required to warm the water from 20.0 °C to 100.0 °C.
q2 = heat required to vapourize the water to steam at 100 °C.
q1= mcΔT = "100.0 g × 4.184 J"^°"C"^(-1)"g"^(-1) × 80.0^°"C" = "33 472 J"
q_2 = mΔH_"vap" = "100.0 g × 2260 J·g"^(-1) = "226 000 J"
q_1 + q_2 = "( 33 472 + 226 000) J = 259 472 J = 259.5 kJ"

This means that 1 gram of water requires 2.595 kj of heat to become a vapor.
Of course as I have been saying, 2.595 kj of energy equivalent in the form of momentum will produce the same energy levels in water to allow it to convert to a vapor without an increase in temperature.
And with this it would most likely take someone with a Ph.D. to get all of the details right. Then at that time it is something that would probably be accepted by mainstream science.

(https://socratic.org/questions/how-much-energy-is-required-to-convert-100-0-g-of-water-at-20-0-c-completely-to-)
12-05-2017 01:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

During the day sunlight can give sufficient energy to nearby bodies of water to increase the atmospheric humidity. Remember that this requires quite a bit of energy because initially the liquid is converted to a gas - a state change - without raising the heat of the gas.



Wade,
This is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why I am hoping a research scientist will work with me. Then if Conservation of Momentum can be considered as to what can allow a change in state without raising the temperature then it would be "our" experiment, that is mine and the researcher willing to help demonstrate this. And then any further research would be if they have any such desire. As for myself I have wood working I wish to pursue and would require my focusing on that.


Jim


It is easy to demonstrate. Put a saucer of water on the counter and leave it for several days. The water evaporates. Where did it go?

It is part of the humidity of the air. Water does not have to become steam to be a vapor. Simple diffusion of water into the air is possible, even at temperatures well below freezing.

When ice 'evaporates', we call it sublimation. When liquid water evaporates, we call it 'evaporation'.

Water diffuses into the air and the air condenses into water (or deposits as ice). It is an equilibrium reaction. The higher the temperature of the air, the more water vapor it can hold. As temperature moves up, the equilibrium favors more humidity. As temperature drops, the equilibrium favors less humidity.


This does not address the ideas that Jim had that I was discussing with him.

He is under the impression that my claim that state changes absorb lots of heat but do not change temperature in the phase change breaks the laws of thermodynamics. But in fact it is the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics.

The change of state requires a rending of molecular bonds (or making them) hence work is done and the input (or output) heat is expended without raising (or dropping) the heat of the material in which the phase change occurs.

I tried to put it in simpler terms and obviously failed in my explanation.

I said that water would change state in a vacuum simply with added or subtracted heat but that was purely illustrative. A vacuum is zero pressure and would use any heat in the water to change the phase to gas and distribute the gas throughout the vacuum. In this case the heat could just as easily be replaced by the work of the high pressure state of H2O.
12-05-2017 02:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10267)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

During the day sunlight can give sufficient energy to nearby bodies of water to increase the atmospheric humidity. Remember that this requires quite a bit of energy because initially the liquid is converted to a gas - a state change - without raising the heat of the gas.



Wade,
This is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why I am hoping a research scientist will work with me. Then if Conservation of Momentum can be considered as to what can allow a change in state without raising the temperature then it would be "our" experiment, that is mine and the researcher willing to help demonstrate this. And then any further research would be if they have any such desire. As for myself I have wood working I wish to pursue and would require my focusing on that.


Jim


It is easy to demonstrate. Put a saucer of water on the counter and leave it for several days. The water evaporates. Where did it go?

It is part of the humidity of the air. Water does not have to become steam to be a vapor. Simple diffusion of water into the air is possible, even at temperatures well below freezing.

When ice 'evaporates', we call it sublimation. When liquid water evaporates, we call it 'evaporation'.

Water diffuses into the air and the air condenses into water (or deposits as ice). It is an equilibrium reaction. The higher the temperature of the air, the more water vapor it can hold. As temperature moves up, the equilibrium favors more humidity. As temperature drops, the equilibrium favors less humidity.


This does not address the ideas that Jim had that I was discussing with him.

He is under the impression that my claim that state changes absorb lots of heat but do not change temperature in the phase change breaks the laws of thermodynamics. But in fact it is the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics.
Not the zeroth law, but it does point out that a thermometer is not always a good measurement of thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
The change of state requires a rending of molecular bonds (or making them) hence work is done and the input (or output) heat is expended without raising (or dropping) the heat of the material in which the phase change occurs.
For heat this is true. The bonds will break without additional energy through diffusion, however. There is nothing to keep them from breaking. Any material above absolute zero will randomly make and create bonds all the time. Water is no exception. The internal heat is enough to cause a bond to randomly break (or make!).
Wake wrote:
I tried to put it in simpler terms and obviously failed in my explanation.
Apparently.
Wake wrote:
I said that water would change state in a vacuum simply with added or subtracted heat but that was purely illustrative.
Fine. But it is only talking about one way water vaporizes. There is more than one way.
Wake wrote:
A vacuum is zero pressure
Nope. A vacuum is any pressure less than ambient. You are describing an ideal vacuum, which never exists.
Wake wrote:
and would use any heat in the water to change the phase to gas and distribute the gas throughout the vacuum.
In a low enough vacuum, water boils at room temperature...It is not all due to heat. It is also due to diffusion. Ice also sublimates faster the lower the vacuum.
Wake wrote:
In this case the heat could just as easily be replaced by the work of the high pressure state of H2O.

Not quite the way I'd word it. The only work being done here is a diffusion of material across a volume with a vacuum in it. This is the same as the diffusion that takes place at atmospheric pressure. We are talking about partial pressures here, not heat. Partial pressure equilibrium is dependent on temperature though.


The Parrot Killer
12-05-2017 16:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
You both missed it. I think this is why what Wake said would be why my discovery would be important. I never mentioned in a vacuum yet you both are qualifying my statements by rephrasing them. Don't, instead speak for yourselves.

@All,
What they are missing and quite badly at that is that once water "evaporates", if this is the result of a heat transfer then thermodynamics would require for that water to release it's heat to the cooler atmospheric gases around it. And when this happens then that water vapor would condense and return to the bottom of that atmospheric environment.
Yet water vapor makes it up into the upper atmosphere. Thermodynamics does not allow for this while Conservation of Momentum does. I would have to say this is a complex behavior and would most likely be an involved research project because it would be something new.
And please remember that Wake believes that an Ice Age lasts for 100,000 years when that is the amount of time between them. Kind of scary when Into the Night agrees with him.
And also I have been pursuing an experiment to demonstrate atmospheric forcing. A successful demonstration would be a start in showing possibly how many of the trace gases in our atmosphere occur. This is something that I think would would be an important realization in Atmospheric Chemistry.


Jim

p.s., just reminding people that I have been trying to have an experiment tried where 1 liter of nitrogen, 25 cc's of oxygen (O2), 0.5 cc's of CO2 and 0.25 cc's of water placed in an empty 6 ft. diameter weather balloon and floated up into the upper troposphere using a helium filled weather balloon.
The helium filled balloon would "pop" allowing the test balloon to fall back to Earth. Then it could be seen if CH2O occurred. If so then I would have to believe that Conservation of Momentum allowed water vapor to be an opposing yet attractive potential to CO2. And as I like to think will happen is
CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2. And in basic terms this would be demonstrating Atmospheric Forcing.
Edited on 12-05-2017 17:13
12-05-2017 22:01
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)

.......And as I like to think will happen is
CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2.......


Which is what plants do, more or less. Using the energy of sunlight. Not producing actual CH2O, formaldehyde, true, but hexose sugars, mostly glucose, empirical formula C6H12O6. A complex multistep process, with still some details being worked out. See [url][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis/url]
12-05-2017 22:53
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
still learning wrote:

.......And as I like to think will happen is
CO2 + H2O > CH2O and O2.......


Which is what plants do, more or less. Using the energy of sunlight. Not producing actual CH2O, formaldehyde, true, but hexose sugars, mostly glucose, empirical formula C6H12O6. A complex multistep process, with still some details being worked out. See [url][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis/url]


Plants actually do make ch2o; http://tonga.usp.edu/jsnow/chem343/chapter18.pdf

Also ch2o is found in higher levels in rain water over urban areas.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC084iC10p06329/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC084iC10p06329/epdf?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=www.google.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED_NO_CUSTOMER
Edited on 12-05-2017 22:53
13-05-2017 17:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

During the day sunlight can give sufficient energy to nearby bodies of water to increase the atmospheric humidity. Remember that this requires quite a bit of energy because initially the liquid is converted to a gas - a state change - without raising the heat of the gas.



Wade,
This is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why I am hoping a research scientist will work with me. Then if Conservation of Momentum can be considered as to what can allow a change in state without raising the temperature then it would be "our" experiment, that is mine and the researcher willing to help demonstrate this. And then any further research would be if they have any such desire. As for myself I have wood working I wish to pursue and would require my focusing on that.


Jim


It is easy to demonstrate. Put a saucer of water on the counter and leave it for several days. The water evaporates. Where did it go?

It is part of the humidity of the air. Water does not have to become steam to be a vapor. Simple diffusion of water into the air is possible, even at temperatures well below freezing.

When ice 'evaporates', we call it sublimation. When liquid water evaporates, we call it 'evaporation'.

Water diffuses into the air and the air condenses into water (or deposits as ice). It is an equilibrium reaction. The higher the temperature of the air, the more water vapor it can hold. As temperature moves up, the equilibrium favors more humidity. As temperature drops, the equilibrium favors less humidity.


I referred to it as steam so that it was clear that it was vapor and not airborne water droplets. The larger part of steam is vapor. The release of this vapor often carries water droplets along with it but the vapor is the gaseous phase of water.
13-05-2017 20:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

I referred to it as steam so that it was clear that it was vapor and not airborne water droplets. The larger part of steam is vapor. The release of this vapor often carries water droplets along with it but the vapor is the gaseous phase of water.


Wake,
I know what steam is, I worked with it for enough years. Steam can be all vapor. If it's super heated there are no water molecules in it. If it's "wet" steam then not all of the water will have converted to steam.
What is in our atmosphere is not steam. And water technically only has 3 states, gas, liquid and solid. And for it to be a gas it needs to convert to steam.
It seems what you want me to do is to go by what you say when you, this is the tricky part, you're not saying I'm wrong but you seem to be saying I don't know anything. That's kind of confusing. After all, I haven't seen you post anything about Atmospheric Chemistry. Absolutely nothing. You seem to be wanting to make a comment about something but I'm not sure what it is. I think you lack focus myself.
With still learning, he about hit the nail on the head. Seldom is it mentioned that formaldehyde (ch2o) is a product of photosynthesis. And it's mentioned much less that ch2o is always found in higher levels in rain water.
Also if I want to disagree with why water is a vapor I can. My reasoning is based on my belief that Atmospheric Forcing happens. As a result of this belief I will not be able to agree with you. I think you need to accept this.


Jim
Edited on 13-05-2017 21:15
14-05-2017 01:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
Frescomexico wrote: Water, due to its ability to change phase at atmospheric pressures, can absorb and emit large amounts of heat per unit of weight.

The only limit to water's ability to absorb heat is the point when its temperature causes its electrons to stripped and it becomes plasma (~12,000K, depending on the pressure of course).


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
14-05-2017 01:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
James_ wrote: This is one reason why I wouldn't mind seeing scientists verify the ability of atmospheric gases to store heat.

Science has already verified that no substance can store thermal energy.

Thermal energy flows freely out of all matter at a rate determined by Stefan-Boltzmann, and there is nothing any substance can do to change that.

James_ wrote: This is why I think verifying how CO2 and H2O change the potential of a field to store and then release heat needs to be known.

It is known. Here is the formula:

Radiance(Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

Thermal radiation is dependent entirely upon absolute temperature alone. There is nothing anyone/anything can do to "slow" the power of thermal radiation.


.


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
14-05-2017 01:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
James_ wrote: I think the both of you are helping to show why my Atmospheric Forcing experiment would be important.

I am greatly intrigued.

What is your hypothesis?


.


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
14-05-2017 08:28
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
James_ wrote:
With still learning, he about hit the nail on the head. Seldom is it mentioned that formaldehyde (ch2o) is a product of photosynthesis. Jim


Not actually relevant to this thread, but that's not what I intended to try to say.

Part of what I wrote "...not producing actual CH2O, formaldehyde, true, but hexose sugars...."

The linked biochemistry course reading material at http://tonga.usp.edu/jsnow/chem343/chapter18.pdf
does sort of suggest that (CH2O) is a photosynthesis product a few lines down from the very beginning, but farther down note the subscript "6" is used. No actual CH2O mentioned anywhere in the 11 pages of material at .

CH2O, formaldehyde, is fairly toxic stuff. Used in embalming fluid. Was used in preserving biological specimens, but since it was found to be kind of carcinogenic, other stuff is used now.
14-05-2017 20:55
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
still learning wrote:
James_ wrote:
With still learning, he about hit the nail on the head. Seldom is it mentioned that formaldehyde (ch2o) is a product of photosynthesis. Jim


Not actually relevant to this thread, but that's not what I intended to try to say.

Part of what I wrote "...not producing actual CH2O, formaldehyde, true, but hexose sugars...."

The linked biochemistry course reading material at http://tonga.usp.edu/jsnow/chem343/chapter18.pdf
does sort of suggest that (CH2O) is a photosynthesis product a few lines down from the very beginning, but farther down note the subscript "6" is used. No actual CH2O mentioned anywhere in the 11 pages of material at .

CH2O, formaldehyde, is fairly toxic stuff. Used in embalming fluid. Was used in preserving biological specimens, but since it was found to be kind of carcinogenic, other stuff is used now.


Here's another link; http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/chemists/photosynthesis.html

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-and-environmental-engineering/1-018j-ecology-i-the-earth-system-fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT1_018JF09_Lec03.pdf
15-05-2017 18:26
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
James_ wrote:
still learning wrote:
James_ wrote:
With still learning, he about hit the nail on the head. Seldom is it mentioned that formaldehyde (ch2o) is a product of photosynthesis. Jim


Not actually relevant to this thread, but that's not what I intended to try to say.

Part of what I wrote "...not producing actual CH2O, formaldehyde, true, but hexose sugars...."

The linked biochemistry course reading material at http://tonga.usp.edu/jsnow/chem343/chapter18.pdf
does sort of suggest that (CH2O) is a photosynthesis product a few lines down from the very beginning, but farther down note the subscript "6" is used. No actual CH2O mentioned anywhere in the 11 pages of material at .

CH2O, formaldehyde, is fairly toxic stuff. Used in embalming fluid. Was used in preserving biological specimens, but since it was found to be kind of carcinogenic, other stuff is used now.


Here's another link; http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/chemists/photosynthesis.html

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-and-environmental-engineering/1-018j-ecology-i-the-earth-system-fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT1_018JF09_Lec03.pdf


@All,
There is a reason why I find it important if CO2 can change in our atmosphere without using photosynthesis. It has been linked to preventing loss of stratospheric ozone. And if in the end this can be demonstrated then scientists might also consider recording temperatures above and below the ozone layer. Because there is seasonal ozone levels then the actual amount can be tested by observing the watts meter^2 to verify the amount of heat in watts the ozone layer is reflecting. And this would be to consider the cumulative effect and not specific absorption and emission spectrums of various gases.
And to do this weather balloons would need to float sensors up into our atmosphere which would allow for real time observations. And with me I am not sure if this has been done.

Jim
15-05-2017 19:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:
still learning wrote:
James_ wrote:
With still learning, he about hit the nail on the head. Seldom is it mentioned that formaldehyde (ch2o) is a product of photosynthesis. Jim


Not actually relevant to this thread, but that's not what I intended to try to say.

Part of what I wrote "...not producing actual CH2O, formaldehyde, true, but hexose sugars...."

The linked biochemistry course reading material at http://tonga.usp.edu/jsnow/chem343/chapter18.pdf
does sort of suggest that (CH2O) is a photosynthesis product a few lines down from the very beginning, but farther down note the subscript "6" is used. No actual CH2O mentioned anywhere in the 11 pages of material at .

CH2O, formaldehyde, is fairly toxic stuff. Used in embalming fluid. Was used in preserving biological specimens, but since it was found to be kind of carcinogenic, other stuff is used now.


Here's another link; http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/chemists/photosynthesis.html

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-and-environmental-engineering/1-018j-ecology-i-the-earth-system-fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT1_018JF09_Lec03.pdf


@All,
There is a reason why I find it important if CO2 can change in our atmosphere without using photosynthesis. It has been linked to preventing loss of stratospheric ozone. And if in the end this can be demonstrated then scientists might also consider recording temperatures above and below the ozone layer. Because there is seasonal ozone levels then the actual amount can be tested by observing the watts meter^2 to verify the amount of heat in watts the ozone layer is reflecting. And this would be to consider the cumulative effect and not specific absorption and emission spectrums of various gases.
And to do this weather balloons would need to float sensors up into our atmosphere which would allow for real time observations. And with me I am not sure if this has been done.

Jim


Jim, the ozone changes with the seasons and time of day simply because of the radiation of the Sun. The reaction isn't caused by heat but by ultra violet radiation. The cosmic ray and X-radiation that occasionally is spewed from the Sun is blocked almost entirely by the first and second Van Allen radiation belts caused by the Earth's magnetic field.

Here is an article on Methanal chemistry. https://hanson.stanford.edu/researchReports/kinetics/CH2O_and_HCO_Chemistry.pdf
Edited on 15-05-2017 19:34
15-05-2017 20:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal energy flows freely out of all matter at a rate determined by Stefan-Boltzmann, and there is nothing any substance can do to change that.

It is known. Here is the formula:

Radiance(Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

Thermal radiation is dependent entirely upon absolute temperature alone. There is nothing anyone/anything can do to "slow" the power of thermal radiation.


Err - you don't believe that "emissivity" is unique to the material in question? While this is the case with a theoretical black body, individual materials in the real world are actually grey bodies.

So, yes, the speed that a material gets rid of energy is different with different materials. If you have a fixed Temp and the emissivity changes you have a higher or a lower radiance.

For instance: We can consider the Sun a black body radiator. But the oceans absorb that radiation at a different rate and so the temperature is much lower than say sand dunes in the desert. (This doesn't sound correct so any correction would be appreciated. It doesn't appear to correct for volume)
16-05-2017 12:22
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal energy flows freely out of all matter at a rate determined by Stefan-Boltzmann, and there is nothing any substance can do to change that.

It is known. Here is the formula:

Radiance(Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

Thermal radiation is dependent entirely upon absolute temperature alone. There is nothing anyone/anything can do to "slow" the power of thermal radiation.


Err - you don't believe that "emissivity" is unique to the material in question? While this is the case with a theoretical black body, individual materials in the real world are actually grey bodies.

So, yes, the speed that a material gets rid of energy is different with different materials. If you have a fixed Temp and the emissivity changes you have a higher or a lower radiance.

For instance: We can consider the Sun a black body radiator. But the oceans absorb that radiation at a different rate and so the temperature is much lower than say sand dunes in the desert. (This doesn't sound correct so any correction would be appreciated. It doesn't appear to correct for volume)


Wake,
You might have helped to explain why there's so much debate about climate change.
We haven't thought of what our atmosphere does as Grey Body Radiation. When considering it from this perspective we can consider both the solar radiation and the refracted solar radiation that a Grey Boy absorbs or is affected by.
To give you and everyone else something to consider. When there is snow on the ground it is colder. Current thought is that.the white refracted solar radiation does not stay in our atmosphere.
What if it caused the Grey Body to absorb less solar radiation as well ? This would mean that the Grey Body has less energy to radiate. And off course the composition of the Grey Body can be changed as well which would effect it's properties as a Grey Body.
16-05-2017 14:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal energy flows freely out of all matter at a rate determined by Stefan-Boltzmann, and there is nothing any substance can do to change that.

It is known. Here is the formula:

Radiance(Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

Thermal radiation is dependent entirely upon absolute temperature alone. There is nothing anyone/anything can do to "slow" the power of thermal radiation.


Err - you don't believe that "emissivity" is unique to the material in question? While this is the case with a theoretical black body, individual materials in the real world are actually grey bodies.

So, yes, the speed that a material gets rid of energy is different with different materials. If you have a fixed Temp and the emissivity changes you have a higher or a lower radiance.

For instance: We can consider the Sun a black body radiator. But the oceans absorb that radiation at a different rate and so the temperature is much lower than say sand dunes in the desert. (This doesn't sound correct so any correction would be appreciated. It doesn't appear to correct for volume)


Wake,
You might have helped to explain why there's so much debate about climate change.
We haven't thought of what our atmosphere does as Grey Body Radiation. When considering it from this perspective we can consider both the solar radiation and the refracted solar radiation that our atmosphere absorbs or is affected by.
To give you and everyone else something to consider. When there is snow on the ground it is colder. Current thought is that.the white refracted solar radiation does not stay in our atmosphere.
What if it caused a grey body to absorb less solar radiation as well ? This would mean that our atmosphere has less energy to radiate. And off course the composition of gases being tested can be varied. .

Sorry about the double post.
Edited on 16-05-2017 14:52
16-05-2017 18:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal energy flows freely out of all matter at a rate determined by Stefan-Boltzmann, and there is nothing any substance can do to change that.

It is known. Here is the formula:

Radiance(Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

Thermal radiation is dependent entirely upon absolute temperature alone. There is nothing anyone/anything can do to "slow" the power of thermal radiation.


Err - you don't believe that "emissivity" is unique to the material in question? While this is the case with a theoretical black body, individual materials in the real world are actually grey bodies.

So, yes, the speed that a material gets rid of energy is different with different materials. If you have a fixed Temp and the emissivity changes you have a higher or a lower radiance.

For instance: We can consider the Sun a black body radiator. But the oceans absorb that radiation at a different rate and so the temperature is much lower than say sand dunes in the desert. (This doesn't sound correct so any correction would be appreciated. It doesn't appear to correct for volume)


Wake,
You might have helped to explain why there's so much debate about climate change.
We haven't thought of what our atmosphere does as Grey Body Radiation. When considering it from this perspective we can consider both the solar radiation and the refracted solar radiation that our atmosphere absorbs or is affected by.
To give you and everyone else something to consider. When there is snow on the ground it is colder. Current thought is that.the white refracted solar radiation does not stay in our atmosphere.
What if it caused a grey body to absorb less solar radiation as well ? This would mean that our atmosphere has less energy to radiate. And off course the composition of gases being tested can be varied. .

Sorry about the double post.


The debate about climate change centers not on radiation but on CO2 absorption of radiation. And there is simply very little at the spectroscopic frequencies of CO2.

Because of the weight of CO2 (about a third heavier than the other common gases) one would expect it to be significantly heavier in the lower atmosphere. But because it has a lower specific heat content it is much more likely to be involved in conduction and convection hence lifting it into the tropopause and lower stratosphere.

So in fact CO2 is a coolant on the whole and not a heat retainer. And this is what I have shown in the direct measurements from satellites.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

Figure 4.6 clearly shows this.

Looking at: http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2014/08/01/the-composition-of-earths-atmosphere-with-elevation/

You can see that as soon as the atmosphere gets thin enough the molar weight of the gases makes a huge difference in mixture density.

But this is not until well into the thermosphere.

Considering the features of the real world vs the idealized Stefan-Boltzmann laws of black body radiation doesn't seem to me to be particularly relevant.
16-05-2017 21:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
Wake wrote: Err - you don't believe that "emissivity" is unique to the material in question?

Each *body* has an emissivity constant.

Don't you understand blackbody science?


Wake wrote: So, yes, the speed that a material gets rid of energy is different with different materials.

False. Apparently you don't understand blackbody science.

Look at Stefan-Boltzmann ... and actually use your eyes. There is no component for material composition. Temperature is the only independent variable.

Get back to me once you have confirmed this. There is little point discussing a topic you really don't understand.


Wake wrote: If you have a fixed Temp and the emissivity changes you have a higher or a lower radiance.

You can't "fix" the temp. It's the independent variable. If you fix the temp then you fix the radiance. If you change the emissivity then you change the temp that you supposedly fixed.

You need to read up a little more.


.


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
16-05-2017 21:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
James_ wrote:Wake,
You might have helped to explain why there's so much debate about climate change.
We haven't thought of what our atmosphere does as Grey Body Radiation. .

Stupid comment. The atmosphere is not a body. The earth is a body that has an atmosphere, a hydrosphere, ice, clouds and lots of components ... but they all together comprise one body "earth."

You can't subdivide a "body" ... It is the atomic unit of blackbody science.


.


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
16-05-2017 21:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
James_ wrote: There is a reason why I find it important if CO2 can change in our atmosphere without using photosynthesis. It has been linked to preventing loss of stratospheric ozone.

It has been "linked"? How scientific!

That's the kind of word that helps identify tabloid articles.


.


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
16-05-2017 21:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
Wake wrote: The debate about climate change centers not on radiation but on CO2 absorption of radiation.

That's the primary reason any debate about "Climate Change" is a farce.

The physical properties of CO2 aren't up for debate. What *is* debated is meaningless dogmababble by the scientifically illiterate.

Carry on.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-05-2017 23:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Thermal energy flows freely out of all matter at a rate determined by Stefan-Boltzmann, and there is nothing any substance can do to change that.

It is known. Here is the formula:

Radiance(Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

Thermal radiation is dependent entirely upon absolute temperature alone. There is nothing anyone/anything can do to "slow" the power of thermal radiation.


So, yes, the speed that a material gets rid of energy is different with different materials. If you have a fixed Temp and the emissivity changes you have a higher or a lower radiance.

Indeed. And if the radiance of a body is to be maintained at a fixed level (to balance a fixed rate of incoming energy), the Stefan-Boltzmann Law requires the temperature of the body to rise if its emissivity is reduced.
17-05-2017 00:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: The debate about climate change centers not on radiation but on CO2 absorption of radiation.

That's the primary reason any debate about "Climate Change" is a farce.

The physical properties of CO2 aren't up for debate. What *is* debated is meaningless dogmababble by the scientifically illiterate.

Carry on.


.


Let me be a little abrupt with you - you haven't the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Equation is simple. Any 10th grade student understands the simple math.

A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity constant differing from that of a pure black body.

ANY part of an equation is interchangeable using the laws of mathematics.

Try this from Physics for Dummies: "You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to measure the amount of heat that is emitted by a blackbody. Physicists have determined that a blackbody is an object that absorbs 100 percent of the radiant energy striking it, and if it's in equilibrium with its surroundings, it emits all the radiant energy as well."

"For the gray body the incident radiation (also called irradiation) is partly reflected, absorbed or transmitted."

ANY object absorbs and emits. And knowing the absorbance you can calculate the emission. And knowing the EMISSIVITY of the material you can calculate any other part including the temperature or the radiance.

If you want to play scientist do it elsewhere.
17-05-2017 04:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
Surface Detail wrote:Indeed. And if the radiance of a body is to be maintained at a fixed level (to balance a fixed rate of incoming energy), the Stefan-Boltzmann Law requires the temperature of the body to rise if its emissivity is reduced.

Hey bozo, give it a rest. You're not smart.

You can't have radiance being fixed with the temperature changing.

We've been over this before and you apparently still haven't bothered to read up on the material.


.


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
17-05-2017 04:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
Wake wrote: Let me be a little abrupt with you - you haven't the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about.

I know this material inside and out. You are obviously clueless.

Wake wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann Equation is simple. Any 10th grade student understands the simple math.

Is your excuse that you haven't reach the 10th grade?

Wake wrote: ANY part of an equation is interchangeable using the laws of mathematics.

Math doesn't have laws, dumbass. It has theorems.

You apparently are mathematically illiterate as well. No, you cannot freely interchange components of an equation.

Let's talk when you have finished the 10th grade.

Oh, only because I am more interested in watching A.C. Milan do I not lecture you on correct blackbody terminology.

Wake wrote:If you want to play scientist do it elsewhere.

I have a solid grasp of the material.

You are desperately trying to role-play a "smart person"

Your attempts to flavor your post as a condescending rebuke whereby you of all people are going to somehow correct me will only motivate me to pick you apart and mock you while I do it.


.


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
17-05-2017 10:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
You can't have radiance being fixed with the temperature changing.

Of course you can. If you have an equation relating three quantities - in this case: radiance, temperature and emissivity - it is possible to change any two of the quantities while keeping the other constant and still satisfy the equation.
17-05-2017 15:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
Surface Detail wrote:Of course you can. If you have an equation relating three quantities - in this case: radiance, temperature and emissivity - it is possible to change any two of the quantities while keeping the other constant and still satisfy the equation.

Nope. As I mentioned previously, we've been over this and you still haven't read up on the material. You're stuck on your religious dogma.

Emissivity and Stef_Bolt are constants. There are only two variables in Stefan-Boltzmann: Radiance (dependent) and Temperature (independent).


.


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
17-05-2017 15:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Of course you can. If you have an equation relating three quantities - in this case: radiance, temperature and emissivity - it is possible to change any two of the quantities while keeping the other constant and still satisfy the equation.

Nope. As I mentioned previously, we've been over this and you still haven't read up on the material. You're stuck on your religious dogma.

Emissivity and Stef_Bolt are constants. There are only two variables in Stefan-Boltzmann: Radiance (dependent) and Temperature (independent)

Nope. Your insistence that emissivity must always be constant is the religious belief. There is no reason at all why emissivity cannot change. It stands to reason (to rational folk, that is) that if the surface properties of a body change, so too can its emissivity.
17-05-2017 16:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
The link is to absorption and emission spectra. With Climate Change it is a decrease in heat loss due to radiation. Of which there are 3 types of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation.
It is claimed that increased levels of CO2 decreases the amount of heat lost due to radiation. This has yet to be demonstrated. This is also something that would be easy enough to do.


Jim

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-absorption-spectrum-and-emission-spectrum-give-examples-if-you-can-thank
17-05-2017 17:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
The link is to absorption and emission spectra. With Climate Change it is a decrease in heat loss due to radiation. Of which there are 3 types of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation.
It is claimed that increased levels of CO2 decreases the amount of heat lost due to radiation. This has yet to be demonstrated. This is also something that would be easy enough to do.


Jim

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-absorption-spectrum-and-emission-spectrum-give-examples-if-you-can-thank


Yes it would be easy and in fact it has NEVER been demonstrated.

That is why I have given direct measurements from satellites that show exactly the opposite of the True Believers claims.

I have shown that there isn't sufficient energy in the absorption bands of CO2 in order for any additional CO2 to have any effect.

I've shown that since CO2 has a lower specific heat content that it acts instead of a warming agent as a cooling one generating conduction and convection.

This has been attacked from every angle and what do you want to bet that we don't here the True Believers announcing that this was the hottest year on record again?
17-05-2017 18:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Frescomexico wrote: Water, due to its ability to change phase at atmospheric pressures, can absorb and emit large amounts of heat per unit of weight.

The only limit to water's ability to absorb heat is the point when its temperature causes its electrons to stripped and it becomes plasma (~12,000K, depending on the pressure of course).


I suggest you try looking here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

Notice the second line down: "For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form:"

P/A = e(sigma)T^4

Do you understand WHY there is an additional constant for emissivity?

Do you see BELOW that:

P = e(sigma)(delta T^4)

Here in the real world (of which you asked - "what is real") there ARE no ideal radiators and ALL things must have emissivity corrections.

You can actually learn about these things at:

https://scienceofdoom.com/2017/02/01/basics-emissivity-and-the-stefan-boltzmann-equation/

Now you are looking at the total power of the radiant energy as obtained by the calculation and somehow it simply passes right by you that total flux is not the actual wavelengths at which this entire flux is radiated.

And it is the actual wavelengths that are important since it tells you WHERE that flux is.

The question is: why can't you see that? And why can't you understand the basic laws of math? To me that appears that you are simply closing your mind completely for some reason.
17-05-2017 21:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
The link is to absorption and emission spectra. With Climate Change it is a decrease in heat loss due to radiation. Of which there are 3 types of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation.
It is claimed that increased levels of CO2 decreases the amount of heat lost due to radiation. This has yet to be demonstrated. This is also something that would be easy enough to do.


Jim

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-absorption-spectrum-and-emission-spectrum-give-examples-if-you-can-thank


Yes it would be easy and in fact it has NEVER been demonstrated.

That is why I have given direct measurements from satellites that show exactly the opposite of the True Believers claims.

I have shown that there isn't sufficient energy in the absorption bands of CO2 in order for any additional CO2 to have any effect.

I've shown that since CO2 has a lower specific heat content that it acts instead of a warming agent as a cooling one generating conduction and convection.

This has been attacked from every angle and what do you want to bet that we don't here the True Believers announcing that this was the hottest year on record again?


Wake,
Other people can focus on CO2 if they want to. I am aware that Conservation of Momentum as well as the Laws of Thermodynamics requires the overall potential of the field to be considered. Kind of why actual testing of atmospheric gases should have been accomplished by now.

Jim
17-05-2017 22:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
The link is to absorption and emission spectra. With Climate Change it is a decrease in heat loss due to radiation. Of which there are 3 types of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation.
It is claimed that increased levels of CO2 decreases the amount of heat lost due to radiation. This has yet to be demonstrated. This is also something that would be easy enough to do.


Jim

https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-absorption-spectrum-and-emission-spectrum-give-examples-if-you-can-thank


Yes it would be easy and in fact it has NEVER been demonstrated.

That is why I have given direct measurements from satellites that show exactly the opposite of the True Believers claims.

I have shown that there isn't sufficient energy in the absorption bands of CO2 in order for any additional CO2 to have any effect.

I've shown that since CO2 has a lower specific heat content that it acts instead of a warming agent as a cooling one generating conduction and convection.

This has been attacked from every angle and what do you want to bet that we don't here the True Believers announcing that this was the hottest year on record again?


Wake,
Other people can focus on CO2 if they want to. I am aware that Conservation of Momentum as well as the Laws of Thermodynamics requires the overall potential of the field to be considered. Kind of why actual testing of atmospheric gases should have been accomplished by now.

Jim



You really have to explain how you think momentum is involved.
17-05-2017 23:35
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
[b]Wake wrote:
You really have to explain how you think momentum is involved.


For all we know gases like nitrogen and oxygen transfer angular momentum to co2 and water vapor. If so then this would effect how excited these gases are. As a result the amount of electromagnetic radiation they can absorb and then emit would change.

Jim
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate The Atmosphere's Ability to Absorb and Release Heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N226413-12-2019 20:52
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
Hold on. O2 and N2 do NOT absorb IR?915-09-2019 22:15
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
▲ 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