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

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.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Science isn't a school or a book.

Sadly this man is just insane.

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

James___ wrote:
but that's only a part of the story. All Gore politicized 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.

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."

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.

tmiddles wrote: So yes if you're going to say that 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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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,

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

... because there are none.

.

MarcusR wrote: If you want to know the consequenses of increased levels of CO2, CH4 and N2O read this:

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

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

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

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?


.

You haven't read these, have you?

.

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

MarcusR wrote:...there is an identical site at https://www.klimadebat.dk/ and the science denying lunatics are there as well.

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

MarcusR wrote:It is quite pointless to debate the basic physics of AGW, although many do try.

MarcusR wrote:
lies at worst, ...has no place in a debate.

MarcusR wrote:
Just read them and you understand, they are quite basic.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

tmiddles wrote:

MarcusR wrote:
Just read them and you understand, they are quite basic.

Nice concise posts full of useful information! Your rock MarcusR

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.

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.

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___ 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.

MarcusR wrote:
You mentioned earth heatflux, ...use geothermal for heating our house - and that is amazing.

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?

Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as 'heat flux'. Buzzword fallacy.

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.


.

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'.

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.

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.

spot wrote:
the fact that you think they are is evidence of your profound ignorance.

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?

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.

It's not so great in an arctic climate though. Ground is too cold.

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.

MarcusR wrote:Our system was installed in the mid 80's by previous owners

MarcusR wrote:That is the reason why the drilling holes were 150 meters when they were drilled. Today installations goes down to 180

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.

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.

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.