Remember me
▼ Content

Warming oceans


Warming oceans23-04-2019 02:15
Cnuk
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Here is a much more plausible hypothisis for near surface ocean warming: http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/bottom-line.html

No cold 'warming' hot required...
23-04-2019 04:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.
Edited on 23-04-2019 04:17
23-04-2019 18:24
Cnuk
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?
23-04-2019 18:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5253)
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


Actually, if a photon is absorbed, it becomes thermal energy. If it is instead causing a chemical reaction, it is not being absorbed, unless the absorption and the resulting increase in thermal energy (temperature or phase change) is causing the chemical reaction.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-04-2019 19:18
James___
★★★★☆
(1871)
Cnuk wrote:
Here is a much more plausible hypothisis for near surface ocean warming: http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/bottom-line.html

No cold 'warming' hot required...



This is where you might find out that some people in here are against science. It's a set of falsifiable theories. I have some work that I am pursuing on my own. This is because I think that Natural Climate Variation is mostly responsible for global warming.
Neither IBDaMann or ITN thinks that our climate changes. They prefer to define words. And if you can't define climate then it can't change, right?
Some of what I have been pursuing is explaining how convection works in the tropopause. Do you realize it's about -56º C. in the tropopause. This brings up the question how does the troposphere warm during the day?
It doesn't really allow for it. Why I have my own theories. At the same time, is heat generated when we generate CO2? It is. Is that heat able to radiate out into space at night? We don't know.
You might find this interesting, it's what suggests to me that there is a reason for Natural Climate Variation. And compare their graph to an annual global temperature graph.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

I already inset their graph to a annual global temperature graph.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/YvjozFz72y1QWBDKA
Edited on 23-04-2019 19:25
23-04-2019 19:34
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1514)
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.
23-04-2019 19:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?


Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2019 20:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5253)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.

A "climate" is a subjective, human characterization. No data is required.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-04-2019 20:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


Actually, if a photon is absorbed, it becomes thermal energy. If it is instead causing a chemical reaction, it is not being absorbed, unless the absorption and the resulting increase in thermal energy (temperature or phase change) is causing the chemical reaction.


Not quite true. It is possible to absorb a photon and not result in thermal energy at all. It might kick an electron into a higher energy state, or it might directly ionize something by knocking an electron completely free, but that is not thermal energy.

A chemical reaction only requires energy to reach the reaction threshold. It does not have to be thermal energy. A simple example of a reaction like this is the exposure of photographic film.

Photon absorption (of any frequency) creates a photo-electric effect. Higher frequency light generally acts only to mess with electrons, either by kicking them into higher energy orbitals, or by knocking them free of the material completely (ionization). That can trigger chemical reactions just by itself. Certain frequencies of light does the same kind of thing, but is of insufficient energy to knock an electron into a high enough state to cause a chemical reaction directly. Instead, the whole atom or molecule is affected by the additional energy absorbed. An example of this kind of absorption is absorption of microwave energy by water, and the absorption of infrared energy by water, CO2, or other 'greenhouse' gases.

If enough thermal energy accumulates by absorption in a material, yes, that can also cause chemical reactions (even explosions!). But that is by becoming hot enough to do so, not by direct ionization or by an electron getting kicked into a high enough orbital to react with something.

See the science concerning the photo-electric effect and the quantum physics surrounding this theory.

In the end, visible light does not cause much heating. UV light causes almost none directly. Infrared light does, and is most of the total energy coming from the Sun. Radio waves also cause conversion to thermal energy on certain frequencies but not all.

The primary effect of an photon being absorbed is electrical in nature, not conversion to thermal energy. Depending on the frequency of light, thermal energy may be one result of several.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2019 20:28
James___
★★★★☆
(1871)
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?


Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.



Nice copy and paste INTO THE NIGHT. You missed something important. I'll let you figure it out for yourself. At the same time if uv causes a chemical reaction that releases energy then it's potential is being converted into heat.
You know, if a spark ignites petrol fumes then it has been converted into heat. This is because it will create a flow of energy.
23-04-2019 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
James___ wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Here is a much more plausible hypothisis for near surface ocean warming: http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/bottom-line.html

No cold 'warming' hot required...



This is where you might find out that some people in here are against science. It's a set of falsifiable theories. I have some work that I am pursuing on my own. This is because I think that Natural Climate Variation is mostly responsible for global warming.
Neither IBDaMann or ITN thinks that our climate changes. They prefer to define words. And if you can't define climate then it can't change, right?
You can define 'climate'. It is usually defined as predominant weather in a region or a long time. You can't define 'climate change'. You are shifting goalposts again.
James___ wrote:
Some of what I have been pursuing is explaining how convection works in the tropopause.
We know how it works. We've known since there have been hot air balloons.
James___ wrote:
Do you realize it's about -56º C. in the tropopause. This brings up the question how does the troposphere warm during the day?
By convection from below, by conduction from below and above, and by direct heating by sunlight.
James___ wrote:
It doesn't really allow for it.
Yes it does.
James___ wrote:
Why I have my own theories.
They just happen to conflict with other theories of science. You still need to learn the concept of external consistency and what falsification of a theory requires.
James___ wrote:
At the same time, is heat generated when we generate CO2?
Not necessarily.
James___ wrote:
It is.
Not necessarily.
James___ wrote:
Is that heat able to radiate out into space at night? We don't know.
Yes we do. It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James___ wrote:
You might find this interesting, it's what suggests to me that there is a reason for Natural Climate Variation.
Sure there is. Uneven heating of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
And compare their graph to an annual global temperature graph.
No such data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
James___ wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...
I already inset their graph to a annual global temperature graph.
A graph of random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2019 20:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.


'Climate' is indeed defined in several ways, depending on its use. 'Climate change' is meaningless. It can only be defined by itself. It is not possible to measure a change without units of time specified.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2019 20:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.

A "climate" is a subjective, human characterization. No data is required.


That pretty well sums up any definition of 'climate'. Of course, James is moving the goalposts again. He is conflating 'climate' with 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2019 20:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?


Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.



Nice copy and paste INTO THE NIGHT. You missed something important. I'll let you figure it out for yourself. At the same time if uv causes a chemical reaction that releases energy then it's potential is being converted into heat.
You know, if a spark ignites petrol fumes then it has been converted into heat. This is because it will create a flow of energy.

I do not copy and paste. Every post I write is my own writing.

Chemical reactions may be endothermic or exothermic. They are not by themselves heat.
If a spark ignites petrol fumes, it has been converted into thermal energy, not heat. Heat is not energy.

Any gasoline car ignites petrol fumes in exactly this way. The chemical reaction (essentially fire) results in an exothermic reaction that results in thermal energy (not heat). This is the hot part of the engine. All engines require a hot section and a cold section. In a gasoline car, that cold section is the exhaust system. The cylinder of the car requires valves of some type to allow this thermal energy to move through the engine, which essentially acts like a pump and converts some of the thermal energy to mechanical energy.

The excess mechanical energy available is used to move the car.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2019 21:10
Cnuk
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


Actually, if a photon is absorbed, it becomes thermal energy. If it is instead causing a chemical reaction, it is not being absorbed, unless the absorption and the resulting increase in thermal energy (temperature or phase change) is causing the chemical reaction.


How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?
23-04-2019 21:13
Cnuk
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?


Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.


So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'
23-04-2019 21:58
James___
★★★★☆
(1871)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.

A "climate" is a subjective, human characterization. No data is required.



You take all the fun out of science. I like to keep it simple and look at how the Van Allen radiation belts influence our atmosphere. Of course this is dependent on Einstein's Spooky Actions At A Distance.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427174/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought/

For me this is where the fun begins. At the same time, with any luck, today's teens who pursue a career in physics will consider how this applies to atmospheric physics. Let's face it, I grew up on science fiction and read Einstein's biography at 13.

DaMann and ITN, the 2 of you are showing how climate change could prevent people from thinking about space exploration.
23-04-2019 22:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
Cnuk wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


Actually, if a photon is absorbed, it becomes thermal energy. If it is instead causing a chemical reaction, it is not being absorbed, unless the absorption and the resulting increase in thermal energy (temperature or phase change) is causing the chemical reaction.


How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?


It can't. But absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2019 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?


Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.


So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'


No. It both cools and warms the stratosphere, indirectly, by chemical reactions.

The creation of ozone in the lower stratosphere is an endothermic reaction. It is why that part of the stratosphere is colder than above. Creation of ozone is generally through UV-B light.
UV-C light destroys ozone. This is an exothermic reaction. It is the same energy released that was sucked out of the atmosphere lower in the stratosphere. The destruction of ozone in the upper stratosphere by UV-C light (which doesn't penetrate atmosphere as well as UV-
is simply releasing the energy gained by creating the ozone in the first place.

The Chapman cycle is simply moving thermal energy upward, but by first converting it to chemical energy and back again. This is heating by convection. Energy density still decreases in the stratosphere, even though the temperature measured is increasing. Fewer molecules up there, you know.


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2019 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate, can means other things, besides what the Climatologist and IPCC define it as. It's how perceive our surrounding environment. Are perception changes, as we move around, and the passing of time. We each might perceive the environment differently, doesn't necessarily involve weather conditions either. Cults often apply their own definitions to words, or only use one possible definition, and correct others often, as if idiots, who need to learn the 'true' meaning, by studying their scripture.

A "climate" is a subjective, human characterization. No data is required.



You take all the fun out of science.

You're not having fun in science? You might try doing something other than deny science!
James___ wrote:
I like to keep it simple
No, you like to deny science.
James___ wrote:
and look at how the Van Allen radiation belts influence our atmosphere.
They don't. They aren't in the atmosphere.
James___ wrote:
Of course this is dependent on Einstein's Spooky Actions At A Distance.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427174/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought/

Nothing to do with the Van Allen belts or the atmosphere.
James___ wrote:
For me this is where the fun begins.
By quoting random stuff you find on Wikipedia? That's not science, dude.
James___ wrote:
At the same time, with any luck, today's teens who pursue a career in physics will consider how this applies to atmospheric physics.
Oddly enough, some of them are learning actual science, enjoying it, and making careers in it. Others are denying science, calling it science, and making careers out of their religion.
James___ wrote:
Let's face it, I grew up on science fiction and read Einstein's biography at 13.
Apparently you still believe your science fiction is science.
James___ wrote:
DaMann and ITN, the 2 of you are showing how climate change could prevent people from thinking about space exploration.

What climate change? What IS climate change? How would it prevent space exploration? Oh, BTW, we still send probes and spacecraft into space. Did you know that?


The Parrot Killer
23-04-2019 23:09
James___
★★★★☆
(1871)
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?


Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.


So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'


No. It both cools and warms the stratosphere, indirectly, by chemical reactions.

The creation of ozone in the lower stratosphere is an endothermic reaction. It is why that part of the stratosphere is colder than above. Creation of ozone is generally through UV-B light.
UV-C light destroys ozone. This is an exothermic reaction. It is the same energy released that was sucked out of the atmosphere lower in the stratosphere. The destruction of ozone in the upper stratosphere by UV-C light (which doesn't penetrate atmosphere as well as UV-
is simply releasing the energy gained by creating the ozone in the first place.

The Chapman cycle is simply moving thermal energy upward, but by first converting it to chemical energy and back again. This is heating by convection. Energy density still decreases in the stratosphere, even though the temperature measured is increasing. Fewer molecules up there, you know.



That's why they say that CO2 is causing global warming. It's all about how solar radiation interacts with molecules in our atmosphere.
Edited on 23-04-2019 23:23
23-04-2019 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?


Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.


So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'


No. It both cools and warms the stratosphere, indirectly, by chemical reactions.

The creation of ozone in the lower stratosphere is an endothermic reaction. It is why that part of the stratosphere is colder than above. Creation of ozone is generally through UV-B light.
UV-C light destroys ozone. This is an exothermic reaction. It is the same energy released that was sucked out of the atmosphere lower in the stratosphere. The destruction of ozone in the upper stratosphere by UV-C light (which doesn't penetrate atmosphere as well as UV-
is simply releasing the energy gained by creating the ozone in the first place.

The Chapman cycle is simply moving thermal energy upward, but by first converting it to chemical energy and back again. This is heating by convection. Energy density still decreases in the stratosphere, even though the temperature measured is increasing. Fewer molecules up there, you know.



That's why they say that CO2 is causing global warming. It's all about how solar radiation interacts with molecules in our atmosphere.


You aren't familiar with the 'greenhouse gas' model, are you?


The Parrot Killer
24-04-2019 01:04
James___
★★★★☆
(1871)
@Cnuk, this is something for you to consider. I actually think there's a way to show this is Natural Climate Variation. It will take a while because it will require a lot of research. About all of it will be certain conditions that existed in the past.
If we are influencing warming then the next cold spell could be more serious than the Little Ice Age.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
24-04-2019 01:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5253)
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?


It can't. But absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy.

Actually, that is what it means to be "absorbed." This is what black body science is all about. In fact, it is Planck's law that defines absorption as the increase in thermal energy state and defines emission as the release of photons that lower the thermal energy state.

Any UV photon that is absorbed necessarily elevates the thermal energy state per Planck's law. This does not preclude other chemical reactions in any way but there is nothing about the UV band that renders Planck's law not-applicable.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-04-2019 02:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?


It can't. But absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy.

Actually, that is what it means to be "absorbed." This is what black body science is all about. In fact, it is Planck's law that defines absorption as the increase in thermal energy state and defines emission as the release of photons that lower the thermal energy state.

Any UV photon that is absorbed necessarily elevates the thermal energy state per Planck's law. This does not preclude other chemical reactions in any way but there is nothing about the UV band that renders Planck's law not-applicable.


Blackbody science is not the only way a photon can be absorbed or emitted. If it was, an LED '60w' bulb would be as hot as an incandescent 60w bulb. It isn't. Further, a 1000w microwave oven can heat a cup of hot water in literally seconds, as opposed to a 1000w conventional oven or even a 1000w light bulb (yes, they do exist).

It is also possible to radiate light, even visible light, without the temperature required in blackbody science. Bioluminescence is one way. Fireflies don't roast their butts when they light up. LED's are another. They put out the same light as an incandescent bulb but by using far less power, and they run so cool you can touch them even after they've been on for hours.

Blackbody radiance is thermal radiance. It also governs absorption and conversion to thermal energy.
Harmonic radiance does not require high temperatures. Absorption is quite possible without conversion to thermal energy.

Both are possible. Indeed, it is one of the reasons you can't measure the emissivity of Earth by simply looking at it with a satellite. Absorption works the same way. Both are possible.

Absorption and emission are photo-electric effects. They do not necessarily require high temperatures to absorb or emit visible light or even higher frequency light. They may, but they don't have to.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-04-2019 02:08
24-04-2019 03:12
James___
★★★★☆
(1871)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?


It can't. But absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy.

Actually, that is what it means to be "absorbed." This is what black body science is all about. In fact, it is Planck's law that defines absorption as the increase in thermal energy state and defines emission as the release of photons that lower the thermal energy state.

Any UV photon that is absorbed necessarily elevates the thermal energy state per Planck's law. This does not preclude other chemical reactions in any way but there is nothing about the UV band that renders Planck's law not-applicable.


Blackbody science is not the only way a photon can be absorbed or emitted. If it was, an LED '60w' bulb would be as hot as an incandescent 60w bulb. It isn't. Further, a 1000w microwave oven can heat a cup of hot water in literally seconds, as opposed to a 1000w conventional oven or even a 1000w light bulb (yes, they do exist).

It is also possible to radiate light, even visible light, without the temperature required in blackbody science. Bioluminescence is one way. Fireflies don't roast their butts when they light up. LED's are another. They put out the same light as an incandescent bulb but by using far less power, and they run so cool you can touch them even after they've been on for hours.

Blackbody radiance is thermal radiance. It also governs absorption and conversion to thermal energy.
Harmonic radiance does not require high temperatures. Absorption is quite possible without conversion to thermal energy.

Both are possible. Indeed, it is one of the reasons you can't measure the emissivity of Earth by simply looking at it with a satellite. Absorption works the same way. Both are possible.

Absorption and emission are photo-electric effects. They do not necessarily require high temperatures to absorb or emit visible light or even higher frequency light. They may, but they don't have to.



You just ignored grade school science. How do cold gases rise above warmer gas? Blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah. Then blah blah blah. And then blah blah blah and blah and if blah blah.


До Свидания или Au Revoir
24-04-2019 07:39
gadianddeborahslade
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Too other factors which impact on ocean level. Which should also think about that.
24-04-2019 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
How can a photon cause a chemical reaction without being absorbed? Can you give me an example?


It can't. But absorption does not necessarily convert to thermal energy.

Actually, that is what it means to be "absorbed." This is what black body science is all about. In fact, it is Planck's law that defines absorption as the increase in thermal energy state and defines emission as the release of photons that lower the thermal energy state.

Any UV photon that is absorbed necessarily elevates the thermal energy state per Planck's law. This does not preclude other chemical reactions in any way but there is nothing about the UV band that renders Planck's law not-applicable.



Blackbody science is not the only way a photon can be absorbed or emitted. If it was, an LED '60w' bulb would be as hot as an incandescent 60w bulb. It isn't. Further, a 1000w microwave oven can heat a cup of hot water in literally seconds, as opposed to a 1000w conventional oven or even a 1000w light bulb (yes, they do exist).

It is also possible to radiate light, even visible light, without the temperature required in blackbody science. Bioluminescence is one way. Fireflies don't roast their butts when they light up. LED's are another. They put out the same light as an incandescent bulb but by using far less power, and they run so cool you can touch them even after they've been on for hours.

Blackbody radiance is thermal radiance. It also governs absorption and conversion to thermal energy.
Harmonic radiance does not require high temperatures. Absorption is quite possible without conversion to thermal energy.

Both are possible. Indeed, it is one of the reasons you can't measure the emissivity of Earth by simply looking at it with a satellite. Absorption works the same way. Both are possible.

Absorption and emission are photo-electric effects. They do not necessarily require high temperatures to absorb or emit visible light or even higher frequency light. They may, but they don't have to.



You just ignored grade school science. How do cold gases rise above warmer gas? Blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah blah blah. Then blah blah blah. And then blah blah blah and blah and if blah blah.


До Свидания или Au Revoir

Wind. Gases are also cooled by rising.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-04-2019 20:14
25-04-2019 15:52
Cnuk
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
James___ wrote:
@Cnuk, this is something for you to consider. I actually think there's a way to show this is Natural Climate Variation. It will take a while because it will require a lot of research. About all of it will be certain conditions that existed in the past.
If we are influencing warming then the next cold spell could be more serious than the Little Ice Age.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm


Dr. Ward's hypothesis is about natural variation. He points out the connection between natural ozone depletion from effusove volcanic eruptipns and historical temp rises...

More uv absorption causing warmer oceans makes much more sense to me than some mythical back radiation from a cooler atmosphere...
25-04-2019 15:58
Cnuk
☆☆☆☆☆
(10)
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?


Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.


So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'


No. It both cools and warms the stratosphere, indirectly, by chemical reactions.

The creation of ozone in the lower stratosphere is an endothermic reaction. It is why that part of the stratosphere is colder than above. Creation of ozone is generally through UV-B light.
UV-C light destroys ozone. This is an exothermic reaction. It is the same energy released that was sucked out of the atmosphere lower in the stratosphere. The destruction of ozone in the upper stratosphere by UV-C light (which doesn't penetrate atmosphere as well as UV-
is simply releasing the energy gained by creating the ozone in the first place.

The Chapman cycle is simply moving thermal energy upward, but by first converting it to chemical energy and back again. This is heating by convection. Energy density still decreases in the stratosphere, even though the temperature measured is increasing. Fewer molecules up there, you know.


The energy used to ceeate ozone comes from the Uvb light, it is not ' sucked out if the atmosphere'.

The whole process of ozone creation and destruction is driven by the energy from uv and it is these processes that warm the stratosphere.
25-04-2019 18:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
Cnuk wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Cnuk, this is something for you to consider. I actually think there's a way to show this is Natural Climate Variation. It will take a while because it will require a lot of research. About all of it will be certain conditions that existed in the past.
If we are influencing warming then the next cold spell could be more serious than the Little Ice Age.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm


Dr. Ward's hypothesis is about natural variation. He points out the connection between natural ozone depletion from effusove volcanic eruptipns and historical temp rises...

More uv absorption causing warmer oceans makes much more sense to me than some mythical back radiation from a cooler atmosphere...


Ocean water is warmed by absorbing infrared light, which is most of the energy coming from the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2019 18:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Cnuk wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Uh...UV doesn't warm anything. When absorbed, it causes chemical reactions, not conversion to thermal energy.

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted.


I am curious why you would suggest that UV doesnt warm anything. Are none of the chemical reactions exothermic?

For example , does not the photodisassociation of o2 and o3 not heat the stratosphere?


Because UV doesn't convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, others are exothermic. The reaction with oxygen and ozone does not heat the earth, even though it may cause a temperature inversion in the stratosphere.


So you agree that UV heats the stratosphere? That would seem to contradict your assertion that 'uv doesnt warm anything'


No. It both cools and warms the stratosphere, indirectly, by chemical reactions.

The creation of ozone in the lower stratosphere is an endothermic reaction. It is why that part of the stratosphere is colder than above. Creation of ozone is generally through UV-B light.
UV-C light destroys ozone. This is an exothermic reaction. It is the same energy released that was sucked out of the atmosphere lower in the stratosphere. The destruction of ozone in the upper stratosphere by UV-C light (which doesn't penetrate atmosphere as well as UV-
is simply releasing the energy gained by creating the ozone in the first place.

The Chapman cycle is simply moving thermal energy upward, but by first converting it to chemical energy and back again. This is heating by convection. Energy density still decreases in the stratosphere, even though the temperature measured is increasing. Fewer molecules up there, you know.


The energy used to ceeate ozone comes from the Uvb light, it is not ' sucked out if the atmosphere'.

WRONG. The creation of ozone is an endothermic reaction. It cools the air around it. The energy to create ozone not only comes from UV-B light, it comes from the thermal energy around the reaction.
Cnuk wrote:
The whole process of ozone creation and destruction is driven by the energy from uv and it is these processes that warm the stratosphere.

It doesn't warm the stratosphere. The lower portion of the stratosphere is cooled by the formation of ozone.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Warming oceans:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Oceans are dying1315-12-2019 02:31
The mechanism of the vertical circulation of the waters of the oceans301-05-2019 20:48
Oceans absorb almost a third of global CO2 emissions, but at what cost?220-03-2019 04:36
Climate change putting entire North Atlantic ecosystem at risk, says oceans conference organizer118-03-2019 19:57
Heatwaves sweeping oceans 'like wildfires', scientists reveal205-03-2019 23:15
▲ 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