Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 2 of 7<1234>>>
20-11-2019 11:11
Dom_Hayes_420
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
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 trying to argue.
spot wrote:
Or are you a member of extinction rebellion out to make skeptics look stupid?

YALIF.


Im not down with the kids, what does YALIF mean?


I sure hope you arent down with the kids...
20-11-2019 17:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
spot wrote: You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.

Correct. You have merely implied thousands of times that CO2 creates energy out of nothing. What you have expressly stated thousands of times is that the existence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere increases the earth's average global temperature ... which can only happen with additional energy ...which creates the unstated implication that the CO2 is somehow creating this additional energy.

Oh, and your implication is wrong each and every time.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-11-2019 20:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.

Correct. You have merely implied thousands of times that CO2 creates energy out of nothing. What you have expressly stated thousands of times is that the existence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere increases the earth's average global temperature ... which can only happen with additional energy ...which creates the unstated implication that the CO2 is somehow creating this additional energy.

Oh, and your implication is wrong each and every time.


.


Wrong

Not my claims anyway but every informed sane person.


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.
20-11-2019 20:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
Dom_Hayes_420 wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
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 trying to argue.
spot wrote:
Or are you a member of extinction rebellion out to make skeptics look stupid?

YALIF.


Im not down with the kids, what does YALIF mean?


I sure hope you arent down with the kids...



I dread to think what you think I mean.


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.
20-11-2019 20:41
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDN,
I, for one, don't claim that CO2 creates energy out of nothing or any of that sort of talk. The sun feeds the earth energy. The earth and the atmosphere distribute it.
20-11-2019 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: You have been told thousands of times before; nobody is claiming that CO2 creates the energy out of nothing.

Correct. You have merely implied thousands of times that CO2 creates energy out of nothing. What you have expressly stated thousands of times is that the existence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere increases the earth's average global temperature ... which can only happen with additional energy ...which creates the unstated implication that the CO2 is somehow creating this additional energy.

Oh, and your implication is wrong each and every time.


.


Wrong

Not my claims anyway but every informed sane person.


Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy involving people as the class...bigotry.


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2019 22:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
IBDN,
I, for one, don't claim that CO2 creates energy out of nothing or any of that sort of talk.
Yes you do.
keepit wrote:
The sun feeds the earth energy. The earth and the atmosphere distribute it.

Then you move the goalposts and state that CO2 is making the Earth warmer, in other words, is create energy out of nothing.

* You can't compare two different systems as if they were the same system. False equivalence fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2019 22:35
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
I think you're having a bad day ITN.
20-11-2019 23:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
I think you're having a bad day ITN.


Redirection fallacy. My day, whether it is a good one or a bad one is completely irrelevant.

But, if you're curious, I am having a good day.



The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-11-2019 23:05
21-11-2019 01:57
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences
21-11-2019 20:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

Might the reason for this be that there is no ozone depletion?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
21-11-2019 20:55
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

Might the reason for this be that there is no ozone depletion?



Gosh!!! And to think they banned or limited CFCs in accordance with the Montreal protocol. Or the fact that the IPCC has not criticized the EU's carbon neutral policy of burning trees. Or the IPCC saying that they are relying on CO2 levels increasing so one day the ozone layer can recover.

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

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

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

ANALYSIS Vertical human fingerprint found in stratospheric cooling, tropospheric warming By Zeke Hausfather on Sep 27, 2013Newly published research in PNAS identifies what authors call a 'vertical human fingerprint' in satellite-based estimates of atmospheric temperature changes, adding still more to confidence levels about human influences in warming.
Anew research paper by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer and co-authors looks in detail at how climate change resulting from human activities is affecting the temperature of Earth's atmosphere.

They argue in their paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that natural climate forcings like volcanoes, El Niño, and changes in solar activity could not have been responsible for the cooling of the upper atmosphere and warming of the lower atmosphere, and they identify a clear human "fingerprint" to the warming seen over the last 30 years.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/09/vertical-human-fingerprint-found-in-stratospheric-cooling-tropospheric-warming/


21-11-2019 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

Might the reason for this be that there is no ozone depletion?



Gosh!!! And to think they banned or limited CFCs in accordance with the Montreal protocol. Or the fact that the IPCC has not criticized the EU's carbon neutral policy of burning trees. Or the IPCC saying that they are relying on CO2 levels increasing so one day the ozone layer can recover.

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Neither CO2 nor methane nor N2O nor CFCs affect the ozone layer at all.

Ozone is created by UV-B sunlight acting on oxygen in the atmosphere. It is destroyed by UV-C sunlight acting on ozone in the atmosphere (returning it to oxygen).

CO2 doesn't affect this.
Methane doesn't affect this.
N2O doesn't affect this.
CFC's don't even react with ozone at all.


The Parrot Killer
22-11-2019 03:58
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

Might the reason for this be that there is no ozone depletion?



Gosh!!! And to think they banned or limited CFCs in accordance with the Montreal protocol. Or the fact that the IPCC has not criticized the EU's carbon neutral policy of burning trees. Or the IPCC saying that they are relying on CO2 levels increasing so one day the ozone layer can recover.

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Neither CO2 nor methane nor N2O nor CFCs affect the ozone layer at all.

Ozone is created by UV-B sunlight acting on oxygen in the atmosphere. It is destroyed by UV-C sunlight acting on ozone in the atmosphere (returning it to oxygen).

CO2 doesn't affect this.
Methane doesn't affect this.
N2O doesn't affect this.
CFC's don't even react with ozone at all.



Can't you do better than to paraphrase what you find on the internet?
22-11-2019 06:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
keepit wrote:
IBDN,
I, for one, don't claim that CO2 creates energy out of nothing or any of that sort of talk. The sun feeds the earth energy. The earth and the atmosphere distribute it.


Does a sponge create water out nothing? So if it's raining, on a sponge, and later it's wet that's magic right IBD?
22-11-2019 12:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
What scientists have never said is how much UV radiation is absorbed by CO2 in our atmosphere and how much by ozone in the ozone layer and how the depletion of the ozone layer affects this. I like long, run on sentences

Might the reason for this be that there is no ozone depletion?



Gosh!!! And to think they banned or limited CFCs in accordance with the Montreal protocol. Or the fact that the IPCC has not criticized the EU's carbon neutral policy of burning trees. Or the IPCC saying that they are relying on CO2 levels increasing so one day the ozone layer can recover.

In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.

Neither CO2 nor methane nor N2O nor CFCs affect the ozone layer at all.

Ozone is created by UV-B sunlight acting on oxygen in the atmosphere. It is destroyed by UV-C sunlight acting on ozone in the atmosphere (returning it to oxygen).

CO2 doesn't affect this.
Methane doesn't affect this.
N2O doesn't affect this.
CFC's don't even react with ozone at all.



Can't you do better than to paraphrase what you find on the internet?

Obviously, yes. I didn't get this from the internet. These theories of science were created before the internet existed.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 11:19
Volker Siegel
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.
23-11-2019 17:07
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.


There isn't enough CO2 to form a continuous layer. It's a trace gas, only 0.04% of the entire atmosphere. It's not additional energy, if the energy was already there to begin with. It's still the same energy. How much of a delay, how long do you thing CO2, or any of the 'GHGs' hold on to 'heat anyway? The sun only shines on half the surface, at any given moment. The wind keeps moving, mixing cold and warm air 24/7. Cloud cover is consistent over the entire planet. It's really not possible to measure the GHE, to many thing going on in nature, it's not the same as a laboratory model. The different greatly exceed the property you are trying to demonstrate.
23-11-2019 19:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

It is not possible to slow or trap heat. It is not possible to trap light.

CO2 cannot create additional energy.

Does CO2 absorb some frequencies of infrared light? Certainly. It is just another way for the warmer surface to cool itself by heating the air above it.

ALL of it radiates in to space. Most of it is radiated from the surface directly.

Absorption of infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth. It can't.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 19:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.


There isn't enough CO2 to form a continuous layer. It's a trace gas, only 0.04% of the entire atmosphere. It's not additional energy, if the energy was already there to begin with. It's still the same energy. How much of a delay, how long do you thing CO2, or any of the 'GHGs' hold on to 'heat anyway? The sun only shines on half the surface, at any given moment. The wind keeps moving, mixing cold and warm air 24/7. Cloud cover is consistent over the entire planet. It's really not possible to measure the GHE, to many thing going on in nature, it's not the same as a laboratory model. The different greatly exceed the property you are trying to demonstrate.

It wouldn't matter anyway, as far as temperature is concerned. CO2 is not additional energy. It could be 100%, it would make no difference.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-11-2019 19:02
23-11-2019 23:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
23-11-2019 23:43
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.



Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.
24-11-2019 13:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.



Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.


IBdaMann never gets bored of that joke


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.
24-11-2019 18:33
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.



Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.


IBdaMann never gets bored of that joke


It's possible that they don't understand what "heat" is. They only seem to understand its definition, Heat is the amount of energy flowing. There are other definitions which say it differently which they do not use:

In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system

Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another


They only seem to accept heat if it is flowing from a solid which is radiation like IR. They don't seem to understand that if gases can store heat as heat content.
This is where gases are different than a solid. When gases emit heat as electromagnetic radiation, they can also absorb it. This would make our atmosphere.
In this instance
In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system,
heat is kept in the system because it is transferring from one component/part of the system to another component/part of the system. I don't think they understand this.
24-11-2019 18:41
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
James___ wrote:
spot wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.



Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.


IBdaMann never gets bored of that joke


It's possible that they don't understand what "heat" is. They only seem to understand its definition, Heat is the amount of energy flowing. There are other definitions which say it differently which they do not use:

In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system

Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another


They only seem to accept heat if it is flowing from a solid which is radiation like IR. They don't seem to understand that if gases can store heat as heat content.
This is where gases are different than a solid. When gases emit heat as electromagnetic radiation, they can also absorb it. This would make our atmosphere.
In this instance
In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system,
heat is kept in the system because it is transferring from one component/part of the system to another component/part of the system. I don't think they understand this.


I don't really understand what they believe or where it came from. ITN claims to have a pilot license and they both claim to be successful in their careers. So they are smart enough to know what they say is pure BS. Yet everyday they are on here repeating themselves.


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.
24-11-2019 20:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
ITN is definitely a pilot, among other occupations. I don't know if he got his training in the us military or some other one.
24-11-2019 23:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
James___ wrote: Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law.

All gases follow the law.

James___ wrote: Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere.






Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
24-11-2019 23:11
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
I think to qualify as a black body, the body has to emit and absorb every wavelength.

The atmosphere doesn't do this.
24-11-2019 23:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1227)
keepit wrote:
I think to qualify as a black body, the body has to emit and absorb every wavelength.

The atmosphere doesn't do this.


Correct.


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.
25-11-2019 00:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: I think to qualify as a black body, the body has to emit and absorb every wavelength.

That would be an ideal black body. Stefan-Boltzmann includes an Emissivity constant that makes it apply to all matter, always, everywhere.

keepit wrote: The atmosphere doesn't do this.

The earth is a body that has an atmosphere. You can't separate the atmosphere from the earth-body. Nor can you separate the hydrosphere. You can't subdivide the earth in order to make it defy physics.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
25-11-2019 00:27
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Yes, you can, and it doesn't defy physics.

Emissivity of a planet is determined by the nature of it surface and its atmosphere.
Edited on 25-11-2019 00:38
25-11-2019 01:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote:
Yes, you can, and it doesn't defy physics.

Emissivity of a planet is determined by the nature of it surface and its atmosphere.

Whatever. You are gibbering.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
25-11-2019 01:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote:
Yes, you can, and it doesn't defy physics.

Emissivity of a planet is determined by the nature of it surface and its atmosphere.

Whatever. You are gibbering.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
25-11-2019 01:09
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Not me, it's you.

It's straight out of Wikipedia.
Edited on 25-11-2019 01:11
25-11-2019 11:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote:
Regarding the point that "CO2 creates energy from nothing".

That is an interesting point: We end up with more, because we loose less!

The Sun heats the Earth.
That heat mainly goes back to space, where it came from.
With a layer of CO2, the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back.
This energy that comes back is the additional energy.

False.

Now you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. Not possible.


.



Atmospheric gases actually are considered using Boltzmann's ideal gas law. Stefan-Boltzmann actually applies to solids or something that is molten such as magma or lava.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all matter. Even a gas.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2019 11:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
I think to qualify as a black body, the body has to emit and absorb every wavelength.

The atmosphere doesn't do this.


Nope. Not necessary.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2019 11:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Yes, you can, and it doesn't defy physics.

False equivalence, and you are denying both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You cannot consider two different system as the same system. You are also denying Kirchoff's law.
keepit wrote:
Emissivity of a planet is determined by the nature of it surface and its atmosphere.

WRONG. It is a measured constant. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2019 11:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Not me, it's you.

It's straight out of Wikipedia.


False authority fallacy. Wikipedia is not a science book. Indeed, it denies science just as you do. Wikipedia summarily dismissed on sight. You cannot use it as a reference with either me or IBdaMann.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-11-2019 11:58
25-11-2019 13:44
MarcusR
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
[b] CFC's don't even react with ozone at all.


Well... the thing is that photodissociation of the chlorofluoromethanes (HCFC's) in the stratosphere produces significant amounts of chlorine atoms, and that leads to the destruction of atmospheric ozone.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/cfcs-ozone.html#merck-research-on-b-vitamins
25-11-2019 14:25
Volker Siegel
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
The evidence that CO2 traps heat better than 02 and N2 is quite simple:

CO2 does trap heat in some way.
02 and N2 are transparent for heat radiation. It does not interact with IR to begin with. So it can not trap it.

Trapping heat somehow is more than not trapping it at all.
That is a strong suggestion, in contrast to the statement in the title.
Page 2 of 7<1234>>>





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
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?4211-12-2019 01:25
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or5625-11-2019 15:53
Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control814-11-2019 23:28
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact