Why would CO2 cause sea level to rise and ocean to acidify?

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
A library is not safe either. There are too many books that would shoot down his religion in there.

Perhaps a specially built library for the religious?

How about you and IBdaMann wander over to the Science section, find any textbook on Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry, and read it?

There is a reason why neither of you can cite any textbook that supports your assertions about the earth's atmosphere - your views have nothing to do with science.

We already have them. Tu quoque.

And you still won't give the title of any textbook that you supposedly 'already have'. Why so shy?

I don't need to. I am not here to answer your demands. Go to your local bookstore or Amazon. Perhaps your library will have one of them if you're too cheap. You do your own footwork.

Remember that a book is an opinion also. Some textbooks support your model, others don't. There is nothing magick about a book. No book is a final authority.

Physics textbooks don't discuss the atmosphere in particular, but they do discuss thermodynamics. History texts do not discuss the atmosphere either, but they do discuss how the laws of thermodynamics and other laws of science were discovered. Some atmospheric textbooks don't even mention carbon dioxide at all (since it's unimportant), others do.

You need to read across disciplines and not just a couple of atmospheric textbooks that support your belief, preconcluded by you before you even start.

There is NO textbook which supports your ridiculous claims that there is no greenhouse effect or that it violates the laws of thermodynamics. You're talking pure pseudoscience drivel. You would have to know that what you are claiming goes against mainstream science, unless you are mentally ill.

An argument of ignorance. You do not know science, for there is no such thing as 'mainstream' science.

Ad hominem ignored this time.

This argument is done. Since you have no intention of actually doing the research or anything, like I have, you have no further valid point to make here.

Ceist wrote:
Here's a screenshot of the page

Ceist wrote:
The absolute bullshyte that IbDaMann has to invent to maintain his denial of science is jaw-droppingly amazing.

IBdaMann wrote:

Ceist wrote:
The absolute bullshyte that IbDaMann has to invent to maintain his denial of science is jaw-droppingly amazing.

I repeat, Ceist, I'm perfectly willing to accept that there exists some purported physics textbook that includes "greenhouse effect" theology. Why don't you just explain why the laws of thermodynamics and Planck's law aren't correct when considering "greenhouse effect"?

Do you acknowledge that the laws of thermodynamics and Planck's Law are covered in that particular physics textbook? They are what I am claiming. You don't think they are correct?


.

Surface Detail wrote: No-one is disputing the laws of thermodynamics or Planck's Law.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Greenhouse effect does not violate the first law. It is a redirection effect, not a generation of heat.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IR active air molecules re direct the paths of IR molecules all over the place. A good analogy is the pinball machine, which bounces the pinball all over the place, making it hard for the pinball to escape from all those blockers.

Re directing the same IR photons in different directions does not violate any thermodynamics law.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Greenhouse effect does not violate the first law. It is a redirection effect, not a generation of heat.

Does "greenhouse effect" result in a higher temperature?


.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Greenhouse effect does not violate the first law. It is a redirection effect, not a generation of heat.

Does "greenhouse effect" result in a higher temperature?


.

It does to a certain extent. If you put a mirror that directs sunlight on you, you would get a bit warmer.

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Greenhouse effect does not violate the first law. It is a redirection effect, not a generation of heat.

Does "greenhouse effect" result in a higher temperature?


.

It does to a certain extent. If you put a mirror that directs sunlight on you, you would get a bit warmer.

Interesting thought. So you are saying that carbon dioxide acts like a lens now?

I think we have a new CO2 argument I've never seen before!

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: No-one is disputing the laws of thermodynamics or Planck's Law.

You are disputing them every time you assert that a "greenhouse gas" causes an increase in temperature (an increase in thermal energy). The 1st LoT is very clear; no substance has the magic superpower to either create or destroy energy.

What comes next is your claim that energy isn't being created, that CO2's magical superpower is to effect (slow) thermal radiation which thus increases temperature with that same amount of energy. This, however, violates Planck's Law and violates "cause/effect."

What comes next is that you recount your "greenhouse effect" including all the violations of physics and you end with the words "...and there's no violation of physics"...contradicting the violations of physics that preceded those words.

Your hypothesis that "greenhouse gas" causes an increase in temperature does not adhere to physics. You are welcome to show me just how incorrect I am by posting the science that shows how a substance can cause an increase in temperature with a constant energy source and without a chemical reaction.


.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Earth is not an isolated system. Earth is a part of universe. All the heat on Earth come from Earth's own tectonics and the Sun's radiation. The greenhouse effect does not contradict the first law of thermodynamics. It simply makes the space a bit cooler and Earth's surface a bit warmer through the re direction of some of the outgoing IR back down.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Earth is not an isolated system. Earth is a part of universe. All the heat on Earth come from Earth's own tectonics and the Sun's radiation. The greenhouse effect does not contradict the first law of thermodynamics. It simply makes the space a bit cooler and Earth's surface a bit warmer through the re direction of some of the outgoing IR back down.

Yes, that's a pretty good summary!

Surface Detail wrote: The enhanced absorption of particular frequencies of IR radiation by CO2 molecules isn't "magical";

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Greenhouse effect does not violate the first law. It is a redirection effect, not a generation of heat.

Does "greenhouse effect" result in a higher temperature?


.

It does to a certain extent.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: The enhanced absorption of particular frequencies of IR radiation by CO2 molecules isn't "magical";

Correct. Any substance's EM absorption signature is its EM absorption signature. There's nothing magical about it.

The magical superpower lies in the ability to increase temperature.

An increase in temperature is an increase in (thermal) energy. An increase in energy is a creation of energy when the system's energy input (the sun)remains constant. A creation of energy is a violation of the 1st LoT.

(this is where you claim that CO2 somehow "slows" earth's thermal radiation, followed by the claim that this causes an increase in temperature...but I don't want to steal your thunder, so pretend I didn't mention it)

Surface Detail wrote:
The CO2 absorbs some of the outgoing IR radiation, which is then re-emitted in all directions, so some of it comes back to the ground. The net effect of this is that the CO2 prevents the escape of some IR radiation from the Earth, so an increase in CO2 leads to a situation in which more energy is arriving at the Earth than is leaving. This imbalance is what causes the Earth's temperature to rise; no energy is being created.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: The enhanced absorption of particular frequencies of IR radiation by CO2 molecules isn't "magical";

Correct. Any substance's EM absorption signature is its EM absorption signature. There's nothing magical about it.

The magical superpower lies in the ability to increase temperature.

An increase in temperature is an increase in (thermal) energy. An increase in energy is a creation of energy when the system's energy input (the sun)remains constant. A creation of energy is a violation of the 1st LoT.

(this is where you claim that CO2 somehow "slows" earth's thermal radiation, followed by the claim that this causes an increase in temperature...but I don't want to steal your thunder, so pretend I didn't mention it)

The CO2 absorbs some of the outgoing IR radiation, which is then re-emitted in all directions, so some of it comes back to the ground. The net effect of this is that the CO2 prevents the escape of some IR radiation from the Earth, so an increase in CO2 leads to a situation in which more energy is arriving at the Earth than is leaving. This imbalance is what causes the Earth's temperature to rise; no energy is being created.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The CO2 absorbs some of the outgoing IR radiation, which is then re-emitted in all directions, so some of it comes back to the ground. The net effect of this is that the CO2 prevents the escape of some IR radiation from the Earth, so an increase in CO2 leads to a situation in which more energy is arriving at the Earth than is leaving. This imbalance is what causes the Earth's temperature to rise; no energy is being created.

The greenhouse effect is energy neutral. This is because the greenhouse effect affects the Earth as well as the space. It warms the Earth a little bit at the expense of cooling the space a little bit. Of course, the space is so big the effect on the space is not measurable. The effect on Earth is also very small, at most a few C.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The CO2 absorbs some of the outgoing IR radiation, which is then re-emitted in all directions, so some of it comes back to the ground. The net effect of this is that the CO2 prevents the escape of some IR radiation from the Earth, so an increase in CO2 leads to a situation in which more energy is arriving at the Earth than is leaving. This imbalance is what causes the Earth's temperature to rise; no energy is being created.

The greenhouse effect is energy neutral. This is because the greenhouse effect affects the Earth as well as the space. It warms the Earth a little bit at the expense of cooling the space a little bit. Of course, the space is so big the effect on the space is not measurable.

The effect on Earth is also very small, at most a few C.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: The enhanced absorption of particular frequencies of IR radiation by CO2 molecules isn't "magical";

Correct. Any substance's EM absorption signature is its EM absorption signature. There's nothing magical about it.

The magical superpower lies in the ability to increase temperature.

An increase in temperature is an increase in (thermal) energy. An increase in energy is a creation of energy when the system's energy input (the sun)remains constant. A creation of energy is a violation of the 1st LoT.

(this is where you claim that CO2 somehow "slows" earth's thermal radiation, followed by the claim that this causes an increase in temperature...but I don't want to steal your thunder, so pretend I didn't mention it)

The CO2 absorbs some of the outgoing IR radiation, which is then re-emitted in all directions, so some of it comes back to the ground. The net effect of this is that the CO2 prevents the escape of some IR radiation from the Earth, so an increase in CO2 leads to a situation in which more energy is arriving at the Earth than is leaving. This imbalance is what causes the Earth's temperature to rise; no energy is being created.

Yes it is. It doesn't matter whether you use the energy trap method of describing it, the net result is the same. You are creating energy out of nothing.

Surface Detail wrote:Not with this though. According to the calculation set out here:

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

the Earth is about 33 C warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases. What makes you think the effect is only a few C?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Not with this though. According to the calculation set out here:

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

the Earth is about 33 C warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases. What makes you think the effect is only a few C?

There is no proof of this 33 C figure. Clouds only affect the temperature by increasing a few C at night. No way the greenhouse effect can increase by 33 C.

Almost all of the greenhouse effect is at night. That's when IR active molecules are so efficient at retaining heat in the air when there is no sunlight.

Surface Detail wrote:
I just referred you to page on Columbia University's website explaining how the figure is calculated. What do you think they did wrong? Do you have an alternative calculation that gives just a few C, or is your opinion simply based on personal incredulity?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I just referred you to page on Columbia University's website explaining how the figure is calculated. What do you think they did wrong? Do you have an alternative calculation that gives just a few C, or is your opinion simply based on personal incredulity?

I'm no expert on this matter but I suppose their assumption is not correct. The ocean is warm compared to land. The ocean does not freeze except for a tiny part in the north pole. Why is this? Because the ocean is a source of heat. The bottom of the ocean is hot, thermal vents, tectonic activity. Earth has seasons, land and water, day and night, and many many factors. Their model seems to be too simplified and not consistent with reality.

Earth's surface shoots up a very wide spectrum of IR. CO2 absorbs a very narrow spectrum of IR and shoots only some of that back down. 33 C, I call that BS

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Not with this though. According to the calculation set out here:

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

the Earth is about 33 C warmer than it would be without greenhouse gases. What makes you think the effect is only a few C?

There is no proof of this 33 C figure. Clouds only affect the temperature by increasing a few C at night. No way the greenhouse effect can increase by 33 C.

Almost all of the greenhouse effect is at night. That's when IR active molecules are so efficient at retaining heat in the air when there is no sunlight.

I just referred you to page on Columbia University's website explaining how the figure is calculated. What do you think they did wrong? Do you have an alternative calculation that gives just a few C, or is your opinion simply based on personal incredulity?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
[
I'm no expert on this matter but I suppose their assumption is not correct. ..... 33 C, I call that BS

still learning wrote:
What assumption?

Nothing is assumed in the calculation. Variables are the radius of the Earth, the albedo of the Earth and the solar constant (how much sunlight). It is possible to quibble about the exact values of the Earth's albedo and the exact value of the current average Earth temperature and even maintain that the insolation value is off by a fraction of a percent, but what assumption?

The basic calculation assumes no greenhouse effect, comes up with a temperature value based on pretty basic physics. Do you doubt some part of that physics? Then you compare that with the actual value, as best as it can be determined. Coming up that best value, that average temperature, requires a lot of arithmetic to add up all the measurements and informed guesswork to allow for the locations and times where temperatures aren't measured, but it's hard to imagine an error of a degree.

What number do you like better than 33?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

still learning wrote:
What assumption?.....What number do you like better than 33?

....They assume nitrogen and oxygen in the air do not affect temperature. Clearly not correct.....

still learning wrote:
No such assumption. The 33 degree calculation number makes no mention of greenhouse effect, no mention of gasses at all. Insolation, albedo and radius of the Earth are the only variable values to come up with an average no-atmosphere surface temperature.

still learning wrote: It is possible to quibble about the exact values of the Earth's albedo

still learning wrote: and the exact value of the current average Earth temperature

still learning wrote: Do you doubt some part of that physics?

still learning wrote: Then you compare that with the actual value, as best as it can be determined.

still learning wrote: Coming up that best value, that average temperature, requires a lot of arithmetic to add up all the measurements and informed guesswork to allow for the locations and times where temperatures aren't measured, but it's hard to imagine an error of a degree.