Remember me
▼ Content

The Atmosphere's Ability to Absorb and Release Heat



Page 1 of 4123>>>
The Atmosphere's Ability to Absorb and Release Heat29-04-2017 16:22
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
Hopefully Don will explain some on how refrigeration and refrigerants like freon work. I only have a basic understanding of the refrigeration process. And Don might be able to show how pressurization and depressurization effects what a coolant does. This is because with our own atmosphere during the day atmospheric pressure will increase while at night it will decrease.
I also know that if there is a sudden drop in atmospheric pressure and winds start changing directions that a tornado is possible. This is not the change in pressure that I am asking Don to comment on. That's because weather conditions can be local effects while warming and cooling is a more general behavior.


Jim
29-04-2017 16:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The way a fridge works is different to the cooling of the bottom of the atmosphere at the surface of the earth at night.

Fridges work by increasing the pressure of a gas which causes it to become hotter. That is without doing anything to it other than increasing it's pressure the temperature of that gas increases. You then get this gas to cool down, that is what is happening at the back of your fridge where those cooling coils of pipe are. They will be warm if the fridge is opperatinga and actually doing it's making the inside cold thing.

When you allow the gas to expand again it has lost the heat energy it lost in those cooling coils. So it is now colder than it was when it started. It will take in heat from it's surroundings.

Because the warm side of this heat pump is on the back of the fridge and the cold side is inside the well insulated fridge you get to keep your milk cold.

Edited on 29-04-2017 16:53
29-04-2017 16:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The air just above the surface of the world, I don't really like that definition of the earth's surface, so I will say land, the air above the land is heated by contact with the hot land during the day as the land is heated by the sun.

At night the land radiates heat away to space and cools. The air above the land is cooled by contact with the cold land.

When there are clouds the land cools less quickly because lots of the IR heat energy is reflected back down by the clouds.

Just like on a cloudy day lots of the sun's heat energy is reflected away and does not get to heat the ground.

OK, there is a small change in pressure due to the change in temperature but this is very small. Pressure changes due to other weather events are far more powerful.

Edited on 29-04-2017 16:58
29-04-2017 21:06
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The air just above the surface of the world, I don't really like that definition of the earth's surface, so I will say land, the air above the land is heated by contact with the hot land during the day as the land is heated by the sun.

At night the land radiates heat away to space and cools. The air above the land is cooled by contact with the cold land.

When there are clouds the land cools less quickly because lots of the IR heat energy is reflected back down by the clouds.

Just like on a cloudy day lots of the sun's heat energy is reflected away and does not get to heat the ground.

OK, there is a small change in pressure due to the change in temperature but this is very small. Pressure changes due to other weather events are far more powerful.


I hope you don't mind but I'll wait for Don's response.

Jim
29-04-2017 21:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote: I hope you don't mind but I'll wait for Don's response.

Jim


Who's Don?

No trouble like, but does he have a different name on here?

Edited on 29-04-2017 21:54
29-04-2017 23:59
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The way a fridge works is different to the cooling of the bottom of the atmosphere at the surface of the earth at night.

Fridges work by increasing the pressure of a gas which causes it to become hotter. That is without doing anything to it other than increasing it's pressure the temperature of that gas increases. You then get this gas to cool down, that is what is happening at the back of your fridge where those cooling coils of pipe are. They will be warm if the fridge is opperatinga and actually doing it's making the inside cold thing.

When you allow the gas to expand again it has lost the heat energy it lost in those cooling coils. So it is now colder than it was when it started. It will take in heat from it's surroundings.

Because the warm side of this heat pump is on the back of the fridge and the cold side is inside the well insulated fridge you get to keep your milk cold.


Nice. I would say a fridge is heating the outside air rather than cooling anything, because that is all we can do by adding energy like we do in a fridge mechanism. And it is always hot behind there when it does its thing.There is no other way to cool something than introducing something cooler that absorbs heat, and equally, heating can only be done by introducing something that is hotter and emits more energy than there was before.

Now, that makes it clear we have a problem in climate science. Why do they say increased absorption is a cause of heating. It is not possible. If the surface would increase its absorption, then that would mean it has cooled down, or the sun got hotter. If the atmosphere increase absorption with increasing amounts of dry ice, then it means that it has gotten colder, if not the surface got hotter first. But if the surface got hotter first, we would not see increased absorption in the atmosphere in dry ice. Then satellites would measure increased emission from the atmosphere.
30-04-2017 12:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
The hypothesis, I don't know if it is correct or not, is that CO2 absorbs IR. That the sun's heat energy is mostly in IR but also has UV in it and the UV goes straight through the air and heats the surface. The IR emitted by the surface will be absorbed and reflected down more due to increased CO2.

This will result in a slightly warmer surface to get the same IR energy out of the atmosphere.

The next bit which is definately dodgy is the idea that the small increase in temperature that results from the above will then cause lots more heating due to the increase in water vapour you get with wamer air.

The main reason this is very weak is that when we have warmer weather, which does indeed result in more water in the air, it does not then cause the temperautre to rise even more, thus more water thus even hotter etc etc... We do not get to be VenusII.

Edited on 30-04-2017 12:06
30-04-2017 13:36
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The way a fridge works is different to the cooling of the bottom of the atmosphere at the surface of the earth at night.

Fridges work by increasing the pressure of a gas which causes it to become hotter. That is without doing anything to it other than increasing it's pressure the temperature of that gas increases. You then get this gas to cool down, that is what is happening at the back of your fridge where those cooling coils of pipe are. They will be warm if the fridge is opperatinga and actually doing it's making the inside cold thing.

When you allow the gas to expand again it has lost the heat energy it lost in those cooling coils. So it is now colder than it was when it started. It will take in heat from it's surroundings.

Because the warm side of this heat pump is on the back of the fridge and the cold side is inside the well insulated fridge you get to keep your milk cold.


What Tim says is basically correct as viewed from the outside of the refrigerator. However, the big differences occur in the refrigerant inside the tubing involving phase changes.

The compressor obviously increases the pressure of the gaseous refrigerant, and the work done shows up as sensible heat in elevated temperature. This is analogous in the atmosphere to the chinook effect of downslope winds whereby the pressure and temperature increase.

In the condenser coils at the back of the refrigerator the refrigerant gives up its latent heat to the air in condensing to a liquid (phase change). There is no atmospheric analogy for this phase change with CO2, but water vapor changing to liquid rain is an analogy. This phase change in water, I would assume, heats the air.

Then, the liquid refrigerant is expanded through a device into the evaporator inside the refrigerator. The expansion of the liquid refrigerant is accompanied by a pressure drop and phase change as the liquid changes back to a gas. In so doing the refrigerant absorbs latent heat thereby cooling the evaporator and its contents. Once again there is no atmospheric analogy with CO2 but there is with surface water evaporating, thereby cooling.

Water is the only compound in the atmosphere that changes phase involving latent heat, that I am aware of. All other heat transfer in the atmosphere involves sensible heat through conduction, convection, and radiation.

Don
PS: I just traveled from balmy Mexico at 20 degrees north latitude to snowy freezing Denver USA at 40 degrees north latitude. I must be crazy!
Edited on 30-04-2017 14:06
30-04-2017 13:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
I was a bit unsure of this, a low pressure is system is cold and a high pressure is hot, I thought for a moment could you guys acctually be right on the reason for this.

So I looked it up, the met office has a simple explanation and a graphic that seems to explain it.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/how-weather-works/highs-and-lows/pressure

30-04-2017 19:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
A low pressure system is one where you get rain and stuff because the air is rising and thus the water in it is condensing and droping out of it as rain. It's a little more complex, the warm air is rising above colder air and the whole lot is swirling around as a result.

A high pressure system is where the air that went up to the higher levels of the atmosphere, well the higher levels of the troposphere, the lower bit of the atmosphere, is now coming down agian. It seems warm because there are no clouds and thus the sun shine comes straight through but the temperature at night is cold so on average the low pressure time is in fact hotter. Odd thought but...

Edited on 30-04-2017 19:31
30-04-2017 20:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
What some of the people in this thread mentioned what I was hoping would be discussed. This goes to black body radiation. And with our atmosphere it has not been demonstrated using a similar process to see how much heat a specific mixture of atmospheric gases can absorb and then release.
With coolant in a refrigeration process, when a coolant absorbs then releases heat it is basically what atmospheric gases can do as well. IMO that knowing this would help to isolate one way heat is stored and then released. With CO2 at 400 ppm it is about 0.04% of atmospheric gases.
And if this were made known then other sources for heat would receive more consideration.


Jim

edited to add;
p.s., Don, any chance you just wanted to see it snowing ?
Edited on 30-04-2017 20:47
01-05-2017 03:04
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
James_ wrote:
@All,
What some of the people in this thread mentioned what I was hoping would be discussed. This goes to black body radiation. And with our atmosphere it has not been demonstrated using a similar process to see how much heat a specific mixture of atmospheric gases can absorb and then release.
With coolant in a refrigeration process, when a coolant absorbs then releases heat it is basically what atmospheric gases can do as well. IMO that knowing this would help to isolate one way heat is stored and then released. With CO2 at 400 ppm it is about 0.04% of atmospheric gases.
And if this were made known then other sources for heat would receive more consideration.


Jim

edited to add;
p.s., Don, any chance you just wanted to see it snowing ?


Water, due to its ability to change phase at atmospheric pressures, can absorb and emit large amounts of heat per unit of weight. Much more than the specific heat of either the liquid or the gas. The other atmospheric gases are constrained to only absorb and emit heat according to the specific heat of the gas.

For example CO2 at 300 deg K (80.6 deg F) has a specific heat of 0.846kJ/kgK. This means that it takes 0.846 kilojoules of heat to raise the temperature of one kilogram of CO2 by 1 degree Kelvin.

Water at sea level can absorb 2257kJ/kg without changing temperature, by changing phase to a gas. Further increases in temperature (superheating) of the water gas (water vapor or steam) is according to its specific heat (at 300 deg K : 1.864kJ/kgK).

p.s., Jim, I just wanted to see the grandchildren; I've seen enough snow.
01-05-2017 18:26
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Frescomexico wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
What some of the people in this thread mentioned what I was hoping would be discussed. This goes to black body radiation. And with our atmosphere it has not been demonstrated using a similar process to see how much heat a specific mixture of atmospheric gases can absorb and then release.
With coolant in a refrigeration process, when a coolant absorbs then releases heat it is basically what atmospheric gases can do as well. IMO that knowing this would help to isolate one way heat is stored and then released. With CO2 at 400 ppm it is about 0.04% of atmospheric gases.
And if this were made known then other sources for heat would receive more consideration.





Jim

edited to add;
p.s., Don, any chance you just wanted to see it snowing ?


Water, due to its ability to change phase at atmospheric pressures, can absorb and emit large amounts of heat per unit of weight. Much more than the specific heat of either the liquid or the gas. The other atmospheric gases are constrained to only absorb and emit heat according to the specific heat of the gas.

For example CO2 at 300 deg K (80.6 deg F) has a specific heat of 0.846kJ/kgK. This means that it takes 0.846 kilojoules of heat to raise the temperature of one kilogram of CO2 by 1 degree Kelvin.

Water at sea level can absorb 2257kJ/kg without changing temperature, by changing phase to a gas. Further increases in temperature (superheating) of the water gas (water vapor or steam) is according to its specific heat (at 300 deg K : 1.864kJ/kgK).

p.s., Jim, I just wanted to see the grandchildren; I've seen enough snow.


This is one reason why I wouldn't mind seeing scientists verify the ability of atmospheric gases to store heat. This is what CO2 is supposed to do in our atmosphere. And with water, it becomes a vapor in the atmosphere because of Conservation of Momentum. This means that atmospheric gases increase the kinetic potential of a water molecule. 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. Then if CO2 helps those gases to store more heat in that field then it'd know.

Don, I hope you enjoyed your visit :-)
Edited on 01-05-2017 18:27
01-05-2017 19:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
What some of the people in this thread mentioned what I was hoping would be discussed. This goes to black body radiation. And with our atmosphere it has not been demonstrated using a similar process to see how much heat a specific mixture of atmospheric gases can absorb and then release.
With coolant in a refrigeration process, when a coolant absorbs then releases heat it is basically what atmospheric gases can do as well. IMO that knowing this would help to isolate one way heat is stored and then released. With CO2 at 400 ppm it is about 0.04% of atmospheric gases.
And if this were made known then other sources for heat would receive more consideration.





Jim

edited to add;
p.s., Don, any chance you just wanted to see it snowing ?


Water, due to its ability to change phase at atmospheric pressures, can absorb and emit large amounts of heat per unit of weight. Much more than the specific heat of either the liquid or the gas. The other atmospheric gases are constrained to only absorb and emit heat according to the specific heat of the gas.

For example CO2 at 300 deg K (80.6 deg F) has a specific heat of 0.846kJ/kgK. This means that it takes 0.846 kilojoules of heat to raise the temperature of one kilogram of CO2 by 1 degree Kelvin.

Water at sea level can absorb 2257kJ/kg without changing temperature, by changing phase to a gas. Further increases in temperature (superheating) of the water gas (water vapor or steam) is according to its specific heat (at 300 deg K : 1.864kJ/kgK).

p.s., Jim, I just wanted to see the grandchildren; I've seen enough snow.


This is one reason why I wouldn't mind seeing scientists verify the ability of atmospheric gases to store heat. This is what CO2 is supposed to do in our atmosphere. And with water, it becomes a vapor in the atmosphere because of Conservation of Momentum. This means that atmospheric gases increase the kinetic potential of a water molecule. 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. Then if CO2 helps those gases to store more heat in that field then it'd know.

Don, I hope you enjoyed your visit :-)


James - here's is how refrigeration really works:

A gas is compressed until it turns to a liquid. (Just like ice being formed you would normally have to extract heat energy to change phases.) This takes the energy that was in the gas and puts it in a smaller volume making the liquid warmer than the gas was.

So then the liquid is run through a radiator to reduce the heat as much as possible. This liquid now is back to the nominal heat of the original gas.

Then it is run through a valve into an expansion chamber which releases the pressure on the liquid allowing it to return to it's gas phase. Since the same amount of heat that was in the liquid is now in a larger volume the heat per unit volume is less. This is circulated through the cooling plate to absorb heat energy inside of the refrigerator, freezer or air conditioner.

This gas then is again compressed to a liquid to start the cycle again.
02-05-2017 00:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
What some of the people in this thread mentioned what I was hoping would be discussed. This goes to black body radiation. And with our atmosphere it has not been demonstrated using a similar process to see how much heat a specific mixture of atmospheric gases can absorb and then release.
With coolant in a refrigeration process, when a coolant absorbs then releases heat it is basically what atmospheric gases can do as well. IMO that knowing this would help to isolate one way heat is stored and then released. With CO2 at 400 ppm it is about 0.04% of atmospheric gases.
And if this were made known then other sources for heat would receive more consideration.





Jim

edited to add;
p.s., Don, any chance you just wanted to see it snowing ?


Water, due to its ability to change phase at atmospheric pressures, can absorb and emit large amounts of heat per unit of weight. Much more than the specific heat of either the liquid or the gas. The other atmospheric gases are constrained to only absorb and emit heat according to the specific heat of the gas.

For example CO2 at 300 deg K (80.6 deg F) has a specific heat of 0.846kJ/kgK. This means that it takes 0.846 kilojoules of heat to raise the temperature of one kilogram of CO2 by 1 degree Kelvin.

Water at sea level can absorb 2257kJ/kg without changing temperature, by changing phase to a gas. Further increases in temperature (superheating) of the water gas (water vapor or steam) is according to its specific heat (at 300 deg K : 1.864kJ/kgK).

p.s., Jim, I just wanted to see the grandchildren; I've seen enough snow.


This is one reason why I wouldn't mind seeing scientists verify the ability of atmospheric gases to store heat. This is what CO2 is supposed to do in our atmosphere. And with water, it becomes a vapor in the atmosphere because of Conservation of Momentum. This means that atmospheric gases increase the kinetic potential of a water molecule. 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. Then if CO2 helps those gases to store more heat in that field then it'd know.

Don, I hope you enjoyed your visit :-)


James - here's is how refrigeration really works:

A gas is compressed until it turns to a liquid. (Just like ice being formed you would normally have to extract heat energy to change phases.) This takes the energy that was in the gas and puts it in a smaller volume making the liquid warmer than the gas was.

So then the liquid is run through a radiator to reduce the heat as much as possible. This liquid now is back to the nominal heat of the original gas.

Then it is run through a valve into an expansion chamber which releases the pressure on the liquid allowing it to return to it's gas phase. Since the same amount of heat that was in the liquid is now in a larger volume the heat per unit volume is less. This is circulated through the cooling plate to absorb heat energy inside of the refrigerator, freezer or air conditioner.

This gas then is again compressed to a liquid to start the cycle again.


And if what you and Don posted is used to consider how much heat our atmosphere absorbs when it expands during the day then could be compared to the heat it loses at night when the tropopause is closer to the Earth's surface.
It could be consider that our atmosphere compresses when it is not expanded at night. This would make the excited state of the Van Allen Radiation Belt similar to an expansion chamber because of the increased altitude that the tropopause is found at.
With testing it could be realized how much more energy is stored when more or less heavy molecules are in our atmosphere. With nitrogen being about 74% of our atmosphere if it's state is changed (conservation of momentum) by either CO2 or water or both then that would need to be a consideration.

edited to add; if nitrogen transfers it's momentum to heavier molecules then if Conservation of Angular Momentum is considered then it would be possible for nitrogen to store more energy. If this happens then that is how heat could be trapped in our atmosphere.
Edited on 02-05-2017 01:01
02-05-2017 01:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
And if what you and Don posted is used to consider how much heat our atmosphere absorbs when it expands during the day then could be compared to the heat it loses at night when the tropopause is closer to the Earth's surface.
It could be consider that our atmosphere compresses when it is not expanded at night. This would make the excited state of the Van Allen Radiation Belt similar to an expansion chamber because of the increased altitude that the tropopause is found at.
With testing it could be realized how much more energy is stored when more or less heavy molecules are in our atmosphere. With nitrogen being about 74% of our atmosphere if it's state is changed (conservation of momentum) by either CO2 or water or both then that would need to be a consideration.

edited to add; if nitrogen transfers it's momentum to heavier molecules then if Conservation of Angular Momentum is considered then it would be possible for nitrogen to store more energy. If this happens then that is how heat could be trapped in our atmosphere.


Huh? The atmosphere doesn't expand during the day nor compress during the night due to the Sun's emissions. Atmospheric pressure does change but due to the motions of air masses. And yes these air masses are effected by solar emissions but not to the extent you appear to think that they are.

The motions of the Tropopause is not very much from night to day but latitude and average temperature. The atmosphere is a BIG weighty object and it is difficult to make it react rapidly to anything.

CO2 has no effect on anything since it is nothing more than a trace gas.

What causes conduction and convection is temperature mostly from direct contact with a warmer surface.
02-05-2017 03:19
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote " here's is how refrigeration really works:

A gas is compressed until it turns to a liquid. (Just like ice being formed you would normally have to extract heat energy to change phases.) This takes the energy that was in the gas and puts it in a smaller volume making the liquid warmer than the gas was.

So then the liquid is run through a radiator to reduce the heat as much as possible. This liquid now is back to the nominal heat of the original gas.

Then it is run through a valve into an expansion chamber which releases the pressure on the liquid allowing it to return to it's gas phase. Since the same amount of heat that was in the liquid is now in a larger volume the heat per unit volume is less. This is circulated through the cooling plate to absorb heat energy inside of the refrigerator, freezer or air conditioner.

This gas then is again compressed to a liquid to start the cycle again."

Just a small correction to the description above. The gas is not compressed until it turns to a liquid. Actually the work done by the compressor becomes sensible heat in the gas and the hot gas travels to the condenser (which you call a radiator).

In the condenser the high pressure gas transfers some sensible heat, but mostly latent heat to a cooling medium, either air or, in my marine specialty water. In transferring the latent heat the refrigerant condenses to a high pressure liquid at a temperature higher than the original gas entering the compressor usually about 100 deg F.

As you partially described, this high pressure liquid is then expanded to the suction pressure of the compressor. This expansion either occurs in a needle valve (expansion valve) or, as in a household refrigerator, a capillary tube, from which it enters the evaporator as a mixed phase liquid and gas. Throughout the evaporator, the liquid changes phase to a gas, absorbing the latent heat of evaporation from the interior of the refrigerator and exiting as a super-heated gas to enter the compressor.

As I said in my post, these phase changes occur with water both in the clouds and on the surface of the earth. And, of course, the phase change from liquid water to ice and back occurs in the atmosphere and on the surface.
Edited on 02-05-2017 04:01
02-05-2017 04:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
Wake wrote " here's is how refrigeration really works:

A gas is compressed until it turns to a liquid. (Just like ice being formed you would normally have to extract heat energy to change phases.) This takes the energy that was in the gas and puts it in a smaller volume making the liquid warmer than the gas was.

So then the liquid is run through a radiator to reduce the heat as much as possible. This liquid now is back to the nominal heat of the original gas.

Then it is run through a valve into an expansion chamber which releases the pressure on the liquid allowing it to return to it's gas phase. Since the same amount of heat that was in the liquid is now in a larger volume the heat per unit volume is less. This is circulated through the cooling plate to absorb heat energy inside of the refrigerator, freezer or air conditioner.

This gas then is again compressed to a liquid to start the cycle again."

Just a small correction to the description above. The gas is not compressed until it turns to a liquid. Actually the work done by the compressor becomes sensible heat in the gas and the hot gas travels to the condenser (which you call a radiator).

In the condenser the high pressure gas transfers some sensible heat, but mostly latent heat to a cooling medium, either air or, in my marine specialty water. In transferring the latent heat the refrigerant condenses to a high pressure liquid at a temperature higher than the original gas entering the compressor usually about 100 deg F.

As you partially described, this high pressure liquid is then expanded to the suction pressure of the compressor. This expansion either occurs in a needle valve (expansion valve) or, as in a household refrigerator, a capillary tube, from which it enters the evaporator as a mixed phase liquid and gas. Throughout the evaporator, the liquid changes phase to a gas, absorbing the latent heat of evaporation from the interior of the refrigerator and exiting as a super-heated gas to enter the compressor.

As I said in my post, these phase changes occur with water both in the clouds and on the surface of the earth. And, of course, the phase change from liquid water to ice and back occurs in the atmosphere and on the surface.


The atmosphere which usually contains some percentage of water in gas phase, is warmed via contact with the warmer Earth or in some cases through IR radiation from a warmed Earth.This IR would in almost all cases be reacting with the water content which in turn would heat the surrounding gases with simple conduction. Particles of air jumping around full of energy bumping into other molecules and transferring energy to them.

At this point the warmed air attempts to expand. This it can only do locally but it does become lighter than the cooler air above it.

The water content because of the very high specific heat reverts to liquid phase as it cools.

Now two things are occurring: as the warmer air rises the atmospheric pressure becomes less because of the increased volume of the increasing radius/volume.

But at the same time this rising and expansion is somewhat allowed because as it rises in the atmosphere the total volume increases at the apparent volume of the atmosphere increases with the radius increase.

So actual atmospheric pressure is only reducing because of the weight of the atmosphere above any unit of area. And as the gas rises higher and the pressure reduces the unit volume increase and hence the amount of energy carried by any unit of volume decreases.

As this gas rises to the tropopause using conduction to transfer energy the falling energy of the molecules eventually reach a lower energy than the surrounding molecules and through convection they begin to sink.

Remember that at the same time other molecules hadn't lost as much energy through conduction and continue to rise.

H2O is a spectacular fluid having more specific heat capacity than anything else in the atmosphere so eventually most of the normal gases have fallen back while the water continues to rise to lower stratosphere. At this level is is above 98% of the components of the atmosphere so there is little between the Sun's radiation and the water.

Clouds are composed of about 99% water and at this altitude the Sun's energy is reflected to the tune of 30%. This means that the remaining energy that isn't reflected is absorbed by the water and at some point they reach their specific heat content and radiate. This is in all directions.

So while the atmosphere absorbs about 23% of the Sun's energy that isn't reflected a large part of that is carried by water which eventually radiates it.

In the end the surface of the Earth receives about 48% of the energy that wasn't reflected or radiated off into space at the Troposphere.

If you care to calculate the increase in volume of the atmospheric layer in the Troposphere there are several references that will give you the surface volume of the Earth and the depth of the Troposphere with is something like 11 miles at the poles and 18 miles at the equator.

When all of these discussions began I told everyone that Earth is a water planet and that the entire cycle of energy from the Sun is almost entirely reliant upon water. The compression and decompression of the atmosphere has little effect with altitude. The only thing that is happening is that H2O is moving heat about and reflecting or radiating the Sun's energy.

Think about this - how in the world could ANYONE at ANY TIME see CO2 as anything other than a trace gas?
02-05-2017 19:31
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
And if what you and Don posted is used to consider how much heat our atmosphere absorbs when it expands during the day then could be compared to the heat it loses at night when the tropopause is closer to the Earth's surface.
It could be consider that our atmosphere compresses when it is not expanded at night. This would make the excited state of the Van Allen Radiation Belt similar to an expansion chamber because of the increased altitude that the tropopause is found at.
With testing it could be realized how much more energy is stored when more or less heavy molecules are in our atmosphere. With nitrogen being about 74% of our atmosphere if it's state is changed (conservation of momentum) by either CO2 or water or both then that would need to be a consideration.

edited to add; if nitrogen transfers it's momentum to heavier molecules then if Conservation of Angular Momentum is considered then it would be possible for nitrogen to store more energy. If this happens then that is how heat could be trapped in our atmosphere.


Huh? The atmosphere doesn't expand during the day nor compress during the night due to the Sun's emissions. Atmospheric pressure does change but due to the motions of air masses.


Wake, the atmosphere does change based on it's exposure to solar radiation. And it might be the same effect as found in refrigeration. The troposphere and tropopause both have higher elevations during the day. This could be because our atmosphere is attracted to the Van Allen Radiation Belt which has a more excited state when it's exposed to solar radiation.
And then at night because the Earth is blocking out the Sun the troposphere and tropopause both are at lower altitudes. And why on a clear night much heat escapes, our atmosphere is not as excited as it is when it's exposed to the Van Allen Radiation Belt's side which is exposed to the Sun.
And the last part would explain how besides ozone reflecting heat that the stratopause is as warm as 32° F. or 0° C. Remember the tropopause can get as cold as -74° F. or about -42° C. That's a significant difference in temperature and the only thing that explains it is the Van Allen Radiation Belt.
03-05-2017 00:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
And if what you and Don posted is used to consider how much heat our atmosphere absorbs when it expands during the day then could be compared to the heat it loses at night when the tropopause is closer to the Earth's surface.
It could be consider that our atmosphere compresses when it is not expanded at night. This would make the excited state of the Van Allen Radiation Belt similar to an expansion chamber because of the increased altitude that the tropopause is found at.
With testing it could be realized how much more energy is stored when more or less heavy molecules are in our atmosphere. With nitrogen being about 74% of our atmosphere if it's state is changed (conservation of momentum) by either CO2 or water or both then that would need to be a consideration.

edited to add; if nitrogen transfers it's momentum to heavier molecules then if Conservation of Angular Momentum is considered then it would be possible for nitrogen to store more energy. If this happens then that is how heat could be trapped in our atmosphere.


Huh? The atmosphere doesn't expand during the day nor compress during the night due to the Sun's emissions. Atmospheric pressure does change but due to the motions of air masses.


Wake, the atmosphere does change based on it's exposure to solar radiation. And it might be the same effect as found in refrigeration. The troposphere and tropopause both have higher elevations during the day. This could be because our atmosphere is attracted to the Van Allen Radiation Belt which has a more excited state when it's exposed to solar radiation.
And then at night because the Earth is blocking out the Sun the troposphere and tropopause both are at lower altitudes. And why on a clear night much heat escapes, our atmosphere is not as excited as it is when it's exposed to the Van Allen Radiation Belt's side which is exposed to the Sun.
And the last part would explain how besides ozone reflecting heat that the stratopause is as warm as 32° F. or 0° C. Remember the tropopause can get as cold as -74° F. or about -42° C. That's a significant difference in temperature and the only thing that explains it is the Van Allen Radiation Belt.


Don't think so.

The Van Allen belt is about 1000km above the surface of the Earth near the poles. Over the equator, these belts extend out to a good 60,000km.

The stratopause is 50km above the surface.

The reason for the temperature inversion has to do with ozone production and destruction and the three bands of UV light (UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C).

Ozone is formed by exposure to UV-B or UV-A. It is destroyed by UV-C.

The formation of ozone is endothermic. It becomes colder as it forms, taking energy from the UV light to do so. This takes place near the tropopause, which can get as cold as -50 deg F.

The destruction of ozone is an exothermic reaction. This takes place near the stratopause, since UV-C light can enter the atmosphere this far. (It is completely gone by the time UV light reaches the tropopause). This heats the stratopause, producing the overall temperature inversion as you climb through the stratosphere.

As long as you have sun and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2017 01:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
And if what you and Don posted is used to consider how much heat our atmosphere absorbs when it expands during the day then could be compared to the heat it loses at night when the tropopause is closer to the Earth's surface.
It could be consider that our atmosphere compresses when it is not expanded at night. This would make the excited state of the Van Allen Radiation Belt similar to an expansion chamber because of the increased altitude that the tropopause is found at.
With testing it could be realized how much more energy is stored when more or less heavy molecules are in our atmosphere. With nitrogen being about 74% of our atmosphere if it's state is changed (conservation of momentum) by either CO2 or water or both then that would need to be a consideration.

edited to add; if nitrogen transfers it's momentum to heavier molecules then if Conservation of Angular Momentum is considered then it would be possible for nitrogen to store more energy. If this happens then that is how heat could be trapped in our atmosphere.


Huh? The atmosphere doesn't expand during the day nor compress during the night due to the Sun's emissions. Atmospheric pressure does change but due to the motions of air masses.


Wake, the atmosphere does change based on it's exposure to solar radiation. And it might be the same effect as found in refrigeration. The troposphere and tropopause both have higher elevations during the day. This could be because our atmosphere is attracted to the Van Allen Radiation Belt which has a more excited state when it's exposed to solar radiation.
And then at night because the Earth is blocking out the Sun the troposphere and tropopause both are at lower altitudes. And why on a clear night much heat escapes, our atmosphere is not as excited as it is when it's exposed to the Van Allen Radiation Belt's side which is exposed to the Sun.
And the last part would explain how besides ozone reflecting heat that the stratopause is as warm as 32° F. or 0° C. Remember the tropopause can get as cold as -74° F. or about -42° C. That's a significant difference in temperature and the only thing that explains it is the Van Allen Radiation Belt.


I think we're talking in circles here. I think I keep misrepresenting Km for Mi etc.

Yes the height of the Tropopause changes night to day but the Tropopause isn't a height - it's a pressure gradient. 98% of the Earth's atmosphere lies BELOW the Stratosphere. Over the next 10 km or so 94/5% of the remaining atmosphere resides. Above this there is so little atmosphere that Satellites orbit within the final remainders of it.

This specific pressure change occurs on every single planet and moon in the Solar System that has an atmosphere even though they all have atmospheric densities and compositions. So the pressure change from Tropopause to Stratosphere is not unique to any body we know. (though it is extremely distorted on Venus due to the spectacular atmospheric pressure and temperature.)

When the Tropopause rises and falls with heat or evening cooling the pressure step between it and the Stratosphere is the same.

As for Ozone - it reflects only the higher wavelengths in the high UV and X-ray radiation that occurs during solar prominences. It does not reflect or absorb in the cosmic ray region which can also occur in these solar explosions.

The Van Allen Belts are FAR beyond Earth orbiting satellites. The Inner belt is some 1,000 km away except at the magnetic poles and solar charged particles are trapped in the magnetic field of Earth and these are what capture cosmic rays.
03-05-2017 03:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Wake wrote:
As for Ozone - it reflects only the higher wavelengths in the high UV and X-ray radiation that occurs during solar prominences. It does not reflect or absorb in the cosmic ray region which can also occur in these solar explosions.


Ozone absorbs UV-C (high frequency ultraviolet) light. It doesn't reflect it.

The absorption of UV-C by ozone destroys the ozone, converting it to O2 and releasing heat as an exothermic reaction.

This takes place nearer the stratopause, which is why you get a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

Absorption of UV-B and UV-A by oxygen converts the oxygen to ozone, cooling as it does so due the endothermic reaction.

This takes place nearer the tropopause, which is why you get such a cold tropopause (and a temperature inversion in the stratosphere).


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2017 18:02
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
I think the both of you are helping to show why my Atmospheric Forcing experiment would be important. It would help to show that the tropopause is the same in principle as a Joule - Thomson Throttling Process. And this would mean that when the elevation of the tropopause changes that work is being performed. An example of this would be the higher temperature found in the stratopause. it would have more molecules in it than the tropopause and would have both gravity and the electrostatic attraction of the Van Allen Radiation belt acting on it. Of course it could be said that the cold of the tropopause is attracting the molecules in the stratosphere as well. It would be something that would need to be considered.

Jim
03-05-2017 18:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
I think the both of you are helping to show why my Atmospheric Forcing experiment would be important. It would help to show that the tropopause is the same in principle as a Joule - Thomson Throttling Process. And this would mean that when the elevation of the tropopause changes that work is being performed. An example of this would be the higher temperature found in the stratopause. it would have more molecules in it than the tropopause and would have both gravity and the electrostatic attraction of the Van Allen Radiation belt acting on it. Of course it could be said that the cold of the tropopause is attracting the molecules in the stratosphere as well. It would be something that would need to be considered.

Jim


We had a couple of people talking about how the disappearance of energy could be solved in more direct ways simply by a combination of increased reflections and using the conduction/convection cycle creating "work" which limits the efficiency of the radiation of heat into space.

The Joule-Thomson effect is that in which a process is separated from external effects. Such as a refrigerator or air conditioner.

I think that you would find that the cycling of the altitude of the Tropopause does not change atmospheric pressure.

Also the actual density of air in the stratosphere is so thin that it really doesn't have any effect on anything. Only 2% of the atmosphere resides in that rather huge area.
Edited on 03-05-2017 18:44
04-05-2017 16:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
I think the both of you are helping to show why my Atmospheric Forcing experiment would be important. It would help to show that the tropopause is the same in principle as a Joule - Thomson Throttling Process. And this would mean that when the elevation of the tropopause changes that work is being performed. An example of this would be the higher temperature found in the stratopause. it would have more molecules in it than the tropopause and would have both gravity and the electrostatic attraction of the Van Allen Radiation belt acting on it. Of course it could be said that the cold of the tropopause is attracting the molecules in the stratosphere as well. It would be something that would need to be considered.

Jim


We had a couple of people talking about how the disappearance of energy could be solved in more direct ways simply by a combination of increased reflections and using the conduction/convection cycle creating "work" which limits the efficiency of the radiation of heat into space.

The Joule-Thomson effect is that in which a process is separated from external effects. Such as a refrigerator or air conditioner.

I think that you would find that the cycling of the altitude of the Tropopause does not change atmospheric pressure.

Also the actual density of air in the stratosphere is so thin that it really doesn't have any effect on anything. Only 2% of the atmosphere resides in that rather huge area.


I guess this is where I am wrong because I've been basing my opinion on actual observations.

edited to add; if you read this link they say that smog occurs during the day because it requires sun light. Smog occurs at night and if it's warm enough during the day then it will burn off. How do I know this ? I observed it everyday when I lived in San Diego, Ca.
Does that matter ? it doesn't because if current belief is wrong that doesn't matter because it is what is believed to be happening is what's important.

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/smogpollution.php
Edited on 04-05-2017 16:47
04-05-2017 19:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
I think the both of you are helping to show why my Atmospheric Forcing experiment would be important. It would help to show that the tropopause is the same in principle as a Joule - Thomson Throttling Process. And this would mean that when the elevation of the tropopause changes that work is being performed. An example of this would be the higher temperature found in the stratopause. it would have more molecules in it than the tropopause and would have both gravity and the electrostatic attraction of the Van Allen Radiation belt acting on it. Of course it could be said that the cold of the tropopause is attracting the molecules in the stratosphere as well. It would be something that would need to be considered.

Jim




We had a couple of people talking about how the disappearance of energy could be solved in more direct ways simply by a combination of increased reflections and using the conduction/convection cycle creating "work" which limits the efficiency of the radiation of heat into space.

The Joule-Thomson effect is that in which a process is separated from external effects. Such as a refrigerator or air conditioner.

I think that you would find that the cycling of the altitude of the Tropopause does not change atmospheric pressure.

Also the actual density of air in the stratosphere is so thin that it really doesn't have any effect on anything. Only 2% of the atmosphere resides in that rather huge area.


I guess this is where I am wrong because I've been basing my opinion on actual observations.

edited to add; if you read this link they say that smog occurs during the day because it requires sun light. Smog occurs at night and if it's warm enough during the day then it will burn off. How do I know this ? I observed it everyday when I lived in San Diego, Ca.
Does that matter ? it doesn't because if current belief is wrong that doesn't matter because it is what is believed to be happening is what's important.

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/smogpollution.php


Maybe I'm missing your point or perhaps you're talking about solar tides which have to do with atmospheric pressures reaching their peaks at 10 am and 10 pm. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081203092437.htm

I'm not sure what you're talking about smog for since this has very little to do with atmospheric pressure and more to do with pollution and wind velocity.

I am not suggesting that you should not make any experiments you like. Only that they should be pertinent to what you are attempting to prove.
05-05-2017 17:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
I think the both of you are helping to show why my Atmospheric Forcing experiment would be important. It would help to show that the tropopause is the same in principle as a Joule - Thomson Throttling Process. And this would mean that when the elevation of the tropopause changes that work is being performed. An example of this would be the higher temperature found in the stratopause. it would have more molecules in it than the tropopause and would have both gravity and the electrostatic attraction of the Van Allen Radiation belt acting on it. Of course it could be said that the cold of the tropopause is attracting the molecules in the stratosphere as well. It would be something that would need to be considered.

Jim




We had a couple of people talking about how the disappearance of energy could be solved in more direct ways simply by a combination of increased reflections and using the conduction/convection cycle creating "work" which limits the efficiency of the radiation of heat into space.

The Joule-Thomson effect is that in which a process is separated from external effects. Such as a refrigerator or air conditioner.

I think that you would find that the cycling of the altitude of the Tropopause does not change atmospheric pressure.

Also the actual density of air in the stratosphere is so thin that it really doesn't have any effect on anything. Only 2% of the atmosphere resides in that rather huge area.


I guess this is where I am wrong because I've been basing my opinion on actual observations.

edited to add; if you read this link they say that smog occurs during the day because it requires sun light. Smog occurs at night and if it's warm enough during the day then it will burn off. How do I know this ? I observed it everyday when I lived in San Diego, Ca.
Does that matter ? it doesn't because if current belief is wrong that doesn't matter because it is what is believed to be happening is what's important.

http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/smogpollution.php


Maybe I'm missing your point or perhaps you're talking about solar tides which have to do with atmospheric pressures reaching their peaks at 10 am and 10 pm. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081203092437.htm

I'm not sure what you're talking about smog for since this has very little to do with atmospheric pressure and more to do with pollution and wind velocity.

I am not suggesting that you should not make any experiments you like. Only that they should be pertinent to what you are attempting to prove.


Wake,
I checked my messages and it was you that was messaging me. You really shouldn't be condescending to someone when you're not getting it. You seem to be narrow minded and can't consider that someone else might know something.
05-05-2017 20:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I checked my messages and it was you that was messaging me. You really shouldn't be condescending to someone when you're not getting it. You seem to be narrow minded and can't consider that someone else might know something.


James - I messaged you only on the definition of the Joule-Thompson throttling process and nothing more.

Do you find it condescending to have a precise definition from a reliable source when you are suggesting that this process operates in conditions different from the definition?

You are perfectly capable of running any experiments you believe would prove you correct or not. But talking about global warming and the Joule-Thompson effect in the same sentence doesn't make any sense. You would have to show some sort of throttling process - a valve in some manner. And since the atmosphere is completely open that would be pretty difficult don't you think?

What you appear to be talking about most recently is the Tropopause moving up and down with night and day. I said that the atmospheric pressure does not change with this motion. Though there are solar atmospheric pressure tides in which there are maximum and minimum atmospheric pressure changes.

Do you know something different about atmospheric pressure in regards to the day-night shift in the height of the tropopause that isn't published?
06-05-2017 18:11
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I checked my messages and it was you that was messaging me. You really shouldn't be condescending to someone when you're not getting it. You seem to be narrow minded and can't consider that someone else might know something.


James - I messaged you only on the definition of the Joule-Thompson throttling process and nothing more.

Do you find it condescending to have a precise definition from a reliable source when you are suggesting that this process operates in conditions different from the definition?

You are perfectly capable of running any experiments you believe would prove you correct or not. But talking about global warming and the Joule-Thompson effect in the same sentence doesn't make any sense. You would have to show some sort of throttling process - a valve in some manner. And since the atmosphere is completely open that would be pretty difficult don't you think?

What you appear to be talking about most recently is the Tropopause moving up and down with night and day. I said that the atmospheric pressure does not change with this motion. Though there are solar atmospheric pressure tides in which there are maximum and minimum atmospheric pressure changes.

Do you know something different about atmospheric pressure in regards to the day-night shift in the height of the tropopause that isn't published?


I find it condescending that you think I am wrong because
you do not understand something.
06-05-2017 22:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
I checked my messages and it was you that was messaging me. You really shouldn't be condescending to someone when you're not getting it. You seem to be narrow minded and can't consider that someone else might know something.


James - I messaged you only on the definition of the Joule-Thompson throttling process and nothing more.

Do you find it condescending to have a precise definition from a reliable source when you are suggesting that this process operates in conditions different from the definition?

You are perfectly capable of running any experiments you believe would prove you correct or not. But talking about global warming and the Joule-Thompson effect in the same sentence doesn't make any sense. You would have to show some sort of throttling process - a valve in some manner. And since the atmosphere is completely open that would be pretty difficult don't you think?

What you appear to be talking about most recently is the Tropopause moving up and down with night and day. I said that the atmospheric pressure does not change with this motion. Though there are solar atmospheric pressure tides in which there are maximum and minimum atmospheric pressure changes.

Do you know something different about atmospheric pressure in regards to the day-night shift in the height of the tropopause that isn't published?


I find it condescending that you think I am wrong because
you do not understand something.


If you find that condescending it is plain that you have never received any higher education.
07-05-2017 20:09
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

If you find that condescending it is plain that you have never received any higher education.


Why ? Because you can't grasp what I'm trying to discuss ? Not my problem.
07-05-2017 20:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

If you find that condescending it is plain that you have never received any higher education.


Why ? Because you can't grasp what I'm trying to discuss ? Not my problem.


James - no insult but you haven't discussed anything. You have made a few implications and I made a few recommendations and now you're crying like a baby.

Let us say that you completed an experiment. That would mean that in order to have ANY effect you would have to write it up. And then you would become a target for every True Believer and even people like Into The Night who is nothing more than the argumentative type and even willing to lie about his accomplishments in order to back his false arguments up.

Would you then start sniveling that people were being mean to you?

Grow up. If you believe you can perform ANY experiment that wasn't already done 100 or more years ago then by all means do so. But if you think you've proven anything, with your attitude, you'll have to keep it smugly to yourself.
Edited on 07-05-2017 20:44
07-05-2017 21:39
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

If you find that condescending it is plain that you have never received any higher education.


Why ? Because you can't grasp what I'm trying to discuss ? Not my problem.


James - no insult but you haven't discussed anything. You have made a few implications and I made a few recommendations and now you're crying like a baby.

Let us say that you completed an experiment. That would mean that in order to have ANY effect you would have to write it up. And then you would become a target for every True Believer and even people like Into The Night who is nothing more than the argumentative type and even willing to lie about his accomplishments in order to back his false arguments up.

Would you then start sniveling that people were being mean to you?

Grow up. If you believe you can perform ANY experiment that wasn't already done 100 or more years ago then by all means do so. But if you think you've proven anything, with your attitude, you'll have to keep it smugly to yourself.


Now you're even more insulting. >> you'll have to keep it smugly to yourself << >> Would you then start sniveling that people were being mean to you? <<
>> and now you're crying like a baby. <<

It seems you are rather high on yourself. You should probably find someone else to insult. If I am able to have the experiment tried and it is successful then the results will speak for it's self. I have let someone know why I think it will be successful. This is because they could help to have the experiment tried. I already have a scientist in mind who knows about it but he needs permission from the president of the university to try it.
07-05-2017 22:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

If you find that condescending it is plain that you have never received any higher education.


Why ? Because you can't grasp what I'm trying to discuss ? Not my problem.


James - no insult but you haven't discussed anything. You have made a few implications and I made a few recommendations and now you're crying like a baby.

Paradox.

1) no insult.
2) followed by insults.

Wake wrote:
Let us say that you completed an experiment. That would mean that in order to have ANY effect you would have to write it up. And then you would become a target for every True Believer and even people like Into The Night who is nothing more than the argumentative type and even willing to lie about his accomplishments in order to back his false arguments up.

Ouch. You haven't created many theories or performed many experiments, have you? That indicates to me that your claim of your 'accomplishments' are lies. Experiments and theories are all targets to anyone waiting to challenge them. Experiments are challenged on the basis that they are observations, and as such, are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Theories are challenged on their tests for consistency and falsifiability. I thought you said you were a scientist.

Oh...I did]/b] tell you that credentials mean almost NOTHING on forums...didn't I?

You don't believe mine, I don't believe yours. Done.

[b]Wake wrote:
Would you then start sniveling that people were being mean to you?
More of that 'not insulting' by 'insulting'.
Wake wrote:
Grow up. If you believe you can perform ANY experiment that wasn't already done 100 or more years ago then by all means do so. But if you think you've proven anything, with your attitude, you'll have to keep it smugly to yourself.

Anyone can design and perform any experiment they want. Even if it 'repeats' one performed in the past, what's it to ya? People do this every day.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2017 03:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

If you find that condescending it is plain that you have never received any higher education.


Why ? Because you can't grasp what I'm trying to discuss ? Not my problem.


James - no insult but you haven't discussed anything. You have made a few implications and I made a few recommendations and now you're crying like a baby.

Let us say that you completed an experiment. That would mean that in order to have ANY effect you would have to write it up. And then you would become a target for every True Believer and even people like Into The Night who is nothing more than the argumentative type and even willing to lie about his accomplishments in order to back his false arguments up.

Would you then start sniveling that people were being mean to you?

Grow up. If you believe you can perform ANY experiment that wasn't already done 100 or more years ago then by all means do so. But if you think you've proven anything, with your attitude, you'll have to keep it smugly to yourself.


Now you're even more insulting. >> you'll have to keep it smugly to yourself << >> Would you then start sniveling that people were being mean to you? <<
>> and now you're crying like a baby. <<

It seems you are rather high on yourself. You should probably find someone else to insult. If I am able to have the experiment tried and it is successful then the results will speak for it's self. I have let someone know why I think it will be successful. This is because they could help to have the experiment tried. I already have a scientist in mind who knows about it but he needs permission from the president of the university to try it.


Science permits the repeats of other's experiments. And it also allows YOU to pursue what you believe to be an original experiment. Though it is unlikely to really be original. That doesn't mean it isn't original to you. After all, you can't be expected to know the entire history of science.

But that wasn't insults. It was statement of fact which you chose to take as an insult. As I said - what do you plan on doing with the result of your experiment? Are you going to cry that people are mean to you if you publish and because you are directly criticized? And this is also the reason that MANY professors stay completely at arm's length on these sorts of things. Again - grow up.
08-05-2017 04:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Paradox.

1) no insult.
2) followed by insults.

Oh...I [b]did]/b] tell you that credentials mean almost NOTHING on forums...didn't I?

You don't believe mine, I don't believe yours. Done.

More of that 'not insulting' by 'insulting'.

Anyone can design and perform any experiment they want. Even if it 'repeats' one performed in the past, what's it to ya? People do this every day.


It isn't my job to "perform experiments" it's my job to make things that are based on successful experiment work. That's what I do. I design medical and analytical instrument design and programming. I'm not a college student trying to make a grade. I'm an engineer trying to make my company money. In so doing sometimes I have to correct the results of other people's experiments but it is only via deductive reasoning. You know - that real world you want to think is non-existent.

Apparently you work somewhere in the aircraft industry. But you avoid saying what and where. No big deal but you do insist on trying to pretend to understand mathematics that you continuously misunderstand.

Not just the "Earth" is a blackbody, but every single component of that can be treated as a blackbody and is so treated in the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation.

I know that you think that Stefan-Boltzmann only gives you a single temperature (now somehow only meaning photons) but look at this:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance.html

A little way down from the top of the page is a colored graph and what is it labeled? And exactly how does that fit into your ideas? Does that give you the slightest idea what I'm talking about when I say "bell curve"?
08-05-2017 20:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Paradox.

1) no insult.
2) followed by insults.

Oh...I did]/b] tell you that credentials mean almost NOTHING on forums...didn't I?

You don't believe mine, I don't believe yours. Done.

More of that 'not insulting' by 'insulting'.

Anyone can design and perform any experiment they want. Even if it 'repeats' one performed in the past, what's it to ya? People do this every day.


It isn't my job to "perform experiments" it's my job to make things that are based on successful experiment work.

Everyone in a technical field performs experiments. It's part of their job. Even for engineers.
[b]Wake wrote:
That's what I do. I design medical and analytical instrument design and programming.

I don't believe you. Credentials mean nothing here.
Wake wrote:
I'm not a college student trying to make a grade.

Neither am I.
Wake wrote:
I'm an engineer trying to make my company money. In so doing sometimes I have to correct the results of other people's experiments but it is only via deductive reasoning. You know - that real world you want to think is non-existent.

I don't believe you. Credentials mean nothing here.

Why do you believe I think the real world is non-existent?

Wake wrote:
Apparently you work somewhere in the aircraft industry. But you avoid saying what and where. No big deal but you do insist on trying to pretend to understand mathematics that you continuously misunderstand.

I do understand it. It is YOU that does not understand it.
Wake wrote:
Not just the "Earth" is a blackbody, but every single component of that can be treated as a blackbody and is so treated in the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation.

In certain ways, true. It is not additive, however. When discussing the energies of the Earth, the whole Earth must be taken into account. Subdividing the Earth for the purposes of Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't mean anything.
Wake wrote:
I know that you think that Stefan-Boltzmann only gives you a single temperature (now somehow only meaning photons) but look at this:

Stefan-Boltzmann does not give you temperature. It gives you radiance from a known temperature.
Wake wrote:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance.html

A little way down from the top of the page is a colored graph and what is it labeled? And exactly how does that fit into your ideas?

A lousy graph showing attempting to show an unrelated function.
Wake wrote:
Does that give you the slightest idea what I'm talking about when I say "bell curve"?

Yes. It tells me you didn't understand the article you are quoting. Go read it again. Hint: It's badly written, and not very clear.

Stefan-Boltzmann does not produce a bell curve or any other kind of curve. It produces a scalar value.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2017 21:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

If you find that condescending it is plain that you have never received any higher education.


Why ? Because you can't grasp what I'm trying to discuss ? Not my problem.


James - no insult but you haven't discussed anything. You have made a few implications and I made a few recommendations and now you're crying like a baby.

Let us say that you completed an experiment. That would mean that in order to have ANY effect you would have to write it up. And then you would become a target for every True Believer and even people like Into The Night who is nothing more than the argumentative type and even willing to lie about his accomplishments in order to back his false arguments up.

Would you then start sniveling that people were being mean to you?

Grow up. If you believe you can perform ANY experiment that wasn't already done 100 or more years ago then by all means do so. But if you think you've proven anything, with your attitude, you'll have to keep it smugly to yourself.


Now you're even more insulting. >> you'll have to keep it smugly to yourself << >> Would you then start sniveling that people were being mean to you? <<
>> and now you're crying like a baby. <<

It seems you are rather high on yourself. You should probably find someone else to insult. If I am able to have the experiment tried and it is successful then the results will speak for it's self. I have let someone know why I think it will be successful. This is because they could help to have the experiment tried. I already have a scientist in mind who knows about it but he needs permission from the president of the university to try it.


Science permits the repeats of other's experiments. And it also allows YOU to pursue what you believe to be an original experiment. Though it is unlikely to really be original. That doesn't mean it isn't original to you. After all, you can't be expected to know the entire history of science.

But that wasn't insults. It was statement of fact which you chose to take as an insult. As I said - what do you plan on doing with the result of your experiment? Are you going to cry that people are mean to you if you publish and because you are directly criticized? And this is also the reason that MANY professors stay completely at arm's length on these sorts of things. Again - grow up.


>> And this is also the reason that MANY professors stay completely at arm's length on these sorts of things. Again - grow up. <<

Are you really this stupid ? It seems all you want is a pissing contest and not much more.

>> Are you going to cry that people are mean to you if you publish and because you are directly criticized? <<

You're the only person causing me any problems over it. Only you. And I think this is as good a reason as any for my experiment to be tried...

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

>> Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases <<

My experiment would be the first step in demonstrating a link that the IPCC scientists acknowledge. Both quotes are from the same link.

>> For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. <<

Yet for some reason Wake you are all over me. And I thnk the scientist who told me to ask the university president for his approval has considered that I would only be demonstrating the "how" and as Dr. Guzman knows, if he helps me then it would become his experiment/research, etc. Dr. Guzman is also interested in Atmospheric Chemistry so it is in his field of research.
What I would get credit for is realizing that Conservation of Momentum dictates how thermodynamics is considered in a field that is absent of both pressure and heat.


Jim

p.s., I have another project that I've been pursuing and if that works out for me then it should help me with this. And Dr. Guzman knows I would like for him to be involved. This would allow him to pursue more research associated with this if he wanted to. As for me I have other work that's better suited for me.
Edited on 08-05-2017 21:54
08-05-2017 23:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
>> And this is also the reason that MANY professors stay completely at arm's length on these sorts of things. Again - grow up. <<

Are you really this stupid ? It seems all you want is a pissing contest and not much more.

>> Are you going to cry that people are mean to you if you publish and because you are directly criticized? <<

You're the only person causing me any problems over it. Only you. And I think this is as good a reason as any for my experiment to be tried...

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

>> Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases <<

My experiment would be the first step in demonstrating a link that the IPCC scientists acknowledge. Both quotes are from the same link.

>> For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. <<

Yet for some reason Wake you are all over me. And I thnk the scientist who told me to ask the university president for his approval has considered that I would only be demonstrating the "how" and as Dr. Guzman knows, if he helps me then it would become his experiment/research, etc. Dr. Guzman is also interested in Atmospheric Chemistry so it is in his field of research.
What I would get credit for is realizing that Conservation of Momentum dictates how thermodynamics is considered in a field that is absent of both pressure and heat.


Jim

p.s., I have another project that I've been pursuing and if that works out for me then it should help me with this. And Dr. Guzman knows I would like for him to be involved. This would allow him to pursue more research associated with this if he wanted to. As for me I have other work that's better suited for me.


You seem to have this all figured out. So why are you so bothered by my comments? Obviously you have deep concerns about your ideas or you wouldn't be so angry about being criticized about your wonderful new ideas that will change the face of AGW and give full credit to your adviser. Not to mention that none of it was criticism but nothing more than advice.
09-05-2017 17:34
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
You seem to have this all figured out. So why are you so bothered by my comments? Obviously you have deep concerns about your ideas or you wouldn't be so angry about being criticized about your wonderful new ideas that will change the face of AGW and give full credit to your adviser. Not to mention that none of it was criticism but nothing more than advice.


I'm not bothered by your comments. If not for you no one would notice so Thank You. And yes I do have it figured out.

This I don't understand

>> give full credit to your adviser. <<

I also do not understand this comment either

>> you wouldn't be so angry about being criticized about your wonderful new ideas that will change the face of AGW <<

The IPCC already accepts that CO2 helps to support stratospheric ozone levels. It's in their report. That I thought of it for a different reason does not change that the IPCC has already acknowledged it's importance in their report. What I know is how or why CO2 supports stratospheric ozone levels.
Of which if I can get help in demonstrating the "how" or "why" then I would be able to suggest giving hydrothermal vents along the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges more consideration.


Jim

edited to add;
@All,
The experiment is to place 1 liter of nitrogen, 25 cc's of O2, .5 cc's of CO2 and .25 cc's of H2O in a weather balloon (2 ft. dia.) and use another weather balloon filled with helium to float it up into the upper troposphere to see if when retrieved if CH2O and O2 has occurred.

If such does happen then it would take actual scientists like Dr. Guzman and his laboratory to better understand why such phenomena occurs/happens.
Edited on 09-05-2017 17:44
Page 1 of 4123>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Hold on. O2 and N2 do NOT absorb IR?915-09-2019 22:15
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat115-09-2019 06:44
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
▲ 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