Remember me
▼ Content

What would the world be like if the atmosphere is 25% O2 and 75% N2?



Page 4 of 4<<<234
02-02-2016 09:11
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
The US Airforce would have to be idiots too and their heat seeking missiles couldn't possibly work. And millions of scientists over the past 60 years or so would have to have been idiots too. Or.....2 anonymous laypeople called ITN and IB with no qualifications or background in science who rant on the internet are idiots. Tough choice eh


What left field did that come from??? Heat seeking missiles are NOT looking for carbon dioxide!

I'll ignore your usual wild claims of scientists this time. It's just your usual garbage.

It's also you usual garbage to say we have no qualifications or background. You have no idea who we are or what our qualifications or backgrounds are.

It's also your usual fallacy to depend on such things.


The US Air Force comment wasn't 'out of left field' at all. In fact it blows ITN's and IB's nutty anti-science beliefs out of the water. I've mentioned the US Air Force about half a dozen times on this forum- guess they missed the comments. For people who try to present themselves as 'experts' who supposedly know more than all the atmospheric physicists in the world
, Into the Dark's and IBdaMann's complete ignorance of the history of research of the earth's atmosphere is appalling.

The US Air Force started conducting atmospheric research during the Cold War to understand the physics of the atmosphere to make their heat-seeking missiles more accurate. The research included heat transfer and a detailed knowledge of the infrared properties of 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere.

That's when the HITRAN (high resolution transmission molecular absorption) line database was first started in the 1960's -from the US Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GnJ0LJFLNbMC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=HITRAN+US+Air+Force&source=bl&ots=4OT71SLhcJ&sig=gTo4yyUFfE75y8GsFvMmDE22NZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQmIL3wNjKAhUC0WMKHYVMA4EQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=HITRAN%20US%20Air%20Force&f=false

Here's a little video for scientifically illiterate Ostriches like Into the Night and IBDaMned who bury their heads in the sand:

How to Talk to an Ostrich: "Who says CO2 heats things up?"


I'm not 'guessing' that Into The Dark and IBdaMned have no qualifications or background in science- it's damned obvious from their ridiculous scientifically illiterate posts.



Edited on 02-02-2016 09:26
02-02-2016 09:21
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman. Skiming this forum I see people have tried to go through this with you before in detail, they just get abuse for their trouble.

As for the pressure differnece your wrong of course but anyone who is in doubt could test it for themselves.


Do you really think people like Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and everyone who followed since are imbeciles?

If you do a search for IB daMann and Into the Night on the internet, you'll find forums where people have 'tried to go through this' with them for years, but they still can't get it.


Their super-inflated egos, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and their Teflon-coated shields of science denial, protect them from learning any science that contradicts their ideological/religious beliefs.



Edited on 02-02-2016 09:28
02-02-2016 12:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
spot wrote:
https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog I suggest you familiarize yourself with the work of John tyndall.


I recommend you become familiar with Tyndall's work. He did some good work and he also got some stuff wrong (which has been dropped from the body of science).

Science is constantly evolving and those models and concepts that are found to be false are either corrected or dropped.

I recommend you review your beliefs to ensure they are not based on concepts that have been shown to be false, albeit forever documented.


.


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
02-02-2016 14:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
"The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero-temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.

The greenhouse effect shifts the planet's surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature. The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace. The temperature of your house is intermediate between the temperature of the flame in your furnace and the temperature of the outdoors, and adding insulation shifts it toward the former by reducing the rate at which the house loses energy to the outdoors.

As Fourier already understood, when it comes to relating temperature to the principles of energy balance, it matters little whether the heat-loss mechanism is purely radiative, as in the case of a planet, or a mix of radiation and turbulent convection, as in the case of a house—or a greenhouse. Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.

Though the first calculation of the warming of Earth due to CO2 increase was carried out by Arrhenius in 1896, accurate CO2 and water-vapor spectroscopy and a fully correct formulation of planetary energy balance did not come together until the work of Syukuro Manabe and Richard Wetherald in 1967.

With that development, the theory was brought to its modern state of understanding. It has withstood all subsequent challenges and without question represents one of the great triumphs of 20th-century physics."

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature - Physics Today

Yet nutters like IBAwesome and Into the Dark are still trying to argue that the
'greenhouse' effect and 'greenhouse' gases don't even exist. How much of their lives have they wasted on posting scientifically illiterate rants that are not only incorrect, but "Not Even Wrong"?



Edited on 02-02-2016 14:54
02-02-2016 18:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
Ceist wrote:
"The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system.

This is a false statement. Whether or not the planet is a closed system in a given model is irrelevant. The 2nd LoT always applies. One does not get to avoid complying with the 2nd LoT by pointing to the earth and declaring it "not a closed system."

Any such assertion can be immediately dismissed without reading further.

Ceist wrote: The greenhouse effect shifts the planet's surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature.

Right. This doesn't happen. This is an egregious violation of physics. Temperature drives thermal radiation, not the other way around. You can't have a body's temperature increasing while its thermal radiation is decreasing. Also, there is no magical/divine force in nature that miraculously controls thermal radiation which then drives temperatures.

All we need now is the classic conflation of thermal radiation with thermal conduction/convection...

Ceist wrote: The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows to your home ...

...and here we have it! Nothing broadcasts more clearly and concisely that you don't know what the hell you are talking about quite like being duped into thinking that thermal radiation works just like thermal convection/conduction.


Ceist wrote: As Fourier already understood,

You mean as Fourier mistakenly believed. There's a reason Fourier is a big name in math and engineering but not in thermodynamics.

Do you buy products you neither need nor want if they are endorsed by high-profile celebrities? You do, don't you?


Ceist wrote: Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.

Explain. ...or not.

Ceist wrote: Though the first calculation of the warming of Earth due to CO2 increase was carried out by Arrhenius in 1896,

All mentions of Arrhenius are summarily dismissed. There's a reason we don't have an "Arrhenius Warming Law" or an "Arrhenius Warming Constant." He was completely wrong and his work with CO2 never made it into the body of science. He simply started with the mistaken assumption that CO2 heats the planet and then published his guesstimates about temperature increases per quantities of CO2.

Now only warmizombies dig up his work and erroneously imply that it is actually in the body of science.


.


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
02-02-2016 19:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1117)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog I suggest you familiarize yourself with the work of John tyndall.


I recommend you become familiar with Tyndall's work. He did some good work and he also got some stuff wrong (which has been dropped from the body of science).

Science is constantly evolving and those models and concepts that are found to be false are either corrected or dropped.

I recommend you review your beliefs to ensure they are not based on concepts that have been shown to be false, albeit forever documented.


.


Of course you are well versed in the works of all 19 century physicists, chemists and philosophers. Anyway he was right about some things he might well have been wrong about others, who amongst us is right about everything?

But tell me do you really think a man like that would have spent so much time effort and expense on something that obviously violates the laws of physics?
02-02-2016 19:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1117)
Ceist wrote:
spot wrote:
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman. Skiming this forum I see people have tried to go through this with you before in detail, they just get abuse for their trouble.

As for the pressure differnece your wrong of course but anyone who is in doubt could test it for themselves.


Do you really think people like Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and everyone who followed since are imbeciles?

If you do a search for IB daMann and Into the Night on the internet, you'll find forums where people have 'tried to go through this' with them for years, but they still can't get it.


Their super-inflated egos, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and their Teflon-coated shields of science denial, protect them from learning any science that contradicts their ideological/religious beliefs.


Don't be so hard on them I've learnt a bit participating on this forum, albeit more about psychology then atmospheric physics.
02-02-2016 20:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
spot wrote: But tell me do you really think a man like that would have spent so much time effort and expense on something that obviously violates the laws of physics?

Are you asking me if he spent a lot of time on something that didn't pan out? ...like many before him and many after?


.


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
02-02-2016 20:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
spot wrote: Don't be so hard on them I've learnt a bit participating on this forum, albeit more about psychology then atmospheric physics.

Yes, we don't want people to think that you would ever stoop so low as to learn anything about atmospheric physics, and understanding that pesky 1st LoT only gets in the way.


.


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
02-02-2016 21:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1117)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: But tell me do you really think a man like that would have spent so much time effort and expense on something that obviously violates the laws of physics?

Are you asking me if he spent a lot of time on something that didn't pan out? ...like many before him and many after?


.


I think his work was highly thought of at the time? what developments overturned it? Can you can provide a name or a reference or am I just going to get abuse?
02-02-2016 21:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
spot wrote: what developments overturned it?

It was never science. There was never any falsifiable CO2-warming model. There was nothing to "overturn."

spot wrote: Can you can provide a name or a reference or am I just going to get abuse?

I can't provide a reference for science that never was...but I can offer abuse if you'd like:

Your mother wears combat boots.

(More available on request)


.


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
02-02-2016 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
The US Airforce would have to be idiots too and their heat seeking missiles couldn't possibly work. And millions of scientists over the past 60 years or so would have to have been idiots too. Or.....2 anonymous laypeople called ITN and IB with no qualifications or background in science who rant on the internet are idiots. Tough choice eh


What left field did that come from??? Heat seeking missiles are NOT looking for carbon dioxide!

I'll ignore your usual wild claims of scientists this time. It's just your usual garbage.

It's also you usual garbage to say we have no qualifications or background. You have no idea who we are or what our qualifications or backgrounds are.

It's also your usual fallacy to depend on such things.


The US Air Force comment wasn't 'out of left field' at all. In fact it blows ITN's and IB's nutty anti-science beliefs out of the water. I've mentioned the US Air Force about half a dozen times on this forum- guess they missed the comments. For people who try to present themselves as 'experts' who supposedly know more than all the atmospheric physicists in the world
, Into the Dark's and IBdaMann's complete ignorance of the history of research of the earth's atmosphere is appalling.

The US Air Force started conducting atmospheric research during the Cold War to understand the physics of the atmosphere to make their heat-seeking missiles more accurate. The research included heat transfer and a detailed knowledge of the infrared properties of 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere.

That's when the HITRAN (high resolution transmission molecular absorption) line database was first started in the 1960's -from the US Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GnJ0LJFLNbMC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=HITRAN+US+Air+Force&source=bl&ots=4OT71SLhcJ&sig=gTo4yyUFfE75y8GsFvMmDE22NZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQmIL3wNjKAhUC0WMKHYVMA4EQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=HITRAN%20US%20Air%20Force&f=false

Here's a little video for scientifically illiterate Ostriches like Into the Night and IBDaMned who bury their heads in the sand:

How to Talk to an Ostrich: "Who says CO2 heats things up?"


I'm not 'guessing' that Into The Dark and IBdaMned have no qualifications or background in science- it's damned obvious from their ridiculous scientifically illiterate posts.


You are actually going to drag this up again???

Heat seeking missiles automatically adjust for background as they fly. The study you mention is to help make them more accurate against smaller targets. CO2 does not heat things up. It masks the signature of smaller targets. That's it. Sheesh.


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2016 21:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Ceist wrote:
spot wrote:
My argument is; "Changing the amount of CO2 in a quantity of air has mesurable effects" is not against the laws of physics, your assertion that it does is a strawman. Skiming this forum I see people have tried to go through this with you before in detail, they just get abuse for their trouble.

As for the pressure differnece your wrong of course but anyone who is in doubt could test it for themselves.


Do you really think people like Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and everyone who followed since are imbeciles?

If you do a search for IB daMann and Into the Night on the internet, you'll find forums where people have 'tried to go through this' with them for years, but they still can't get it.


Their super-inflated egos, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and their Teflon-coated shields of science denial, protect them from learning any science that contradicts their ideological/religious beliefs.


If you do a search for Ceist right here, you will find he is often lying about what people say, spends most of his time insulting people, throwing out a ton of links and misquoting them, spams threads with the same insult so much I've decided to create an acronym for it (CSIEA), and is the first to judge for people instead of letting them judge for themselves.

Ceist, you're a jerk, pure and simple. You have no understanding of science at all. Everything you say and do lately is driven by a hatred against two people. You Religion has put you in a position of not simply disagreeing with people, but actually hating them for disagreeing with you. You have become a Religious bigot.


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2016 22:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Surface Detail wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

Liar.


Tell that to the Dept of Energy. They did the estimate. Personally, I question their methods anyway.

You're simply lying. Prove you aren't by linking to wherever you got that figure from. Or show how you calculated it.


I didn't calculate it. I told you where I got the estimate from. Go look it up yourself.

Liar.

Well, I looked on the DOE website and didn't find the figure you quoted. You're lying, aren't you? Tell me, why do you feel the need to lie about this?

Into the Night, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you were lying.
03-02-2016 00:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1117)
Again I would appreciate it if you read that link that I posted specifically page 39,

The reasoning seems sound, and he has done the experiments to confirm what he is saying what could he have done to convince you that he is conducting "science"?
03-02-2016 07:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Surface Detail wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

Liar.


Tell that to the Dept of Energy. They did the estimate. Personally, I question their methods anyway.

You're simply lying. Prove you aren't by linking to wherever you got that figure from. Or show how you calculated it.


I didn't calculate it. I told you where I got the estimate from. Go look it up yourself.

Liar.

Well, I looked on the DOE website and didn't find the figure you quoted. You're lying, aren't you? Tell me, why do you feel the need to lie about this?

Into the Night, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you were lying.


Since you've decided to take the position that I'm lying, I have no inclination to help you. You're done. Your inability to find it is entirely your problem now.


The Parrot Killer
03-02-2016 09:27
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:Since you've decided to take the position that I'm lying, I have no inclination to help you. You're done. Your inability to find it is entirely your problem now.


Into the Night lied, yet he thinks it's up to everyone else to go find where his lie came from.

Hmmm...


03-02-2016 09:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
If you do a search for Ceist right here, you will find he is often lying about what people say, spends most of his time insulting people, throwing out a ton of links and misquoting them, spams threads with the same insult so much I've decided to create an acronym for it (CSIEA), and is the first to judge for people instead of letting them judge for themselves.

Ceist, you're a jerk, pure and simple. You have no understanding of science at all. Everything you say and do lately is driven by a hatred against two people. You Religion has put you in a position of not simply disagreeing with people, but actually hating them for disagreeing with you. You have become a Religious bigot.

My goodness, it seems I'm annoying the Sky Dragon Slayer trolls who trashed this forum and turned it into a complete joke by annoying and attacking everyone who tried to have a rational discussion about science. It's now more like a mental health facility for scientifically illiterate science deniers like he and IBdaMann. Or a comedy show.


Poor Into the Night thinks I 'hate' him and IB. He just doesn't realise what a huge joke that pair are. Their posts are immensely mock worthy.


Seriously, two scientifically illiterate jokers running around the internet posting on forums claiming all the scientists and textbooks are wrong, and they are right? It's comedy gold.




Edited on 03-02-2016 09:45
03-02-2016 10:47
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
I didn't read all the posts, but I searched them. None of you mention the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate, so I will do that.

The dry adiabatic lapse rate is around 9.8 K/km on Earth. As it is dependent only on local gravity and heat capacity, it will be about the same in an atmosphere with about the same heat capacity.

If we assume 1) the dry adiabatic lapse rate still will be there in the troposphere and 2) the Earth had so much atmosphere, that the tropopause was raised to 30 km altitude, then:

the temperature in 30 km altitude would be 30 * 9.8 = 294 Kelvin lower than at the surface. If the surface would have a temperature of 254 Kelvin (which is the black-body temperature of Earth), then the temperature at 30 km altitude would be:

254 K - 294 K = -40 K

Ok, this is not valid physics, as you can't go below zero Kelvin.
Conclusion: something is wrong in the above.
03-02-2016 10:50
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Richard Feynman
You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.
03-02-2016 11:15
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
The US Airforce would have to be idiots too and their heat seeking missiles couldn't possibly work. And millions of scientists over the past 60 years or so would have to have been idiots too. Or.....2 anonymous laypeople called ITN and IB with no qualifications or background in science who rant on the internet are idiots. Tough choice eh


What left field did that come from??? Heat seeking missiles are NOT looking for carbon dioxide!

I'll ignore your usual wild claims of scientists this time. It's just your usual garbage.

It's also you usual garbage to say we have no qualifications or background. You have no idea who we are or what our qualifications or backgrounds are.

It's also your usual fallacy to depend on such things.


The US Air Force comment wasn't 'out of left field' at all. In fact it blows ITN's and IB's nutty anti-science beliefs out of the water. I've mentioned the US Air Force about half a dozen times on this forum- guess they missed the comments. For people who try to present themselves as 'experts' who supposedly know more than all the atmospheric physicists in the world
, Into the Dark's and IBdaMann's complete ignorance of the history of research of the earth's atmosphere is appalling.

The US Air Force started conducting atmospheric research during the Cold War to understand the physics of the atmosphere to make their heat-seeking missiles more accurate. The research included heat transfer and a detailed knowledge of the infrared properties of 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere.

That's when the HITRAN (high resolution transmission molecular absorption) line database was first started in the 1960's -from the US Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GnJ0LJFLNbMC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=HITRAN+US+Air+Force&source=bl&ots=4OT71SLhcJ&sig=gTo4yyUFfE75y8GsFvMmDE22NZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQmIL3wNjKAhUC0WMKHYVMA4EQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=HITRAN%20US%20Air%20Force&f=false

Here's a little video for scientifically illiterate Ostriches like Into the Night and IBDaMned who bury their heads in the sand:

How to Talk to an Ostrich: "Who says CO2 heats things up?"


I'm not 'guessing' that Into The Dark and IBdaMned have no qualifications or background in science- it's damned obvious from their ridiculous scientifically illiterate posts.


You are actually going to drag this up again???

Heat seeking missiles automatically adjust for background as they fly. The study you mention is to help make them more accurate against smaller targets. CO2 does not heat things up. It masks the signature of smaller targets. That's it. Sheesh.


Yes yes, I know Into the Night doesn't like me bringing up science and facts which blow his scientifically illiterate claims out of the water and exposes him as a nutter.

He seriously knows nothing about the major atmospheric research and experiments the US Air Force was involved in after WWII that added greatly to the knowledge of the physics of the atmosphere, including greenhouse gases, yet claims to understand the physics of the atmosphere more than all the atmospheric scientists in the world, including those who worked for the US Air Force and created the original HITRAN database. It's the standard for calculating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance of the electromagnetic spectrum and used in industry all over the world.

But in ITN's alternate reality, none of this exists.




Edited on 03-02-2016 11:17
03-02-2016 11:23
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
John Niclasen wrote:
Richard Feynman
You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.


Richard Feynman wrote: The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong




Edited on 03-02-2016 11:24
03-02-2016 11:32
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
John Niclasen wrote:
I didn't read all the posts, but I searched them. None of you mention the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate, so I will do that.

The dry adiabatic lapse rate is around 9.8 K/km on Earth. As it is dependent only on local gravity and heat capacity, it will be about the same in an atmosphere with about the same heat capacity.

If we assume 1) the dry adiabatic lapse rate still will be there in the troposphere and 2) the Earth had so much atmosphere, that the tropopause was raised to 30 km altitude, then:

the temperature in 30 km altitude would be 30 * 9.8 = 294 Kelvin lower than at the surface. If the surface would have a temperature of 254 Kelvin (which is the black-body temperature of Earth), then the temperature at 30 km altitude would be:

254 K - 294 K = -40 K

Ok, this is not valid physics, as you can't go below zero Kelvin.
Conclusion: something is wrong in the above.

Richard Feynman wrote: The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong



03-02-2016 11:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Government estimates that man's sources have contributed as little as 0.000062% of the atmosphere since then

Liar.


Tell that to the Dept of Energy. They did the estimate. Personally, I question their methods anyway.

You're simply lying. Prove you aren't by linking to wherever you got that figure from. Or show how you calculated it.


I didn't calculate it. I told you where I got the estimate from. Go look it up yourself.

Liar.

Well, I looked on the DOE website and didn't find the figure you quoted. You're lying, aren't you? Tell me, why do you feel the need to lie about this?

Into the Night, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you were lying.


Since you've decided to take the position that I'm lying, I have no inclination to help you. You're done. Your inability to find it is entirely your problem now.

No, you're done. You've been caught out lying in order to further your idealogical agenda. If it were an honest mistake, then you'd have apologised and we could move on. Obviously it wasn't a mistake; it was just a lie. Why should anyone take you seriously when you just make stuff up?
03-02-2016 12:00
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
https://archive.org/details/contributionsto01tyndgoog I suggest you familiarize yourself with the work of John tyndall.


I recommend you become familiar with Tyndall's work. He did some good work and he also got some stuff wrong (which has been dropped from the body of science).

Science is constantly evolving and those models and concepts that are found to be false are either corrected or dropped.

I recommend you review your beliefs to ensure they are not based on concepts that have been shown to be false, albeit forever documented.


.


Of course you are well versed in the works of all 19 century physicists, chemists and philosophers. Anyway he was right about some things he might well have been wrong about others, who amongst us is right about everything?

But tell me do you really think a man like that would have spent so much time effort and expense on something that obviously violates the laws of physics?
IBdaAwesomestManOnDaPlanet is a superdooperaweinspiringgeniuswhoknowsall. In his own mind.




Edited on 03-02-2016 12:35
03-02-2016 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
The US Airforce would have to be idiots too and their heat seeking missiles couldn't possibly work. And millions of scientists over the past 60 years or so would have to have been idiots too. Or.....2 anonymous laypeople called ITN and IB with no qualifications or background in science who rant on the internet are idiots. Tough choice eh


What left field did that come from??? Heat seeking missiles are NOT looking for carbon dioxide!

I'll ignore your usual wild claims of scientists this time. It's just your usual garbage.

It's also you usual garbage to say we have no qualifications or background. You have no idea who we are or what our qualifications or backgrounds are.

It's also your usual fallacy to depend on such things.


The US Air Force comment wasn't 'out of left field' at all. In fact it blows ITN's and IB's nutty anti-science beliefs out of the water. I've mentioned the US Air Force about half a dozen times on this forum- guess they missed the comments. For people who try to present themselves as 'experts' who supposedly know more than all the atmospheric physicists in the world
, Into the Dark's and IBdaMann's complete ignorance of the history of research of the earth's atmosphere is appalling.

The US Air Force started conducting atmospheric research during the Cold War to understand the physics of the atmosphere to make their heat-seeking missiles more accurate. The research included heat transfer and a detailed knowledge of the infrared properties of 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere.

That's when the HITRAN (high resolution transmission molecular absorption) line database was first started in the 1960's -from the US Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GnJ0LJFLNbMC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=HITRAN+US+Air+Force&source=bl&ots=4OT71SLhcJ&sig=gTo4yyUFfE75y8GsFvMmDE22NZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQmIL3wNjKAhUC0WMKHYVMA4EQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=HITRAN%20US%20Air%20Force&f=false

Here's a little video for scientifically illiterate Ostriches like Into the Night and IBDaMned who bury their heads in the sand:

How to Talk to an Ostrich: "Who says CO2 heats things up?"


I'm not 'guessing' that Into The Dark and IBdaMned have no qualifications or background in science- it's damned obvious from their ridiculous scientifically illiterate posts.


You are actually going to drag this up again???

Heat seeking missiles automatically adjust for background as they fly. The study you mention is to help make them more accurate against smaller targets. CO2 does not heat things up. It masks the signature of smaller targets. That's it. Sheesh.


Yes yes, I know Into the Night doesn't like me bringing up science and facts which blow his scientifically illiterate claims out of the water and exposes him as a nutter.

He seriously knows nothing about the major atmospheric research and experiments the US Air Force was involved in after WWII that added greatly to the knowledge of the physics of the atmosphere, including greenhouse gases, yet claims to understand the physics of the atmosphere more than all the atmospheric scientists in the world, including those who worked for the US Air Force and created the original HITRAN database. It's the standard for calculating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance of the electromagnetic spectrum and used in industry all over the world.

But in ITN's alternate reality, none of this exists.

Now you're just denying what was said and you even quoted. As usual, you are making up stuff that was never said also. You're hateful and useless.


The Parrot Killer
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate What would the world be like if the atmosphere is 25% O2 and 75% N2?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N24921-11-2019 01:57
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Hold on. O2 and N2 do NOT absorb IR?915-09-2019 22:15
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
▲ 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