william happer

duncan61 wrote:I have been looking at the work of William Happer.He brings a reality to the debate.

keepit wrote:Duncan, You forgot that co2 slows the flow of long wave energy into outer space.

duncan61 wrote:I have been looking at the work of William Happer.He brings a reality to the debate.The main thing I am getting is how the Alarmists try to bring down his reasoning.There seems to be no limit to how far the extremists will go to protect their faith

keepit wrote:ibd, As usual, your response to my post is full of errors.

keepit wrote:
Duncan,
You forgot that co2 slows the flow of long wave energy into outer space.

HarveyH55 wrote: We also have an atmosphere, and cloud cover, which further reduces how much of the sun's energy makes it to the surface.

HarveyH55 wrote: Not all the energy that makes it to the surface, gets emitted out to space.

HarveyH55 wrote: Humans don't have the capacity to think about so many things, all at the same time,

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: We also have an atmosphere, and cloud cover, which further reduces how much of the sun's energy makes it to the surface.

This individual point is irrelevant. If any of the sun's EM is absorbed by something other than the surface then its temperature increases and it radiates commensurably more.

The atmosphere and everything in it are all part of the earth. All things that comprise "the earth" are rolled up into the earth's EMISSIVITY value and the entire process is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

HarveyH55 wrote: Not all the energy that makes it to the surface, gets emitted out to space.

Technically, you have to treat it like it does. The earth is in equilibrium. Sure, some EM is converted by plants into chlorophyll, for example. If you add it all together the quantity is negligible to the extent that zero is the best approximation. Similarly, human activity causes work to be performed that converts other forms of energy into thermal energy. All of this combined comprises a negligible global temperature increase which is best approximated as zero.

HarveyH55 wrote: Humans don't have the capacity to think about so many things, all at the same time,

Fortunately for us, we have Stefan-Boltzmann which rolls it all up together very nicely. When one learns Stefan-Boltzmann, the wamizombie dogma becomes exposed for the egregious and glaring error that it is.


.

keepit wrote:ibd, Can you see that there is a time interval between when co2 absorbs long wave radiation from the earth and when that energy is reemitted to outer space?

duncan61 wrote:The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.

duncan61 wrote: The radiance from a specified angle of view (watts per square metre per steradian) is given by

duncan61 wrote:A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body)

duncan61 wrote:The radiant emittance ...

duncan61 wrote: ... has dimensions of energy flux (

duncan61 wrote:So because of this law nothing can change or vary even if the atmosphere changes composition.Now that is having faith!!

duncan61 wrote:I have found the chart by Plank and Schwarschild but can not post it.Be a darling and post it for me so we can discuss further

duncan61 wrote:Some things like water vapour and CO2 are greenhouse gasses as they slow the energy leaving.

duncan61 wrote: It is important to realise the slowing of energy is occuring at the surface at a millimetre from the surface.

duncan61 wrote:There is no energy apart from the sunlight.

duncan61 wrote:Some gasses like oxygen do not slow the energy.

duncan61 wrote:There is no heat hiding in the ocean.

duncan61 wrote:It all rises.

duncan61 wrote:The stratosphere is not warming.its cold as hell up there.

duncan61 wrote:Ignore Fwit IBDM as soon as the debate goes to insults they are losing/have lost

duncan61 wrote:Lets start at the beginning

duncan61 wrote:Longwave radiation comes in from the sun at different angles depending on where you are.Shortwave radiation is emmitted back to space.

duncan61 wrote:The atmosphere slows the energy leaving

duncan61 wrote:because air has 3 molecule gasses in its composition CO2 NO2 H2O and CH4 other elements like oxygen and nitrogen play no part.Is this right or there are no other gasses

RADIANCE and TEMPERATURE necessarily move in the same direction. This means that if TEMPERATURE increases then RADIANCE necessarily increases. If you tell me that earth's RADIANCE has decreased then you have necessarily told me that earth's TEMPERATURE has decreased, not increased. If anyone ever tells you that earth's TEMPERATURE increases with a corresponding decrease in RADIANCE, you can safely call boooolsch't. For example, let's say keepit tells you that greenhouse gases reduce earth's thermal radiation into space (i.e. they decrease earth's RADIANCE) which warms the earth (i.e. which increases earth's TEMPERATURE) then you can confidently remind keepit that he is a moron.

keepit wrote:ibdm,You misunderstand greenhouse warming.

keepit wrote:The energy comes from the sun ok.

keepit wrote:The co2 absorbs ir radiations coming off the earth

keepit wrote:causing a net increase in temp.

keepit wrote:Do you see the time interval that results when co2 absorbs ir?

keepit wrote:That time interval results in a slowing of energy loss relative to the time it would take for that ir to leave at the speed of light, hence , slowing.

keepit wrote:Takt not that when the heated co2 reemits ir,

keepit wrote:we're done.

duncan61 wrote:The energy from the sun is not always direct.Most of it is coming at an angle most of the time.

duncan61 wrote:This is a good explanation to prove the reality that the atmosphere takes time to warm and cool because of the IR.

duncan61 wrote:You can nit pick the wording but the reality is without an atmosphere the temperature would be vastly different.

duncan61 wrote:I have no issue with some recorded places on Earth showing a slight warming with or without homogenising the crap out of it

duncan61 wrote:... the alarmists have miscalculated and attributed this warming 100% to manmade CO2 which is where it all falls down.

duncan61 wrote:I am launching all turrets at this one.Too easy

duncan61 wrote:Hot air balloons do not suddenly fall out the sky.Hot water units feed in the bottom and you draw from the top as hot water rises.

duncan61 wrote: but eventualy the heat created by burning fuel will rise

duncan61 wrote:Are you claiming hot air does not rise.

keepit wrote:
Duncan,
You forgot that co2 slows the flow of long wave energy into outer space.

keepit wrote:
ibd,
As usual, your response to my post is full of errors.

duncan61 wrote:

keepit wrote:
Duncan,
You forgot that co2 slows the flow of long wave energy into outer space.

You infer I forgot this however I did not list all the factors on how the Atmosphere works.I suggest you watch one of his presentations how a chart shows the greenhouse effect of CO2 and it is minimal at best compared to so many other things.

duncan61 wrote:
Bjorn lomborg is on a similar bent.The extra manmade CO2 in the atmosphere is a win/win as plants are growing better its slightly warmer which is very nice and their is no bad side.

duncan61 wrote:
30 years of records show no increase in cyclones flooding or anything.Where I live there is no sea level rise and it can be measured.

duncan61 wrote:
Some accept there is a millimetre or 2 a year difference so what.

duncan61 wrote:
Fort Denison in Sydney harbour shows no rise either.None at all in 170 years.

duncan61 wrote:
I have learned on this forum that IBDM seems to wish to own it.

duncan61 wrote:
Have you seen the 19 pages of nonsense on crypto currency.As this unfolded I have been to the same websites and the fool is just plagiarizing the same stuff I am reading.

duncan61 wrote:
There is a greenhouse effect

duncan61 wrote:
there is fossil fuel

duncan61 wrote:
Coal is coal not pure carbon.

duncan61 wrote:
Its made from dead trees and organic matter.

duncan61 wrote:
The temperature on my desktop thermometer is 26.9C right now where it is.

duncan61 wrote:
The CO2 where Ava and I are sitting is 474ppm if I take it outside it will go to around 400ppm.

duncan61 wrote:
ITN and IBDM keep quoting these long dead scientists laws however it is their interpretation of these laws that are not right.

duncan61 wrote:
Again I have read the same laws but do not get the same meaning.

duncan61 wrote:
Have either of you ever done a bible study?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Only half the planet is exposed to the sun, at any given moment. The planet is round, even the exposed half, isn't evenly exposed. We also have an atmosphere, and cloud cover, which further reduces how much of the sun's energy makes it to the surface. Not all the energy that makes it to the surface, gets emitted out to space. Some gets converted and used for other things. Lot of chemical processes, solar panels, and well LIFE. It's a very complicated planet. A whole lot of stuff going on all at the same time, slightly influencing each other. Humans don't have the capacity to think about so many things, all at the same time, instantaneously. We tend to reduce everything to the simplest form we can manage to comprehend, omitting as much as possible, as insignificant. Climate Change omits everything that doesn't conveniently support their agenda,

HarveyH55 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote: We also have an atmosphere, and cloud cover, which further reduces how much of the sun's energy makes it to the surface.

This individual point is irrelevant. If any of the sun's EM is absorbed by something other than the surface then its temperature increases and it radiates commensurably more.

The atmosphere and everything in it are all part of the earth. All things that comprise "the earth" are rolled up into the earth's EMISSIVITY value and the entire process is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

HarveyH55 wrote: Not all the energy that makes it to the surface, gets emitted out to space.

Technically, you have to treat it like it does. The earth is in equilibrium. Sure, some EM is converted by plants into chlorophyll, for example. If you add it all together the quantity is negligible to the extent that zero is the best approximation. Similarly, human activity causes work to be performed that converts other forms of energy into thermal energy. All of this combined comprises a negligible global temperature increase which is best approximated as zero.

HarveyH55 wrote: Humans don't have the capacity to think about so many things, all at the same time,

Fortunately for us, we have Stefan-Boltzmann which rolls it all up together very nicely. When one learns Stefan-Boltzmann, the wamizombie dogma becomes exposed for the egregious and glaring error that it is.


.

Negligible... See, you do it too. Dismiss everything that doesn't directly, or significantly influence you agenda. you want to reduce a complex system, to the most simplest, single form. More efficient that way. The system works, as a sum of all the tiny parts, many of which get dismissed, as negligible...

duncan61 wrote:
The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time {\displaystyle j^{\star }} j^{\star} (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

{\displaystyle j^{\star }=\sigma T^{4}.} j^{\star} = \sigma T^{4}.
The constant of proportionality σ, called the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, is derived from other known physical constants. Since 2019, the value of the constant is

{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {2\pi ^{5}k^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}=5.670374\ldots \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm {W\,m^{-2}\,K^{-4}} ,}{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {2\pi ^{5}k^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}=5.670374\ldots \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm {W\,m^{-2}\,K^{-4}} ,}
where k is the Boltzmann constant, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The radiance from a specified angle of view (watts per square metre per steradian) is given by

{\displaystyle L={\frac {j^{\star }}{\pi }}={\frac {\sigma }{\pi }}T^{4}.} L = \frac{j^{\star}}\pi = \frac\sigma\pi T^{4}.
A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity, {\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon <1}{\displaystyle 0<\varepsilon <1}:

{\displaystyle j^{\star }=\varepsilon \sigma T^{4}.} j^{\star} = \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}.
The radiant emittance {\displaystyle j^{\star }} j^{\star} has dimensions of energy flux (energy per unit time per unit area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre, or equivalently, watts per square metre. The SI unit for absolute temperature T is the kelvin. {\displaystyle \varepsilon }\varepsilon is the emissivity of the grey body; if it is a perfect blackbody, {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1}\varepsilon=1. In the still more general (and realistic) case, the emissivity depends on the wavelength, {\displaystyle \varepsilon =\varepsilon (\lambda )}\varepsilon=\varepsilon(\lambda).

To find the total power radiated from an object, multiply by its surface area, {\displaystyle A}A:

{\displaystyle P=Aj^{\star }=A\varepsilon \sigma T^{4}.} P= A j^{\star} = A \varepsilon\sigma T^{4}.
Wavelength- and subwavelength-scale particles,[1] metamaterials,[2] and other nanostructures are not subject to ray-optical limits and may be designed to exceed the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

duncan61 wrote:
So because of this law nothing can change or vary even if the atmosphere changes composition.

duncan61 wrote:
Now that is having faith!!