Remember me
▼ Content

What would the world be like if every molecule in the atmosphere is a CO2?



Page 4 of 4<<<234
07-02-2016 03:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Where you happen to err is in stating that your energy balance somehow results in a temperature increase. It cannot. It's just that you are simply drawing an incorrect conclusion whereas almost all other "greenhouse effectionaries" never get out of the starting gate because they begin with erroneouse assumptions.

Please try to keep up. We were talking about Venus, and the diagram I posted with balanced energy flows refers to Venus. As far as we know, the atmospheric composition of Venus hasn't changed recently, so the energy flows must balance and the average temperature is constant.

Earth is different. We've recently changed the composition of the atmosphere, which is why there now exists an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation and, consequently, why the Earth is now warming.

Anyone would think you were deliberately trying to conflate the two for the purpose of sowing confusion!


You seem to conveniently forget the effects of the day/night cycle, the seasonal cycle, or the rapidity of which our temperatures can change.


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2016 04:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Simple molecules, such as O2 and N2, don't have any possible molecular vibrational transitions corresponding to IR radiation and are therefore unable to emit IR radiation. This is a simple fact of quantum physics.


Let's say they don't radiate heat. They absorb more and more heat and never radiate so they become hotter and hotter until they become hotter than the Sun. Okay, that makes a LOT of sense, not


Does anyone know if liquified oxygen and liquified nitrogen have IR signature?

These both are so cold the emission tends to be microwave region and not infrared.


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2016 06:12
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Simple molecules, such as O2 and N2, don't have any possible molecular vibrational transitions corresponding to IR radiation and are therefore unable to emit IR radiation. This is a simple fact of quantum physics.


Let's say they don't radiate heat. They absorb more and more heat and never radiate so they become hotter and hotter until they become hotter than the Sun. Okay, that makes a LOT of sense, not


Does anyone know if liquified oxygen and liquified nitrogen have IR signature?


O2 and N2 are unable to absorb or emit infrared radiation because of their molecular structure. O2 and N2 don't have an "IR signature"

Gases like CH4, H2O, O3 and CO2 absorb infrared radiation because their molecules can vibrate to produce asymmetry in the distributions of their electric charge - which match the energy levels of different infrared wavelengths. Gases like O2 and N2 can't absorb infrared radiation, because their molecules have symmetric electric charge distributions when vibrating.


This is about the simplest explanation I could find for you (click on the links to see the animations):

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

"Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons."


http://scied.ucar.edu/molecular-vibration-modes

"Molecules vibrate. Molecules that have just two atoms vibrate by simply moving closer together and then further apart. The nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) molecules in the animation are vibrating in this simple mode.

Molecules with 3 or more atoms can vibrate in more complex patterns. A single molecule can vibrate in various ways; each of these different motions is called a vibration "mode". Carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules have three different vibration modes, as illustrated on the right side of the animation.

Molecules with more (and more complex!) vibration modes are more likely to interact with passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. This is why carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, while nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not. This ability to absorb infrared waves is what makes carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor (H2O) and methane (CH4) molecules also have vibration modes that cause them to interact with passing IR waves. As you might expect, methane and water vapor are also greenhouse gases."



A more detailed explanation of how photons interact with gases can be found in just about any textbook on thermodynamics (specifically heat transfer), atmospheric physics and chemistry etc.



Edited on 07-02-2016 06:42
07-02-2016 06:24
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Let's say they don't radiate heat. They absorb more and more heat and never radiate so they become hotter and hotter until they become hotter than the Sun. Okay, that makes a LOT of sense, not


Does anyone know if liquified oxygen and liquified nitrogen have IR signature?

These both are so cold the emission tends to be microwave region and not infrared.

I wish this forum had a "Clueless" icon.




Edited on 07-02-2016 06:25
07-02-2016 06:37
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote: ALL gases are able to emit IR radiation. ALL materials are able to do so. This is Planck's law, which describes such radiation is dependent only on temperature, regardless of the substance.

Blimey, it's groundhog day all over again!

Quantum mechanics dictates that gas molecules can only emit radiation at certain wavelengths corresponding to the available energy transitions. Radiation in the IR part of the spectrum corresponds to transitions between molecular vibrational energy levels. Simple molecules, such as O2 and N2, don't have any possible molecular vibrational transitions corresponding to IR radiation and are therefore unable to emit IR radiation. This is a simple fact of quantum physics.

Planck's Law refers to the distribution of emission wavelength when all possible emission energies are available, i.e. blackbodies. This is pretty much the case for most solids; it is most definitely not true for atmospheric gases!


You do not understand quantum physics or Planck's law. You seem to be confusing cold light radiation vs hot light radiation. You also do not seem to understand the concept of temperature.

Surface Detail understands more than ITN by several orders of magnitude.

Perhaps because he has studied it and ITN obviously hasn't ever cracked open even an introductory undergrad textbook. ITN's posts on this topic are "Not Even Wrong" - to the point of being hilarious




Edited on 07-02-2016 06:50
07-02-2016 08:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
Surface Detail wrote: Earth is different. We've recently changed the composition of the atmosphere, which is why there now exists an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation and, consequently, why the Earth is now warmin.

That was certainly disappointing. You actually believe the earth is somehow not in equilibrium.

This "imbalance" is a fiction of your religion. I suppose we're done.


.


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
07-02-2016 09:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Simple molecules, such as O2 and N2, don't have any possible molecular vibrational transitions corresponding to IR radiation and are therefore unable to emit IR radiation. This is a simple fact of quantum physics.


Let's say they don't radiate heat. They absorb more and more heat and never radiate so they become hotter and hotter until they become hotter than the Sun. Okay, that makes a LOT of sense, not


Does anyone know if liquified oxygen and liquified nitrogen have IR signature?


O2 and N2 are unable to absorb or emit infrared radiation because of their molecular structure. O2 and N2 don't have an "IR signature"

Gases like CH4, H2O, O3 and CO2 absorb infrared radiation because their molecules can vibrate to produce asymmetry in the distributions of their electric charge - which match the energy levels of different infrared wavelengths. Gases like O2 and N2 can't absorb infrared radiation, because their molecules have symmetric electric charge distributions when vibrating.


This is about the simplest explanation I could find for you (click on the links to see the animations):

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

"Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons."


http://scied.ucar.edu/molecular-vibration-modes

"Molecules vibrate. Molecules that have just two atoms vibrate by simply moving closer together and then further apart. The nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) molecules in the animation are vibrating in this simple mode.

Molecules with 3 or more atoms can vibrate in more complex patterns. A single molecule can vibrate in various ways; each of these different motions is called a vibration "mode". Carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules have three different vibration modes, as illustrated on the right side of the animation.

Molecules with more (and more complex!) vibration modes are more likely to interact with passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. This is why carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, while nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not. This ability to absorb infrared waves is what makes carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor (H2O) and methane (CH4) molecules also have vibration modes that cause them to interact with passing IR waves. As you might expect, methane and water vapor are also greenhouse gases."



A more detailed explanation of how photons interact with gases can be found in just about any textbook on thermodynamics (specifically heat transfer), atmospheric physics and chemistry etc.


We're talking about emissions, genius. Not absorption.


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2016 10:41
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Simple molecules, such as O2 and N2, don't have any possible molecular vibrational transitions corresponding to IR radiation and are therefore unable to emit IR radiation. This is a simple fact of quantum physics.


Let's say they don't radiate heat. They absorb more and more heat and never radiate so they become hotter and hotter until they become hotter than the Sun. Okay, that makes a LOT of sense, not


Does anyone know if liquified oxygen and liquified nitrogen have IR signature?


O2 and N2 are unable to absorb or emit infrared radiation because of their molecular structure. O2 and N2 don't have an "IR signature"

Gases like CH4, H2O, O3 and CO2 absorb infrared radiation because their molecules can vibrate to produce asymmetry in the distributions of their electric charge - which match the energy levels of different infrared wavelengths. Gases like O2 and N2 can't absorb infrared radiation, because their molecules have symmetric electric charge distributions when vibrating.


This is about the simplest explanation I could find for you (click on the links to see the animations):

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

"Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons."


http://scied.ucar.edu/molecular-vibration-modes

"Molecules vibrate. Molecules that have just two atoms vibrate by simply moving closer together and then further apart. The nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) molecules in the animation are vibrating in this simple mode.

Molecules with 3 or more atoms can vibrate in more complex patterns. A single molecule can vibrate in various ways; each of these different motions is called a vibration "mode". Carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules have three different vibration modes, as illustrated on the right side of the animation.

Molecules with more (and more complex!) vibration modes are more likely to interact with passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. This is why carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, while nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not. This ability to absorb infrared waves is what makes carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor (H2O) and methane (CH4) molecules also have vibration modes that cause them to interact with passing IR waves. As you might expect, methane and water vapor are also greenhouse gases."



A more detailed explanation of how photons interact with gases can be found in just about any textbook on thermodynamics (specifically heat transfer), atmospheric physics and chemistry etc.


We're talking about emissions, genius. Not absorption.

Into the Dark apparently believes one can 'talk about' radiative heat transfer without talking about both absorption and emission.

Into the Dark needs to go study a text book on radiative heat transfer.

But in the meantime, this might help:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf

Or maybe Into the Dark really just wants to talk about his night 'emissions'. The ones he has when he goes to bed and fantasizes about showing the world what a genius he is when he, a humble layperson with no background in physics, proves all the textbooks and all the physicists in the world have got it all wrong.


Where is a 'crazy as batshit' icon when you need one?




Edited on 07-02-2016 11:06
07-02-2016 14:50
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
So perhaps you'd like to tell us more about what "Stolk et al 2003 points out" about planetary temperatures?

Yes, well-done. I accidentially referenced the wrong paper while reading the article but it should be pointed out that the paper in question was withdrawn on matters "not related to the scientific merit of the study". However, since you apparently enjoy reading papers so much, there are numerous papers arguing that the high temperatures on Venus are not due to the greenhouse effect but rather pressure. If you like I could cite some and you can point out their errors.

You don't seem to be aware that "Steve Goddard" is not actually a real person.
It's the conspiracy blog pseudonym of faker called Tony Heller who pretended to be a climate scientist on his blog until he was exposed as a fraud.

Exposed as a fraud for using a pseudonym? That's common practice on the Internet and does not make someone a fraud. Well, perhaps in your world it does. If you want to take any issues with his arguments, you can lay-out your objections here. I am sure you will do a fantastic job.

last time you read an atmospheric textbook

Well, I am sure you will be happy to know that my AS physics book agrees with you when it comes to Venus and states "Venus, however, has an atmosphere that resists the outward flow of radiant energy more than it resists the inward flow. Equilibrium is reached when outward flow and inward flow are the same and the planet's temperature has risen so that outward flow can be large enough. This is called the greenhouse effect". Of course, for this to happen the CO2 greenhouse must be emitting more radiation than it absorbs. The CO2 greenhouse on Venus is absorbing, according to NASA, 65 W/m2 (or 2,613 W/m2 to be generous). When a body absorbs radiation, it cannot emit more radiation than it absorbs. This is a fundamental law of physics and should not need explaining.

Also, if CO2 is causing the high surface temperaures on Venus, then why is the average surface temperature on Mars only 5K to 10K higher than its effective temperature of 210K? (NASA Mars Fact Sheet interestingly gives a difference of 0K implying no greenhouse warming). The Arrhenius law formula predicts that the total amount of CO2 on Earth of 400ppmv is enough to increase the temperature of Earth above its effective temperature of 255K by around 8K or 32 W/m2. Yet Mars has a CO2 concentration that is around 27 times higher and when applying the Arrhenius law formula that translates to around 50 W/m2, or a temperature increase of 20K on a baseline temperature of 210K. Clearly the Arrhenius formula is wrong, because the average surface temperature on Mars is not 230K.
Edited on 07-02-2016 15:04
07-02-2016 17:28
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
who pretended to be a climate scientist on his blog until he was exposed as a fraud.

Out of curiosity, and to investigate this further, I decided to type into Google 'Steve Goddard Pretending to be Climate Scientist' and I only saw one article matching these words. The article was by Steve Goddard himself and was called 'Ted Cruz is Using my Graph'. I then scrolled down to the comments and saw that someone had posted the comment "I can see you prefer swallowing the lunatic junk-science rantings of someone who fraudulently pretended to be a climate scientist 'Steve Goddard' before he got exposed as a fraud". Anyone wanna guess who made the comment? Surprise, surprise, it was Ceist. It seems that Ceist enjoys making a nuisance out of himself with his inflammatory noise everywhere he goes. Surely, the only person that "rants" like a "lunatic" is you Ceist?
Edited on 07-02-2016 17:58
07-02-2016 18:55
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
One Punch Man wrote:
.... I decided to type into Google 'Steve Goddard Pretending to be Climate Scientist' and I only saw one article....


Might try "steven goddard fraud."
Lots of familiar stuff in the Wikipedia entry.
07-02-2016 19:26
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
still learning wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
.... I decided to type into Google 'Steve Goddard Pretending to be Climate Scientist' and I only saw one article....


Might try "steven goddard fraud."
Lots of familiar stuff in the Wikipedia entry.

Thanks, I did, and saw nothing that he was pretending to be a climate scientist. Unless Ceist is implying that just because he has an opinion on AGW and was using a pseudonym then that means he was "pretending" to a be a climate scientist, which is bizzare. There are lots of bloggers that write pseudonymously such as the CAGW-advocate site 'Then There's Physics'. Each to their own, I say. If people want to remain anonymous, that's their choice.
Edited on 07-02-2016 19:29
07-02-2016 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Simple molecules, such as O2 and N2, don't have any possible molecular vibrational transitions corresponding to IR radiation and are therefore unable to emit IR radiation. This is a simple fact of quantum physics.


Let's say they don't radiate heat. They absorb more and more heat and never radiate so they become hotter and hotter until they become hotter than the Sun. Okay, that makes a LOT of sense, not


Does anyone know if liquified oxygen and liquified nitrogen have IR signature?


O2 and N2 are unable to absorb or emit infrared radiation because of their molecular structure. O2 and N2 don't have an "IR signature"

Gases like CH4, H2O, O3 and CO2 absorb infrared radiation because their molecules can vibrate to produce asymmetry in the distributions of their electric charge - which match the energy levels of different infrared wavelengths. Gases like O2 and N2 can't absorb infrared radiation, because their molecules have symmetric electric charge distributions when vibrating.


This is about the simplest explanation I could find for you (click on the links to see the animations):

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

"Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons."


http://scied.ucar.edu/molecular-vibration-modes

"Molecules vibrate. Molecules that have just two atoms vibrate by simply moving closer together and then further apart. The nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) molecules in the animation are vibrating in this simple mode.

Molecules with 3 or more atoms can vibrate in more complex patterns. A single molecule can vibrate in various ways; each of these different motions is called a vibration "mode". Carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules have three different vibration modes, as illustrated on the right side of the animation.

Molecules with more (and more complex!) vibration modes are more likely to interact with passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. This is why carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared (IR) radiation, while nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not. This ability to absorb infrared waves is what makes carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor (H2O) and methane (CH4) molecules also have vibration modes that cause them to interact with passing IR waves. As you might expect, methane and water vapor are also greenhouse gases."



A more detailed explanation of how photons interact with gases can be found in just about any textbook on thermodynamics (specifically heat transfer), atmospheric physics and chemistry etc.


We're talking about emissions, genius. Not absorption.

Into the Dark apparently believes one can 'talk about' radiative heat transfer without talking about both absorption and emission.

Into the Dark needs to go study a text book on radiative heat transfer.

But in the meantime, this might help:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf

Or maybe Into the Dark really just wants to talk about his night 'emissions'. The ones he has when he goes to bed and fantasizes about showing the world what a genius he is when he, a humble layperson with no background in physics, proves all the textbooks and all the physicists in the world have got it all wrong.


Where is a 'crazy as batshit' icon when you need one?


Ceist apparently wants to throw another hate spewing tantrum to show how crazy I am for not talking about the subject he wants to steer the conversation into, rather than the one that is being discussed.


The Parrot Killer
11-02-2016 13:41
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
So perhaps you'd like to tell us more about what "Stolk et al 2003 points out" about planetary temperatures?

Yes, well-done. I accidentially referenced the wrong paper while reading the article but it should be pointed out that the paper in question was withdrawn on matters "not related to the scientific merit of the study". However, since you apparently enjoy reading papers so much, there are numerous papers arguing that the high temperatures on Venus are not due to the greenhouse effect but rather pressure. If you like I could cite some and you can point out their errors.



Yes, please cite some of these 'numerous papers' that you claim are "arguing that the high temperatures on Venus are not due to the greenhouse effect but rather pressure".

As that 'argument' violates the laws of physics and ignores observational data, it would be interesting to see what 'papers' you can come up with.



Edited on 11-02-2016 13:42
11-02-2016 14:03
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Ceist wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
So perhaps you'd like to tell us more about what "Stolk et al 2003 points out" about planetary temperatures?

Yes, well-done. I accidentially referenced the wrong paper while reading the article but it should be pointed out that the paper in question was withdrawn on matters "not related to the scientific merit of the study". However, since you apparently enjoy reading papers so much, there are numerous papers arguing that the high temperatures on Venus are not due to the greenhouse effect but rather pressure. If you like I could cite some and you can point out their errors.


As that 'argument' violates the laws of physics and ignores observational data, it would be interesting to see what 'papers' you can come up with.


Here's 3 to get you started:

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen9/Chillingar_Atm_Cooling_due_to_CO2.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

Of course you don't have to take their word for it, you can just use the Arrhenius law to calculate how much back-radiation the total CO2 greenhouse on Venus is producing, and it turns out to be under 50K. I find it quite amazing that anyone could think that a gas could absorb 65 W/m2 and re-radiate 17,000 W/m2.

I suppose some are easily fooled.
11-02-2016 14:16
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:Exposed as a fraud for using a pseudonym? That's common practice on the Internet and does not make someone a fraud. Well, perhaps in your world it does. If you want to take any issues with his arguments, you can lay-out your objections here. I am sure you will do a fantastic job.
"Goddard" (aka Heller) claimed expertise in climate science under a fake name, then when he got outed, he was exposed as having no background at all in climate science, but rather a background in computer software.

last time you read an atmospheric physics textbook

One Punch Man wrote:Well, I am sure you will be happy to know that my AS physics book agrees with you when it comes to Venus and states "Venus, however, has an atmosphere that resists the outward flow of radiant energy more than it resists the inward flow. Equilibrium is reached when outward flow and inward flow are the same and the planet's temperature has risen so that outward flow can be large enough. This is called the greenhouse effect".

That appears to be a high-school level general physics text for non-physics students. You won't find the physics explained in detail unless you read a textbook on atmospheric physics or atmospheric thermodynamics etc.

One Punch Man wrote:
Of course, for this to happen the CO2 greenhouse must be emitting more radiation than it absorbs. The CO2 greenhouse on Venus is absorbing, according to NASA, 65 W/m2 (or 2,613 W/m2 to be generous). When a body absorbs radiation, it cannot emit more radiation than it absorbs. This is a fundamental law of physics and should not need explaining

That's not how it works at all and those figures don't make any sense in the way you're using them. That's the sort of uneducated confused pseudoscience you'd find on a blog by lay people who don't know what they're talking about.

Try the articles on the American Chemical Society's website that Surface Detail linked to earlier. Go through the tabs on the menu on the left. There are several sections which explain the physics of planetary temperatures and atmospheres quite well.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html

I'm curious. What attracts you to reading what are obviously political conspiracy blogs, (not legitimate science sources), in the first place?

If you don't understand what the science actually is by learning from valid science sources like textbooks, the major science institution websites, science Journals etc, then you can be easily fooled by "sciency sounding" posts by layperson bloggers who have never studied the subjects, don't really know what they are talking about, and often make really silly blunders.

If you don't do even rudimentary fact-checking first before repeating often wildly incorrect or misrepresentative claims from these junk-science blogs, you just end up looking silly.



Edited on 11-02-2016 14:21
11-02-2016 14:27
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:Also, if CO2 is causing the high surface temperaures on Venus, then why is the average surface temperature on Mars only 5K to 10K higher than its effective temperature of 210K? (NASA Mars Fact Sheet interestingly gives a difference of 0K implying no greenhouse warming). The Arrhenius law formula predicts that the total amount of CO2 on Earth of 400ppmv is enough to increase the temperature of Earth above its effective temperature of 255K by around 8K or 32 W/m2. Yet Mars has a CO2 concentration that is around 27 times higher and when applying the Arrhenius law formula that translates to around 50 W/m2, or a temperature increase of 20K on a baseline temperature of 210K. Clearly the Arrhenius formula is wrong, because the average surface temperature on Mars is not 230K.


Again, those figures you are writing and what you are saying doesn't make any sense at all. Where are you getting this from?

Why not try reading that American Chemical Society educational source? If you are interested in understanding the science, it might start making more sense to you than the blogs you are reading.

Also, may I suggest you look up what the "Arrhenius law formula" actually is and what it is used for? *grin*

Whoever you got this from doesn't have a clue. It's about collision theory - from Arrhenius's earlier work on chemicals. Nothing to do with the atmospheric greenhouse effect.



Edited on 11-02-2016 14:33
11-02-2016 14:36
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Ceist wrote:
He claimed expertise in climate science under a fake name, then when he got outed, he was exposed as having no background at all in climate science, but rather a background in computer software.

So what? What does it matter whether or not he has "no background" in climate science? Are you really such a snob as to judge a man by his title instead of by his works? Also, give us some context, what specifically did he say? Did he say "I am a bona-fide expert in climate science" or was is something completely different and are you just making a mountain out of mite's dropping? I would guess the latter.

That's not how it works at all and those figures don't make any sense. That's the sort of uneducated pseudoscience you'd find on a blog by lay people who don't know what they're talking about.

I'm glad you're here your to correct me then. What about those figures do you think is "pseudoscience" and why? Let me guess, you haven't a clue?

I'm curious. What attracts you to reading what are obviously political conspiracy blogs, (not legitimate science sources), in the first place?

My position is in accordance with the consensus. I accept (for argument's sake) that the atmospheric greenhouse is producing some warming, but I don't accept that it is anything we need to worry about. John Cook only found a 1.6% consensus that recent global warming is "primarily" due to humans.

If you don't do even rudimentary fact-checking first before repeating often wildly incorrect or misrepresentative claims from these junk-science blogs, you just end up looking silly.

The question at issue is not that of how much fact-checking I have done (although I have done more than you), but rather that of how much real fact-checking the psychotic advocates of these drastic CO2-restricting measures have done themselves. Denialists are not proposing to revolutionise world society; you green fanatics are doing that and therefore the onus is on you to justify your claims.
11-02-2016 15:15
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Ceist wrote:Whoever you got this from doesn't have a clue. It's about collision theory - from Arrhenius's earlier work on chemicals. Nothing to do with the atmospheric greenhouse effect

Your fatuous statement that Arrhenius has 'nothing to do with the atmospheric greenhouse effect' is a patent illustration of the poverty of your own research. The equation that the IPCC use today is based on the Arrhenius Greenhouse Law for CO2 and is as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius



Again, those figures you are writing and what you are saying doesn't make any sense at all. Where are you getting this from?

They make perfect sense if you understand them, but of course you don't. It is a straightforward application of the logarithmic equation that enshrines the famous Arrhenius Greenhouse Law:



Where RF stands for 'Radiative Forcing'; C0 is the initial CO2 concentration; C is the final CO2 concentration, and W/m2 stands for 'Watts Per Square Metre'.

When applying the formula to the amount of CO2 on Venus (which is around 160,000 times the concentration of Earth) you get 96 W/m2, corresponding to a temperature increase of just under 50K on a baseline temperature of 210K.

The reason why the CO2 on Venus is not causing a massive increase in radiative forcing is because CO2 is meant to behave logarithmically, which means doubling the concentration produces essentially the same increment of radiative forcing.

EDIT: The calculation of course ignores pressure broadening.
Edited on 11-02-2016 15:32
11-02-2016 15:57
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
Ceist wrote:Whoever you got this from doesn't have a clue. It's about collision theory - from Arrhenius's earlier work on chemicals. Nothing to do with the atmospheric greenhouse effect

Your fatuous statement that Arrhenius has 'nothing to do with the atmospheric greenhouse effect' is a patent illustration of the poverty of your own research. The equation that the IPCC use today is based on the Arrhenius Greenhouse Law for CO2 and is as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius



I didn't say Arrhenius had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.


You wrote "The Arrhenius law formula ....."

You named the wrong 'law'.

Let me google the Arrhenius Law for you:


https://www.google.com.au/search?q=The+Arrhenius+Law+&oq=The+Arrhenius+Law+&gs_l=serp.3..35i39j0j0i22i30l3.436720.447227.0.447578.13.11.2.0.0.0.245.1500.0j2j5.7.0....0...1.1.64.serp..6.7.1116.6yg-Rj_3eII



Edited on 11-02-2016 16:42
11-02-2016 16:03
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Ceist wrote:Twit. I didn't say Arrhenius had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

You wrote "The Arrhenius Law formula"


Let me google that for you.

Yes, I wrote the Arrhenius Law formula (for CO2) because that's what it is. To quote Wikipedia: "The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' Greenhouse Law is still used today". Are you really that much of an idiot to think that I was not referring to the Arrhenius Law formula for CO2 and to another completely different formula from Arrhenius unrelated to the greenhouse effect? Hahaha! You actually thought that, did you? You're very smart, Ceist, I must say.
Edited on 11-02-2016 16:10
11-02-2016 16:20
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
Ceist wrote:Twit. I didn't say Arrhenius had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

You wrote "The Arrhenius Law formula"


Let me google that for you.

Yes, I wrote the Arrhenius Law formula (for CO2) because that's what it is. To quote Wikipedia: "The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' Greenhouse Law is still used today". Are you really that much of an idiot to think that I was not referring to the Arrhenius Law formula for CO2 and to another completely different formula from Arrhenius unrelated to the greenhouse? Hahahahaha!


Actually I do think you are that much of an idiot to name the wrong law without even realising it. You're getting so much else wrong.

The only place I found where someone used the phrase "the Arrhenius Law formula" in reference to the greenhouse effect in the way you did was a blog page by some confused layperson:

http://chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk/

It's amusing to see you repeating the same nonsense.

I realise you prefer picking up bits and pieces from junk-science blogs and Wikipedia, tossing them into a bowl and getting junk-science salad, but here is Arrhenius' original paper.

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf



Edited on 11-02-2016 16:43
11-02-2016 16:27
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Ceist wrote:The only place I found where someone used the term "the Arrhenius Law formula" in reference to the greenhouse effect in the way you did was a blog page by some confused layperson

Ceist, you're an idiot. That's all I can say. For you to be taking issue with me using the phrase "Arrhenius Law formula" for CO2 is utterly ridiculous. It's from Arrhenius, it's a Law and it's a bloody Formula. Therefore I can describe it as that in the context of CO2. You're just being an ass and wasting my time. Go and troll someone else or at least address my arguments above.
Edited on 11-02-2016 16:29
11-02-2016 16:30
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
Ceist wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
So perhaps you'd like to tell us more about what "Stolk et al 2003 points out" about planetary temperatures?

Yes, well-done. I accidentially referenced the wrong paper while reading the article but it should be pointed out that the paper in question was withdrawn on matters "not related to the scientific merit of the study". However, since you apparently enjoy reading papers so much, there are numerous papers arguing that the high temperatures on Venus are not due to the greenhouse effect but rather pressure. If you like I could cite some and you can point out their errors.


As that 'argument' violates the laws of physics and ignores observational data, it would be interesting to see what 'papers' you can come up with.


Here's 3 to get you started:

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen9/Chillingar_Atm_Cooling_due_to_CO2.pdf

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

Of course you don't have to take their word for it, you can just use the Arrhenius law to calculate how much back-radiation the total CO2 greenhouse on Venus is producing, and it turns out to be under 50K. I find it quite amazing that anyone could think that a gas could absorb 65 W/m2 and re-radiate 17,000 W/m2.

I suppose some are easily fooled.


Yes, it seems you are very easily fooled.

But congratulations on copying and pasting those 3 links from your favourite conspiracy blogs.

Look up the names and authors of those fringe-nutter 'papers' in google and include the words 'flawed', 'debunked'.

Look up who principia-scientific.org are.

Ironically, that particular unpublished pseudoscience 'paper' on the crackpot Sky Dragon Slayer website principia-scientific.org, was written by ....a lawyer.




Edited on 11-02-2016 16:33
11-02-2016 16:39
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
Ceist wrote:The only place I found where someone used the term "the Arrhenius Law formula" in reference to the greenhouse effect in the way you did was a blog page by some confused layperson

Ceist, you're an idiot. That's all I can say. For you to be taking issue with me using the phrase "Arrhenius Law formula" for CO2 is utterly ridiculous. It's from Arrhenius, it's a Law and it's a bloody Formula. Therefore I can describe it as that in the context of CO2. You're just being an ass and wasting my time. Go and troll someone else or at least address my arguments above.


You're wasting everyone's else's time. Surface Detail tried to help you, then you behaved like an ass. I tried to be polite at first, then you behaved like an ass, so I'll treat you like a braying ass.

Go read an atmospheric physics textbook, or at least some reputable educational source instead of repeating nonsense from junk-science political conspiracy blogs.

Why don't you just post the links to the crank magnet blogs you're blindly repeating your 'arguments' from.



Edited on 11-02-2016 17:38
11-02-2016 17:40
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Ceist wrote:
You're wasting everyone's time.

So I am wasting "everyone's time" by presenting an argument that you refuse to even acknowledge? We can only have a debate if you are willing and able to explain yourself properly and in a civil manner and address my arguments. If you fail to do so that is your fault, not mine. The problem here is that you have turned my argument into something else in order to give yourself pretexts for dismissing and denigrating it. You did this graphically when you implied that I should not have referred to the 'Arrhenius Greenhouse Law Formula' as the 'Arrhenius Law Formula' and decided to derail the topic into this semantic inconsequentiality while totally ignoring my argument. However the only person being fooled by these tricks of yours is you. You are only giving yourself a false version of reality to believe in as truth. If you want to delude yourself in this way then that is your choice and your look out. Don't expect me to play along with your sick game though.

Surface Detail tried to help you, then you behaved like an ass. I tried to be polite at first, then you behaved like an ass, so I'll treat you like a braying ass.

I think you should be more concerned with your own behaviour Ceist. I admit that I got overheated in my discussion with Surface Detail and I apologise to him for that. However, what I have said is nothing compared to the endless hate that you interminably spew forth on this forum. You have branded people 'denialists', as nut-jobs who have rejected science and the scientific method, and as lunatic crackpots who wear tin-foil hats, all without a shred of honesty to your sorry name. You rarely contribute anything constructive to discussions, and on the rare occasion that you do, you always seem to manage to slip in an ad hominem. So I decided to give you a taste of your own medicine with a bit of name-calling of my own. If you were on any other forum I am sure you would have banned by now. In fact, I suspect that is why you probably spend so much time here; you've been banned everywhere else. This will be my last reply to you Ceist, as I really cannot be bothered in dealing with your nonsense anymore. So I will just leave you to your own devices.
Edited on 11-02-2016 17:44
11-02-2016 17:45
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
One Punch Man wrote:
You have branded people here 'denialists', as nut-jobs who have rejected science and the scientific method, and as lunatic crackpots who wear tin-foil hats


You don't like being called out for repeating pseudoscience nonsense from conspiracy blogs? Then don't do it. You don't like being called out for posting blatant lies (eg the Trenberth 2009 diagram), then don't post such easily exposed lies.

And if the tin foil hat fits...



Edited on 11-02-2016 18:09
11-02-2016 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
Ceist wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:
Of course, for this to happen the CO2 greenhouse must be emitting more radiation than it absorbs. The CO2 greenhouse on Venus is absorbing, according to NASA, 65 W/m2 (or 2,613 W/m2 to be generous). When a body absorbs radiation, it cannot emit more radiation than it absorbs. This is a fundamental law of physics and should not need explaining

That's not how it works at all and those figures don't make any sense in the way you're using them. That's the sort of uneducated confused pseudoscience you'd find on a blog by lay people who don't know what they're talking about.

Try the articles on the American Chemical Society's website that Surface Detail linked to earlier. Go through the tabs on the menu on the left. There are several sections which explain the physics of planetary temperatures and atmospheres quite well.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/planetarytemperatures.html


I suggest you read your own link you quoted again, Ceist. There is no particular conflict here. You will see it buried in amongst the usual hooey the ACS writes.


The Parrot Killer
11-02-2016 21:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10157)
Ceist wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:Also, if CO2 is causing the high surface temperaures on Venus, then why is the average surface temperature on Mars only 5K to 10K higher than its effective temperature of 210K? (NASA Mars Fact Sheet interestingly gives a difference of 0K implying no greenhouse warming). The Arrhenius law formula predicts that the total amount of CO2 on Earth of 400ppmv is enough to increase the temperature of Earth above its effective temperature of 255K by around 8K or 32 W/m2. Yet Mars has a CO2 concentration that is around 27 times higher and when applying the Arrhenius law formula that translates to around 50 W/m2, or a temperature increase of 20K on a baseline temperature of 210K. Clearly the Arrhenius formula is wrong, because the average surface temperature on Mars is not 230K.


Again, those figures you are writing and what you are saying doesn't make any sense at all. Where are you getting this from?

Why not try reading that American Chemical Society educational source? If you are interested in understanding the science, it might start making more sense to you than the blogs you are reading.

Also, may I suggest you look up what the "Arrhenius law formula" actually is and what it is used for? *grin*

Whoever you got this from doesn't have a clue. It's about collision theory - from Arrhenius's earlier work on chemicals. Nothing to do with the atmospheric greenhouse effect.


May I suggest you look up what albedo is and how it's 'calculated'?


The Parrot Killer
11-02-2016 22:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
One Punch Man wrote: So I am wasting "everyone's time" by presenting an argument that you refuse to even acknowledge?

Not at all.

You simply never got the memo that Ceist is not to be taken seriously. You might notice that at the moment you are the only one who is. Ooops.


One Punch Man wrote: We can only have a debate if you are willing and able to explain yourself properly and in a civil manner and address my arguments.

Yes...go on...take it to the logical conclusion...

Ceist is not here to debate! He's here to insult those who don't share his religious beliefs. It's his disturbed way to justify his scientific illiteracy and his having been bent over and reamed by people he trusted who took advantage of his gullibility.

Imagine Ceist kneeling down and kissing the feet of his chosen Global Warming clergy, thanking them for allowing him more time with the ream rod.

One Punch Man wrote: The problem here is that you have turned my argument into something else in order to give yourself pretexts for dismissing and denigrating it.

You don't say!

That's why Ceist wants citations, so as to attack the website containing the reference, or attack the author of the article, or attack the color of the background on the web page, whatever... and leave you frustrated because Ceist is under no obligation to address the substance of your argument.

...and you keep falling for it. I know, you didn't get the memo but I am forwarding it to you now.

Also, keep in mind Ceist will play with you as long as you allow it.

One Punch Man wrote: You did this graphically when you implied that I should not have referred to the 'Arrhenius Greenhouse Law Formula' as the 'Arrhenius Law Formula' and decided to derail the topic into this semantic inconsequentiality while totally ignoring my argument.

You allowed it. Fool me once, shame on you, etc...

One Punch Man wrote: . However, what I have said is nothing compared to the endless hate that you interminably spew forth on this forum.

Fool me twice, shame on me.



.


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
11-02-2016 23:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5183)
Ceist wrote:But congratulations on copying and pasting those 3 links from your favourite conspiracy blogs.

Look up the names and authors of those fringe-nutter 'papers' in google and include the words 'flawed', 'debunked'.

Look up who principia-scientific.org are.


Ceist, if Rush Limbuagh were to tell you that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, you would dismiss it as being "fringe-nutter" bogus psuedoscience, wouldn't you?


.


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
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate What would the world be like if every molecule in the atmosphere is a CO2?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?1006-12-2019 06:03
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N220906-12-2019 04:25
Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control814-11-2019 23:28
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
▲ 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