Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 1 of 4123>>>
What would the world be like if the atmosphere is 25% O2 and 75% N2?22-01-2016 23:48
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Would the world have the same temperature as it has now?
Edited on 22-01-2016 23:51
23-01-2016 00:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Would the world have the same temperature as it has now?

Hasn't this question, or some variant of it, already been asked numerous times?

Those who understand what the greenhouse effect is will say No; those who don't will say Yes.
23-01-2016 00:18
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Surface Detail wrote:
Hasn't this question, or some variant of it, already been asked numerous times?

Those who understand what the greenhouse effect is will say No; those who don't will say Yes.


Well then how on earth am I supposed to know who is right?


There is a wholly accepted relationship between air pressure and temperature.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

So possibly there will be no change if air pressure stays the same.

Here's something I've been wondering. When glacial transitioned to interglacial, all those CO2 are out gassed from ocean rather than converted from O2 as is the case with today's increase in CO2 percentage. Wouldn't there have been an increase in air pressure when glacial transitioned to interglacial?
Edited on 23-01-2016 00:22
23-01-2016 01:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote: Those who understand what the greenhouse effect is will say No;

I beg to differ. I say quite clearly the earth would be the same temperature.

Surface Detail wrote: those who don't will say Yes.

Wrong again. You yourself have insisted the temperature somehow increases through a series of violations of physics.

Let's go around your circular argument one more time. I'll start it off:

How does "greenhouse gas" cause additional energy that increases temperature?
To speed things up, might I suggest we completely skip over the unnecessary topic of electromagnetic absorption?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2016 14:23
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
With just N2 and O2 the average temperature of the Earth would -16C - the same as the Moon. N2 and O2 are transparent the both visible and IR radiation. However once the oceans froze and the Earth's albedo increased the temperature would plummet further. The albedo of ice is 0.9 whereas the earth's albedo is currently 0.3. so we would be getting 40% less solar energy input. (0.9-0.3) x 2/3 (area of ocean cf area of the planet) - assuming no snow fall on the land.
24-01-2016 16:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
DRKTS wrote:
With just N2 and O2 the average temperature of the Earth would -16C - the same as the Moon. N2 and O2 are transparent the both visible and IR radiation. However once the oceans froze and the Earth's albedo increased the temperature would plummet further. The albedo of ice is 0.9 whereas the earth's albedo is currently 0.3. so we would be getting 40% less solar energy input. (0.9-0.3) x 2/3 (area of ocean cf area of the planet) - assuming no snow fall on the land.

None of that would happen.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2016 16:53
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
None of that would happen.


.


Based on an unsupported and unsupportable assertion by you? No thanks.

We need supporting evidence. Mine is in every atmospheric physics text book and climatology journal. Go read some. What scientific evidence have you got?
24-01-2016 17:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
DRKTS wrote:Based on an unsupported and unsupportable assertion by you? No thanks.


I'm sorry but I'm not the one making any assertion or trying to convince anyone of anything.

You made a bogus assertion which you can only support with violations of science, ergo your assertions are summarily dismissed.

Do you claim an increase in temperature?

Do you acknowledge or deny the 1st LoT?



.


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
Edited on 24-01-2016 17:16
24-01-2016 17:54
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm not the one making any assertion or trying to convince anyone of anything.

You made a bogus assertion which you can only support with violations of science, ergo your assertions are summarily dismissed.

Do you claim an increase in temperature?

Do you acknowledge or deny the 1st LoT?



Of course there has been an increase in temperature, that data show it clearly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LODsb74j-8
24-01-2016 19:44
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Of course C02 can affect temperature, it's been known since the 1840s and can be demonstrated in any secondary school lab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
24-01-2016 21:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm not the one making any assertion or trying to convince anyone of anything.

You made a bogus assertion which you can only support with violations of science, ergo your assertions are summarily dismissed.

Do you claim an increase in temperature?

Do you acknowledge or deny the 1st LoT?



Of course there has been an increase in temperature, that data show it clearly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LODsb74j-8


You are using data that is fabricated by NOAA. The actual record in stations across the U.S. are quite different. There is also no way to measure global temperature, or to calculate it.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2016 21:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
spot wrote:
Of course C02 can affect temperature, it's been known since the 1840s and can be demonstrated in any secondary school lab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ


This is a parlor trick. A commonly used trick to point out the warming ability of CO2 unfortunately.
I'm glad you enjoy magic shows.


The Parrot Killer
24-01-2016 21:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Its no more a trick then outstretching your arm and releasing an object to demonstrate gravity.
25-01-2016 01:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
spot wrote:
Its no more a trick then outstretching your arm and releasing an object to demonstrate gravity.

Yes it is. Infrared light does not penetrate plastic bottles. The bottle itself absorbs it. You are heating the gas inside by conduction, not IR absorption. The difference in temperature is caused by the different pressures in the bottles, and by the visible light going through the bottles and being absorbed more by the bottle containing water clouded by the reaction in the CO2 bottle.

There's a reason you put a stopper in the bottles. A better demonstration would use no stoppers at all. After all, you do not need them.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2016 02:18
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:

Yes it is. Infrared light does not penetrate plastic bottles. The bottle itself absorbs it. You are heating the gas inside by conduction, not IR absorption. The difference in temperature is caused by the different pressures in the bottles, and by the visible light going through the bottles and being absorbed more by the bottle containing water clouded by the reaction in the CO2 bottle.

There's a reason you put a stopper in the bottles. A better demonstration would use no stoppers at all. After all, you do not need them.


Then try this one ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
25-01-2016 02:28
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Right......The fact is if anyone is not happy they could do the experiment themselves if you had the time money and Inclanation you void design experiments that address your concern, co2 is commercialy available so you don't need to use alkaselser and water you could monitor the pressure or do a seperate experiment where the difference between the two bottles is pressure or the cloudiness of water. I think your Idea of not having a stopper is a bit silly, CO2 is a gas so how are you going to convince it to stay In the bottle?
25-01-2016 03:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
spot wrote:
Its no more a trick then outstretching your arm and releasing an object to demonstrate gravity.

It's a parlor trick for gullible congregation members who won't even ask basic questions. The abuse of trust lies in the selection of the heat lamp that radiates within CO2's absorption signature while claiming the radiance somehow simulates the full spectrum of sunlight.

No one disputes that every substance has its own absorption signature. You could do the same thing with UV-C and O3.


.


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
25-01-2016 03:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
You could use strong sunlight instead of a lamp if you think that would make a difference, it's not a parlour trick it's easily demonstrated emperical evidence.
25-01-2016 06:29
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
You could use strong sunlight instead of a lamp if you think that would make a difference, it's not a parlour trick it's easily demonstrated emperical evidence.

DRKTS wrote:Then try this one ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk

If you haven't noticed already, there are a couple of crackpot 'Sky Dragon Slayer' cultists who have been dominating the forum with their endless posts about their beliefs.

They believe absorption and emission of IR by CO2 is "magick", that "atmospheric composition has no role in atmospheric temperature", that "evidence plays no role in science" and that the greenhouse effect "violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and Planck's law" and is "religious dogma" or "Marxist dogma". Amongst their other insane scientifically illiterate and conspiracy theory rantings.

This forum has become more like a mental health facility for deluded 'greenhouse' effect deniers than a discussion forum on climate change. It's an entertaining place to visit and observe how the inmates become hysterical, agitated and aggressive if you try to discuss science that undermines their crackpot beliefs, but it soon gets tedious.



Edited on 25-01-2016 07:03
25-01-2016 09:22
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
I did kind of get the impression, but I guess they are free to believe what ever they want to believe, I was kind of suprised that confronted with what I would regard as proof that anyone can see and anyone can replicate they keep the charade up.
25-01-2016 11:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Yes it is. Infrared light does not penetrate plastic bottles. The bottle itself absorbs it. You are heating the gas inside by conduction, not IR absorption. The difference in temperature is caused by the different pressures in the bottles, and by the visible light going through the bottles and being absorbed more by the bottle containing water clouded by the reaction in the CO2 bottle.

There's a reason you put a stopper in the bottles. A better demonstration would use no stoppers at all. After all, you do not need them.


Then try this one ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk


This one shows the filtering effects of CO2, that is all. Such filters absorb light and convert it into thermal energy, which effectively spreads out the image of the candle over a greater area. Like looking at a bright light through a diffuse color filter. The filter will warm also in the same way. That bit of warming will spread out heating everything around it, just like CO2 does in the atmosphere.

CO2 does not have the ability to make the candle flame or the light bulb hotter. That would make heat flow the wrong way. Likewise, CO2 does not have the ability to warm the surface (the source of all that IR), for the same reason.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-01-2016 11:27
25-01-2016 11:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
spot wrote:
Right......The fact is if anyone is not happy they could do the experiment themselves if you had the time money and Inclanation you void design experiments that address your concern, co2 is commercialy available so you don't need to use alkaselser and water you could monitor the pressure or do a seperate experiment where the difference between the two bottles is pressure or the cloudiness of water. I think your Idea of not having a stopper is a bit silly, CO2 is a gas so how are you going to convince it to stay In the bottle?
CO2 is heavier than air. It will stay in the bottle of it's own accord as long as you don't move the bottle around much. You can literally pour it from container to container, even though you can't see it.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2016 11:14
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
I did kind of get the impression, but I guess they are free to believe what ever they want to believe, I was kind of suprised that confronted with what I would regard as proof that anyone can see and anyone can replicate they keep the charade up.
It gets much worse than that.


Apparently they spend most of their time posting the same nutty pseudoscience rubbish around the net, so they are well practiced at ignoring or misrepresenting science.



Edited on 25-01-2016 11:39
25-01-2016 11:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Ceist wrote:
spot wrote:
You could use strong sunlight instead of a lamp if you think that would make a difference, it's not a parlour trick it's easily demonstrated emperical evidence.

DRKTS wrote:Then try this one ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk

If you haven't noticed already, there are a couple of crackpot 'Sky Dragon Slayer' cultists who have been dominating the forum with their endless posts about their beliefs.

They believe absorption and emission of IR by CO2 is "magick", that "atmospheric composition has no role in atmospheric temperature", that "evidence plays no role in science" and that the greenhouse effect "violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and Planck's law" and is "religious dogma" or "Marxist dogma". Amongst their other insane scientifically illiterate and conspiracy theory rantings.

This forum has become more like a mental health facility for deluded 'greenhouse' effect deniers than a discussion forum on climate change. It's an entertaining place to visit and observe how the inmates become hysterical, agitated and aggressive if you try to discuss science that undermines their crackpot beliefs, but it soon gets tedious.


There you go ranting stuff that was never said again. To rant, I suppose.

I have no problem with CO2 absorption. All gases have absorption at various frequencies of light. CO2 happens to have a few notches in the IR spectrum. I never said it didn't.

Almost all the absorbed energy in CO2 is converted to thermal energy. That energy is dissipated into the surround material in the atmosphere. Since CO2 is so rare, this doesn't take long. The point where we differ is CO2 energy emission. It just doesn't happen the way you describe at all.

As is typical, you primarily write stuff to insult and belittle, even making up stuff to make it sound better.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2016 12:09
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Into the night: I know that but still I would concerned that over time enough co2 would escape as to affect the experiment, as I said earlier if anyone was really interested they could do it themselves. It demonstrates the basic principle that CO2 concentration affects temperature.
25-01-2016 12:24
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:

This one shows the filtering effects of CO2, that is all. Such filters absorb light and convert it into thermal energy, which effectively spreads out the image of the candle over a greater area. Like looking at a bright light through a diffuse color filter. The filter will warm also in the same way. That bit of warming will spread out heating everything around it, just like CO2 does in the atmosphere.

CO2 does not have the ability to make the candle flame or the light bulb hotter. That would make heat flow the wrong way. Likewise, CO2 does not have the ability to warm the surface (the source of all that IR), for the same reason.


Nobody said that it would warm the lamp. It is not just a matter of thermal energy, i.e., thermalizing the IR emissions. The main way it works is by absorbing the IR photon to promote one quantum state of the molecule to another higher one.

The molecule relaxes by re-emitting a photon of the exact same energy (i.e., wavelength) as the original but in a random direction. This is called resonance scattering.

The direction is as likely to be back down towards the Earth's surface as outward towards space. It is then like having a heat lamp shining down on the Earth. The intensity of the lamp depends on how much of the gas that resonantly absorbs the IR is present between the source (the surface of the Earth) and space. Some of that IR radiation is reabsorbed by the oceans and land, warming them.

The more GHGs there are the more interactions an IR photon will suffer on its way out. Now for a concentration of 270 ppm of CO2 an IR photon of a wavelength resonant with a CO2 molecule will travel about 100m before being scattered. However at today's level of CO2 that distance is only 70m. This is called the mean free path (MFP). So for a shorter MFP, the more interactions there will be and the more warming.

That says in the first 70m of the atmosphere about half the radiated IR at these specific wavelengths are reflected back to Earth. In the next 70m, 75% and so on. Now the atmosphere gets less dense with altitude so the MFP of the IR photons get longer quite rapidly. By the time you get to plane altitudes the MFP is over 1 km.

This is a highly simplified version of resonance scattering. Part of my thesis was on this subject.
25-01-2016 15:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
spot wrote: I was kind of suprised that confronted with what I would regard as proof that anyone can see and anyone can replicate they keep the charade up.

That's the thing about parlor tricks. Anyone can replicate them.

That's the thing about gullible people. They will forever allow those who perform parlor tricks to tell them what to believe.

May your faith provide you comfort.


.


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
25-01-2016 15:56
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
It must be your superior brain that allows you to see through this "trick" and deny whats clearly going on in front of you.
25-01-2016 16:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
DRKTS wrote: The molecule relaxes by re-emitting a photon of the exact same energy (i.e., wavelength) as the original but in a random direction.

Warmizombies use the religiously dogmatic and very unscientific word "re-emit" as a red flag to readers/listeners that they don't understand what they are talking about and that what they express is full of errors. This one sentence above alone has several.

1. Molecules don't have muscles and they don't relax.

2. What molecules absorb is governed by their individual absorption signatures and what they radiate is governed by temperature. Absorbtion and radiation are independent. At any givn moment, any given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is extemely likely radiating at a wavelength other than what it is absorbing and only extremely rarely radiating at the same wavlength. There really isn't any "re-emitting" occurring.

3. We know that radiation occurrs in all directions. It is threfore best to model the activity as a wave rather than as a particle that is then emitted along a single "random" vector. Also the use of particles gives the false appearance of matching quantity along the vector insted of the natural spreading.

4. Notice the insistence that equivalent energy is emitted as is absorbed (adhering to the 1st LoT). Later, the same tired and bogus claim will be made that temperature is increased by the direction of the emission, thus implying that energy is created in violation of the 1st LoT and contradicting this statement.

DRKTS wrote: The direction is as likely to be back down towards the Earth's surface as outward towards space. It is then like having a heat lamp shining down on the Earth.

Here we have it. Remember that every instance of a particle being sent to the earth to warm it is preceded by an equivalent instance of a particle being absorbed from the earth that thusly cooled the earth by that exact amount. Here you present the false and grossly erroneous imagery that CO2 is creating energy as a heat source "like having a heat lamp" which is an egregious violation of the 1st LoT.


.


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
25-01-2016 16:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
spot wrote:
It must be your superior brain that allows you to see through this "trick" and deny whats clearly going on in front of you.

It must be your gullible mind that sees the trick performed in plain view and yet allows others to convince you to conclude WACKY religious claims that violate physics.

It must suck to be gullible but then again, I wouldn't know.


.


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
25-01-2016 16:37
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
It must be your superior brain that allows you to see through this "trick" and deny whats clearly going on in front of you.


Are you starting to see why I said this forum had become more like a mental health facility than a discussion forum?



25-01-2016 17:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Notice IBdaMned, the narcissistic manipulative sociopath with zero background in any field of science, trying to use pure bluff and 'sciencey' sounding phrases that are not just wrong, but "Not Even Wrong", to try to 'lecture' someone who clearly knows what he is talking about?

Comedy gold.



("Not Even Wrong" implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.)




Edited on 25-01-2016 17:47
25-01-2016 17:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
1. Molecules don't have muscles and they don't relax.

Very droll, IBdaMann. But don't give up the day job.

Relaxation (physics)
25-01-2016 17:52
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. Molecules don't have muscles and they don't relax.

Very droll, IBdaMann. But don't give up the day job.

Relaxation (physics)

Perhaps posting his pseudoscience gibberish and conspiracy ideation drivel all over the internet IS his 'day job'?



Edited on 25-01-2016 17:55
25-01-2016 17:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
I think you have to be crazy to post here we are quite obviously playing pidgion chess.

Anyway IBaman, I have two identical chambers one with an elevated co2 level one without I'm montring the pressure so I know it's the same I have a heat source; IR lamp, sun or bonfire of burning physics textbooks, it doesn't really matter and we both know one chamber will be getting hotter then the other, if it's a trick tell us how its done. I'm gullible and stupid so please use simple language.
25-01-2016 17:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. Molecules don't have muscles and they don't relax.

Very droll, IBdaMann. But don't give up the day job.

Relaxation (physics)

Perhaps posting his pseudoscience and conspiracy ideation drivel all over the internet IS his 'day job'?

Given his post count (and IBdaMann's posts aren't usually one-liners), I'd say that's quite likely.
25-01-2016 19:41
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
spot wrote:
I think you have to be crazy to post here we are quite obviously playing pidgion chess.

Anyway IBaman, I have two identical chambers one with an elevated co2 level one without I'm montring the pressure so I know it's the same I have a heat source; IR lamp, sun or bonfire of burning physics textbooks, it doesn't really matter and we both know one chamber will be getting hotter then the other, if it's a trick tell us how its done. I'm gullible and stupid so please use simple language.
Yes discussing climate science with a Sky Dragon Slayer is much like trying to discuss evolution with a Creationist. Interesting that Into the Night once used the term 'evolutionists' which is a dead give away.

IB is probably very keen to burn all atmospheric physics textbooks or any physics textbook that mentions the greenhouse effect. Apparently publishers of textbooks (like Pearson) insert Marxist propaganda about the 'greenhouse' effect.




Edited on 25-01-2016 20:11
25-01-2016 19:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
1. Molecules don't have muscles and they don't relax.

Very droll, IBdaMann. But don't give up the day job.

Relaxation (physics)

Perhaps posting his pseudoscience and conspiracy ideation drivel all over the internet IS his 'day job'?

Given his post count (and IBdaMann's posts aren't usually one-liners), I'd say that's quite likely.


That reminds me, I haven't updated his post count contribution to my hypothesis lately:

My hypothesis is that the resident Sky Dragon Slayer IbdaMann can only make baseless assertions, waffle about pseudoscience not found in any of the science literature or textbooks, call people morons, warmazombies and religious freaks, post silly pictures of cartoon characters, and drooling babies, and NOT cite any scientific literature or textbooks. I predict he will continue in this pattern.

So far there is no evidence to falsify my hypothesis. To date, IBdaMann himself has provided us with 1136 (and counting) of his posts as evidence to support the hypothesis and no evidence at all to falsify it. I thank him for his contributions.

IBdaMann also helpfully continues to go above and beyond to provide evidence to falsify his own assertion that he is 'citing science' on this forum. I particularly enjoyed the posts where he hoisted himself with his own 'religious' petard where he cited as an authoritative source the personal blog of fellow with no background at all in science who claimed he could predict the climate using the Bible.

Providing evidence to falsify an assertion is very useful. I thank him for his efforts in providing so much evidence to falsify his own assertion that he is 'citing science'.

An update: IbdaMann did in fact later cite one physics textbook - to claim that it made no reference to the greenhouse effect. When he was shown a screenshot of the pages where it mentioned the greenhouse effect, he claimed that it was a complete fabrication.



Edited on 25-01-2016 20:01
25-01-2016 20:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
spot wrote:
Into the night: I know that but still I would concerned that over time enough co2 would escape as to affect the experiment, as I said earlier if anyone was really interested they could do it themselves. It demonstrates the basic principle that CO2 concentration affects temperature.


CO2 concentration affects the temperature of the CO2 as it absorbs energy. That is true of all gases in the atmosphere. For CO2, almost all of that is converted to thermal energy (it warms). Although it warms, it does not warm the surface where the energy came from. It is not warm enough for that. Instead, it heats the air around it. Since CO2 has a concentration of 400ppm in the air, or 0.04% of the air. The other 99.96% absorbs the heat from CO2. This is far less heat transfer than the surface itself provides to the air, and is completely masked.

CO2 does not have a remarkable specific heat index. It resists a change in thermal temperature about like every other gas in the atmosphere.

The heated air from either source simply conducts and convects that heat up into the stratosphere, where emissive loss becomes more significant, and is a function of Planck's law.

The first experiment you referenced shows an increase in temperature that is more a function of the pressure in the sealed bottle than anything else, following Amonton's law, part of the ideal gas law. The bottle itself is actually opaque to the light required for CO2 absorption, although transparent to visible light. So the gas itself is only being heated in either bottle through conduction (thermal energy) from the bottle, and not by direct absorption of infrared light of CO2. The broad spectrum light used in this particular experiment can add thermal energy to the water in each bottle as well, since that frequency IS more transparent in the bottle.

The second experiment simply shows the effects of CO2 absorbing infrared light. What it fails to show properly is the conversion of that energy into thermal energy that is spread over a larger area on the thermal imaging device. The flame disappears on the imager, similar to the way the image of the sun would disappear if viewed through a diffuse filter (which also heats the same way). This is certainly more correct showing CO2 does warm when certain infrared energy is thrown at it, but the rarity of the gas, even at 1000ppm, would make no significant difference to the overall atmosphere.

This is why neither experiment is proof of warming caused by CO2. CO2 is just another gas, absorbing energy like any other gas, and moving heat upwards like any other gas.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-01-2016 20:17
25-01-2016 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

This one shows the filtering effects of CO2, that is all. Such filters absorb light and convert it into thermal energy, which effectively spreads out the image of the candle over a greater area. Like looking at a bright light through a diffuse color filter. The filter will warm also in the same way. That bit of warming will spread out heating everything around it, just like CO2 does in the atmosphere.

CO2 does not have the ability to make the candle flame or the light bulb hotter. That would make heat flow the wrong way. Likewise, CO2 does not have the ability to warm the surface (the source of all that IR), for the same reason.


Nobody said that it would warm the lamp. It is not just a matter of thermal energy, i.e., thermalizing the IR emissions. The main way it works is by absorbing the IR photon to promote one quantum state of the molecule to another higher one.

Actually, this is effectively the core argument of the mechanism of greenhouse gases.
DRKTS wrote:
The molecule relaxes by re-emitting a photon of the exact same energy (i.e., wavelength) as the original but in a random direction. This is called resonance scattering.


This is not correct at all. You are referring to the harmonic emission of the energy, which is pretty darn rare for CO2 (like most materials). Instead almost all of the energy is turned into thermal energy.
DRKTS wrote:
The direction is as likely to be back down towards the Earth's surface as outward towards space. It is then like having a heat lamp shining down on the Earth. The intensity of the lamp depends on how much of the gas that resonantly absorbs the IR is present between the source (the surface of the Earth) and space. Some of that IR radiation is reabsorbed by the oceans and land, warming them.

Energy emission is not directional. Neither is absorption. No even the harmonic emissions can in turn increase the energy source that caused the initial excitement. The source infrared (the Earth) powers the gas, the gas doesn't power the source infrared. In the case of CO2, this harmonic emission is so dim (since most of the energy is converted to thermal) it is almost non-existent.
DRKTS wrote:
The more GHGs there are the more interactions an IR photon will suffer on its way out. Now for a concentration of 270 ppm of CO2 an IR photon of a wavelength resonant with a CO2 molecule will travel about 100m before being scattered. However at today's level of CO2 that distance is only 70m. This is called the mean free path (MFP). So for a shorter MFP, the more interactions there will be and the more warming.

That says in the first 70m of the atmosphere about half the radiated IR at these specific wavelengths are reflected back to Earth. In the next 70m, 75% and so on. Now the atmosphere gets less dense with altitude so the MFP of the IR photons get longer quite rapidly. By the time you get to plane altitudes the MFP is over 1 km.

All this is simply the extension of the core mistake. While the atmosphere cools with altitude (with some exceptions), the infrared light moves 'redder' still. With the loss of density, the infrared light becomes dimmer still.
DRKTS wrote:
This is a highly simplified version of resonance scattering. Part of my thesis was on this subject.

Since your thesis was based on an incorrect understanding of the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere, I would consider this if I were on the examination committee.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 4123>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?218-04-2019 20:57
▲ 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