Remember me
▼ Content

There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature


There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature09-09-2019 23:12
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
So there little mirrors are supposed reflect IR back down to Earth. Wouldn't that cause a positive feedback loop that will within 1 second burn the Earth to crisp?
10-09-2019 01:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
So there little mirrors are supposed reflect IR back down to Earth. Wouldn't that cause a positive feedback loop that will within 1 second burn the Earth to crisp?

So that would be "reflection" and CO2 Absorbs and then re-emits radiance. Everything that emits radiance does it in all directions so it goes up down and sideways.

So it effectively causes thermal energy to spend more time bouncing around before it leaves.

Take a look at this: (link)
tmiddles wrote:The heated ball with and without a shell and pulses of 100 joules of energy entering into it. Assuming that it will emit 100 joules of energy over a 4 second period.

Without a shell:
Ball emits 100 joules over a 4 second period and they go straight out into space unimpeded.
Ball
1 -25
2 -25
3 -25
4 -25
Total -100

With a shell:
Ball emits 100 joules over a 4 second period, they are transferred to the shell that takes one second to absorb and re-emit a joule. Due to the handing back of 12.5 joules each time it ends up taking 7 seconds for the 100 joules to make their exit.
Ball..................Shell
1 -25................+25
2 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
3 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
4 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
5 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
6 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
7 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
Total -100 (-175+75)

If I feed 100 joules per second into the ball without a shell and it take 4 seconds for that pulse of energy to leave then that's a thermal energy total of 250 joules at any instant.
Example with the pulses lettered and the energy loss shown
Seconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7
A________ 100__75___50___25____0____100__75
B__________0__100___75___50___25____0___100
C_________25___0___100___75___50___25____0
D_________50___25___0___100___75___50___25
E_________75___50___25____0___100___75___50
Total--------250---250---250---250---250---250---250

If I feed 100 joules per second into the ball and it take 7 seconds for the energy to leave then that's a thermal energy total of 400 joules at any instant.
Seconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7
A_________100__86___71___57____43___29___14
B__________0___100__86___71____57___43___29
C_________14___0____100__86____71___57___43
D_________29___14____0___100___86___71___57
E_________43___29___14___0____100___86___71
F_________57___43___29___14____0___100___86
G_________71___57___43___29____14____0___100
H_________86___71___57____43___29___14___0
Total--------400---400---400---400---400---400---400

So the ball has a higher temperature with the shell, 400 joules present vs. 250
10-09-2019 02:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
tmiddles wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
So there little mirrors are supposed reflect IR back down to Earth. Wouldn't that cause a positive feedback loop that will within 1 second burn the Earth to crisp?

So that would be "reflection" and CO2 Absorbs and then re-emits radiance. Everything that emits radiance does it in all directions so it goes up down and sideways.

So it effectively causes thermal energy to spend more time bouncing around before it leaves.

Take a look at this: (link)
tmiddles wrote:The heated ball with and without a shell and pulses of 100 joules of energy entering into it. Assuming that it will emit 100 joules of energy over a 4 second period.

Without a shell:
Ball emits 100 joules over a 4 second period and they go straight out into space unimpeded.
Ball
1 -25
2 -25
3 -25
4 -25
Total -100

With a shell:
Ball emits 100 joules over a 4 second period, they are transferred to the shell that takes one second to absorb and re-emit a joule. Due to the handing back of 12.5 joules each time it ends up taking 7 seconds for the 100 joules to make their exit.
Ball..................Shell
1 -25................+25
2 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
3 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
4 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
5 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
6 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
7 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out
Total -100 (-175+75)

If I feed 100 joules per second into the ball without a shell and it take 4 seconds for that pulse of energy to leave then that's a thermal energy total of 250 joules at any instant.
Example with the pulses lettered and the energy loss shown
Seconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7
A________ 100__75___50___25____0____100__75
B__________0__100___75___50___25____0___100
C_________25___0___100___75___50___25____0
D_________50___25___0___100___75___50___25
E_________75___50___25____0___100___75___50
Total--------250---250---250---250---250---250---250

If I feed 100 joules per second into the ball and it take 7 seconds for the energy to leave then that's a thermal energy total of 400 joules at any instant.
Seconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7
A_________100__86___71___57____43___29___14
B__________0___100__86___71____57___43___29
C_________14___0____100__86____71___57___43
D_________29___14____0___100___86___71___57
E_________43___29___14___0____100___86___71
F_________57___43___29___14____0___100___86
G_________71___57___43___29____14____0___100
H_________86___71___57____43___29___14___0
Total--------400---400---400---400---400---400---400

So the ball has a higher temperature with the shell, 400 joules present vs. 250


* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder gas.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 03:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot ...


You cannot talk about it? OK
I can
10-09-2019 18:13
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(196)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot ...


You cannot talk about it? OK
I can

He IS talking about it, numb nuts...

He is telling you which theories of science stand in the way of what you are claiming and why they stand in the way. It's quite straightforward, really...
11-09-2019 13:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
gfm7175 wrote:
He is telling you which theories of science stand in the way of what you are claiming

ITN has made up his own theories, unsupported by anything but ITN, that defy every textbook on thermodynamics ever written.

But enough about him. Let me ask you gfm:
Do you believe that the radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object?
Do you believe as you sit there that the radiance from the walls and air around you, which are cooler than you are, are not being absorbed by your skin?
11-09-2019 19:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
He is telling you which theories of science stand in the way of what you are claiming

ITN has made up his own theories, unsupported by anything but ITN, that defy every textbook on thermodynamics ever written.

I didn't create the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You just want to deny it.
tmiddles wrote:
But enough about him. Let me ask you gfm:
Do you believe that the radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object?

* You cannot make heat from cold to hot.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe as you sit there that the radiance from the walls and air around you, which are cooler than you are, are not being absorbed by your skin?

Repetitious question already answered.


The Parrot Killer
11-09-2019 20:03
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(196)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
He is telling you which theories of science stand in the way of what you are claiming

ITN has made up his own theories, unsupported by anything but ITN, that defy every textbook on thermodynamics ever written.

He hasn't made up anything. He is referencing theories of science. You don't have to take his word for it. I most certainly didn't. I took a look at the theories for myself. What ITN is claiming about them is correct.

tmiddles wrote:
But enough about him. Let me ask you gfm:
Do you believe that the radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object?

Yes.

Heat does not flow from cold to hot; it only flows from hot to cold. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe as you sit there that the radiance from the walls and air around you, which are cooler than you are, are not being absorbed by your skin?

This has already been answered.
12-09-2019 13:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
I didn't create the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where did you get what you claim is the 2nd LTD? And quote where it says anything about radiance.

gfm7175 wrote:
You don't have to take his word for it. I most certainly didn't. I took a look at the theories for myself. What ITN is claiming about them is correct.

Did you look in a book?
I found 5 textbooks that all contradict ITN/IBD teaching net flow of radiance. What is your opinion?

1 -Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE

2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person
3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao
4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my
5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29
12-09-2019 17:49
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(196)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
You don't have to take his word for it. I most certainly didn't. I took a look at the theories for myself. What ITN is claiming about them is correct.

Did you look in a book?
I found 5 textbooks that all contradict ITN/IBD teaching net flow of radiance. What is your opinion?

1 -Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE

2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person
3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao
4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my
5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29

No, I looked at the theory itself.

The rest of the comment is being ignored on sight because you have beaten this dead horse to the point where there is no horse left.
12-09-2019 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
You don't have to take his word for it. I most certainly didn't. I took a look at the theories for myself. What ITN is claiming about them is correct.

Did you look in a book?
I found 5 textbooks that all contradict ITN/IBD teaching net flow of radiance. What is your opinion?

1 -Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE

2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person
3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao
4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my
5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29

No, I looked at the theory itself.

The rest of the comment is being ignored on sight because you have beaten this dead horse to the point where there is no horse left.

No, you just deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
12-09-2019 19:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I didn't create the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where did you get what you claim is the 2nd LTD? And quote where it says anything about radiance.


The writings of Carnot, Clausius, Planck, and Kelvin.

Since you deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you deny anything these men said about it.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2019 01:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I didn't create the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where did you get what you claim is the 2nd LTD? And quote where it says anything about radiance.


The writings of Carnot, Clausius, Planck, and Kelvin.

Since you deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you deny anything these men said about it.


Ok so I found Planck and this link:
https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-planck-radiation-law-and-wien.html

Is that a good place to learn it?
13-09-2019 05:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I didn't create the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Where did you get what you claim is the 2nd LTD? And quote where it says anything about radiance.


The writings of Carnot, Clausius, Planck, and Kelvin.

Since you deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you deny anything these men said about it.


Ok so I found Planck and this link:
https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-planck-radiation-law-and-wien.html

Is that a good place to learn it?

No. Keep looking.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2019 05:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
No. Keep looking.


Liar. That's it. Clear and complete
13-09-2019 06:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. Keep looking.


Liar. That's it. Clear and complete


No. Keep looking, ya lazy ass. I've already answered your questions. It's time you did your own research.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2019 07:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. Keep looking.


Liar. That's it. Clear and complete


No. Keep looking, ya lazy ass. I've already answered your questions. It's time you did your own research.


I did you are debunked liar
13-09-2019 18:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. Keep looking.


Liar. That's it. Clear and complete


No. Keep looking, ya lazy ass. I've already answered your questions. It's time you did your own research.


I did you are debunked liar

No, you didn't liar. I knew you had no intention of learning about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You just want to deny it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-09-2019 19:01
14-09-2019 09:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1394)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
So there little mirrors are supposed reflect IR back down to Earth. Wouldn't that cause a positive feedback loop that will within 1 second burn the Earth to crisp?


Do you believe the atmosphere radiate toward the ground as well as out toward space?
14-09-2019 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
tmiddles wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
So there little mirrors are supposed reflect IR back down to Earth. Wouldn't that cause a positive feedback loop that will within 1 second burn the Earth to crisp?


Do you believe the atmosphere radiate toward the ground as well as out toward space?


Big deal. You can't make heat flow from cold to hot. Light is not heat.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 14-09-2019 19:31
16-09-2019 15:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5022)
tmiddles wrote:Do you believe the atmosphere radiate toward the ground as well as out toward space?

Do you believe the atmosphere is part of the earth?

.


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
17-09-2019 20:39
keepit
★★★☆☆
(706)
Regarding the SB law, the atmosphere isn't part of the earth. Just ask yourself where anything that surrounds the earth ends, is it at the solar system, at the galaxy, at the visible universe?
17-09-2019 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
keepit wrote:
Regarding the SB law, the atmosphere isn't part of the earth.

Now you are denying Kirchoff's law as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
keepit wrote:
Just ask yourself where anything that surrounds the earth ends, is it at the solar system, at the galaxy, at the visible universe?

Are you seriously suggesting that Mars and the Sun are in our atmosphere???


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2019 20:55
keepit
★★★☆☆
(706)
Not saying that. I think you say that earth's atmosphere is part of earth in the context of SB law so i asked what else would be included in the context of the SB law. How is it decided what is to be included and what is not to be included.
What about E=MC2?
17-09-2019 20:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
keepit wrote:
Not saying that. I think you say that earth's atmosphere is part of earth in the context of SB law so i asked what else would be included in the context of the SB law. How is it decided what is to be included and what is not to be included.

If there is matter is matters. The entire Earth is included, land, the depths of the oceans, and the atmosphere.
keepit wrote:
What about E=MC2?

What about it?


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2019 21:00
keepit
★★★☆☆
(706)
So how is it decided what is to be included.
Neither you nor IBDM has yet mentioned E=MC2. Do you believe the equation is true?
17-09-2019 21:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5022)
keepit wrote: So how is it decided what is to be included.

Included in what?

keepit wrote: Neither you nor IBDM has yet mentioned E=MC2.

Has anyone else not mentioned it?

keepit wrote: Do you believe the equation is true?

You *STILL* haven't looked up what I wrote about it on this very board, have you?

Hint: July.


.


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
17-09-2019 21:20
keepit
★★★☆☆
(706)
What did you write about it? I don't know how to look up what you wrote.
Edited on 17-09-2019 21:20
17-09-2019 21:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5022)
keepit wrote:What did you write about it? I don't know how to look up what you wrote.


https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/tangier-island-should-it-be-used-as-an-example-d11-e2689-s120.php#post_40129

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/references-needed-not-rhetoric--d6-e2408.php#post_36464

I suggest also reading the subsequent responses.


.


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
17-09-2019 22:35
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1474)
keepit wrote:
So how is it decided what is to be included.
Neither you nor IBDM has yet mentioned E=MC2. Do you believe the equation is true?


Must be true, it went 'BOOM', as planned and expected...




Join the debate There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N23717-11-2019 08:15
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
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)16903-11-2019 19:37
▲ 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