Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 1 of 4123>>>
What would the world be like if every molecule in the atmosphere is a CO2?29-01-2016 19:00
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Would it be warmer? Cooler? The same?
29-01-2016 19:11
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I would think warmer although in such a unrealistic scenario the climate would be the least of our problems. What do you think and what do you expect to learn by asking that question?
29-01-2016 21:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
spot wrote: I would think warmer although in such a unrealistic scenario the climate would be the least of our problems. What do you think and what do you expect to learn by asking that question?

What is the "climate"? I can see how it would be the least of our worries if it's something that doesn't exist.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-01-2016 21:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I cant help you, have you tried a dictionary? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate
A discussion can get quite tedious if we have to argue over commonly used english words all the time.
29-01-2016 22:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Would it be warmer? Cooler? The same?

It's hard to say.

Obviously there'd be more warming due to increased IR absorption from the high level of CO2, but I'm not sure this would be sufficient to compensate for the loss of IR-absorbing water vapour and other greenhouse gases. Also, the lack of ozone would allow all of the sun's UV radiation to reach the Earth thus increasing warming.

On balance, I'd guess at warmer, but you'd have to do the sums to be sure.
29-01-2016 22:22
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Venus and Mars both have close to 100% CO2. It can be expected Earth would be intermediate of these two if Earth has 100% CO2 in the air.
29-01-2016 22:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Venus and Mars both have close to 100% CO2. It can be expected Earth would be intermediate of these two if Earth has 100% CO2 in the air.

There are more factors to take into account, though. Venus's atmosphere is very thick, about 90 times as dense as Earth's, while Mars's is just a few millibars (from memory). Also, Venus has a thick layer of sulphuric acid clouds, while Mars has no clouds.
29-01-2016 23:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Would it be warmer? Cooler? The same?


We would be dead. Who would care?


The Parrot Killer
30-01-2016 00:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote: Obviously there'd be more warming due to increased IR absorption from the high level of CO2

...as if that radiation would otherwise not be absorbed.

There would / could NOT be any more solar energy absorbed. It all gets absorbed. You're trying desperately to create additional energy but you keep slamming into the 1st LoT.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-01-2016 00:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote: Obviously there'd be more warming due to increased IR absorption from the high level of CO2

...as if that radiation would otherwise not be absorbed.

There would / could NOT be any more solar energy absorbed. It all gets absorbed. You're trying desperately to create additional energy but you keep slamming into the 1st LoT.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-01-2016 00:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Obviously there'd be more warming due to increased IR absorption from the high level of CO2

...as if that radiation would otherwise not be absorbed.

There would / could NOT be any more solar energy absorbed. It all gets absorbed. You're trying desperately to create additional energy but you keep slamming into the 1st LoT.

What I keep slamming up against is your apparent inability to comprehend the energy flows involved. Let me try another analogy.

If I have a constant flow of energy into my house in the form of electricity, then the temperature of my house will stabilise at a certain level. If I then add insulation to my house, then it will warm until it reaches a new, higher equilibrium level. The rate of energy flow into the house remains the same, and the insulation is not a source of energy. No laws of thermodynamics are broken.

It's just like that with the Earth. We have a constant flow of energy in, in the form of shortwave solar radiation, leading to a stable equilibrium temperature. If we then "insulate" the Earth with additional greenhouse gases, then its temperature will rise until it, likewise, reaches a new, higher equilibrium level. The rate of energy flow into the Earth remains the same, and the insulating greenhouse gas is not a source of energy. No laws of thermodynamics are broken.

I hope that helps.
30-01-2016 01:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote: What I keep slamming up against is your apparent inability to comprehend the energy flows involved.

Could it be? Are you finally getting it? Yes, you focus on energy flows instead of focusing on ensuring that total energy adds up. You look for ways that energy doesn't add up and as a result you create additional temperature-increasing energy and you violate the 1st LoT.

Surface Detail wrote: Let me try another analogy.

Is this going to be yet another example that demonstrates you don't know the difference between thermal convection/conduction and thermal radiation?

Surface Detail wrote: . If I then add insulation to my house, then it will warm ...

Yes, apparently so.

Surface Detail wrote: It's just like that with the Earth.

Nope. It's nothing like it. Might I suggest you learn the difference between those energy flows?

Surface Detail wrote: We have a constant flow of energy in, in the form of shortwave solar radiation,

Correction: ..in the form of full-spectrum radiation.

Surface Detail wrote: . If we then "insulate" the Earth with additional greenhouse gases...

Nope. Doesn't happen. Can't happen. No atmospheric gas has that magical superpower. You have already shown that you understand that radiance is driven by temperature alone so why are you now pretending to have forgotten?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-01-2016 02:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
It obviously didn't help. You don't appear to grasp the concept of an analogy.

Tell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?
31-01-2016 02:33
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"


31-01-2016 02:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote:It obviously didn't help. You don't appear to grasp the concept of an analogy.

You apparently don't understand that not all analogies apply to a given concept. You should learn what it means for something to be a "poor analogy."

Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

Where you keep slamming into the 1st LoT is in your inability to explain an increase in temperature while insisting there is no additional energy to increase the temperature. Wheneveryou back yourself into that corner you pretend to forget that temperature drives thermal radiation.

You tip your king.

You never answered the question. Can I create more pizza by cutting a pie into more slices?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-01-2016 02:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Ceist wrote:
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

That's certainly the impression they'll be giving to anyone who has some understanding of atmospheric science, but we're not their audience.

IBdaMann writes well. His posts are always grammatically correct and he has a persuasive writing style. He is also an extremely active poster and adjusts the style of his writing (humour, abuse) on the fly as he judges fit. I'm sure that he does, in fact, have some understanding of the science but, for whatever reason, chooses to use rhetorical methods to to persuade those without a scientific background that the science is in some way flawed.

Into the Dark, on the other hand, just doesn't seem that bright. He keeps using the same stock phrases ("You've denied you own argument") regardless of applicability, and sometimes obviously loses track completely. And I wish he'd learn that the possessive form of the third person pronoun in English is "its" and not "it's", which is an abbreviation of "it is"!

If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.
Edited on 31-01-2016 03:04
31-01-2016 03:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I know what the 1st LoT states. The problem is that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect violates it in some way. Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed? Do you think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?
Edited on 31-01-2016 03:03
31-01-2016 03:11
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

That's certainly the impression they'll be giving to anyone who has some understanding of atmospheric science, but we're not their audience.

IBdaMann writes well. His posts are always grammatically correct and he has a persuasive writing style. He is also an extremely active poster and adjusts the style of his writing (humour, abuse) on the fly as he judges fit. I'm sure that he does, in fact, have some understanding of the science but, for whatever reason, chooses to use rhetorical methods to to persuade those without a scientific background that the science is in some way flawed.

Into the Dark, on the other hand, just doesn't seem that bright. He keeps using the same stock phrases ("You've denied you own argument") regardless of applicability, and sometimes obviously loses track completely. And I wish he'd learn that the possessive form of the third person pronoun in English is "its" and not "it's", which is an abbreviation of "it is"!

If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.


To me, IB comes across as a manipulative sociopath and ITN comes across as being on the Asperger's end of autism spectrum disorders.

I think IB doesn't actually have much understanding of the science at all but just uses a few sciency sounding phrases he picked up from internet blogs then intersperses them with a lot of 'clever' manipulative rhetoric. I think ITN understands little bits and pieces but can't put it all together, gets things mixed up, then stubbornly and irrationally claims he correct no matter what.





Edited on 31-01-2016 03:48
31-01-2016 04:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Ceist wrote:
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

CSIEA


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 04:23
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Earth is sort of intermediate between Venus and Mars. Earth has clouds that reflect light, sort of like Venus does. Mars has no clouds and does not reflect light. It seems CO2 does not affect temperature very much.
Edited on 31-01-2016 04:23
31-01-2016 04:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Surface Detail wrote:
Ceist wrote:
CSIEA

That's certainly the impression they'll be giving to anyone who has some understanding of atmospheric science, but we're not their audience.

IBdaMann writes well. His posts are always grammatically correct and he has a persuasive writing style. He is also an extremely active poster and adjusts the style of his writing (humour, abuse) on the fly as he judges fit. I'm sure that he does, in fact, have some understanding of the science but, for whatever reason, chooses to use rhetorical methods to to persuade those without a scientific background that the science is in some way flawed.

Into the Dark, on the other hand, just doesn't seem that bright. He keeps using the same stock phrases ("You've denied you own argument") regardless of applicability, and sometimes obviously loses track completely. And I wish he'd learn that the possessive form of the third person pronoun in English is "its" and not "it's", which is an abbreviation of "it is"!

If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

The only reason I keep saying you are denying your own argument is because you keep doing it. You have also demonstrated constantly you wish to avoid the track entirely and fixate on something else.

Now if you want to justify the use of these two fallacies, go right ahead. I'll still you on them.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 04:28
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.


rise -> raise
31-01-2016 04:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote: Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed?

Did I not answer that question in the immediately previous post, and in many other previous posts?

Nonetheless let's address it again, slowly, step by step.

Step 1. Does "greenhouse effect" involve an increase in temperature?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-01-2016 04:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed?

Did I not answer that question in the immediately previous post, and in many other previous posts?

No, you didn't.

Nonetheless let's address it again, slowly, step by step.

Step 1. Does "greenhouse effect" involve an increase in temperature?

Yes, it does.
31-01-2016 04:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.


rise -> raise

I'm British


https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/cw-raise-rise.htm
Edited on 31-01-2016 04:50
31-01-2016 04:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

I take exception to this. I established myself as the champion "bad guy" of this forum back in the trafn days (Into the Night came in a solid 2nd and Tim the Plumber came in third). Into the Night does not get to usurp just because he addressed a few logical fallacies. The rules on this are pretty straightforward and the standings are listed here:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/who-is-who-on-climate-debate-com-d15-e789.php#post_4329



Wait a minute! Are you saying that I could get paid for posting?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
31-01-2016 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.


rise -> raise


Depends on which side of the pond you hail your language from.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 20:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

I take exception to this. I established myself as the champion "bad guy" of this forum back in the trafn days (Into the Night came in a solid 2nd and Tim the Plumber came in third). Into the Night does not get to usurp just because he addressed a few logical fallacies. The rules on this are pretty straightforward and the standings are listed here:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/who-is-who-on-climate-debate-com-d15-e789.php#post_4329



Wait a minute! Are you saying that I could get paid for posting?


.

Rest assured, you can keep first place. Trafn's vote certainly overrides Surface Detail.


After all, it's one thing to be a simple moron vs. the fantastic temper tantrum that Trafn turned into.

It's certainly no surprise my writing style grates on his nerves though, he's English. We haven't used English in America for years.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2016 02:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:If I were paying them to deny AGW, I'd give IBdaMann a rise and consider sacking Into the Dark.

I take exception to this. I established myself as the champion "bad guy" of this forum back in the trafn days (Into the Night came in a solid 2nd and Tim the Plumber came in third). Into the Night does not get to usurp just because he addressed a few logical fallacies. The rules on this are pretty straightforward and the standings are listed here:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/who-is-who-on-climate-debate-com-d15-e789.php#post_4329



Wait a minute! Are you saying that I could get paid for posting?


.

Rest assured, you can keep first place. Trafn's vote certainly overrides Surface Detail.


After all, it's one thing to be a simple moron vs. the fantastic temper tantrum that Trafn turned into.

It's certainly no surprise my writing style grates on his nerves though, he's English. We haven't used English in America for years.

It's not your writing style that grates; it's your poor grammar and irrational arguments. You inability to spell the names of scientists (Planck, Kirchhoff) is also a bit annoying.
01-02-2016 04:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:It's not your writing style that grates; it's your poor grammar and irrational arguments. You inability to spell the names of scientists (Planck, Kirchhoff) is also a bit annoying.


It's also that he make completely incorrect statements based on his poor understanding. Here's some examples of his statements about Planck's Law and blackbody radiation (he eventually took the hint and started spelling Planck correctly
)

Into the Night:

It makes no sense to attempt to limit Plank's law to certain chosen exceptions. It applies everywhere...always...all the time
...

This is why Plank's law works. It take more energy to shake the electron faster. If you have no electric field to do it, the temperature of the substance is what does it, regardless of the substance.

...

Your use of radiation in this way violates Plank's law. It also violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as the first.

...

Planck's law applies to all bodies, not just black bodies. It cannot work with a totally black body since there is no light emitted. The only such theoretical body is one at absolute zero.

...

Grey body or black body, it is the same. Nothing changes about the application of Planck's law...ever.

...

Spectra has nothing to do with black body radiation.

...

Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.

...

Planck's law operates at all times...on all substances...in all cases. Nothing has changed

...

An ideal black body has zero temperature. It is at absolute zero. If it is emitting anything, it is not an ideal black body.

Considering that you can't get this simple concept through your head, you seem to be hopelessly lost.

...

Go back and read Kirchoff's definition again. You will find the only possible ideal black body is one at absolute zero. This was Planck's effective conclusion on Kirchoff's ideal black body.
...

Kirchoff wasn't even talking about radiation or absorption (...)

...

In my opinion, Planck's law is the most solid evidence to date that achieving absolute zero will never be possible. An ideal black (i.e. something that is absolute zero), causes Planck's law to break down, since there is no such thing as a light of zero frequency (direct light, like direct current).

...

Nope. It simply distributes any energy absorbed to surrounding molecules. It is the same temperature as everything else. It therefore emits the same as everything else. This is Planck's law.

...

This is where you screw up. The atmosphere has a temperature. At the surface it is the same as the temperature of the surface. The radiation from the atmosphere at the surface is the same as the surface temperature. The color shifts further red due to loss of temperature as you rise in altitude (up to the tropopause). No 'greenhouse' gas changes that at all. The color of emission is the same for all components of the atmosphere since it is not dependent on the composition of any one component. You are making 'greenhouse' gases a magick substance this way.






Edited on 01-02-2016 04:50
01-02-2016 04:47
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
And here are some examples of IBdaMned's incorrect statements based on his poor understanding, despite him claiming to "understand Planck's Law very well"

IBdaMann wrote:

I understand Planck's Law very well
...

First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.
Second, this is another point of disagreement between us. I think all matter, even a single molecule, radiates per Planck's Law.
...

If so, do you think Global Warming will falsify Planck's law and require it to be discarded? (that's the one that says the planet's radiation is based solely on temperature and not on any substance's ability to prevent/restrict/modify/block/trap/hinder/reduce thermal radiation)
...

No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.
...

Temperature drives thermal radiation, not the other way around.
...

Nope. Planck's Law is more general. A body's radiation is dependent upon it's temperature. You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable and the "radiation" being the dependent variable
...

Yes, because according to Planck's Law, temperature is the independent variable controlling radiation, so naturally the earth is radiating more energy into space now than when it was cooler, and it is now radiating less energy into space than it did when it was warmer.

You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable, and atmospheric composition (e.g. amount of CO2, amount of water vapor, amount of methane, et. al.) is not even a factor.
...

In our discussions I believe I indicated that earth's thermal radiation adheres to Planck's Law which renders it independent of atmospheric composition (assuming the atmosphere remains equivalently transparent to visible light).
...

No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect.

Yes, Planck's Law applies right here. It blows a gaping hole in most "greenhouse effect" versions.
Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation, both strength and frequency. As you heat metal, the frequency of the thermal radiation will increase until it rises above the infrared and rises into red, thus glowing red.
...

Every substance has its own unique EM absorption signature, along with its own unique EM reflection signature.
All EM energy that is absorbed, regardless of frequency, is converted to thermal energy.
All EM energy that is reflected, regardless of frequency, ceases to be a factor.
...

it does not matter the frequency of the electromagnetic energy that is absorbed.
...

I forgot to mention that you need to review thermal convection and thermal radiation. You are conflating the two. The blanket imagery applies to convection and conduction but thermal radiation is governed by temperature according to Planck's Law. No substance has any magical superpower to regulate thermal radiation outside of Planck's Law. Nothing can act like a thermal radiation "blanket."
...

...but no, the warmer lower atmosphere vs. the cooler upper atmosphere is simply a result of Ideal Gas Law, with the weight of the upper atmosphere weighing down the lower atmopshere and thus compressing it to a higher atmopsheric pressure, thus rendering more atmospheric mass per volume, and thus more thermal energy per volume in the lower atmosphere than in the upper atmosphere.

Gases at the very top of the atmopshere, although potentially as hot as the daytime surface of the moon, would nonetheless "feel" cold because there is "so little of it" (being under virtually zero atmospheric pressure), thus having so very little thermal energy per unit volume.
...

False. I don't know what you consider to be "greenhouse gas" but if you were to swap out the earth's atmosphere for one of equivalent mass that is strictly 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, the earth's surface would not be like the moon's. In fact, nothing would change temperature-wise if all the "greenhouse gas" were removed.
...

Earth, as a body, radiates per its temperature. Earth's atmosphere radiates per its temperature. Check Planck's Radiation Law. All things radiate per their temperature per Planck's Radiation Law.

So when someone like you implies that earth's atmosphere somehow radiates differently because of a change in material composition, you are implying that earth's atmospheric radiation is determined by something other than just temperature, which implies that earth's atmosphere does not radiate per Planck's Law.
...

earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law
...

As I explained to you, what CO2, or any substance for that matter, absorbs is a function of its absorption signature, and what is emitted is a function of its temperature, specifically Planck's Law.




Edited on 01-02-2016 04:55
01-02-2016 05:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Ceist wrote:
And here are some examples of IBdaMned's incorrect statements based on his poor understanding, despite him claiming to "understand Planck's Law very well"

IBdaMann wrote:

I understand Planck's Law very well
...

First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.
Second, this is another point of disagreement between us. I think all matter, even a single molecule, radiates per Planck's Law.
...

If so, do you think Global Warming will falsify Planck's law and require it to be discarded? (that's the one that says the planet's radiation is based solely on temperature and not on any substance's ability to prevent/restrict/modify/block/trap/hinder/reduce thermal radiation)
...

No substance can affect thermal radiation. Temperature is the only determinant.
...

Temperature drives thermal radiation, not the other way around.
...

Nope. Planck's Law is more general. A body's radiation is dependent upon it's temperature. You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable and the "radiation" being the dependent variable
...

Yes, because according to Planck's Law, temperature is the independent variable controlling radiation, so naturally the earth is radiating more energy into space now than when it was cooler, and it is now radiating less energy into space than it did when it was warmer.

You should focus on "temperature" being the independent variable, and atmospheric composition (e.g. amount of CO2, amount of water vapor, amount of methane, et. al.) is not even a factor.
...

In our discussions I believe I indicated that earth's thermal radiation adheres to Planck's Law which renders it independent of atmospheric composition (assuming the atmosphere remains equivalently transparent to visible light).
...

No substance can "trap" thermal radiation. Insulation, clothing, etc.. all work in conduction/convection. Planck's Law applies here. Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation; particular substance or atmospheric composition plays no role and has no effect.

Yes, Planck's Law applies right here. It blows a gaping hole in most "greenhouse effect" versions.
Temperature is the sole determinant of thermal radiation, both strength and frequency. As you heat metal, the frequency of the thermal radiation will increase until it rises above the infrared and rises into red, thus glowing red.
...

Every substance has its own unique EM absorption signature, along with its own unique EM reflection signature.
All EM energy that is absorbed, regardless of frequency, is converted to thermal energy.
All EM energy that is reflected, regardless of frequency, ceases to be a factor.
...

it does not matter the frequency of the electromagnetic energy that is absorbed.
...

I forgot to mention that you need to review thermal convection and thermal radiation. You are conflating the two. The blanket imagery applies to convection and conduction but thermal radiation is governed by temperature according to Planck's Law. No substance has any magical superpower to regulate thermal radiation outside of Planck's Law. Nothing can act like a thermal radiation "blanket."
...

...but no, the warmer lower atmosphere vs. the cooler upper atmosphere is simply a result of Ideal Gas Law, with the weight of the upper atmosphere weighing down the lower atmopshere and thus compressing it to a higher atmopsheric pressure, thus rendering more atmospheric mass per volume, and thus more thermal energy per volume in the lower atmosphere than in the upper atmosphere.

Gases at the very top of the atmopshere, although potentially as hot as the daytime surface of the moon, would nonetheless "feel" cold because there is "so little of it" (being under virtually zero atmospheric pressure), thus having so very little thermal energy per unit volume.
...

False. I don't know what you consider to be "greenhouse gas" but if you were to swap out the earth's atmosphere for one of equivalent mass that is strictly 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, the earth's surface would not be like the moon's. In fact, nothing would change temperature-wise if all the "greenhouse gas" were removed.
...

Earth, as a body, radiates per its temperature. Earth's atmosphere radiates per its temperature. Check Planck's Radiation Law. All things radiate per their temperature per Planck's Radiation Law.

So when someone like you implies that earth's atmosphere somehow radiates differently because of a change in material composition, you are implying that earth's atmospheric radiation is determined by something other than just temperature, which implies that earth's atmosphere does not radiate per Planck's Law.
...

earth's atmosphere radiates according to Planck's Law
...

As I explained to you, what CO2, or any substance for that matter, absorbs is a function of its absorption signature, and what is emitted is a function of its temperature, specifically Planck's Law.


All I can say is "Thank You."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
02-02-2016 13:52
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I know what the 1st LoT states. The problem is that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect violates it in some way. Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed? Do you think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

Venus is proof that a planet can radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun alone. Venus is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 and yet the measured and calculated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) solar isolation is around 2600 W/m2. Whether this is due to the greenhouse or pressure, whatever the case may be, the planet is still radiating more energy that it gets from solar radiation. Also the average temperature in a desert is lower than a tropical rain-forest and probably the biggest difference between these two environments is water vapour. Just thought I'd point that out once again.
Edited on 02-02-2016 13:53
02-02-2016 14:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
One Punch Man wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I know what the 1st LoT states. The problem is that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect violates it in some way. Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed? Do you think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

Venus is proof that a planet can radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun alone. Venus is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 and yet the measured and calculated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) solar isolation is around 2600 W/m2. Whether this is due to the greenhouse or pressure, whatever the case may be, the planet is still radiating more energy that it gets from solar radiation. Also the average temperature in a desert is lower than a tropical rain-forest and probably the biggest difference between these two environments is water vapour. Just thought I'd point that out once again.

Although the surface of Venus radiates at about 17,000 W/m2, only a small fraction of that energy actually makes it out into space (just enough to balance what it receives from the sun). Most of the emitted radiation is returned to the surface as back radiation by Venus's monster CO2 atmosphere. It's the mother of all greenhouse effects!
Edited on 02-02-2016 14:40
02-02-2016 19:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote: Although the surface of Venus radiates at about 17,000 W/m2, only a small fraction of that energy actually makes it out into space

This is absurd. According to you, the atmosphere is continually accumulating energy at an incredible rate, and has been for as long as Venus has had its atmosphere.

Your statement is false. All the energy radiating from the surface of Venus drains off into space. Yes, it passes through the atmosphere but it does go into space.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
02-02-2016 19:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
One Punch Man wrote: Venus is proof that a planet can radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun alone.

This would make Venus a (substantial) source of energy. Venus, however, is not a (substantial) source of energy.

One Punch Man wrote: Venus is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 and yet the measured and calculated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) solar isolation is around 2600 W/m2.

This would be a good time to discuss the 1st LoT.

Are you claiming that Venus' CO2 atmosphere creates 14,400 W/m2? You need to account for this claimed disparity.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
02-02-2016 19:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Although the surface of Venus radiates at about 17,000 W/m2, only a small fraction of that energy actually makes it out into space

This is absurd. According to you, the atmosphere is continually accumulating energy at an incredible rate, and has been for as long as Venus has had its atmosphere.

Your statement is false. All the energy radiating from the surface of Venus drains off into space. Yes, it passes through the atmosphere but it does go into space.

You only seem to have read half of my post. As I mentioned, the majority of the energy radiated from the surface is emitted back to the surface by the atmosphere. It doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere.

What you are proposing is absurd. How could Venus be emitting far more energy than it receives from the sun?
02-02-2016 21:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
One Punch Man wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I know what the 1st LoT states. The problem is that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect violates it in some way. Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed? Do you think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

Venus is proof that a planet can radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun alone. Venus is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 and yet the measured and calculated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) solar isolation is around 2600 W/m2. Whether this is due to the greenhouse or pressure, whatever the case may be, the planet is still radiating more energy that it gets from solar radiation. Also the average temperature in a desert is lower than a tropical rain-forest and probably the biggest difference between these two environments is water vapour. Just thought I'd point that out once again.


The average temperature of a desert and the average temperature of a rain forest is the same if both are at the same latitude and altitude. The same is true for marine environments and deserts.

Water does make a difference. It moderates the wild swings in temperature more effectively than dry air. It does not change the mean temperature at all.

Venus is not proof of your theory. Venus is not creating energy to produce its higher temperature. It is simply absorbing more energy in the first place, especially in the infrared region of the sun's bandwidth.

Venus reflects a lot of the visible light, but absorbs energy at the infrared range. Both sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide absorb energy there.

The surface of the planet is also quite dark, becoming a wonderful absorber of energy for anything that reaches it.

The thick atmosphere (92 times the pressure of Earth's) moderates temperatures so effectively that night temperatures are virtually the same as daytime, despite a nighttime that is 126 Earth days long and the poles have the same temperature as the equator.

Despite all this, Venus radiates back out into space EVERYTHING that it absorbs, just like Earth. The temperature on Venus is not climbing. It has been that way since it was formed.


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2016 21:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Surface Detail wrote:
One Punch Man wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:ITell me, do you actually think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

That's not what the 1st LoT states. It states that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

I know what the 1st LoT states. The problem is that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect violates it in some way. Where do you think the greenhouse effect supposes that energy is created or destroyed? Do you think the 1st LoT makes it impossible for the Earth to be emitting less energy than it is receiving under any circumstances?

Venus is proof that a planet can radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun alone. Venus is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 and yet the measured and calculated top-of-atmosphere (TOA) solar isolation is around 2600 W/m2. Whether this is due to the greenhouse or pressure, whatever the case may be, the planet is still radiating more energy that it gets from solar radiation. Also the average temperature in a desert is lower than a tropical rain-forest and probably the biggest difference between these two environments is water vapour. Just thought I'd point that out once again.

Although the surface of Venus radiates at about 17,000 W/m2, only a small fraction of that energy actually makes it out into space (just enough to balance what it receives from the sun). Most of the emitted radiation is returned to the surface as back radiation by Venus's monster CO2 atmosphere. It's the mother of all greenhouse effects!


Wrong. Venus radiates ALL of the energy it receives from the sun, just like Earth or any other planet (or the Moon for that matter). There is no greenhouse effect on Venus either. The planet is simply built to absorb a lot of infrared light coming from the sun (visible light tends to reflect, making Venus appear so bright).

Despite it's great ability to absorb this energy, it is ALL radiated back out into space again. Not partly, not mostly, ALL of it.


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2016 21:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote:What you are proposing is absurd. How could Venus be emitting far more energy than it receives from the sun?

When did I propose that?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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 1 of 4123>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 increase10019-08-2019 09:18
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)2031-07-2019 23:12
▲ 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