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★★★★☆(1085) 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 tmiddles★★★★★(3975) 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.Ball1 -252 -253 -254 -25Total -100With 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..................Shell1 -25................+252 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out3 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out4 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out5 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out6 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out7 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5outTotal -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 shownSeconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7A________ 100__75___50___25____0____100__75B__________0__100___75___50___25____0___100C_________25___0___100___75___50___25____0D_________50___25___0___100___75___50___25E_________75___50___25____0___100___75___50Total--------250---250---250---250---250---250---250If 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____7A_________100__86___71___57____43___29___14B__________0___100__86___71____57___43___29C_________14___0____100__86____71___57___43D_________29___14____0___100___86___71___57E_________43___29___14___0____100___86___71F_________57___43___29___14____0___100___86G_________71___57___43___29____14____0___100H_________86___71___57____43___29___14___0Total--------400---400---400---400---400---400---400So the ball has a higher temperature with the shell, 400 joules present vs. 250 10-09-2019 02:17 Into the Night★★★★★(20125) 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.Ball1 -252 -253 -254 -25Total -100With 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..................Shell1 -25................+252 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out3 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out4 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out5 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out6 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5out7 -25 (+12.5).....+25, -12.5in, -12.5outTotal -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 shownSeconds____1____2____3____4____5____6____7A________ 100__75___50___25____0____100__75B__________0__100___75___50___25____0___100C_________25___0___100___75___50___25____0D_________50___25___0___100___75___50___25E_________75___50___25____0___100___75___50Total--------250---250---250---250---250---250---250If 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____7A_________100__86___71___57____43___29___14B__________0___100__86___71____57___43___29C_________14___0____100__86____71___57___43D_________29___14____0___100___86___71___57E_________43___29___14___0____100___86___71F_________57___43___29___14____0___100___86G_________71___57___43___29____14____0___100H_________86___71___57____43___29___14___0Total--------400---400---400---400---400---400---400So 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 KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 10-09-2019 03:41 tmiddles★★★★★(3975) Into the Night wrote:* You cannot ...You cannot talk about it? OKI can 10-09-2019 18:13 gfm7175★★★★★(3254) tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:* You cannot ...You cannot talk about it? OKI canHe 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 tmiddles★★★★★(3975) 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 Night★★★★★(20125) 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 KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 11-09-2019 20:03 gfm7175★★★★★(3254) 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 tmiddles★★★★★(3975) 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 MetabolismAuthor: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer MechanismDr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29 12-09-2019 17:49 gfm7175★★★★★(3254) 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 MetabolismAuthor: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer MechanismDr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29No, 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 Night★★★★★(20125) 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 MetabolismAuthor: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer MechanismDr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29No, 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 KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 12-09-2019 19:51 Into the Night★★★★★(20125) 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 KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 13-09-2019 01:10 tmiddles★★★★★(3975) 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.htmlIs that a good place to learn it? 13-09-2019 05:52 Into the Night★★★★★(20125) 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.htmlIs that a good place to learn it?No. Keep looking.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 13-09-2019 05:54 tmiddles★★★★★(3975) Into the Night wrote:No. Keep looking.Liar. That's it. Clear and complete 13-09-2019 06:45 Into the Night★★★★★(20125) tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:No. Keep looking.Liar. That's it. Clear and completeNo. Keep looking, ya lazy ass. I've already answered your questions. It's time you did your own research.The Parrot KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 13-09-2019 07:47 tmiddles★★★★★(3975) Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:No. Keep looking.Liar. That's it. Clear and completeNo. 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 Night★★★★★(20125) tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:No. Keep looking.Liar. That's it. Clear and completeNo. Keep looking, ya lazy ass. I've already answered your questions. It's time you did your own research.I did you are debunked liarNo, 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 KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 13-09-2019 19:01 14-09-2019 09:14 tmiddles★★★★★(3975) 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 Night★★★★★(20125) 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 KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 14-09-2019 19:31 16-09-2019 15:53 IBdaMann★★★★★(13295) 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?.I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepitA Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddlesClouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy IrisPrinting dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepitIf 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. - tmiddlesCeist - 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. - trafnYou 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★★★★★(2574) 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 Night★★★★★(20125) 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 KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 17-09-2019 20:55 keepit★★★★★(2574) 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 Night★★★★★(20125) 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 KillerDebunked in my sig. - tmiddlesGoogle keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepitnuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - SwanWhile it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan 17-09-2019 21:00 keepit★★★★★(2574) 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 IBdaMann★★★★★(13295) 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..I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepitA Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddlesClouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy IrisPrinting dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepitIf 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. - tmiddlesCeist - 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. - trafnYou 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★★★★★(2574) 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 IBdaMann★★★★★(13295) 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_40129https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/references-needed-not-rhetoric--d6-e2408.php#post_36464I suggest also reading the subsequent responses..I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepitA Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddlesClouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy IrisPrinting dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepitIf 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. - tmiddlesCeist - 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. - trafnYou 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★★★★★(4517) 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
 Threads Replies Last post B-17 and Bell King Cobra collided at Dallas air show today. Story at 11 0 13-11-2022 01:38 Sleuths of 'spooky' quantum entanglement science win Nobel physics prize for 2022 24 07-10-2022 01:45 Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium.. 329 23-09-2022 20:57 CO2 Is Helping the Ozone Layer to Recover 1 13-08-2022 05:54 Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat 272 01-07-2022 06:42
▲ 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