The Atmosphere's Ability to Absorb and Release Heat

James_ wrote:

[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

Wake wrote: [angular momentum] is the main manner in which heat is moved from the surface of the Earth to the lower stratosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: [angular momentum] is the main manner in which heat is moved from the surface of the Earth to the lower stratosphere.

You've got to be kidding me. Angular momentum? Really?

First, heat is not thermal energy. Heat is a flow of thermal energy. Heat is not moved. Heat is the movement of thermal energy.

Second, the word you seek in this case is "convection." That is what moves thermal energy from the surface up into the atmosphere.


.

Wake wrote: We can do without your smart assed exact definitions thinking you somehow have some sort of superior knowledge.

Wake wrote: If you do not understand what causes the momentum of atoms and molecules don't bother to stick your nose in.

Wake wrote: There IS no convection without heat energy and that does not occur in one spot without conduction.

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: We can do without your smart assed exact definitions thinking you somehow have some sort of superior knowledge.

The problem is that my knowledge is vastly superior to yours. You are a moron. We can't get around that.

Wake wrote: If you do not understand what causes the momentum of atoms and molecules don't bother to stick your nose in.

That reminds me, I should cross-post your original statement to another forum's "dumbest thing said" thread ... so everyone can get a laugh.

Wake wrote: There IS no convection without heat energy and that does not occur in one spot without conduction.

You obviously don't understand heat. There's absolutely no reason to believe you understand anything in physics.

So, ... how likely to succeed, in your opinion, are your attempts to intimidate me? Hint: you don't know anything, and you're insecure about it.


.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

[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

If I understand you correctly of COURSE angular momentum is transferred between gases. This is referred to as conduction of energy or heat. This is the main manner in which heat is moved from the surface of the Earth to the lower stratosphere.

I would not call this conservation of angular momentum because in the process of transferring momentum from one molecule to another work is done which means that the momentum transferred is less than the initial momentum - this is because the new particle must be accelerated.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

[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

If I understand you correctly of COURSE angular momentum is transferred between gases. This is referred to as conduction of energy or heat. This is the main manner in which heat is moved from the surface of the Earth to the lower stratosphere.

I would not call this conservation of angular momentum because in the process of transferring momentum from one molecule to another work is done which means that the momentum transferred is less than the initial momentum - this is because the new particle must be accelerated.

Between the troposphere and the stratosphere is the tropopause which is quite cold.
What you both are forgetting to ask is if increased levels of co2 allow the troposphere to contain more heat. I don't think either of you have mentioned that stratospheric cooling is associated with a warmer troposphere. Of course it remains to be seen if a healthy ozone layer resolves that issue, you know, warms the stratosphere.

Wake wrote: Curiously I gave you references to the Stefan-Boltzmann equations and you didn't address them. Instead you are calling me names.

I wonder why that is?

IBdaMann wrote:

Wake wrote: Curiously I gave you references to the Stefan-Boltzmann equations and you didn't address them. Instead you are calling me names.

I wonder why that is?

Because you are a scientifically illiterate moron who jumped on me when I was trying to help you, so blow me.

I did not ask for any references on any blackbody science because I know that material already. I tried to help you when it became obvious that you are utterly clueless, but you just became an indignant ashsole, so I'll just have fun mocking you because you can't hang with me.

I would have rather been debating the other losers on your side, but so be it.

So, ... post something else. Let's have some fun.


..

James_ wrote: It seems that Wake is unaware that co2 is considered to be warming our planet.

James_ wrote: Of which the title of this thread asks if our atmosphere can store energy.

James_ wrote: Since it does ...

James_ wrote: can it store more energy if it's composition is changed.

James_ wrote: I think I lose him when I consider how co2 interacts with our atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: It seems that Wake is unaware that co2 is considered to be warming our planet.

Science does not say this.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy (re: Planck's Law). Your statement, as it stands, implies that CO2 provides additional energy.

Unfortunately, the Law of Conservation of Energy (re: 1st LoT) tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

You have an apparent contradiction on your hands.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: It seems that Wake is unaware that co2 is considered to be warming our planet.

Science does not say this.

Temperature cannot increase without additional energy (re: Planck's Law). Your statement, as it stands, implies that CO2 provides additional energy.

Unfortunately, the Law of Conservation of Energy (re: 1st LoT) tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

You have an apparent contradiction on your hands.

You and Wake just like bothering people it seems. Just not sure how you can forget about the Sun. Maybe you 2 just like sparring with each other over
nothing ?
And Wake, what you and you're friend don't seem to consider is that at the moment CO2 is considered to be causing our atmosphere to retain solar radiation in ever increasing higher levels.


The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

@All, Kind of why I am for finding specifically how varying mixtures of gases, aerosols and particulates can change how much solar radiation is absorbed or reflected.

James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim

so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim

so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.

I just looked at the forum home page and your name was on almost all of the threads.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim

so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.

I just looked at the forum home page and your name was on almost all of the threads.

And you'll notice that yours isn't.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim

so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.

I just looked at the forum home page and your name was on almost all of the threads.

James - the ENTIRE problem is that you are. You simply cannot be corrected. And you cannot debate. Our answers might be incorrect and possibly you could correct them but that isn't what you're doing - you are correct and anyone that criticized you is an ****.

These are the actions of a high school student and not an adult.

And you'll notice that yours isn't.

That's because I'm not the only person with an opinion.

James_ wrote: Just not sure how you can forget about the Sun.

James_ wrote: And Wake, what you and you're friend don't seem to consider is that at the moment CO2 is considered to be causing our atmosphere to retain solar radiation in ever increasing higher levels.

James_ wrote:
da man, You and wade dislike someone having their own opinion.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:
da man, You and wade dislike someone having their own opinion.

We need to get something straight.

I don't care one iota about your opinions.

I simply post science, and the explanations are free of charge.

You, on the other hand, HATE science because it runs counter to your WACKY religious fantasy and thus makes you feel threatened, explaining your previous projection on the matter. You are a quintessential science denier.

You are welcome to whatever opinions, fantasies and science denial you wish. Enjoy!


.

James_ wrote:
da man,
You and wade dislike someone having their own opinion. That seems to make you both feel threatened. The way you 2 lash out reminds me those 2 guys in Dumb and Dumber.
I think everyone here except for maybe you 2 knows that our atmosphere doesn't heat itself. And the Sun isn't the only source of heat.

James_ wrote: BTW, Stefan - Boltzman doesn't apply.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: BTW, Stefan - Boltzman doesn't apply.

Now let's talk about your scientific illiteracy.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all material objects, i.e. all matter, including individual molecules, always everywhere, in all inertial frames of reference.

In other words, there is no time or place where Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a material body.

Now let's discuss why you claimed Stefan-Boltzmann somehow "does not apply."

Warmizombies are scientifically illiterate and don't know anything about Stefan-Boltzmann beyond how much they HATE it because it kills their "greenhouse effect" myth. So they try to "erase" the inconvenient science by declaring that science somehow does not apply where Global Warming is concerned.

Global Warming is a WACKY religion that appeals to the gullible and stupid science deniers.


.

James_ wrote: You have nothing better than personal attacks ?

Wake wrote: As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done.

Wake wrote:I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: You have nothing better than personal attacks ?

Let's relish this moment.

I present science ... and you consider it to be a "personal attack."

Too funny.

Wake wrote: As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done.

Why? "Climate change" is just a fanatical religion for gullible haters. If anything, we should spend research dollars on researching the Christian God who was around first. Actually, we should go through the myriad of Hindu God's first, no?

Wake wrote:I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.

What, exactly, do you claim is "happening"?

We have falsifiable models for plate techtonics, i.e. science.

p.s., that's my video. It's based on Max Planck's original experiment and what lead to him calculating his constant.


.




.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: BTW, Stefan - Boltzman doesn't apply.

Now let's talk about your scientific illiteracy.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all material objects, i.e. all matter, including individual molecules, always everywhere, in all inertial frames of reference.

In other words, there is no time or place where Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to a material body.

Now let's discuss why you claimed Stefan-Boltzmann somehow "does not apply."

Warmizombies are scientifically illiterate and don't know anything about Stefan-Boltzmann beyond how much they HATE it because it kills their "greenhouse effect" myth. So they try to "erase" the inconvenient science by declaring that science somehow does not apply where Global Warming is concerned.

Global Warming is a WACKY religion that appeals to the gullible and stupid science deniers.


.

You have nothing better than personal attacks ? And you are someone who likes science, right ?
This is funny. Haven't watched the show Mann and Wife on Bounce but I keep thinking Mann and Wake, lol.

As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done. I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim

so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Wake,
I decided that I think you are an idiot.
Jim

so you can't understand science. But it's a nice try talking about conservation of momentum as if you had any idea what it was. Then when it's explained to you we get tears.

James_ wrote:
Deleted

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
Deleted

Also spelled: "Whaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa".

You needn't frequent this site if you find criticism of childish behavior so offensive.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: You have nothing better than personal attacks ?

Let's relish this moment.

I present science ... and you consider it to be a "personal attack."

Too funny.

Wake wrote: As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done.

Why? "Climate change" is just a fanatical religion for gullible haters. If anything, we should spend research dollars on researching the Christian God who was around first. Actually, we should go through the myriad of Hindu God's first, no?

Wake wrote:I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.

What, exactly, do you claim is "happening"?

We have falsifiable models for plate techtonics, i.e. science.

Wake wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: You have nothing better than personal attacks ?

Let's relish this moment.

I present science ... and you consider it to be a "personal attack."

Too funny.

Wake wrote: As for climate change, I think more research needs to be done.

Why? "Climate change" is just a fanatical religion for gullible haters. If anything, we should spend research dollars on researching the Christian God who was around first. Actually, we should go through the myriad of Hindu God's first, no?

Wake wrote:I think plate tectonics might help to explain some things. The evidence so far suggests it is a part of what's happening.

What, exactly, do you claim is "happening"?

We have falsifiable models for plate techtonics, i.e. science.

You know very well that we agree on most things. I only disagree with you on your insistence that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the answer to everything.

The climate may be changing. That remains to be seen. We CAN say that man has nothing or so little as to be negligible to do with it.

After all - two hundred years ago the climate was colder than an ice cube on a bare butt. We have seen it warm. Nowhere near the amount that is claimed. And certainly not for the reasons that were stated so that politicians could obtain more power.

Most people do not read between the lines. You look at conservation of momentum and don't know what the hell it really means - how does the Earth manage to stay in a stable orbit? How does the Earth manage to maintain a 24 hour period of rotation? These are so complex that it is almost impossible to state all of the variables. And you're talking about conservation of momentum as if it were some simple thing.
.

James_ wrote:

Most people do not read between the lines. You look at conservation of momentum and don't know what the hell it really means - how does the Earth manage to stay in a stable orbit? How does the Earth manage to maintain a 24 hour period of rotation? These are so complex that it is almost impossible to state all of the variables. And you're talking about conservation of momentum as if it were some simple thing.
.

@All, I like this post of his. He ignores Newton's work while saying it's almost impossible to understand all the variables.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Most people do not read between the lines. You look at conservation of momentum and don't know what the hell it really means - how does the Earth manage to stay in a stable orbit? How does the Earth manage to maintain a 24 hour period of rotation? These are so complex that it is almost impossible to state all of the variables. And you're talking about conservation of momentum as if it were some simple thing.
.

@All, I like this post of his. He ignores Newton's work while saying it's almost impossible to understand all the variables.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Do you suppose you could make even the slightest attempt to learn something:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/newton.html

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Most people do not read between the lines. You look at conservation of momentum and don't know what the hell it really means - how does the Earth manage to stay in a stable orbit? How does the Earth manage to maintain a 24 hour period of rotation? These are so complex that it is almost impossible to state all of the variables. And you're talking about conservation of momentum as if it were some simple thing.
.

@All, I like this post of his. He ignores Newton's work while saying it's almost impossible to understand all the variables.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Do you suppose you could make even the slightest attempt to learn something:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/newton.html