Remember me
▼ Content

The Fraudulent Keeling Curve



Page 2 of 2<12
20-07-2017 00:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that clouds are warmer than the ground below them? Have you ever climbed a mountain?


Most of the time no, but it happens....it's called a thermal inversion. Example would be a warm front pushing up and over a cold wedge. Very typical in a freezing rain event.

Sure, thermal inversions occur occasionally, but, as you say, temperature usually falls with height (it has a name - the lapse rate) and clouds are generally colder than the land that are above. But they still emit IR, and some of that IR reaches the ground. Hence they still reduce the net rate of heat loss by the ground. That's why cloudy nights are generally milder than clear nights.


Is that more of your high school chemistry?
20-07-2017 00:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that clouds are warmer than the ground below them? Have you ever climbed a mountain?


Most of the time no, but it happens....it's called a thermal inversion. Example would be a warm front pushing up and over a cold wedge. Very typical in a freezing rain event.

Sure, thermal inversions occur occasionally, but, as you say, temperature usually falls with height (it has a name - the lapse rate) and clouds are generally colder than the land that are above. But they still emit IR, and some of that IR reaches the ground. Hence they still reduce the net rate of heat loss by the ground. That's why cloudy nights are generally milder than clear nights.


Is that more of your high school chemistry?


Cloudy nights may not be generally milder than clear nights. No one can really know.

The problem, you see, is that you have no control reference to perform such an experiment.

Clouds form and move in all kinds of air masses. They absorb more thermal energy before they change temperature one degree (being liquid water). They lose more thermal energy before they change temperature one degree (being liquid water).

Clouds may form in colder air that moves in, creating unstable air. This means the surface will lose energy faster to feed it, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Clouds may form in warmer air that moves in , creating stable air (welcome to the Pacific Northwest!). This means the surface will lose energy at a slower rate to feed it (assuming the cloud is still colder than the surface). This is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

If the cloud is warmer than the surface, it will actually heat the surface. This too is in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Thermal energy will flow from hot to cold at a rate determined by the difference of temperature and the coupling between the two regions.

It is not because of 'reflection'.

Energy moves according to energy density (moving from high energy to low energy regions) using the same law. It isn't about just temperature. It's about temperature and mass density.

The temperature profile for the atmosphere contains several points where temperature inversions are normal. The ENERGY profile of the same atmosphere is a fairly smooth curve extending through all altitudes and layers. Nowhere does it invert. This is due to the decreasing mass density of the atmosphere as you rise into the sky.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-07-2017 00:40
24-07-2017 05:52
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night wrote:

Cloudy nights may not be generally milder than clear nights. No one can really know.



Cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights, ceteris paribus. Everyone knows.
It's quite elementary. Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas. CO2 is quite constant and therefore has no impact on clouds or fog insulating the ground layer.

http://teemss2.concord.org/artwork/skywatching/visibly_clearsky.htm


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
24-07-2017 16:32
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner stickman" stuttered: Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas.

The god that stickman worships...Giaever says:
"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2....."
/////////
Of course, both Giaever & his latter day dying disciple, "AGW denier liar whiner stickman", don't know:
Increasing quantities of man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs (including CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6, etc) control any increasing amounts of phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor.
24-07-2017 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
StarMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Cloudy nights may not be generally milder than clear nights. No one can really know.



Cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights, ceteris paribus.

Not true. You don't know if they are warmer or colder. They are oftentimes colder.
StarMan wrote:
Everyone knows.

Argument from randU.
StarMan wrote:
It's quite elementary.

No one here is called Watson.
StarMan wrote:
Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.
StarMan wrote:
CO2 is quite constant and therefore has no impact on clouds or fog insulating the ground layer.
...deleted Holy Link...

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-07-2017 20:28
24-07-2017 20:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
litesong wrote:
"AGW denier liar whiner stickman" stuttered: Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas.

The god that stickman worships...Giaever says:
"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2....."
/////////
Of course, both Giaever & his latter day dying disciple, "AGW denier liar whiner stickman", don't know:
Increasing quantities of man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs (including CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6, etc) control any increasing amounts of phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor.


Ooooo. The 'phase change' technobabble. I haven't seen you use that one in quite awhile.


The Parrot Killer
24-07-2017 21:27
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1448)
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
"AGW denier liar whiner stickman" stuttered: Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas.

The god that stickman worships...Giaever says:
"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2....."
/////////
Of course, both Giaever & his latter day dying disciple, "AGW denier liar whiner stickman", don't know:
Increasing quantities of man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs (including CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6, etc) control any increasing amounts of phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor.


Ooooo. The 'phase change' technobabble. I haven't seen you use that one in quite awhile.


LOL. I was actually reading this and at the same time trying to pluck some 7th grade English sentence diagramming out of my backside, just trying to figure out what was the meat of the sentence was supposed to be. After throwing out all the adjectives, I came up with "GHGs control water vapor". Hey Litebeer, could you explain this a little better for us? We just don't get it.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
24-07-2017 22:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.


What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.
24-07-2017 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.


What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.


You cannot hold or trap heat.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand convection and its effects.


The Parrot Killer
24-07-2017 22:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.


What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.


You cannot hold or trap heat.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand convection and its effects.


I notice that you didn't tell us what you think that "potential energy" is. I also notice that you didn't tell us what you think that difference between conduction and convection is.
24-07-2017 22:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.


What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.


You cannot hold or trap heat.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand convection and its effects.


I notice that you didn't tell us what you think that "potential energy" is. I also notice that you didn't tell us what you think that difference between conduction and convection is.

Nor do I need to. Your lame attempt at redirection is obvious. Anyone that wants to know the difference can easily look it up.

You cannot hold or trap heat. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.


The Parrot Killer
24-07-2017 23:44
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Into the Night wrote:

You cannot hold or trap heat.

You cannot hold or trap heat. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.


Heavy clothing retains body heat.
Blankets and comforters retain (hold, trap) heat.
Insulation in every home in America hold or trap heat.
Potholders hold or trap heat, to prevent your fingers being burned.

Stop blathering nonsense. You discredit yourself.


Ignore List: Surface Detail, litesong, spot, Into The Night
25-07-2017 00:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
StarMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You cannot hold or trap heat.

You cannot hold or trap heat. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.


Heavy clothing retains body heat.
Blankets and comforters retain (hold, trap) heat.
Insulation in every home in America hold or trap heat.
Potholders hold or trap heat, to prevent your fingers being burned.

Stop blathering nonsense. You discredit yourself.


All of these insulators do not trap heat. You cannot trap heat. Insulators reduce heat.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

Insulators also do not trap thermal energy. They can't. There will always be heat flowing. No insulator is perfect.

If you could somehow find a perfect insulator, there would be no heat and no thermal energy lost (or gained).

Insulators also work both ways. There is no such thing as a one way insulator. Insulation can not only reduce thermal energy loss, they also reduce thermal energy gain.

If you wrapped the Earth in a blanket, it would get cold, not hot. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.

The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-07-2017 00:43
25-07-2017 01:55
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1448)
All of these insulators do not trap heat. You cannot trap heat. Insulators reduce heat.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

Insulators also do not trap thermal energy. They can't. There will always be heat flowing. No insulator is perfect.

If you could somehow find a perfect insulator, there would be no heat and no thermal energy lost (or gained).

This does makes sense to me now. You can't trap heat, you can only slow it's outward progression. If you were able to trap heat, you could heat something and have it remain a constant temp forever regardless of temp outside the insulator. Fair enough.
Insulators also work both ways. There is no such thing as a one way insulator. Insulation can not only reduce thermal energy loss, they also reduce thermal energy gain.

You mean like a humid night being warmer and a humid day being cooler?

If you wrapped the Earth in a blanket, it would get cold, not hot. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.

Bad analogy. A rock is not a heat source and a human body is.
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work.

I would like to hear from Surface Detail or Spot on this....how does CO2 allow heat from one side but not from the other? In other words, how does CO2 allow heat in but not out? The "blanket effect" if true, would not let thermal energy in in th first place.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
25-07-2017 02:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I would like to hear from Surface Detail or Spot on this....how does CO2 allow heat from one side but not from the other? In other words, how does CO2 allow heat in but not out? The "blanket effect" if true, would not let thermal energy in in th first place.

The reason that CO2 lets thermal energy in but not (all of it) out is because the incoming and outgoing radiation are of different types. The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.
25-07-2017 02:14
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Note to rational, reasonable people:

Word games are played by dishonest people. This nonsense above is one clear example.
We say lights "burn." That means they are electrified and produce light. They're not "on fire" burning.
Similarly, "holding heat" is what we say when some material has good insulation properties.
I am not interested in playing word games. It wastes time and accomplishes nothing.
25-07-2017 02:32
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1448)
Surface Detail
The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.


I know you and Wake went back and forth on the spectrum argument some time ago, but I can't remember where or when....sure would like to see those arguments again. After all, nearly the entire global warming argument is right here in the question of if and how does CO2 insulate.....ITN I said insulate, not trap.
25-07-2017 03:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.


What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.


You cannot hold or trap heat.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand convection and its effects.


I notice that you didn't tell us what you think that "potential energy" is. I also notice that you didn't tell us what you think that difference between conduction and convection is.

Nor do I need to. Your lame attempt at redirection is obvious. Anyone that wants to know the difference can easily look it up.

You cannot hold or trap heat. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.


I love it when you contradict yourself and then realize it too late to take it back.
25-07-2017 03:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail
The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.


I know you and Wake went back and forth on the spectrum argument some time ago, but I can't remember where or when....sure would like to see those arguments again. After all, nearly the entire global warming argument is right here in the question of if and how does CO2 insulate.....ITN I said insulate, not trap.

Yes, that's the fundamental reason for the existence of the greenhouse effect. Gases like CO2 tend to block outgoing IR radiation. They're called greenhouse gases because, like a greenhouse (glasshouse in the US?), they allow the sunlight to shine in but stop the heat escaping (albeit in different ways). There was already a greenhouse effect keeping the Earth warm before people came along, but the extra CO2 that humans have put in the atmosphere is making the effect stronger, i.e. making the blanket thicker.
25-07-2017 04:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote: Yes, that's the fundamental reason for the existence of the greenhouse effect. Gases like CO2 tend to block outgoing IR radiation. They're called greenhouse gases because, like a greenhouse (glasshouse in the US?), they allow the sunlight to shine in but stop the heat escaping (albeit in different ways). There was already a greenhouse effect keeping the Earth warm before people came along, but the extra CO2 that humans have put in the atmosphere is making the effect stronger, i.e. making the blanket thicker.


From the mouths of morons grow ignorance.
25-07-2017 04:12
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.
25-07-2017 04:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

That's a passionate and heartfelt eulogy to the properties of metals, but I don't see what it's got to to with the the existence (or otherwise) of the greenhouse effect.
25-07-2017 04:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.


Well you need a little nickel so that it maintains it's entire structural integrity from absolute zero to the melting point of the alloy.

The world is a wonderful place and the True Believers deny it.
25-07-2017 04:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

That's a passionate and heartfelt eulogy to the properties of metals, but I don't see what it's got to to with the the existence (or otherwise) of the greenhouse effect.


There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect as depicted via CO2. As usual you blather on as if you had a clue.
25-07-2017 04:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.


Well you need a little nickel so that it maintains it's entire structural integrity from absolute zero to the melting point of the alloy.

The world is a wonderful place and the True Believers deny it.

If you mean that there is wonder enough in the natural world without having to posit the existence of a creator, then I'd agree with you.
25-07-2017 04:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

That's a passionate and heartfelt eulogy to the properties of metals, but I don't see what it's got to to with the the existence (or otherwise) of the greenhouse effect.


There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect as depicted via CO2. As usual you blather on as if you had a clue.

I presume you mean "exemplified by CO2" otherwise your post doesn't make sense. Anyway, there is, of course, such a thing as the greenhouse effect, and it's a consequence of the same laws of quantum physics that give metals their different properties. Isn't physics a wonderful thing!
25-07-2017 06:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
GasGuzzler wrote:
If you wrapped the Earth in a blanket, it would get cold, not hot. Putting a blanket on a rock does not make the rock warmer.

Bad analogy. A rock is not a heat source and a human body is.

That is precisely the point. Blankets are often show to trap heat by keeping people warm. The other typical examples of coats, house insulation, etc.

This completely ignores the fact that under that insulation is a thermal energy source.

The bad analogy is made by assuming the atmosphere works the same way.

GasGuzzler wrote:
The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work.

I would like to hear from Surface Detail or Spot on this....how does CO2 allow heat from one side but not from the other? In other words, how does CO2 allow heat in but not out? The "blanket effect" if true, would not let thermal energy in in th first place.

This question usually results in what I call the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 06:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I would like to hear from Surface Detail or Spot on this....how does CO2 allow heat from one side but not from the other? In other words, how does CO2 allow heat in but not out? The "blanket effect" if true, would not let thermal energy in in th first place.

The reason that CO2 lets thermal energy in but not (all of it) out is because the incoming and outgoing radiation are of different types. The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.


The Magick Bouncing Photon argument.

Thermal energy isn't coming in. Electromagnetic energy is.

Infrared light is most responsible for warming the planet surface. Visible light does very little warming. It is mostly reflected or scattered. The surface must absorb the light to convert it to thermal energy.

Neither CO2 nor water block energy leaving the Earth. The effect of infrared absorption is the material becomes warmer (it gains thermal energy). That warmer material dissipates its accumulated energy into the surrounding material.

Thus, all gases in the general vicinity are the same temperature.

They are colder than the surface that is heating them (regardless of the method of heating).

Heat always flows from hot to cold. It never flows from cold to hot. The surface cannot be heated by CO2 or any other gas in the atmosphere unless that part of the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. The 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot be violated.

All infrared absorption does is provide another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere and thus cool the surface. It is no different than any other form of heating for this purpose.

Blocking radiance using any component of the atmosphere is reducing the radiance from Earth. At the same time you are using this to increase the temperature of the Earth. This is violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Radiance is always proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 06:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
StarMan wrote:
Note to rational, reasonable people:

Word games are played by dishonest people. This nonsense above is one clear example.
We say lights "burn." That means they are electrified and produce light. They're not "on fire" burning.

Heh. It WOULD burn if oxygen ever got to it (at least for incandescent bulbs).
StarMan wrote:
Similarly, "holding heat" is what we say when some material has good insulation properties.

A colloquial use of the word 'heat'. Science defines 'heat' as the flow of thermal energy. Nothing else.
StarMan wrote:
I am not interested in playing word games.
It wastes time and accomplishes nothing.

Then don't. Use 'heat' for the flow of thermal energy and 'thermal energy' to represent that quality we call 'temperature'.

I call people on this because they use the word 'heat' for BOTH meanings in the same sentence and make a false equivalence by doing so, making it confusing.


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 06:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail
The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.


I know you and Wake went back and forth on the spectrum argument some time ago, but I can't remember where or when....sure would like to see those arguments again. After all, nearly the entire global warming argument is right here in the question of if and how does CO2 insulate.....ITN I said insulate, not trap.


CO2 conducts heat pretty much the same as any other gas in the atmosphere.

An insulator would cool the Earth, not warm it.


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 06:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You can't trap heat. You can't trap energy. The best you can do is convert it to potential energy.

CO2 conducts heat about the same as any other gas. It makes no difference.
Water is an excellent conductor of heat, but it has a high specific heat. It does not insulate anything.

Absorption of infrared energy is just another way to cool the surface by heating the atmosphere. It is no different than heating by conduction or by convection that way.


What is the difference between kinetic and potential energy?

If CO2 will hold more heat than other common atmospheric gases how exactly do you think that it doesn't "insulate" in the common usage of the term?

Do you understand what the difference between conduction and convection is? If so you could have fooled me.


You cannot hold or trap heat.

You have already demonstrated you don't understand convection and its effects.


I notice that you didn't tell us what you think that "potential energy" is. I also notice that you didn't tell us what you think that difference between conduction and convection is.

Nor do I need to. Your lame attempt at redirection is obvious. Anyone that wants to know the difference can easily look it up.

You cannot hold or trap heat. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.


I love it when you contradict yourself and then realize it too late to take it back.

Contextomy. I have not contradicted myself at all.


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 06:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail
The incoming solar radiation is composed mostly of visible light and UV radiation, while the outgoing radiation from the Earth is IR radiation. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are transparent to visible light and UV, but are partially opaque to IR. Hence they allow the incoming solar radiation to pass though, but tend to block the outgoing radiation from the Earth.


I know you and Wake went back and forth on the spectrum argument some time ago, but I can't remember where or when....sure would like to see those arguments again. After all, nearly the entire global warming argument is right here in the question of if and how does CO2 insulate.....ITN I said insulate, not trap.

Yes, that's the fundamental reason for the existence of the greenhouse effect. Gases like CO2 tend to block outgoing IR radiation. They're called greenhouse gases because, like a greenhouse (glasshouse in the US?), they allow the sunlight to shine in but stop the heat escaping (albeit in different ways). There was already a greenhouse effect keeping the Earth warm before people came along, but the extra CO2 that humans have put in the atmosphere is making the effect stronger, i.e. making the blanket thicker.


A combination of the Magick Blanket argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.

Greenhouses work by reducing heat. They are warm because the infrared electromagnetic energy (light) is entering the greenhouse and warming the surfaces. Heat is reduced by the greenhouse because it limits or stops convective heating.

The atmosphere is open. Convective heating is not reduced. Indeed, this is the most prevalent way for heat to move upward through the lower atmosphere.

CO2 absorption warms the CO2 (same with water absorption). That is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, causing the surface to cool.


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 06:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Yes, that's the fundamental reason for the existence of the greenhouse effect. Gases like CO2 tend to block outgoing IR radiation. They're called greenhouse gases because, like a greenhouse (glasshouse in the US?), they allow the sunlight to shine in but stop the heat escaping (albeit in different ways). There was already a greenhouse effect keeping the Earth warm before people came along, but the extra CO2 that humans have put in the atmosphere is making the effect stronger, i.e. making the blanket thicker.


From the mouths of morons grow ignorance.


Agreed. The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 06:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.


Okay...what has this to do with 'global warming'?


The Parrot Killer
25-07-2017 06:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9628)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
StarMan wrote:
There are of course differential rates of conducting electrical currents, different thermal conductivities, coefficients of thermal expansion, all part of a brilliant design to wonderful to have created itself out of nothing. Word games are so petty when everyone realizes what we are talking about except someone who is simply looking for attention by blathering.

Metals are so spectacularly different, just imagine, if you can, life without engines, cars, aircraft, and motors, much less electrical grids to carry our energy across thousands of miles.

Ductile strength, tensile strength, thermal and electrical conductivity, malleability, alloying ability, and in great supply worldwide. Wood, plastic, and rocks simply won't accomplish what metals can. Imagine painting just 1% of a wood surface and that protects the entire surface from water and weathering. That is how alloying iron with a small amount of chromium and carbon works. Inconceivable but true.

That's a passionate and heartfelt eulogy to the properties of metals, but I don't see what it's got to to with the the existence (or otherwise) of the greenhouse effect.


There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect as depicted via CO2. As usual you blather on as if you had a clue.

I presume you mean "exemplified by CO2" otherwise your post doesn't make sense. Anyway, there is, of course, such a thing as the greenhouse effect, and it's a consequence of the same laws of quantum physics that give metals their different properties. Isn't physics a wonderful thing!


No such thing as a 'grreenhouse' effect, unless you are referring to actual greenhouses.

The atmosphere is open. Convective heating is prevalent in the atmosphere but limited by a greenhouse.

Neither CO2 nor water make an effective 'lid' preventing convection.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2017 18:11
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:Logging companies didn't replant forests.
Gifford Pinchot brought the forest conservation techniques developed in the colleges of europe. He hammered his way into the U.S. gov't, developing enough power to lead, teach, cojole, & beg U.S. & private forestries to implement such practices.
Without Gifford Pinchot, the United States would have been a score or two years late(too late?) to good forest management.

He didn't plant any forests either. His idea of conservation was simply not to cut trees in the first place.
Fortunately, we have places like Weyerhaeuser to replant trees...

Proving that Pinchot wasn't a preservationist, he fought often against John Muir. As already stated, Pinchot brought the conservation(replenishment) techniques from the colleges in Europe, from which U.S. timber companies learned.
//////
As the decades passed, U.S. forests went through over-swing policies of too much or too little suppression of forest fires.
Furthermore, man-made global warming is having a strong influence on recent decades of forest fires, as defined below:
///////
In 2009 an Australian widlfire outbreak killed 173 people. Since 1983, 83 Australian wildfire fighters have died fighting fires.
In the U.S., 2004 was the first year to burn over 8 million acres, later followed by two other 8 million acre years. 2006 was the first year burning over 9 million acres, followed by two other 9 million acre years. 2015 was the first year over 10 million acres burned. This 2017 year, despite lots of winter snow & rain, U.S. forests have already burned 5+million acres with too many months remaining in the fire season.
Russia also is having major problems with their forest fire burns, even to the extent that official Russian reports about their forests appear to be fabrications & lies.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate The Fraudulent Keeling Curve:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Keeling Jr.'s CO2 measuring device seems broken021-03-2016 18:48
NOAA and Keeling caught liar liar pants on fire109-02-2016 23:25
▲ 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