Remember me
▼ Content

University Physics textbook re the 'greenhouse' effect


University Physics textbook re the 'greenhouse' effect06-01-2016 17:43
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Thanks to Sky Dragon Slayer IBdaMann for finally (after more than 1000 posts and numerous requests) citing a Physics textbook to try to support his wackjob assertions that the 'greenhouse' effect does not exist, violates the laws of physics, and is a 'religious' belief held by morons, scientific illiterates and 'warmazombies'.

See thread:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/why-would-co2-cause-sea-level-to-rise-and-ocean-to-acidify-d6-e1005.php#post_6907

Ironically, all he did was prove that he is the 'scientifically illiterate moron' who hadn't even read the Young and Freedman textbook he cited and totally blew his wackjob assertions out of the water all by himself. For low and behold what do we find toward the end of chapter 17- the very chapter he cited?

University Physics with Modern Physics -Hugh D. Young and Roger A. Freedman

Thermodynamics and Heat - Chapter 17

17.7 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer


Applications of Radiation


Radiation, Climate, and Climate Change
pages 576-577

"Our planet constantly absorbs radiation coming from the sun. In thermal equilibrium, the rate at which our planet absorbs solar radiation must equal the rate at which it emits radiation into space. The presence of an atmosphere on our planet has a significant effect on this equilibrium.

Most of the radiation emitted by the sun (which has a surface temperature of 5800 K) is in the visible part of the spectrum, to which our atmosphere is transparent.

But the average surface temperature of the earth is only 287 K (14°C).
Hence most of the radiation that our planet emits into space is infrared radiation, just like the radiation from the person shown in Fig. 17.28.

However, our atmosphere is not completely transparent to infrared radiation. This is because our atmosphere contains carbon dioxide , which is its fourth most abundant constituent (after nitrogen, oxygen, and argon). Molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere have the property that they absorb some of the infrared radiation coming upward from the surface. They then re-radiate the absorbed energy, but some of the re-radiated energy is directed back down toward the surface instead of escaping into space. In order to maintain thermal equilibrium, the earth's surface must compensate for this by increasing its temperature T and hence its total rate of radiating energy (which is proportional to T ^ 4.)

This phenomenon, called the greenhouse effect, makes our planet's surface temperature about 33°C higher than it would be if there were no atmospheric CO2. If were absent, the earth's average surface temperature would be below the freezing point of water, and life as we know it would be impossible.

While atmospheric CO2 has a beneficial effect, too much of it can have extremely negative consequences. Measurements of air trapped in ancient Antarctic ice show that over the past 650,000 years CO2 has constituted less than 300 parts per million of our atmosphere. Since the beginning of the industrial age, however, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum has elevated the atmospheric concentration to unprecedented levels (Fig. 17.29a).

As a consequence, since the 1950s the global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6C and the earth has experienced the hottest years ever recorded (Fig. 17.29b).

If we continue to consume fossil fuels at the same rate, by 2050 the atmospheric concentration will reach 600 parts per million, well off the
scale of Fig. 17.29a. The resulting temperature increase will have dramatic effects on climate around the world. In the polar regions massive quantities of ice will melt and run from solid land to the sea, thus raising ocean levels worldwide and threatening the homes and lives of hundreds of millions of people who live near the coast. Coping with these threats is one of the greatest challenges facing 21st century civilization."
Edited on 06-01-2016 18:15
06-01-2016 20:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote: For low and behold what do we find toward the end of chapter 17- the very chapter he cited?

What you cited was inserted into the PDF version of the textbook, appended after the end of the chapter.

There is no physics discussion in that blurb, only "greenhouse effect" theology is preached. None of the material you cite is physics textbook material.


.


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
07-01-2016 00:13
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Once again IBdaMann has to invent conspiratorial BS and tell bald faced lies to maintain his denial of science and to try to pretend he didn't shoot himself in the foot.
Edited on 07-01-2016 00:16
07-01-2016 00:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Ceist wrote:
Once again IBdaMann has to invent conspiratorial BS and tell bald faced lies to maintain his denial of science and to try to pretend he didn't shoot himself in the foot.


The 'conspiracy' is probably you.


The Parrot Killer
RE: university physics without greenhouse effect07-01-2016 00:49
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
I possess a physics textbook that makes no mention of the greenhouse effect.
Bought it new in 1959.
Titled University Physics, authored by Sears and Zemansky, published by Addison-Wesley, second edition, copyrighted 1955.
No mention of greenhouse effect or anything like it.
No mention of transistors or artificial satellites or lasers either.
07-01-2016 00:56
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
33 C? I call that BS

They wrote this in the book at the order of the Obama administration. When Trump is elected they delete it from the book. I've never heard this 33 C figure prior to 2009.
Edited on 07-01-2016 01:00
07-01-2016 01:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
A couple of non-scientists spend all their time posting on the internet that the 'greenhouse' effect violates the laws of physics but can't explain how or show any heat transfer equations or cite any physics textbook that supports their ridiculous claims. They delusionally believe they understand physics more than all the physicists in the world. They claim all the textbooks are wrong or have had 'religious beliefs' sneakily inserted in pdf versions of Physics textbooks by leftist publishers.

Yes that sounds believable-*snort*.
Edited on 07-01-2016 01:43
07-01-2016 02:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Ceist wrote:
A couple of non-scientists spend all their time posting on the internet that the 'greenhouse' effect violates the laws of physics but can't explain how or show any heat transfer equations or cite any physics textbook that supports their ridiculous claims. They delusionally believe they understand physics more than all the physicists in the world. They claim all the textbooks are wrong or have had 'religious beliefs' sneakily inserted in pdf versions of Physics textbooks by leftist publishers.

Yes that sounds believable-*snort*.


Let's see...where to start...

Heat transfer equations are openly available for anyone who cares to look at them. Maybe you should read the textbook (even the modified one will do) you so love to quote.

Your appeal to authority is a fallacy. It's not even a real authority. Science is not done by consensus.

Your appeal to an extreme argument is a fallacy. No one has claimed all the textbooks are wrong. A textbook is not a final authority either. It is an opinion only.

I really don't care how the page you are quoting was modified, either by you or by a government edict in the current published edition. It matters not. You are the one making it out as a 'massive' conspiracy. At the least you are comparing different editions of the book as being somehow identical.

You are manufacturing a crisis here where there is none. I guess that's the way you get your thrills.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 02:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Rhetoric is not science.

Citing a University textbook is not a logical fallacy.

"However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either
(a) is not an authority, or
(b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited."



Appealing to yourself as an authority (which is all you are doing) is a logical fallacy. Especially when you have no expertise or qualifications in the subject area.
Edited on 07-01-2016 02:50
07-01-2016 02:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
According to Into the Night, it would be a logical fallacy to cite a University textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry when discussing the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.


But accepting everything an anonymous layperson claims on the internet about a subject he clearly knows nothing about, is 'logical'.

Edited on 07-01-2016 02:57
07-01-2016 02:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Ceist wrote:
Rhetoric is not science.

True. But science needs rhetoric to communicate.
Ceist wrote:
Citing a textbook is not a logical fallacy.

True. Using it as a final authority, however, is.
Ceist wrote:
"However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either
(a) is not an authority, or
(b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited."


Incorrect. The fallacy occurs when an authority is assumed as a binding proof. An authority, even a qualified one, is an opinion only.
Ceist wrote:

Appealing to yourself as an authority (which is all you are doing) is a logical fallacy.
By what mechanism? I am the sole authority on what I say. There is no other.
Ceist wrote:
Especially when you have no expertise or qualifications in the subject area.

Irrelevant. I am the sole authority on what I say. I need no qualifications or expertise to give my opinion or present an argument.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 02:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Ceist wrote:
According to Into the Night, it's a logical fallacy to cite a University textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry when discussing the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.


But accepting everything an anonymous layperson claims on the internet about a subject he clearly knows nothing about, is 'logical'.


Your assumption is wrong, like usual. You are also putting words in my mouth, like usual.

It is not a logical fallacy to cite a University textbook. I never said it was.

It IS a logical fallacy to use that citation as a binding proof, like you've been doing.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 03:03
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Unfreakinbelievable


It's 'proof' that the 'greenhouse' effect is discussed in the Physics textbook that IBdaMann cited to support his claim that the 'greenhouse' effect is not found in any Physics textbooks.
Hence his massive fail of shooting himself in the foot.

I could sit here for days and copy and paste excerpts from hundreds of textbooks on Physics and Chemistry, (specifically Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry because that's where it's discussed in more detail) and you would still deny that the physics and chemistry of the 'greenhouse' effect is in every textbook about the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.

Grow up and go read some goddamned textbooks on the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere instead of ranting about your crackpot pseudoscience opinions all over the internet.
Edited on 07-01-2016 03:22
07-01-2016 04:48
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Ceist wrote:
'greenhouse' effect is not found in any Physics textbooks.


I possess one college level physics textbook in which greenhouse effect isn't mentioned. Transistors and artificial earth satellites aren't mentioned either.

I bought it new in 1959. University Physics, Sears and Zemansky, second edition, copyright 1955.
07-01-2016 07:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
still learning wrote:
Ceist wrote:
'greenhouse' effect is not found in any Physics textbooks.


I possess one college level physics textbook in which greenhouse effect isn't mentioned. Transistors and artificial earth satellites aren't mentioned either.

I bought it new in 1959. University Physics, Sears and Zemansky, second edition, copyright 1955.


LOL! IbDaMann and Into the Night could use that as 'proof' that the earth is flat and argue you to death with rhetoric and pseuodoscience.

The 'greenhouse' effect may not be mentioned in ALL basic Physics textbooks unless it specifically mentions the earth's atmosphere, and even then, it's not likely to go into much detail.

If someone wanted to understand human anatomy and physiology in depth, they wouldn't learn much from just reading a basic introductory textbook on Biology. They would read textbooks specifically on human anatomy and physiology.

Same thing with the earth's atmosphere.
Edited on 07-01-2016 07:18
07-01-2016 14:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote:
If someone wanted to understand human anatomy and physiology in depth, they wouldn't learn much from just reading a basic introductory textbook on Biology. They would read textbooks specifically on human anatomy and physiology. Same thing with the earth's atmosphere.


Global Warming dogma preaches that it is based on very specific science, yet no physics textbook has "The Global Warming example problem" in which those specific mechanisms and models asserted by Global Warming dogma are used to calculate and solve the Global Warming example problem.

Did you notice that?


.


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
07-01-2016 21:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Ceist wrote:
still learning wrote:

I possess one college level physics textbook in which greenhouse effect isn't mentioned. Transistors and artificial earth satellites aren't mentioned either.

I bought it new in 1959. University Physics, Sears and Zemansky, second edition, copyright 1955.


LOL! IbDaMann and Into the Night could use that as 'proof' that the earth is flat and argue you to death with rhetoric and pseuodoscience.

There is no proof either in science or rhetoric. There is a method of falsifiability in both, however, and Still Learning has provided that. Your argument is blown out of the water by that single example.

You seem to like to use the 'Earth is flat' phrase? Do you really believe anyone is arguing that?

Ceist wrote:
The 'greenhouse' effect may not be mentioned in ALL basic Physics textbooks unless it specifically mentions the earth's atmosphere, and even then, it's not likely to go into much detail.
I have textbooks in both meteorology and atmospheric science that makes no mention of greenhouse anything. They were published before 'greenhouse' gases became a fad.
Ceist wrote:
If someone wanted to understand human anatomy and physiology in depth, they wouldn't learn much from just reading a basic introductory textbook on Biology. They would read textbooks specifically on human anatomy and physiology.

Same thing with the earth's atmosphere.

I have studied texts on meteorology and atmospheric science. I have also studied texts on physics, aerodynamics, mathematics, electronics, information and computer science, rhetoric, logic, philosophy, history, ballistics, materials science, biology, anatomy, chemistry, political science, statistics, instrumentation theory, etc. NONE of these texts talk about 'greenhouse' gases, except recent history.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 22:28
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Sure. Whatever you say dear. Isn't it time for the psych nurses to give you your meds?
22-07-2016 01:16
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Ceist wrote:


If someone wanted to understand human anatomy and physiology in depth, they wouldn't learn much from just reading a basic introductory textbook on Biology. They would read textbooks specifically on human anatomy and physiology.

Same thing with the earth's atmosphere.



The gh-theory got it's place in science when mean temperature of earth surface was calculated to 255K. The difference to measured mean of 288K was explained with the cold(!) atmosphere heating(!) surface another 33degrees. Not a degree or two, but a whole 33degrees!

The really scary bit in the story is that those pioneer-scientists and every human that have repeated those conclusions when explaining the theory, did not have the necessary skeptic approach to evaluate the initial number of 255K. Not one of them asked the question: was the calculation applied the right way? Or even worse, not one of
them were aware of that it is a model of reality where a sun heats a planet, which can only be described with the T^4 formula.
Why does anyone think that it is a good idea to replace the laws of radiation with backradiation from cold air?

The surprising conclusions drawn by everyone that know why gh-effect is used instead of the universal temperatureformula, and how it gained place in the model of blackbodyradiation from sun that heats greybody earth, are saying that there is something wrong with the planet and it is so much hotter than it should be.

No one gave Planck, boltzmann or kirchoff credit enough to take a few steps back and ask themselves what the most probable scenario can be:

That nature and the laws of radiation, which is very robust and trustworthy through it's application in both theory and practice, is the correct way of handling this calculation and should not be fiddled with. And that loyalty to the concept must be upheld.

Or:
-nature and it's confirmed laws in the models that the masterbrains built for radiation and heat, that is correct for every radiating body in the universe, must be wrong and we have to fix it.

The sun is to weak and we must look for other stuff to get the numbers right. That is a row of several very strange and unscientific conclusions. The brainstorming leading up to the gh-solution can not havet been far from:

-We need stuff that can cover the 33C, suggestions?

-All that icecold air, can't we use that?
-I mean, sure it's really cold, but when there is so much of it we can count that as hotter than the sun.


-Yeah, nice one. How much heat does it add?

-Let me calculate, wait a minute.
-It should be exactly 33C when the mean troposphere temp of 250K Heats up the surface to 288K. Fits perfectly!

-Nice!

And on top of that, most people that the theory is presented to since then:

-Ok, that seems like the best scientific approach. F*** Boltzmann&Planck, what did they know, right?

Everyone miss that the calculation made to get 255K, and the difference to 288- which is the only thing that justifies GH-theory, produce a very strange earth:

The TSI of 1370W/m^2 is averaged over all of the surface area by dividing it by 4pi*r2.
We all know that dividing by 4 gives 4 equal parts, in this case 1370W becomes 240W/m^2.

Remembering that we are making a model of reality we can compare that model to observation and find clues ro the missing 33degrees, but GH-science have an unusually low interest in confirming with observations and instead carefully avoided to think. About anything else than how cool stuff heats up hot stuff to even hotter.

Noone seems to have analyzed why they got 255K .

While dividing by 4pi is common practise when finding a mean, if it is used for earth surface temp, the result is: everyone on earth dies.
Because what the model produced is 4 weak suns @240W, heating 4 m^2. Not even red hot suns.

Dividing by four produce 4 weak suns, even if the answer is written as 240/m^2. The other tree parts is also present. When we compare to real measured values we realize that earth should not be @255K, it's an idiot that has that temperature, not earth. And the idea that it gets heat from other stuff than the sun should be the last chosen solution of all.

The reason for the 33degrees is entirely a product of lacking understanding for physics. A model of 4 suns must be the record failure of all science.




And here is how it should be done:

@288K confirmed mean temperature the fluxdensity needed in 1m^2 that heats 2m^2(1/2 sphere heated for the whole sphere mean), is ~1000W at sea level. And that is the peak effect in the waveform, like 288K is peak in surface temp mean, when shown as blackbody curve of earth. So there's no need for evenly distributed 1000W over all surface heated. Just always present in a fraction of the surface.

1000W is measured about everywhere on earth, it is the number we need, it is much better than 4 suns in cold darkness.

I see no other heat source, just the sun, so I draw the conclusions that all of it comes from the sun. The craziest thing to do, is looking for cold air to heat the surface. It is not a secret that we get 1000W as a common observed value. Solar cells are often calibrated to that number. Not without reason.

With a surface emissivity of 0.8 we get

1000W/m^2=

(0.8*5.67*10^-8 * 364K^4)/2m^2=

(5.67*10^-8 * 290K^4)=

400W/m^2

No GH-fudge, no model of a heat source like the 4 weak suns that don't shine, in icecold darkness. No missing 33C, no covering up of the unaware incompetence by using icecold gas for heating.

And it fits perfect.

GH-theory choosed a path to the solution of cold gas heating a warm earth even if that is the absolute worst available solution.

It is the most embarrassing thing that has happened in science history.

GH-theory! From the departements of science that build models that break laws of nature with precision. Nothing in it is right.

The brainstorming leading up to it can not be far from:

-We need some more heat in the theory, numbers don't add up.
And by the way, shouldn't those 4 suns be shining? They seem a bit colder than the real sun.

-Hell no, they are exactly as hot as the sun, we know that because I calculated it to 255K. Nature is like that. Weird and disobedient of natures laws. Ignore it.

-Use cold air instead, that is the best way to solve the problem. Also, use water as heater. You know, like we always pour water on hot things to heat them up even more.
22-07-2016 01:58
eheat
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Ceist wrote:
According to Into the Night, it would be a logical fallacy to cite a University textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry when discussing the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.


But accepting everything an anonymous layperson claims on the internet about a subject he clearly knows nothing about, is 'logical'.


What about not even noticing that the whole foundation for a theory that is proclaimed as truth, is the incompetent calculation that gives a model of earth temperature that is 4 suns not even red hot. And based on that earth model where it floats in icecold darkness, solves the problem with cold air, backradiation of photons which we know can't be included in calculation of heat transfer. The transfer of heat from cold to hot via photons, must not even be part of heat transfer in theory or practise when we samt correct results. There is no question about that.

But that doesn't stop the gh-science from doing just that, and when asked to explain we learn that cold air is not different from blancets and sleeping bags, keeping us warm and cozy.

Just like you choose between sleeping bag and cold air when you go to sleepi in your tent.

Photons heat surface because....

. .. molecules in cold air radiates in all directions.


And we don't need walls in furnaces, a sleeping bag or even better, cold air, is a really good insulator @ -18C, if surrounded with the vacuum of space @ 3K. The lack of conducting walls seems like not a problem to earth.

While design of insulation always looks different than cold air and the ideal heat sink of space on top of that, the atmosphere would never bend to such laws of nature. Barriers for insulation keeping air in place, can be replaced with unrestricted air moving fast and freely when insulating earth.

Good thinking.

Fascinating.




Join the debate University Physics textbook re the 'greenhouse' effect:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law64813-09-2019 05:55
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
▲ 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