Remember me
▼ Content

Why would the atmosphere not trap heat when ocean traps heat?


Why would the atmosphere not trap heat when ocean traps heat?15-09-2016 00:52
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Compare Norway with Quebec. Norway has small land big ocean. Quebec has big land small ocean. Water traps heat much better than land. So Norway is 20 C warmer than Quebec in winter time. Now ask yourself, why wouldn't atmosphere trap heat without having CO2?
15-09-2016 01:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It does. The atmosphere traps heat. CO2 does it better. (Of course, I'm still trying to figure that out myself; my response is thus unfortunately a parrot. Still, maybe it'll help clarify the greenhouse-asserters' opinion.)
15-09-2016 01:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It does. The atmosphere traps heat. CO2 does it better. (Of course, I'm still trying to figure that out myself; my response is thus unfortunately a parrot. Still, maybe it'll help clarify the greenhouse-asserters' opinion.)

No substance traps thermal energy. No substance can prevent Stefan-Boltzmann from ocurring.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 04:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No substance traps thermal energy.


I do not get it. Thermal energy only exists insofar as it is contained within an object. Since thermal energy remains within objects for sustained periods, it can be said to be "trapped." So what do you mean?

Also, if I stick a hot iron rod into a mirrored, insulated box (like a thermos), where will the energy go? It will spend some time as light, and some time as heat within the rod. The rod will cool slightly, but assuming a perfect thermos, it will stay at its final temperature until the thermos is broken. S-B is still occurring - the light it describes is being redirected. Just because the Sun is glowing doesn't mean I can always see it. Just because the Earth is radiating heat doesn't mean it will escape the atmosphere.
15-09-2016 05:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
jwoodward48 wrote: I do not get it. Thermal energy only exists insofar as it is contained within an object.

The problem lies in the wording. Warmizombies and climate lemmings are not the sharpest tacks in the box and they are gullible. They buy into the words "trap," ccontain," "store," etc...

Me: Oh yes, the spaghetti strainer "traps" water.
Warmizombie: Wait, doesn't water just pour out of it?
Me: No, not at all. The strainer "contains" the water.
Warmizombie: Oh yes, it all makes sense now.
Me: If I breathe CO2 on it, it "stores" even more!
Warmizombie: Of course, the "full bladder" effect!

Thermal energy pours out of all substances, and the "pouring out" is governed by Stefan-Boltzmann. Period. End of story.


jwoodward48 wrote: Also, if I stick a hot iron rod into a mirrored, insulated box (like a thermos), where will the energy go?

So, no external energy source?

This example differs from the sun/earth model. In the thermos example, convection and conduction come into play.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 06:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: I do not get it. Thermal energy only exists insofar as it is contained within an object.

The problem lies in the wording. Warmizombies and climate lemmings are not the sharpest tacks in the box and they are gullible. They buy into the words "trap," ccontain," "store," etc...

Me: Oh yes, the spaghetti strainer "traps" water.
Warmizombie: Wait, doesn't water just pour out of it?
Me: No, not at all. The strainer "contains" the water.
Warmizombie: Oh yes, it all makes sense now.
Me: If I breathe CO2 on it, it "stores" even more!
Warmizombie: Of course, the "full bladder" effect!


IB. Stop it. That helps nothing.

Thermal energy pours out of all substances, and the "pouring out" is governed by Stefan-Boltzmann. Period. End of story.


Can't thermal energy be "blocked" or absorbed by atmospheric gases? Are you claiming that nothing in the world is capable of obstructing The Little Photon That Could? "There's no way I can get through that lead sheet without being absorbed!" "Just tell yourself you can!" "I think I can, I think I can..."

Yeah, two can play at this game.

If I stick something absorbent in the atmosphere, it will absorb some radiation and radiate the energy in a random direction. That direction will sometimes be down. The energy is still on Earth.

jwoodward48 wrote: Also, if I stick a hot iron rod into a mirrored, insulated box (like a thermos), where will the energy go?

So, no external energy source?

This example differs from the sun/earth model. In the thermos example, convection and conduction come into play.


What? Let's just say that we have a complete vacuum within the box. Now there can be no convection or conduction. (The rod is held up via magnets.)

You know what? Actually, no. That was not supposed to represent the Sun-Earth system, it was a refutation of your interpretation of S-B. S-B doesn't care what happens after radiation. Any sort of weird stuff can happen before the radiation leaves the surface and hits the eye of an observer on the Moon. That observation doesn't have to follow any of the laws you've quoted, because things can interfere with radiation. Just because the Sun is shining doesn't mean I necessarily have to see it. I could be looking straight at it and see a pile of dirt. (At night.) Things block light.
Edited on 15-09-2016 07:17
15-09-2016 13:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
jwoodward48 wrote: IB. Stop it. That helps nothing.

Are you referring to this:

IBdaMann wrote:Me: Oh yes, the spaghetti strainer "traps" water.
Warmizombie: Wait, doesn't water just pour out of it?
Me: No, not at all. The strainer "contains" the water.
Warmizombie: Oh yes, it all makes sense now.
Me: If I breathe CO2 on it, it "stores" even more!
Warmizombie: Of course, the "full bladder" effect!


This is what happened to you, isn't it? e.g. ...

Warmizombie : Oh yes, greenhouse gas "traps" heat!
jwoodward48: Wait, doesn't heat just pour out of it?
Warmizombie : No, not at all. The greenhouse gas "contains" the heat.
jwoodward48: Oh yes, it all makes sense now.
Warmizombie: If you increase the amount of "greenhouse gas", it "stores" even more!
jwoodward48: Of course, the "greenhouse effect." [/quote]

jwoodward48 wrote: Can't thermal energy be "blocked" or absorbed by atmospheric gases?

Are you asking if it can change form (e.g. be absorbed) again after freely pouring out of a substance?

If so, the answer is "yes."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

Edited on 15-09-2016 14:38
15-09-2016 14:23
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
jwoodward48 wrote:Can't thermal energy be "blocked" or absorbed by atmospheric gases?


The only way molecules in the air block heat is by kinetic energy. Heat powers motion. Without heat, there is no motion. When temperature is at absolute 0 -273 C, nothing moves. Any temperature above that, there is movement. The more heat there is, the faster the movement. The faster something moves, the more heat we feel. We can only feel heat through movement, not through anything else. All air molecules move very fast, not only CO2 but also O2 and N2. If O2 and N2 move just as fast as CO2, then there is no reason to believe they do not trap heat just as well as CO2.

If you think about why water traps heat much better than land does, it's because water molecules move much faster than land molecules do. If you think about why air traps heat much better than water does, it's because air molecules move much faster than water molecules do. Gas moves the fastest. Liquid moves slower than gas. Land moves slower than water. In fact, land moves only vibrate a bit and not really move, water slides around each other, air zips around very fast.
Edited on 15-09-2016 14:27
15-09-2016 17:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No. Thermal radiation as per SB. Also, zero point energy is a thing - helium cannot be frozen.
15-09-2016 20:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No. Thermal radiation as per SB. Also, zero point energy is a thing - helium cannot be frozen.


It sure as hell can. All you have to do is increase the pressure (a LOT). We have not container that withstand that pressure.

It gets easier near absolute zero, but the containers typically can't take that kind of pressure.

It is not that helium cannot freeze. It can. It is that we can't do it with our current technology.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2016 20:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oops, you're right. Helium cannot be frozen at normal pressures, contrary to "classical" (read: slightly older science) heat models.
16-09-2016 07:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Missed a post from IB. Dude. Seriously. I was not convinced of gw by some idiot with no knowledge of science. As it so happens, I won't be convinced that gw isn't a thing by such person, either.

Energy freely flows out of everything, and also the Earth happens to receive energy from the Sub. Greenhouse gases (or so the argument goes) only trap the heat insofar as they slow down its release. Like plugging half the holes in the strainer, sort of.
16-09-2016 20:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Missed a post from IB. Dude. Seriously. I was not convinced of gw by some idiot with no knowledge of science. As it so happens, I won't be convinced that gw isn't a thing by such person, either.

Energy freely flows out of everything, and also the Earth happens to receive energy from the Sub. Greenhouse gases (or so the argument goes) only trap the heat insofar as they slow down its release. Like plugging half the holes in the strainer, sort of.


This is still not taking into account the differing energy in photons, and the effect of conversion to thermal energy and back again.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2016 21:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I was noting that even if gw is a hoax, it is a bit more sophisticated than IB is saying it is. Hoaxes are convincing. Either that or he's the one sane man surrounded by idiots. (Is that actually what you think, IB?)

How exactly do individual photonic energies and energy conversions counteract what I claim is happening? I just don't see how they change the overall, macroscopic energy flows.




Join the debate Why would the atmosphere not trap heat when ocean traps heat?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
Historic ocean acidification6025-04-2019 18:03
▲ 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