Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 3 of 14<12345>>>
25-11-2019 15:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
Volker Siegel wrote: The evidence that CO2 traps heat better than 02 and N2 is quite simple:

Great. Define "Heat" ... or is this just another setup for a weaseling goalpost-shifting?

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.


.


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
25-11-2019 17:20
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
Volker Siegel wrote:
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.



What hasn't been said is the back scattering of CO2 electromagnetic radiation. Ozone moves absorbed IR away from our planet.
Heat by definition is the electromagnetic radiation emitted by atmospheric gases. Does CO2 cause O2 and N2 to become more excited because of its own state in the atmosphere?
At the same time does CO2 influence O2's and N2 's ability to absorb IR?
What would be nice to see is the relationship between CO2 levels and water vapor in our atmosphere. Basically does CO2 influence our atmosphere in such a way that the level of water vapor increases as a result? Water vapor is much better at absorbing IR than CO2 is.
25-11-2019 18:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
James___ wrote: What hasn't been said is the back scattering of CO2 electromagnetic radiation.

James__, how do you define this particular "back scattering"? I'm sure you are aware that CO2 is not electromagnetic radiation.

James___ wrote:Ozone moves absorbed IR away from our planet.

Don't you mean "absorbed UV"? If not then I would politely ask for a little more clarification.

James___ wrote: Heat by definition is the electromagnetic radiation emitted by atmospheric gases.

By YOUR definition? If YOU are defining it that way then great, i.e. we know how you define it and we would expect you to remain consistent with that definition. No warmizombie goalpost-shifting allowed.

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

James___ wrote: What would be nice to see is the relationship between CO2 levels and water vapor in our atmosphere.

This is what confuses me about you. Either there is a relationship or there is not, and it doesn't appear that any exists. Why do you necessarily WANT there to be a relationship if none actually exists? You should know that simply presuming such a relationship taints every single one of your conclusions with a basis of false assumptions.

James___ wrote: Basically does CO2 influence our atmosphere in such a way that the level of water vapor increases as a result?

It's great to ponder this question but if you are asking it rhetorically because you are already presuming that there is such a relationship then you need to establish that specific relationship first. Again, at the moment, no such relationship appears to exist.


.


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
25-11-2019 19:13
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: What hasn't been said is the back scattering of CO2 electromagnetic radiation.

James__, how do you define this particular "back scattering"? I'm sure you are aware that CO2 is not electromagnetic radiation.

.


The change of earths energybalance is well known. Here is one paper on the matter
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

I can recomend Grant W Petty's book:A first Course in Atmospheric Radiation". It explains the basics on a rather strightforward way.
25-11-2019 19:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote: The evidence that CO2 traps heat better than 02 and N2 is quite simple:

Great. Define "Heat"

.


Light a fire, get a bar of metal such as a poker and put it in the fire for a few minutes, take out the poker and grab the red end, that sensation you can feel is due to "Heat".

Your welcome.


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 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
MarcusR wrote:
[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.


CFC's are heavier than air. Like propane, they go down. Chlorine is extremely reactive. How does chlorine manage to survive the trip all the way there?

Did you know that photodissociation of oxygen produces ozone and that photodissociation of ozone produces oxygen?

Why is the hole over the poles instead of over the industrial areas of the world?

Do you worry about destroying the planet when you use bleach?


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
25-11-2019 19:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Volker Siegel wrote:
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.


It is not possible to slow or trap heat. Heat is not something that can be trapped.

Absorption of infrared light by anything in the atmosphere does not warm the Earth. It's just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere.


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
25-11-2019 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
James___ wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote:
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.



What hasn't been said is the back scattering of CO2 electromagnetic radiation. Ozone moves absorbed IR away from our planet.

Ozone doesn't move anything. Light travels without the use of ozone or any other substance.
James___ wrote:
Heat by definition is the electromagnetic radiation emitted by atmospheric gases.

Wrong. Try again.
James___ wrote:
Does CO2 cause O2 and N2 to become more excited because of its own state in the atmosphere?

If it's warmer than the O2 or N2.
James___ wrote:
At the same time does CO2 influence O2's and N2 's ability to absorb IR?

No.
James___ wrote:
What would be nice to see is the relationship between CO2 levels and water vapor in our atmosphere.

None.
James___ wrote:
Basically does CO2 influence our atmosphere in such a way that the level of water vapor increases as a result?

No.
James___ wrote:
Water vapor is much better at absorbing IR than CO2 is.

No, it doesn't. They both absorb infrared light about equally. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas or vapor. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot increase the temperature of Earth and reduce it's radiance at the same time.


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
25-11-2019 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: What hasn't been said is the back scattering of CO2 electromagnetic radiation.

James__, how do you define this particular "back scattering"? I'm sure you are aware that CO2 is not electromagnetic radiation.

.


The change of earths energybalance is well known. Here is one paper on the matter
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

I can recomend Grant W Petty's book:A first Course in Atmospheric Radiation". It explains the basics on a rather strightforward way.


* You can't destroy energy into nothing.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
* You can't trap light.

Earth's energy balance is a simple one. 1:1. What comes in is what goes out. Nothing can stop that. No magick gas or vapor, no mysterious 'forcing', no scientist or group of scientists.

You can't change Earth's 'energy balance'.


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
25-11-2019 19:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote: The evidence that CO2 traps heat better than 02 and N2 is quite simple:

Great. Define "Heat"

.


Light a fire, get a bar of metal such as a poker and put it in the fire for a few minutes, take out the poker and grab the red end, that sensation you can feel is due to "Heat".

Your welcome.


So, 'heat' is a sensation? It's made up of nerve impulses that are interpreted by the brain? So heat requires the use of red hot bar of metal put in fires?


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
Edited on 25-11-2019 19:50
25-11-2019 19:59
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
MarcusR,
Are you the Marcus from Physics.com?
25-11-2019 20:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
spot wrote:Light a fire, get a bar of metal such as a poker and put it in the fire for a few minutes, take out the poker and grab the red end, that sensation you can feel is due to "Heat".

Your welcome.

Let me thank you to no end.

spot, grab an ice cube and hold it in your hand. Is that sensation you feel a result of "heat"?


.


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
25-11-2019 20:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
So you haven't done it because you know that you would injure yourself. so you know what heat is and your time-wasting by asking inane questions.
25-11-2019 20:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
And furthermore the poker remains hot even though it does not produce heat itself so the heat is effectively stored. But you say that heat cannot be stored according your madcap laws of physics. Are you a Marxist and refuse to grab the poker?


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.
Edited on 25-11-2019 20:13
25-11-2019 20:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote: The evidence that CO2 traps heat better than 02 and N2 is quite simple:

Great. Define "Heat"

.


Light a fire, get a bar of metal such as a poker and put it in the fire for a few minutes, take out the poker and grab the red end, that sensation you can feel is due to "Heat".

Your welcome.


So, 'heat' is a sensation? It's made up of nerve impulses that are interpreted by the brain? So heat requires the use of red hot bar of metal put in fires?


Teaching you does.


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 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
So you haven't done it because you know that you would injure yourself. so you know what heat is and your time-wasting by asking inane questions.


Hey...YOU brought the inane example. Expect inane questions.



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
25-11-2019 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
And furthermore the poker remains hot

No it doesn't.
spot wrote:
even though it does not produce heat itself so the heat is effectively stored.

You cannot store or trap heat.
spot wrote:
But you say that heat cannot be stored according your madcap laws of physics.

That's right. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not 'madcap' physics.
spot wrote:
Are you a Marxist and refuse to grab the poker?

Are you a Marxist and refuse to hold an ice cube?


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
25-11-2019 21:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote: The evidence that CO2 traps heat better than 02 and N2 is quite simple:

Great. Define "Heat"

.


Light a fire, get a bar of metal such as a poker and put it in the fire for a few minutes, take out the poker and grab the red end, that sensation you can feel is due to "Heat".

Your welcome.


So, 'heat' is a sensation? It's made up of nerve impulses that are interpreted by the brain? So heat requires the use of red hot bar of metal put in fires?


Teaching you does.


You aren't teaching anyone anything. You are just making up inane examples and calling it 'heat'.


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
25-11-2019 22:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
And furthermore the poker remains hot

No it doesn't.
spot wrote:
even though it does not produce heat itself so the heat is effectively stored.

You cannot store or trap heat.
spot wrote:
But you say that heat cannot be stored according your madcap laws of physics.

That's right. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not 'madcap' physics.
spot wrote:
Are you a Marxist and refuse to grab the poker?

Are you a Marxist and refuse to hold an ice cube?


You don't get it at all do you.

Why would I be a Marxist? Why woudent I grab an ice cube ice can be handled.


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.
Edited on 25-11-2019 22:10
25-11-2019 22:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
spot wrote: So you haven't done it because you know that you would injure yourself. so you know what heat is and your time-wasting by asking inane questions.

... so you don't know the answer? How disappointing. I actually thought there was hope that you might demonstrate knowing something.

Oh well.


.


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
25-11-2019 23:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: So you haven't done it because you know that you would injure yourself. so you know what heat is and your time-wasting by asking inane questions.

... so you don't know the answer? How disappointing. I actually thought there was hope that you might demonstrate knowing something.

Oh well.


.


Everybody knows what heat is.

I suppose by asking it you have some clever point you think you are driving at. Or are you just trying to derail evey thread.


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.
26-11-2019 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
And furthermore the poker remains hot

No it doesn't.
spot wrote:
even though it does not produce heat itself so the heat is effectively stored.

You cannot store or trap heat.
spot wrote:
But you say that heat cannot be stored according your madcap laws of physics.

That's right. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not 'madcap' physics.
spot wrote:
Are you a Marxist and refuse to grab the poker?

Are you a Marxist and refuse to hold an ice cube?


You don't get it at all do you.

Why would I be a Marxist? Why woudent I grab an ice cube ice can be handled.

Because you would like to turn the United States into fascism by oligarchy.

Try English. It works better.


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
26-11-2019 00:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: So you haven't done it because you know that you would injure yourself. so you know what heat is and your time-wasting by asking inane questions.

... so you don't know the answer? How disappointing. I actually thought there was hope that you might demonstrate knowing something.

Oh well.


.


Everybody knows what heat is.

Apparently YOU don't!
spot wrote:
I suppose by asking it you have some clever point you think you are driving at.

Apparently you don't get that either!
spot wrote:
Or are you just trying to derail evey thread.

A thread is not a train. It is not on a track.


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
26-11-2019 00:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
And furthermore the poker remains hot

No it doesn't.
spot wrote:
even though it does not produce heat itself so the heat is effectively stored.

You cannot store or trap heat.
spot wrote:
But you say that heat cannot be stored according your madcap laws of physics.

That's right. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not 'madcap' physics.
spot wrote:
Are you a Marxist and refuse to grab the poker?

Are you a Marxist and refuse to hold an ice cube?


You don't get it at all do you.

Why would I be a Marxist? Why woudent I grab an ice cube ice can be handled.

Because you would like to turn the United States into fascism by oligarchy.

Try English. It works better.


Your the one going on about Marxist science. The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS.


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.
26-11-2019 10:00
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)


CFC's are heavier than air. Like propane, they go down. Chlorine is extremely reactive. How does chlorine manage to survive the trip all the way there?

Did you know that photodissociation of oxygen produces ozone and that photodissociation of ozone produces oxygen?

Why is the hole over the poles instead of over the industrial areas of the world?



Here is a bit more detailed description which answers both your questions.
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm

You could also reead the initial paper published in Nature that by many is considered to be the foundation for the Montreol Protocol in 1987.
https://www.nature.com/articles/249810a0
It will reeequire a login (not necesearly Nature - there are other access as well). I would think the paper is public - just Google or duckduck.
Edited on 26-11-2019 10:02
26-11-2019 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
And furthermore the poker remains hot

No it doesn't.
spot wrote:
even though it does not produce heat itself so the heat is effectively stored.

You cannot store or trap heat.
spot wrote:
But you say that heat cannot be stored according your madcap laws of physics.

That's right. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not 'madcap' physics.
spot wrote:
Are you a Marxist and refuse to grab the poker?

Are you a Marxist and refuse to hold an ice cube?


You don't get it at all do you.

Why would I be a Marxist? Why woudent I grab an ice cube ice can be handled.

Because you would like to turn the United States into fascism by oligarchy.

Try English. It works better.


Your the one going on about Marxist science.

There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist.
spot wrote:
The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS.

Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar.


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
26-11-2019 21:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:

Your the one going on about Marxist science.

There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist.
spot wrote:0

The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS.

Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar.


Yes to say climatology is Marxist is dumb.

Grab a red hot poker and put it in YouTube then. If you have that much faith in your own BS you fruitloop.


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.
26-11-2019 21:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
MarcusR wrote:


CFC's are heavier than air. Like propane, they go down. Chlorine is extremely reactive. How does chlorine manage to survive the trip all the way there?

Did you know that photodissociation of oxygen produces ozone and that photodissociation of ozone produces oxygen?

Why is the hole over the poles instead of over the industrial areas of the world?



Here is a bit more detailed description which answers both your questions.
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm

You could also reead the initial paper published in Nature that by many is considered to bewas foundation for the Montreol Protocol in 1987.
https://www.nature.com/articles/249810a0
It will reeequire a login (not necesearly Nature - there are other access as well). I would think the paper is public - just Google or duckduck.


False authority fallacies.

Chlorine gas is extremely reactive. You also seem to be completely unaware of how ozone is created or the chemistry of ozone, chlorine, or CFC's.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane.
To dissociate into free chlorine, UC-C light is required. That light is filtererd out by the ozone layer. It does not reach the surface of the Earth (fortunately!). CFC's also are chemically inert in the presence of ozone.

Free chlorine or fluorine are extremely reactive. They will react with something else long before they get ten feet. Usually hydrogen or some nearby solid or liqud.

Ozone is created by the action of UV-B light on oxygen. The only way to stop it is to take away the oxygen (end of problem...everybody's dead), or the sunlight (end of problem...everybody's dead). As long as you have sunlight and oygen, you WILL have ozone.

We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

It is also not being depleted.

There are no CFC's at the poles and never were. Yet that's where the hole is. Why? Hint: the hole over Antarcia reports usually come out in June or July.


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
Edited on 26-11-2019 21:14
26-11-2019 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:

Your the one going on about Marxist science.

There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist.
spot wrote:0

The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS.

Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar.


Yes to say climatology is Marxist is dumb.

There is no such thing as 'climatology'. Define 'climate change'.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which itself stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

spot wrote:
Grab a red hot poker and put it in YouTube then. If you have that much faith in your own BS you fruitloop.

No need. There are plenty of examples of people on Youtube grabbing red hot pokers. They just grab the cold end.


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
26-11-2019 21:22
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:

Your the one going on about Marxist science.

There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist.
spot wrote:0

The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS.

Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar.


Yes to say climatology is Marxist is dumb.

There is no such thing as 'climatology'. Define 'climate change'.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which itself stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

spot wrote:
Grab a red hot poker and put it in YouTube then. If you have that much faith in your own BS you fruitloop.

No need. There are plenty of examples of people on Youtube grabbing red hot pokers. They just grab the cold end.


You just being silly and obtuse.


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.
26-11-2019 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:

Your the one going on about Marxist science.

There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist.
spot wrote:0

The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS.

Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar.


Yes to say climatology is Marxist is dumb.

There is no such thing as 'climatology'. Define 'climate change'.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which itself stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

spot wrote:
Grab a red hot poker and put it in YouTube then. If you have that much faith in your own BS you fruitloop.

No need. There are plenty of examples of people on Youtube grabbing red hot pokers. They just grab the cold end.


You just being silly and obtuse.

No, that would be you. Inversion 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
26-11-2019 22:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:

Your the one going on about Marxist science.

There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist.
spot wrote:0

The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS.

Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar.


Yes to say climatology is Marxist is dumb.

There is no such thing as 'climatology'. Define 'climate change'.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which itself stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

spot wrote:
Grab a red hot poker and put it in YouTube then. If you have that much faith in your own BS you fruitloop.

No need. There are plenty of examples of people on Youtube grabbing red hot pokers. They just grab the cold end.


You just being silly and obtuse.

No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy.


Fallacy fallacy,

See two can play at that game.


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.
27-11-2019 01:28
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:

Your the one going on about Marxist science.

There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist.
spot wrote:0

The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS.

Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar.


Yes to say climatology is Marxist is dumb.

There is no such thing as 'climatology'. Define 'climate change'.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which itself stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

spot wrote:
Grab a red hot poker and put it in YouTube then. If you have that much faith in your own BS you fruitloop.

No need. There are plenty of examples of people on Youtube grabbing red hot pokers. They just grab the cold end.


You just being silly and obtuse.

No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy.


Fallacy fallacy,

See two can play at that game.



When I was in the Navy, I accidentally tried boarding my ship with a lit cigarette. I was told that I had to put my cigarette out first.
I thought for a second and said okay. I then put it out in the palm of my hand. I didn't burn myself for one simple reason. I twisted the cigarette as I pushed it into the palm of my hand.
I didn't give the cherry on the cigarette a chance to conduct any heat. The P.O. on watch took my ID. I didn't think it would shock them but they did not understand how heat is transferred.
27-11-2019 02:16
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
When you say you don't recognize Wikipedia, that is your problem, not mine.
27-11-2019 02:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:

Your the one going on about Marxist science.

There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist.
spot wrote:0

The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS.

Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar.


Yes to say climatology is Marxist is dumb.

There is no such thing as 'climatology'. Define 'climate change'.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which itself stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

spot wrote:
Grab a red hot poker and put it in YouTube then. If you have that much faith in your own BS you fruitloop.

No need. There are plenty of examples of people on Youtube grabbing red hot pokers. They just grab the cold end.


You just being silly and obtuse.

No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy.


Fallacy fallacy,

Buzzword fallacy.
spot wrote:
See two can play at that game.

It's not a game. If you don't like me calling you on your fallacies, don't make them.


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
27-11-2019 02:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
When you say you don't recognize Wikipedia, that is your problem, not mine.


Not a problem. You just can't use it as a reference with me.


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
27-11-2019 02:39
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things.
27-11-2019 05:28
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
keepit wrote:
Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things.


From Wiki, about Wiki

As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
27-11-2019 05:44
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things.


From Wiki, about Wiki

As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About



This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt.
Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know.

GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game.
Edited on 27-11-2019 05:52
27-11-2019 10:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
Volker Siegel wrote:...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 are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature.
No the radiance doesn't decrease, the amount of energy that is milling through our atmosphere increases. You IBD have no explanation for Venus then to claim, absurdly, that we know nothing about Venus. You also claim, absurdly, that we don't know that the Moon has lower mean ground temp than the Earth. It is KNOWN that planets with atmospheres have a higher mean temp at ground level. You pretend they don't, so you exit the conversation. It is not an alternative position on an event to claim the event never took place.

IBdaMann wrote:You can't subdivide the earth
Translation: You can't talk about it.

Sorry IBD, we sure can. Every bit of examination in science has involved subdividing the universe. It's silly to say you can't look at a part in relation to other parts.

Volker Siegel wrote:
Trapping heat somehow is more than not trapping it at all.
Well said. The entire universe is presumably drifting toward entropy so no energy can be held forever. Something is effectively stored if it's kept around longer. That's all we will every have with energy. Not believing in the ability to store thermal energy pretty much means you are making a pointless and theoretical statement. It's stored easily and regularly in our daily lives.

spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:How disappointing.
..are you just trying to derail evey thread.
Always. One more discussion about the dictionary.

Heat is the NET FLOW of THERMAL ENERGY. I like the comparison with money. If thermal energy is money moving then HEAT is profit. And in anticipation of the lies of ITN, no HEAT is not a NET FLOW of HEAT, HEAT is NEW FLOW of THERMAL ENERGY.

Into the Night wrote:You just can't use it as a reference with me.
Add it to the list of everything ever written.

GasGuzzler wrote:
From Wiki, about Wiki
How about science textbooks GG? You accept those? Any of them? Any ever written?

"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
Page 3 of 14<12345>>>





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
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
July 2020 - Feeling the Heat?7604-09-2020 05:45
The ACTUAL Percentage of Atmospheric CO26403-09-2020 05:12
CO2 sensor112-08-2020 19:10
Less CO21022-07-2020 02:16
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