Remember me
▼ Content

There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2



Page 7 of 14<<<56789>>>
11-12-2019 17:12
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
MarcusR wrote:
The author:
http://hail.aos.wisc.edu/wp/

Maybe ITN/IBD can take his class:
AOS 100: Weather and Climate

And find out what those words mean.


"Do not write so that you can be understood, but so that you cannot be misunderstood"

Funny enough Grant uses the same quote at the end of the pratade in both thoose books. At least in the editions I got (2nd for radiation and 1st for thermodynamics). After reading both books I can assure you he lives up to that quote.

Just for your info, there is an identical site at https://www.klimadebat.dk/ and the science denying lunatics are there as well.



I think getting things right is more important. I am hoping that next year I will be able to do an atmospheric chemistry experiment with a Dr. Poschl with the Max Planck Institute of Physics in Bonn, Germany.
The climate is warming but that's only a part of the story. All Gore politicized climate change. It's about like American politics. You are either one of "us" or one of "them". That's not how science should be discussed.
This is interesting in a way because I am working on a German historical project. While books have been written about it, I have to consider what is not being said.
With the debate about climate change, there is plenty that is not being said.
Albert Einstein famously said "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
11-12-2019 17:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Science isn't a school or a book.
Sadly this man is just insane.

Nah. You just deny science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-12-2019 17:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
James___ wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
The author:
http://hail.aos.wisc.edu/wp/

Maybe ITN/IBD can take his class:
AOS 100: Weather and Climate

And find out what those words mean.


"Do not write so that you can be understood, but so that you cannot be misunderstood"

Funny enough Grant uses the same quote at the end of the pratade in both thoose books. At least in the editions I got (2nd for radiation and 1st for thermodynamics). After reading both books I can assure you he lives up to that quote.

Just for your info, there is an identical site at https://www.klimadebat.dk/ and the science denying lunatics are there as well.



I think getting things right is more important. I am hoping that next year I will be able to do an atmospheric chemistry experiment with a Dr. Poschl with the Max Planck Institute of Physics in Bonn, Germany.
The climate is warming

Climate has no temperature.
James___ wrote:
but that's only a part of the story. All Gore politicized climate change.

Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
It's about like American politics. You are either one of "us" or one of "them". That's not how science should be discussed.

You are not using science. Religion is not science.
James___ wrote:
This is interesting in a way because I am working on a German historical project. While books have been written about it, I have to consider what is not being said.
With the debate about climate change, there is plenty that is not being said.
Albert Einstein famously said "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."

You don't get to speak for Albert Einstein. You only get to speak for you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-12-2019 19:26
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:

Albert Einstein famously said "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."

You don't get to speak for Albert Einstein. You only get to speak for you.


Sadly you don't know if it's warm or cold. Good drugs will do that for you.
11-12-2019 23:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
tmiddles wrote: So yes if you're going to say that scientists going back to the 1800s

... you still don't get to speak for all the scientists going back to the 1800s.


tmiddles wrote: ITN/IBD love to skip over admitting there is any limit to the margin of error for a planets temperature.

You love to pretend you understand the gibberish you just wrote.

tmiddles wrote: IBD is even too afraid to admit Venus is hotter than Denver.

There's no fear of that here. You still don't get to speak for me.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-12-2019 01:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:

Albert Einstein famously said "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."

You don't get to speak for Albert Einstein. You only get to speak for you.


Sadly you don't know if it's warm or cold. Good drugs will do that for you.


You don't know if I know if it's warm or cold. Arrogance will trap you that way.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-12-2019 15:15
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
I think getting things right is more important. I am hoping that next year I will be able to do an atmospheric chemistry experiment with a Dr. Poschl with the Max Planck Institute of Physics in Bonn, Germany.
The climate is warming but that's only a part of the story. All Gore politicized climate change. It's about like American politics. You are either one of "us" or one of "them". That's not how science should be discussed.
This is interesting in a way because I am working on a German historical project. While books have been written about it, I have to consider what is not being said.
With the debate about climate change, there is plenty that is not being said.
Albert Einstein famously said "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."



It is unfortunate that the isue with AGW and the consequential change of climate has been so politiced and put on the left/right scale of politics. When facts does not match our values and "gut feelings", the latter mostly wins. And the less we know about the physics, math, chemistry etc, the easier it is to follow your values. Human nature I guess.

It is quite pointless to debate the basic physics of AGW, although many do try. Everyone with the slightest insight in physics knows that i.e Postma's claims are simply physically not correct. Nonetheless he is passionate and he gets attention and followers. It is however still misunderstandings at best, lies at worst, and if the latter it has no place in a debate.

What can, and should be discussed is how to deal with it. Since I am an engineer with my M.Sc within EE I see possibilities. In many areas we already have a history of development (mostly generation and transport, but also CCS) and we also have emerging tech in anything from fossil free Steel production, mining and even cement production.

It's just that if you work in any of theese areas you are by some directly branded as a green leftie that wants to destroy economies, or by the other extreme side just another piece in the machinery that will end mankind.

To me it is just a part of evolution. But Aramco and their likes will probably don't agree...
12-12-2019 16:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
MarcusR wrote: It is unfortunate that the isue with AGW and the consequential change of climate has been so politiced and put on the left/right scale of politics.

That's a natural result of religions. Look at Christianity and abortion. It can't help but spill into politics. Look at Islam and the insistence of having Sharia courts. Look at Global Warming and the need to legislate violations of physics.

It is fortunate that there are people who are pushing back, and it is fortunate that we have a President that pulled us out of the Paris Discord.



MarcusR wrote: And the less we know about the physics, math, chemistry etc, the easier it is to follow your values. Human nature I guess.

This is why Global Warming and Climate Change target the gullible and scientifically illiterate for recruitment.

MarcusR wrote: It is quite pointless to debate the basic physics of AGW,

... because there are none.


MarcusR wrote: Everyone with the slightest insight in physics knows that

... temperature cannot increase without additional energy, energy cannot be created, and temperature and radiance move in the same direction.


MarcusR wrote: What can, and should be discussed is how to deal with it.

... but not until it is unambiguously defined.


MarcusR wrote: Since I am an engineer with my M.Sc within EE I see possibilities.

Do you see any unambiguous definitions such that science can apply?

MarcusR wrote: It's just that if you work in any of theese areas you are by some directly branded as a green leftie that wants to destroy economies,

Only if you refuse to unambiguously define "Climate," "Climate Change," "Greenhouse Effect" and "Global Warming" so that physics can apply.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-12-2019 17:38
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
MarcusR wrote: It is quite pointless to debate the basic physics of AGW,

... because there are none.

.


If you want to know the consequenses of increased levels of CO2, CH4 and N2O read this:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
For CO2 it is 1.95 W/m2, CH4 0.62 W/m2 and N2O 0.18 W/m2

If you want to know how and why CO2 absorbs EMR in the IR-spectrum, read this
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

And here you will find a Good paper on the energy balance:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

And after reading that go over to:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
In particular chapter 2
12-12-2019 19:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
MarcusR wrote: If you want to know the consequenses of increased levels of CO2, CH4 and N2O read this:

Fortunately, I don't need to. Nor do you. You can just ask me if there's something specific about CO2 you'd like to know.

MarcusR wrote:If you want to know how and why CO2 absorbs EMR in the IR-spectrum, read this

Fortunately, I already know this.

MarcusR wrote: And here you will find a Good paper on the energy balance:

There's no such thing as an "energy balance" in physics. How is it defined in your religion?


By the way, I notice that you failed to list the Greenhouse Effect formula, neither did you list the Global Warming equation nor the Climate function. Please list those.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-12-2019 19:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
MarcusR wrote:
And here you will find a Good paper on the energy balance:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

And after reading that go over to:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
In particular chapter 2


You haven't read these, have you? You don't have the vaguest clue what's in them, do you?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-12-2019 20:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
And here you will find a Good paper on the energy balance:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

And after reading that go over to:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
In particular chapter 2


You haven't read these, have you? You don't have the vaguest clue what's in them, do you?


.


One things for sure, you haven't.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
12-12-2019 21:31
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)


You haven't read these, have you?

.


All ut them, Thank you.
Just read them and you understand, they are quite basic. Ir will demands a certain basic skill in physics though.

If you want a graphic version of the IR spectrum of each gas just go to
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC
Or grab them at HITRAN

And that will give the answer to the question for this thread as well.
12-12-2019 23:43
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
This link is to a pdf that will be downloaded. Those devious Germans

This person notes that there is a relationship between SO2 (sulphur oxide) emissions and changes in the mean temperature. He should have been saying CO2. Incidentally, SO2 levels on Venus are 150 ppm.
On Earth it is 1 ppm. If the individual in his research saw higher levels of SO2 and higher mean temperatures as well, the IPCC might not like that. I think the pdf is that person's PhD thesis. If so, is it considered cheating using his test paper?
SO2 levels do vary from .03 - 1 ppm. This is actually interesting because SO2 emissions have gone from over 31 million tons in the 1970's to a little under 3 tons today.
The dissertation is 55 pages. I might read it to find out how much warming/cooling is influenced by it. Along with ozone depletion, melting glaciers cause tectonic plate uplifting which allows for heat to be released through vents in the seafloor.

https://meteo.lcd.lu/data/DTR/DTR_and_SSR_dissertation.pdf
13-12-2019 10:54
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
James___ wrote:
This link is to a pdf that will be downloaded. Those devious Germans

This person notes that there is a relationship between SO2 (sulphur oxide) emissions and changes in the mean temperature. He should have been saying CO2. Incidentally, SO2 levels on Venus are 150 ppm.
On Earth it is 1 ppm. If the individual in his research saw higher levels of SO2 and higher mean temperatures as well, the IPCC might not like that. I think the pdf is that person's PhD thesis. If so, is it considered cheating using his test paper?
SO2 levels do vary from .03 - 1 ppm. This is actually interesting because SO2 emissions have gone from over 31 million tons in the 1970's to a little under 3 tons today.
The dissertation is 55 pages. I might read it to find out how much warming/cooling is influenced by it. Along with ozone depletion, melting glaciers cause tectonic plate uplifting which allows for heat to be released through vents in the seafloor.

https://meteo.lcd.lu/data/DTR/DTR_and_SSR_dissertation.pdf


Thanks for the link. I don't know what the standards are for a Thesis in his area, but being published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (with an impact factor of 5.509 in 2018) is impressive for a doktor Thesis.

I just browsed it and found a couple of interesting points. One was on page 73 where he concluded that air pollution agents have, given their composition, shifted from absorbing to scattering. From the perspective of atmospheric radiation that is interesting given the difference between scattering and absorbtion. I Will have t do a Web of science search for this guy


You mentioned earth heatflux, and on that matter I could recomend reading i.e Davis
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggge.20271
It was one of theese figures that surprised me, since it is "Only" about 47 TW +/-2 TW. This is from a previous paper, but it is referenced in the link above. I thought the flux would be much higher, but sometimes our mind plays tricks on us. Nonetheless, we (Sundsvall / Sweden) can even use geothermal for heating our house - and that is amazing.
13-12-2019 12:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
MarcusR wrote:...there is an identical site at https://www.klimadebat.dk/ and the science denying lunatics are there as well.
I would expect it in German first! And it's not even "science" denying, it's the ability to form your own circular logic, like a dog chasing it's tale. They end up forced to deny even basics, like the temperature of Denver.

This is the beautiful thing about BS though, like the lie that becomes a tangled web, it's easy to draw it out into into hilariously absurd conclusions.

I see two traps at works for the "denier": One is the premise is simply wrong/BS, the other is that here at least they are incapable of admitting they are wrong. Anyone who can't admit they are wrong is doomed to look like an idiot if anyone cares to remember what they have said along the way.

IBdaMann wrote:
... you still don't get to speak for all the scientists going back to the 1800s.
Sure I do. It's called citations. Books are real! Try reading one.

MarcusR wrote:It is quite pointless to debate the basic physics of AGW, although many do try.
I think it's worth clarifying them for those who want to learn.

MarcusR wrote:
lies at worst, ...has no place in a debate.
Isn't exposing misinformation an important thing to do? Maybe it's less a debate than an investigation but I think the truth should be brought to bear when people lie. As they have done so often on this board (ITN/IBD).

MarcusR wrote:
Just read them and you understand, they are quite basic.
Nice concise posts full of useful information! Your rock MarcusR

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
13-12-2019 16:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
MarcusR wrote:
MarcusR wrote: It is quite pointless to debate the basic physics of AGW,

... because there are none.

.


If you want to know the consequenses of increased levels of CO2, CH4 and N2O read this:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
For CO2 it is 1.95 W/m2, CH4 0.62 W/m2 and N2O 0.18 W/m2

If you want to know how and why CO2 absorbs EMR in the IR-spectrum, read this
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

And here you will find a Good paper on the energy balance:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

And after reading that go over to:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
In particular chapter 2

Absorption of infrared light from the surface by anything in the atmosphere is not warming the Earth. It is just another way for the surface to be cooled by heating the atmosphere, just like conductive heating does.

The atmosphere does not in turn heat the surface. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Heat never flows from cold to hot. Entropy never decreases in any system.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-12-2019 16:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
James___ wrote:
This link is to a pdf that will be downloaded. Those devious Germans

This person notes that there is a relationship between SO2 (sulphur oxide) emissions and changes in the mean temperature. He should have been saying CO2. Incidentally, SO2 levels on Venus are 150 ppm.
On Earth it is 1 ppm. If the individual in his research saw higher levels of SO2 and higher mean temperatures as well, the IPCC might not like that. I think the pdf is that person's PhD thesis. If so, is it considered cheating using his test paper?
SO2 levels do vary from .03 - 1 ppm. This is actually interesting because SO2 emissions have gone from over 31 million tons in the 1970's to a little under 3 tons today.
The dissertation is 55 pages. I might read it to find out how much warming/cooling is influenced by it. Along with ozone depletion, melting glaciers cause tectonic plate uplifting which allows for heat to be released through vents in the seafloor.

https://meteo.lcd.lu/data/DTR/DTR_and_SSR_dissertation.pdf


No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-12-2019 16:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
tmiddles projected:I see two traps at works for the "denier": One is the premise is simply wrong/BS, the other is that here at least they are incapable of admitting they are wrong. Anyone who can't admit they are wrong is doomed to look like an idiot if anyone cares to remember what they have said along the way.



tmiddles dreamed:
IBdaMann wrote:
... you still don't get to speak for all the scientists going back to the 1800s.
Sure I do. It's called citations. Books are real! Try reading one.

You can quote them but you can't speak for them. Any and all quotes may be dismissed as incorrect. If they form the basis of your argument then your argument may be summarily dismissed.

tmiddles projected:
MarcusR wrote:It is quite pointless to debate the basic physics of AGW, although many do try.
I think it's worth clarifying them for those who want to learn.

Nope. That's not what you mean. You meant to write "I think it's worth preaching for those who are scientifically illiterate and utterly gullible so as to maintain the recruiting stream. "

Ancient Chinese Proverb: Show me someone who believes in Global Warming and I'll show you someone who is either scientifically illiterate or who is a flat out science denier.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-12-2019 16:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
MarcusR wrote:
James___ wrote:
This link is to a pdf that will be downloaded. Those devious Germans

This person notes that there is a relationship between SO2 (sulphur oxide) emissions and changes in the mean temperature. He should have been saying CO2. Incidentally, SO2 levels on Venus are 150 ppm.
On Earth it is 1 ppm. If the individual in his research saw higher levels of SO2 and higher mean temperatures as well, the IPCC might not like that. I think the pdf is that person's PhD thesis. If so, is it considered cheating using his test paper?
SO2 levels do vary from .03 - 1 ppm. This is actually interesting because SO2 emissions have gone from over 31 million tons in the 1970's to a little under 3 tons today.
The dissertation is 55 pages. I might read it to find out how much warming/cooling is influenced by it. Along with ozone depletion, melting glaciers cause tectonic plate uplifting which allows for heat to be released through vents in the seafloor.

https://meteo.lcd.lu/data/DTR/DTR_and_SSR_dissertation.pdf


Thanks for the link. I don't know what the standards are for a Thesis in his area, but being published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (with an impact factor of 5.509 in 2018) is impressive for a doktor Thesis.

Science is not any magazine or journal. No magazine or journal article can just ignore the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law and talk about 'the science' at the same time.

Mugging up random numbers and calling them data is a fallacy, known as an Argument from randU fallacy.
MarcusR wrote:
I just browsed it and found a couple of interesting points. One was on page 73 where he concluded that air pollution agents have, given their composition, shifted from absorbing to scattering. From the perspective of atmospheric radiation that is interesting given the difference between scattering and absorbtion. I Will have t do a Web of science search for this guy

This guy is obviously a faithful member of the Church of Global Warming and is using this magazine to preach in.

First, you have to define 'pollution' and 'global warming'. Using words like 'scattering' as somehow preventing energy from leaving Earth is just buzzwords.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't warm the surface using a colder gas.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

MarcusR wrote:
You mentioned earth heatflux, and on that matter I could recomend reading i.e Davis
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggge.20271
[quote]MarcusR wrote:
It was one of theese figures that surprised me, since it is "Only" about 47 TW +/-2 TW. This is from a previous paper, but it is referenced in the link above. I thought the flux would be much higher, but sometimes our mind plays tricks on us.
[quote]MarcusR wrote:
Nonetheless, we (Sundsvall / Sweden) can even use geothermal for heating our house - and that is amazing.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-12-2019 17:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:...there is an identical site at https://www.klimadebat.dk/ and the science denying lunatics are there as well.
I would expect it in German first! And it's not even "science" denying, it's the ability to form your own circular logic, like a dog chasing it's tale. They end up forced to deny even basics, like the temperature of Denver.

The temperature of Denver is unknown. A thermometer reading at a weather station in Denver is not the temperature of Denver. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
This is the beautiful thing about BS though, like the lie that becomes a tangled web, it's easy to draw it out into into hilariously absurd conclusions.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
I see two traps at works for the "denier": One is the premise is simply wrong/BS, the other is that here at least they are incapable of admitting they are wrong. Anyone who can't admit they are wrong is doomed to look like an idiot if anyone cares to remember what they have said along the way.

Like you? RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... you still don't get to speak for all the scientists going back to the 1800s.
Sure I do. It's called citations. Books are real! Try reading one.

Inversion fallacy. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:It is quite pointless to debate the basic physics of AGW, although many do try.
I think it's worth clarifying them for those who want to learn.

It is. Unfortunately, you don't want to learn.
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
lies at worst, ...has no place in a debate.
Isn't exposing misinformation an important thing to do? Maybe it's less a debate than an investigation but I think the truth should be brought to bear when people lie. As they have done so often on this board (ITN/IBD).

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
Just read them and you understand, they are quite basic.
Nice concise posts full of useful information! Your rock MarcusR

Nope. Just the same preaching as usual.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-12-2019 20:06
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
This link is to a pdf that will be downloaded. Those devious Germans

This person notes that there is a relationship between SO2 (sulphur oxide) emissions and changes in the mean temperature. He should have been saying CO2. Incidentally, SO2 levels on Venus are 150 ppm.
On Earth it is 1 ppm. If the individual in his research saw higher levels of SO2 and higher mean temperatures as well, the IPCC might not like that. I think the pdf is that person's PhD thesis. If so, is it considered cheating using his test paper?
SO2 levels do vary from .03 - 1 ppm. This is actually interesting because SO2 emissions have gone from over 31 million tons in the 1970's to a little under 3 tons today.
The dissertation is 55 pages. I might read it to find out how much warming/cooling is influenced by it. Along with ozone depletion, melting glaciers cause tectonic plate uplifting which allows for heat to be released through vents in the seafloor.

https://meteo.lcd.lu/data/DTR/DTR_and_SSR_dissertation.pdf


No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface. You cannot create energy out of nothing.



This is what you're missing http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/firlaw.html

If the IR increases or decreases the rate at which a molecule cycles or vibrates then work is being performed. Likewise can a molecule cause the incoming or outgoing IR to scatter (refracted)?
Those are 2 different considerations.
13-12-2019 20:27
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
MarcusR wrote:
James___ wrote:
This link is to a pdf that will be downloaded. Those devious Germans

This person notes that there is a relationship between SO2 (sulphur oxide) emissions and changes in the mean temperature. He should have been saying CO2. Incidentally, SO2 levels on Venus are 150 ppm.
On Earth it is 1 ppm. If the individual in his research saw higher levels of SO2 and higher mean temperatures as well, the IPCC might not like that. I think the pdf is that person's PhD thesis. If so, is it considered cheating using his test paper?
SO2 levels do vary from .03 - 1 ppm. This is actually interesting because SO2 emissions have gone from over 31 million tons in the 1970's to a little under 3 tons today.
The dissertation is 55 pages. I might read it to find out how much warming/cooling is influenced by it. Along with ozone depletion, melting glaciers cause tectonic plate uplifting which allows for heat to be released through vents in the seafloor.

https://meteo.lcd.lu/data/DTR/DTR_and_SSR_dissertation.pdf


Thanks for the link. I don't know what the standards are for a Thesis in his area, but being published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (with an impact factor of 5.509 in 2018) is impressive for a doktor Thesis.

I just browsed it and found a couple of interesting points. One was on page 73 where he concluded that air pollution agents have, given their composition, shifted from absorbing to scattering. From the perspective of atmospheric radiation that is interesting given the difference between scattering and absorbtion. I Will have t do a Web of science search for this guy


You mentioned earth heatflux, and on that matter I could recomend reading i.e Davis
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggge.20271
It was one of theese figures that surprised me, since it is "Only" about 47 TW +/-2 TW. This is from a previous paper, but it is referenced in the link above. I thought the flux would be much higher, but sometimes our mind plays tricks on us. Nonetheless, we (Sundsvall / Sweden) can even use geothermal for heating our house - and that is amazing.


I read some of your link, if you highlight it, below this window is a bar with different tabs, clicking on url will place around the link so it will be clickable https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggge.20271
I am planning on pursuing my own work on Natural Climate Variation (NCV). When models are made trying to determine how AGW is influencing the climate, there is it seems no understanding what the natural climate should be.
My uniqueness helps. I lived in Norway (Aalesund) for a short while with my grandmother and have lived in different paces in the US and have been to quite a few places around the world.
What people miss about the IPCC is that after they reported a global warming hiatus, they found heat to say that warming hadn't slowed as much as thought.
They found it on the east side of the Pacific Ocean which is a part of the Ring of Fire. Since you live in Sweden you probably know that it's still rising because of glacial melt/tectonic plate rebound. And it's this rebound that can account for the geothermal activity on the west coast of the Americas.
One reason why I consider heat from the seafloor is because
Averaged over Earth's surface, the 1993–2017 heat-gain rates are 0.36–0.40 watts per square meter for 0–700 meters, and 0.19–0.35 for depths of 700–2,000 meters.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
This is why I have concerns about where the heat in the oceans are coming from;
The mixed layer
The primary heat source for the ocean is solar radiation entering through the top surface. Almost all of the solar energy flux into the ocean is absorbed in the top 100 m. Infrared and near-infrared radiations are absorbed in the top centimeter, but blue and green visible radiation can penetrate to more than 100 m if the water is especially clear.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/near-infrared-radiation
It's not really possible for much IR radiation to be absorbed by water. Yet for the depths mentioned (700 - 2,000 meters), I don't think it agrees with known facts.

p.s., unique characteristics of heat flow in water can be discussed if anyone is interested. Different bodies of water will have thermal boundaries which keeps them from mixing very well.
Edited on 13-12-2019 20:32
13-12-2019 20:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
James___ wrote: If the IR increases or decreases the rate at which a molecule cycles or vibrates then work is being performed. Likewise can a molecule cause the incoming or outgoing IR to scatter (refracted)?
Those are 2 different considerations.

James__, the above is incomplete. You wrote words and you asked a question but you unfortunately omitted any thesis statement. Were these just random words or were you planning on tying any/all of this to your main argument in some coherent manner?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-12-2019 20:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
James___ wrote: If the IR increases or decreases the rate at which a molecule cycles or vibrates then work is being performed. Likewise can a molecule cause the incoming or outgoing IR to scatter (refracted)?
Those are 2 different considerations.

James__, the above is incomplete. You wrote words and you asked a question but you unfortunately omitted any thesis statement. Were these just random words or were you planning on tying any/all of this to your main argument in some coherent manner?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-12-2019 13:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
MarcusR wrote:
You mentioned earth heatflux, ...use geothermal for heating our house - and that is amazing.
You mean the heat flux from beneath the surface? Wouldn't the flux once you got down several feet be independent of anything that happens above ground?

14-12-2019 19:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
You mentioned earth heatflux, ...use geothermal for heating our house - and that is amazing.
You mean the heat flux from beneath the surface? Wouldn't the flux once you got down several feet be independent of anything that happens above ground?



There is no such thing as 'heat flux'. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-12-2019 20:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7616)
Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'heat flux'. Buzzword fallacy.


Actually ... it is precisely because the speaker is scientifically illiterate, and is using exclusively colloquial terminology ... that he can get away with writing "heat flux" because "flux" just means "flow." If you'll notice, the scientifically inept Wikipedia is attempting to legitimize warmizombie gibber-babble as "science":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux

Anyway, if someone wants to use the term "flux" to mean "flow" e.g. "heat flux" then sure, I suppose at least it's a step in the right direction.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-12-2019 20:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'heat flux'. Buzzword fallacy.


Actually ... it is precisely because the speaker is scientifically illiterate, and is using exclusively colloquial terminology ... that he can get away with writing "heat flux" because "flux" just means "flow." If you'll notice, the scientifically inept Wikipedia is attempting to legitimize warmizombie gibber-babble as "science":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux

Anyway, if someone wants to use the term "flux" to mean "flow" e.g. "heat flux" then sure, I suppose at least it's a step in the right direction.


.


Still redundant at that, though. Like saying 'flow flow'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-12-2019 02:49
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'heat flux'. Buzzword fallacy.


Actually ... it is precisely because the speaker is scientifically illiterate, and is using exclusively colloquial terminology ... that he can get away with writing "heat flux" because "flux" just means "flow." If you'll notice, the scientifically inept Wikipedia is attempting to legitimize warmizombie gibber-babble as "science":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux

Anyway, if someone wants to use the term "flux" to mean "flow" e.g. "heat flux" then sure, I suppose at least it's a step in the right direction.


.


Still redundant at that, though. Like saying 'flow flow'.


When people say "Flux", this is most likely what they were thinking of. When brazing copper pipes together, Flux is necessary. I think it actually helps to clean the pipe being soldered. ie, it removes impurities like slag when you're brazing something. Before pvc became common, most plumbing in the home was either iron or copper. Iron is fitted and copper is brazed. That's why the term "Flux" would be used. It's not a heat Flux because the heat is usually from a butane or propane torch.
It's sad that neither one of you know anything about plumbing.

A fluxing agent (or a controlled atmosphere as found in furnace brazing) is required for all brazing and soldering applications. The purpose of the flux is to remove oxides from the base material and to prevent oxidation during the heating process, thus promoting the free flow of the brazing filler metal.


Definitions can be looked up. It's possible that people actually confuse "flux" and "flex". Maybe even "fluctuate". Just a poor understanding of the English language. It's probably the latter and not ladder.
It wouldn't be surprising if Americans did not know that flux and fluctuate are two and not to or too different things.
Edited on 16-12-2019 03:00
16-12-2019 09:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'heat flux'. Buzzword fallacy.


Actually ... it is precisely because the speaker is scientifically illiterate, and is using exclusively colloquial terminology ... that he can get away with writing "heat flux" because "flux" just means "flow." If you'll notice, the scientifically inept Wikipedia is attempting to legitimize warmizombie gibber-babble as "science":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux

Anyway, if someone wants to use the term "flux" to mean "flow" e.g. "heat flux" then sure, I suppose at least it's a step in the right direction.
Contextomy fallacy.


.


Still redundant at that, though. Like saying 'flow flow'.


When people say "Flux", this is most likely what they were thinking of. When brazing copper pipes together, Flux is necessary. I think it actually helps to clean the pipe being soldered. ie, it removes impurities like slag when you're brazing something. Before pvc became common, most plumbing in the home was either iron or copper. Iron is fitted and copper is brazed. That's why the term "Flux" would be used. It's not a heat Flux because the heat is usually from a butane or propane torch.
It's sad that neither one of you know anything about plumbing.

A fluxing agent (or a controlled atmosphere as found in furnace brazing) is required for all brazing and soldering applications. The purpose of the flux is to remove oxides from the base material and to prevent oxidation during the heating process, thus promoting the free flow of the brazing filler metal.


Definitions can be looked up. It's possible that people actually confuse "flux" and "flex". Maybe even "fluctuate". Just a poor understanding of the English language. It's probably the latter and not ladder.
It wouldn't be surprising if Americans did not know that flux and fluctuate are two and not to or too different things.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-12-2019 09:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...Yes. The same parlor trick.
tmiddles wrote:
...So why is it so unbelievable CO2 is different than Nitrogen?

No one said it wasn't.

The demo was to show that CO2 absorbs infrared. If you agree that's true how do you also call it a parlor trick? A parlor trick is a lie, it's a deceptions that shows an audience something which is false.


We already know that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. So?

* You can't create energy out of nothing. Absorption of surface infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth.



You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.
You are.
spot wrote:
the fact that you think they are is evidence of your profound ignorance.
No, it is what you are claiming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-12-2019 16:14
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
You mentioned earth heatflux, ...use geothermal for heating our house - and that is amazing.
You mean the heat flux from beneath the surface? Wouldn't the flux once you got down several feet be independent of anything that happens above ground?



The system actually has three different circuits, and not a single one:
1. The collector circuit, which is the external circuit from the geothermal pump to the ground and back.
2. The cool-circuit, which is the internal circuit with the geothermal pump.
3. The heating circuit within the house.

The collector circuit consists of a brinefluid that in our case is at ~0C out from the geothermal pump and ~4C in. The collector circuit circulates through 3x150m drilled holes. When the brinefluid meets the cooling liquid at a heatexchanger within the geothermal pump, the internal cooling fluid is warmed and turned into gas. Then a compressor kicks in and increases preassure (thus temp) of the cooling medium. At another heatexchanger the rather heated cooling-liquid then heats the heating system within the house. After that the cooling-liquid (or gas at this stage) is circulated to an expansion-vent that decreases preassure to it's original state thus making it liquid and quite cold again. And then the process begins all over.

That is the basics of it all - a quite simple solution. Today the systems are becoming ever more fine-tuned in order to increase the efficiency of the total system, but the basics remain the same.

Whether or not theese systems can be used in reverse I don't know. We only use our system for heating. Our system was installed in the mid 80's by previous owners that switched from a system based on conventional heating oil.
16-12-2019 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
MarcusR wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:
You mentioned earth heatflux, ...use geothermal for heating our house - and that is amazing.
You mean the heat flux from beneath the surface? Wouldn't the flux once you got down several feet be independent of anything that happens above ground?



The system actually has three different circuits, and not a single one:
1. The collector circuit, which is the external circuit from the geothermal pump to the ground and back.
2. The cool-circuit, which is the internal circuit with the geothermal pump.
3. The heating circuit within the house.

The collector circuit consists of a brinefluid that in our case is at ~0C out from the geothermal pump and ~4C in. The collector circuit circulates through 3x150m drilled holes. When the brinefluid meets the cooling liquid at a heatexchanger within the geothermal pump, the internal cooling fluid is warmed and turned into gas. Then a compressor kicks in and increases preassure (thus temp) of the cooling medium. At another heatexchanger the rather heated cooling-liquid then heats the heating system within the house. After that the cooling-liquid (or gas at this stage) is circulated to an expansion-vent that decreases preassure to it's original state thus making it liquid and quite cold again. And then the process begins all over.

That is the basics of it all - a quite simple solution. Today the systems are becoming ever more fine-tuned in order to increase the efficiency of the total system, but the basics remain the same.

Whether or not theese systems can be used in reverse I don't know. We only use our system for heating. Our system was installed in the mid 80's by previous owners that switched from a system based on conventional heating oil.


These systems are really pretty simple (except for the hole in the ground you have to make when you install them). They simply use the mass of the Earth just a dozen feet down or so as it has a more regular temperature than the constantly changing surface temperature.

Just a little pumping of coolant around and it works pretty well for many areas that have a temperate or even tropical or equatorial climate. It's not so great in an arctic climate though. Ground is too cold.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-12-2019 22:45
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
It's not so great in an arctic climate though. Ground is too cold.


Actually, I live in Sundsvall/Sweden so even though we still have a a couple of 100 km to the arctic circle we do have below 0C for a a large part of the year (december - april). That is the reason why the drilling holes were 150 meters when they were drilled. Today installations goes down to 180 and below, and down there even we have a rather constant temp at just a few degrees above 0C which is quite enough.

But I do agree with you, the system is very simple in it's design. Today's system works a bit more fine-tuned though with i.e compressors that is'nt on/off like our system.
16-12-2019 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13933)
MarcusR wrote:
It's not so great in an arctic climate though. Ground is too cold.


Actually, I live in Sundsvall/Sweden so even though we still have a a couple of 100 km to the arctic circle we do have below 0C for a a large part of the year (december - april). That is the reason why the drilling holes were 150 meters when they were drilled. Today installations goes down to 180 and below, and down there even we have a rather constant temp at just a few degrees above 0C which is quite enough.

But I do agree with you, the system is very simple in it's design. Today's system works a bit more fine-tuned though with i.e compressors that is'nt on/off like our system.


Yes, you would have to use a compressor to get a usable indoor temperature. Driving the compressors, of course, requires energy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-12-2019 23:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
MarcusR wrote:Our system was installed in the mid 80's by previous owners
Woah! I had no idea this was such old tech. Just to clarify you don't have "geothermal" energy as in Iceland correct? As in you don't have an extra hot subterranean source?

MarcusR wrote:That is the reason why the drilling holes were 150 meters when they were drilled. Today installations goes down to 180
Why so deep? That seems crazy far to go down. Isn't it sufficient to go down 10 feet? Does it get much hotter that far down? I guess for a cooling system you wouldn't need to go so far.
17-12-2019 01:07
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:Our system was installed in the mid 80's by previous owners
Woah! I had no idea this was such old tech. Just to clarify you don't have "geothermal" energy as in Iceland correct? As in you don't have an extra hot subterranean source?

MarcusR wrote:That is the reason why the drilling holes were 150 meters when they were drilled. Today installations goes down to 180
Why so deep? That seems crazy far to go down. Isn't it sufficient to go down 10 feet? Does it get much hotter that far down? I guess for a cooling system you wouldn't need to go so far.



Heat in the ground increases about 0.025° C. per meter of depth. If it's 13° C. to begin with then 180m down it's about 17.5° C. Mines require air conditioning for this reason.
17-12-2019 01:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3533)
James___ wrote:
Heat in the ground increases about 0.025° C. per meter of depth. If it's 13° C. to begin with then 180m down it's about 17.5° C. Mines require air conditioning for this reason.
Ah that makes a lot of sense then. So subterranean cooling would be much cheaper to get full value out of than subterranean heating.
17-12-2019 04:19
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Heat in the ground increases about 0.025° C. per meter of depth. If it's 13° C. to begin with then 180m down it's about 17.5° C. Mines require air conditioning for this reason.
Ah that makes a lot of sense then. So subterranean cooling would be much cheaper to get full value out of than subterranean heating.



The ground about 36 inches deep is usually about 14° C. or 55° F.
Aluminum could probably be protected but the condenser could easily be damaged.
What could be tried is having an environmentally friendly coolant absorb the heat from the condenser and then have that flow into pipes in the ground. Some heating systems have pipes in the floor to heat the home. Pipes in a ventilation system might work.
Page 7 of 14<<<56789>>>





Join the debate There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Green Hydrogen Survey for scientific research602-12-2020 18:37
the logarithmic effect of CO2615-11-2020 23:54
Can CO2 be temporarily stored if necessary?2016-10-2020 21:12
Why is CO2 the key to our survival?1327-09-2020 17:27
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
Articles
Theory
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact