Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 2 of 2<12
06-01-2016 18:01
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.
What 'research' have you done if you have avoided reading any Physics textbooks?
06-01-2016 18:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Ceist wrote:
Here's a screenshot of the page



For those who are just tuning in, Pearson offers the aforementioned physics textbook as a PDF and makes it available online, mostly to promote their "mastering physics" website. What's at issue is that Pearson inserts some of their own content into the PDF and presents it as though it's part of the original textbook. Ceist then cites some of this inserted text as though it is actually from a science textbook.

You might not likely desire to spend ~$250 to purchase the actual textbook to see for yourself but you can download the PDF and do a simple search on "greenhouse" and see many examples of Pearson-inserted references to their website. The obvious reason for this is to fabricate credibility for their "greenhouse effect" faith by making it appear that it is science.

In this particular case, Pearson crafted a standard Global Warming blurb on "greenhouse effect" and "climate change" and inserted it after the physics textbook's chapter 17.7 and made it appear as a continuation of the textbook's chapter, but the chapter has already ended at that point. The "climate change" blurb addition is completely unfalsifiable, there is no physics covered in this particular section, and all claims are completely unsupported...in stark contrast to the actual chapter 17.7 and to the rest of the actual textbook.

Immediately following the blurb is a problem set referring the reader to the "mastering physics" website for the solution set.

So 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"?




.


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
06-01-2016 18:25
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
The absolute bullshyte that IbDaMann has to invent to maintain his denial of science is jaw-droppingly amazing.
Edited on 06-01-2016 18:38
06-01-2016 18:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
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?


.


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
06-01-2016 18:54
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Roger A. Freedman comments on Twitter on climate change quite often:

https://twitter.com/RogerFreedman

But of course some Marxist gremlin from Pearson publishing must be inserting 'religious theology' into his twitter account right?

eg:

Roger Freedman
‏@RogerFreedman
Roger Freedman Retweeted Alfred E Nash III
While certain US politicians deny it exists, #climatechange continues to accelerate.
Roger Freedman ‏@RogerFreedman · 28 Sep 2015


Roger Freedman Retweeted ThinkProgress
Willful #climate blindness on the part of Congress. We and our descendants will pay the price. #climateaction

Roger Freedman ‏@RogerFreedman · 27 Sep 2015
Edited on 06-01-2016 19:16
06-01-2016 19:03
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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.
Edited on 06-01-2016 19:04
06-01-2016 19:05
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
OMG! Those Pearson Marxists are everywhere!

They've infiltrated and inserted their warmazombie religious beliefs into Roger Freedman and William Kaufmann's textbook "Universe" too! Even though it was published by a completely different company!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/258110252/Universe-8th-Edition-by-Roger-A-Freedman-and-William-J-Kaufmann-III#scribd
Edited on 06-01-2016 19:17
06-01-2016 19:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?


.

No-one is disputing the laws of thermodynamics or Planck's Law. It's just that you appear to be under the mistaken impression that the greenhouse effect somehow violates these laws. It doesn't; the greenhouse effect is an important consequence of the laws of physics. That's why it's described in physics textbooks.

Perhaps if you were to carefully explain exactly why you are so convinced that the greenhouse effect is a violation of the laws of physics, we might be able to point out where you're going wrong.
06-01-2016 20:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
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.


.


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
06-01-2016 20:10
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Greenhouse effect does not violate the first law. It is a redirection effect, not a generation of heat.
06-01-2016 20:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
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?


.


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
06-01-2016 21:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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.


There is no such thing as an IR molecule. A photon is not a molecule. Photons have no mass, so they don't 'bounce around' like a pinball machine.

Most heat loss in the lower atmosphere is through conduction and convection, not through emission. Anything absorbed there is just adding to the conduction and convection.


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2016 21:23
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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.
06-01-2016 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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!


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2016 21:48
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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!


IR active air molecules are not flat one directional mirrors. They are spherical all directional mirrors.

If an O2 molecule shoots IR up and if that IR hits another O2 molecule higher up, the IR passes through and goes into space. If a CO2 molecule shoots IR up and if that IR hits another CO2 molecule higher up, some of that IR comes back down.

No heat is generated or lost. A lot of the outgoing heat is simply re directed by greenhouse air molecules back down.
Edited on 06-01-2016 21:58
06-01-2016 22:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.


.

The enhanced absorption of particular frequencies of IR radiation by CO2 molecules isn't "magical"; it's a consequence of the quantisation of their vibrational modes. Perhaps this is where you are having trouble with your understanding?
06-01-2016 22:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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.
Edited on 06-01-2016 22:20
06-01-2016 22:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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!
06-01-2016 22:24
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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!


My pleasure. That was actually my best explanation to date. Hopefully now IBdaMann understands

Edited on 06-01-2016 22:24
06-01-2016 22:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
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)


.


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
06-01-2016 22:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
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.


So that's a "yes"?

If so, then you are claiming that CO2 increases thermal energy, which is creating energy, which is a 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
07-01-2016 00:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
07-01-2016 00:03
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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.
Edited on 07-01-2016 00:06
07-01-2016 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 00:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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.

This line of thinking violates the 2nd LOT. You are trying to describe energy flowing backwards.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 00:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

I agree with this.

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

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?
07-01-2016 00:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

If you maintain the rate of energy input to a system while reducing the rate of energy output from that system, then the overall temperature of that system must rise. That's fundamental thermodynamics. There's no need for an additional energy source.
07-01-2016 00:27
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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.
Edited on 07-01-2016 00:30
07-01-2016 00:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
07-01-2016 00:41
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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

Edited on 07-01-2016 01:07
07-01-2016 02:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
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


The bottom of the ocean is cold...very cold. Underwater vents are a VERY small part of the ocean floor. Warm water rises to the surface, just as warm air rises to the tropopause.

The bottom of the ocean is typically around 4 deg C, warm enough to not freeze (especially at the tremendous pressures there. Ice must expand to freeze).


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 03:31
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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?


Bertrand Russell put it perfectly when he said:

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
07-01-2016 04:39
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
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



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?
07-01-2016 04:50
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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?


Average temperature is meaningless. Temperature depends on location. Clearly, land and water differ significantly. The greenhouse effect is very minor compared to the rest of the atmosphere. After all, 99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen, not IR active, but they do absorb sunlight during the day, heat up, and gradually cool off during the night.

If the greenhouse effect is as strong as they claim, the world be like 25 C average by now. Clearly their assumptions are not correct. They assume nitrogen and oxygen in the air do not affect temperature. Clearly not correct.

Instead of 33, I'd go with 3.
Edited on 07-01-2016 04:58
07-01-2016 05:04
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
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.....


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.
07-01-2016 05:23
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
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.


Average temperature means nothing. Heck, the Moon is well over 100 C at day, well below -100 C at night. It is how hospitable the temperatures are that matter.

Earth has much more hospitable temperatures because its atmosphere absorbs sunlight during the day, distributes the heat over a large volume of space, and retains heat at night.

In comparison to Earth, Mars has too much temperature swing because of its much smaller atmosphere.

http://www.space.com/17828-mars-weather-curiosity-rover-discovery.html
Edited on 07-01-2016 05:34
07-01-2016 08:19
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Congratulations! You've hit the top of the graph!


Edited on 07-01-2016 08:23
07-01-2016 14:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
still learning wrote: It is possible to quibble about the exact values of the Earth's albedo

That's not quibbling. No one knows what the earth's albedo is. Just because someone wrote a number on Wikipedia doesn't mean that anyone even tell the right ballpark.

*HOWEVER*, people who desperately want their Global Warming theology to be true, who need for their religious faith to have the credibility of math and science, can easily calculate backwards from Stefan-Boltzmann to arrive at the albedo value necessary to "validate" their claims of "greenhouse effect" ...and then insist that that is the earth's true albedo value with religious conviction.

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

This is not merely quibbling either. No one knows what the earth's average atmospheric temperature is. No one has been able to collect an adequate and valid measurement dataset to accurately calculate such a value.

As such, all claims involving knowledge of accurate average global atmospheric temperatures are bogus, which includes claims of changes in average global atmospheric temperature.

In summary, anyone asserting conclusions based on earth's average global atmospheric temperature and on earth's albedo are simply preaching Global Warming theology and implying they have divine knowledge derived from his/her faith (which is called "The Science")

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

Just for grins, throw those calculations up here in this thread for us to take a look, and I'll tell you if I have any problem with the math or with the "physics" or with any assumptions you've made.

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

What if the best that can be determined is that it cannot 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.

Let's cut to the chase: What is the maximum acceptable margin of error to be usable? Remember, if you want to be able to claim temperatures are increasing/decreasing or to be able to assert "the warmest day/month/year of the temperature record!" then the margin of error must be less than the amount of difference/change.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Why would CO2 cause sea level to rise and ocean to acidify?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)15615-10-2019 21:00
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
▲ 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