Remember me
▼ Content

Working definition of climate change



Page 1 of 212>
Working definition of climate change03-12-2019 01:09
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Climate change is what happens when the earth's atmosphere doesn't release as much energy as quickly as it receives it.
03-12-2019 02:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: Climate change is what happens when the earth's atmosphere doesn't release as much energy as quickly as it receives it.

I applaud your effort. You took a stab at a working definition. Let's refine it so that we can all use it to hold productive discussions.

1. Could we make it the definition for "Global Warming" since it has nothing to do with any local conditions?

2. Can you eliminate the word "release" as though the earth somehow is able to "trap" energy and somehow has the power to "release" it? Can we instead apply the verbs directly to energy so that your definition adheres to the laws of thermodynamics? If your definition has objects governing energy instead of the laws of thermodynamics then your definition will necessarily be discarded.

3. If your definition is based on the unwritten assumption that the earth is not in thermal equilibrium, e.g."doesn't release as much energy as quickly as it receives it" then your definition will probably be discarded on the grounds that blackbody science models are based on the thermal equilibrium requirement.

4. I suggest brushing up on the terms "power" and "radiance" and approriately incorporating those words into the definition instead of vague descriptions of "as quickly as" because all electromagnetic absorption and emission is instantaneous (they never happen "more quickly" or "less quickly") and always travels at the speed of light (it never travels "more quickly" or "less quickly").

5. Note that your definition is all about energy and does not touch on weather or any climate, nor is there any relationship implied. There is nothing that appears to "change" beyond the state of energy. Unless your definition references additional energy or an additional energy source, there can be no temperature change either (1st law of thermodynamics).

Great work thus far. Let's keep refining.


[*find - DEFINECLIMATECHANGE]

.


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
03-12-2019 03:09
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDM,
I read your post. Is it that you can't understand correctly what i said or is it that you're just being difficult?

1- it's about physics, not semantics. Forget the semantics.
2- It's about the atmosphere releasing energy, not the earth.
3- The atmosphere isn't a black body since it doesn't emit or restrain all wavelengths.
4- My statement was clear. Yo didn't read it clearly. EM radiation doesn't leave the atmosphere as rapidly as you would like. It ricochets back and forth throughout the atmosphere. And then some of it gets back to earth.
5- Earth doesn't need an additional energy source if the atmosphere is retaining energy. That's the whole thing, isn't it.
If you get the preceding facts straight in your mind you won't be so confused.
Edited on 03-12-2019 03:18
03-12-2019 10:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
keepit wrote:
4- My statement was clear.
It was.

I view this as the crux of the lie. ITN/IBD try to perpetuate the bizaaar and entirely false premise that everything is in equilibrium all the time. (Yes IBD this is your own BS I'm assigning to you today). Of course this is nonsense and in fact nothing is every in perfect equilibrium at any time because the universe is not a math problem it's a real, complex and constantly changing soup.

keepit has correctly pointed out the key concept. The Earth can take in more than it gives back, and, with a fixed input of energy, increase the amount of energy resident within it's atmosphere.

Here's the proof ITN/IBD are full of it:
Question: ITN/IBD is it possible for energy to be perfectly retained and stored, with nothing being lost?
Answer: No the universe is gradually slipping into entropy and energy is always lost from every system.
Question: Why would you expect the Earth, or any part of the universe, to be in unchanging and perfect equilibrium?
Answer: ______________________________

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
03-12-2019 18:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Climate change is what happens when the earth's atmosphere doesn't release as much energy as quickly as it receives it.


Nice try, but how does the Earth trap energy? You cannot trap light, and you cannot trap thermal energy. What about the Stefan-Boltzmann law? If Earth is warmer, that law says it radiates MORE energy, not less.

You are essentially trying to define 'climate change' as 'greenhouse effect'.

But now you have to describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2019 18:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
I read your post. Is it that you can't understand correctly what i said or is it that you're just being difficult?

1- it's about physics, not semantics. Forget the semantics.

I don't see you using physics at all.
keepit wrote:
2- It's about the atmosphere releasing energy, not the earth.

The atmosphere is part of Earth. Are you saying the Earth doesn't absorb or radiate energy?
keepit wrote:
3- The atmosphere isn't a black body since it doesn't emit or restrain all wavelengths.

All mass emits blackbody radiance, including the atmosphere. Blackbody radiance emits all wavelengths.
keepit wrote:
4- My statement was clear. Yo didn't read it clearly. EM radiation doesn't leave the atmosphere as rapidly as you would like. It ricochets back and forth throughout the atmosphere. And then some of it gets back to earth.

You are trying to trap light. You cannot trap light. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics).
keepit wrote:
5- Earth doesn't need an additional energy source if the atmosphere is retaining energy. That's the whole thing, isn't it.

You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law). You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).
keepit wrote:
If you get the preceding facts straight in your mind you won't be so confused.


To build your definition, you are going to have to find a way to describe the 'greenhouse effect' without violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law or any law of thermodynamics.

Perpetual motion machines such as you are describing are not possible.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2019 18:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
4- My statement was clear.
It was.

I view this as the crux of the lie. ITN/IBD try to perpetuate the bizaaar and entirely false premise that everything is in equilibrium all the time. (Yes IBD this is your own BS I'm assigning to you today). Of course this is nonsense and in fact nothing is every in perfect equilibrium at any time because the universe is not a math problem it's a real, complex and constantly changing soup.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. Equilibrium does not mean a lack of heat.
tmiddles wrote:
keepit has correctly pointed out the key concept. The Earth can take in more than it gives back, and, with a fixed input of energy, increase the amount of energy resident within it's atmosphere.

That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If Earth warms, it radiates MORE energy, not less.
tmiddles wrote:
Here's the proof ITN/IBD are full of it:
Question: ITN/IBD is it possible for energy to be perfectly retained and stored, with nothing being lost?

Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Potential energy has no temperature. That is the only way to store energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Answer: No the universe is gradually slipping into entropy and energy is always lost from every system.

WRONG. Energy can neither be create nor destroyed (1st law of thermodynamics).
tmiddles wrote:
Question: Why would you expect the Earth, or any part of the universe, to be in unchanging and perfect equilibrium?
Answer: ______________________________

Because it is not an energy source.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2019 20:08
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
ITN,
It's the same old story. Too many misinterpretations. Maybe if you didn't try to modify what i say, you would understand better. For example, i didn't say anything about creating energy out of nothing. Forget that. It isn't what this is about.
03-12-2019 20:33
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
It's the same old story. Too many misinterpretations. Maybe if you didn't try to modify what i say, you would understand better. For example, i didn't say anything about creating energy out of nothing. Forget that. It isn't what this is about.



itn fed you with a red herring and you ate it. Where does CO2 associated with AGW come from? Does it come from oxidation? Without O2 would there be combustion? Does this process of oxidation allow for the release of thermal radiation associated with the party of the 2nd part as disbursed by the party of the 1st part which we shall call for purposes of litigation "heat"?
Would such actions deem a contract between the 1st and 2nd parties relative to the divestiture of said properties (of physics)? What would a jury (peer review) find?
Would the party of the 1st part be held liable for oxidation having occurred? And when said oxidation did occurr, did the release of thermal radiation (hereto for known as "heat") cause loss of property or impede the party of the 2nd part in physical matters such as health and/or well being?
I am merely being logical and as far as any law of science goes, it is necessary on the plaintiff's part to show loss of income or loss of property and/or bodily harm.
All laws are based on logic and in that, logic is not flawed. Unless of course you watch I-Robot (or read Isaac Asimov's book of the same title) then when logic is believed to be perfect, then people must not be allowed to live because people are fallible and must be protected from themselves.
As such, to have any legal claim it does need to be shown that by encouraging oxidation that loss of income, property or health needs to be shown in order for the plaintiff to have a valid claim. Do you know of any such individuals that you wish to represent and speak on their behalf?
Edited on 03-12-2019 20:36
03-12-2019 20:43
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
James,
I read you post twice and i like Azimov and legalities. What about ITN and IBDM wasting my time? Is that legally actionable?
Just kidding. I'd miss ITN and IBDM if they left.
03-12-2019 23:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote:IBDM, I read your post.

No you did not.

keepit wrote: Is it that you can't understand correctly what i said or is it that you're just being difficult?

No, it's just you, the scientifically illiterate moron that you are, under the influence of your Global Warming religion deluding yourself into believing that you are a physics genius.

I took the time to write out a clear explanation of what you need to fix in your definition. You nonetheless have opted to double down on being a dishonest idiot. I will not make the mistake of trying to help you out again.

So just remember, it is you who insists on "being difficult," who insists on rendering discussion impossible and who is beholden to a WACKY cult religion.

So ... let's dance.

keepit wrote: 1- it's about physics, not semantics. Forget the semantics.

Nope. You're a moron. It's not possible for you to contribute anything salient on the topic of physics.

keepit wrote: It's about the atmosphere releasing energy, not the earth.

Nope. It's about energy following the laws of thermodynamics, and you haven't the vaguest clue what that entails.

keepit wrote:3- The atmosphere isn't a black body since it doesn't emit or restrain all wavelengths.

You have no idea what you are blathering. What you just wrote tells the world that you ran to Wikipedia so you could at least regurgitate something, even if you have no idea what you are saying.

... and you are mistaken. I'll let you try to figure out all the errors in your statement.

keepit wrote: 4- My statement was clear.

Where it was clear, it was a clear violation of physics. I even pointed out to you where. You are currently doubling down on your stupid.

keepit wrote: EM radiation doesn't leave the atmosphere as rapidly as you would like.

What I "like" does not affect physics in any way. Even children know this. You are a special kind of idiot.

keepit wrote: It ricochets back and forth throughout the atmosphere.

Do you know what "ricochet" means? I knew you didn't. Do you know how scientists refer to the phenomenon you are trying to describe? I knew you didn't.

keepit wrote: 5- Earth doesn't need an additional energy source if the atmosphere is retaining energy.

There you go again. Instead of "trap" you are trying to use "retain."

Matter cannot do that. You are a scientifically illiterate boob. It would seem to me that someone who needs as much help as you would be appreciative of help, not feigning indignance under the misconception that you somehow already know everything.

You are wrong, on all counts.

Enjoy!


.


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
03-12-2019 23:08
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
keepit wrote:
James,
I read you post twice and i like Azimov and legalities. What about ITN and IBDM wasting my time? Is that legally actionable?
Just kidding. I'd miss ITN and IBDM if they left.



If no proof of life then can we identify them as inert matter? It's possible that they might be random electrical impulses which they confuse as thought, you know, are they ghosts in the machine?
03-12-2019 23:11
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDM,
I didn't mean to strike a nerve!
03-12-2019 23:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
James,
I don't know if they are ghosts in the machine.
For awhile i thought they were Boltzmann brains.
03-12-2019 23:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
keepit wrote:
James,
I don't know if they are ghosts in the machine.
For awhile i thought they were Boltzmann brains.
They sort of remind me of how the FBI would plant agents in political groups to try and destroy them. Or how if you really want to kill a bill in congress you don't vote against it, you become a author a terrible rider to the bill no one would vote for.

If climate-debate.com is the soup they are volunteer turds trying to ensure no one partakes.
04-12-2019 00:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
It's the same old story. Too many misinterpretations. Maybe if you didn't try to modify what i say, you would understand better. For example, i didn't say anything about creating energy out of nothing. Forget that. It isn't what this is about.


Yes you did. It is what it is about.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 00:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
ITN,
It's the same old story. Too many misinterpretations. Maybe if you didn't try to modify what i say, you would understand better. For example, i didn't say anything about creating energy out of nothing. Forget that. It isn't what this is about.



itn fed you with a red herring and you ate it. Where does CO2 associated with AGW come from?

Red herring. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 00:17
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
ITN,
I didn't say anything about creating energy out of nothing. The "nothing" that you speak about is only in your head.
Edited on 04-12-2019 00:17
04-12-2019 00:37
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
ITN,
It's the same old story. Too many misinterpretations. Maybe if you didn't try to modify what i say, you would understand better. For example, i didn't say anything about creating energy out of nothing. Forget that. It isn't what this is about.



itn fed you with a red herring and you ate it. Where does CO2 associated with AGW come from?

Red herring. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface.



Red herring fallacy is is that a red herring phallic? I get the two confused

As for heat, oxidation in the combustion process releases both heat and CO2. How many joules of heat are generated per Mol of CO2 released into the atmosphere?

@tmiddles, reread my last post and ask yourself how much heat is generated along with CO2. And can CO2 "trap" and/or help to slow the ability of that heat to radiate out into space.
Edited on 04-12-2019 01:16
04-12-2019 01:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
ITN,
CO2 can slow the ability of heat to radiate to outer space. That is the whole thing about this.
Not talking about heat generated during the production of CO2.
Edited on 04-12-2019 01:37
04-12-2019 01:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: IBDM, I didn't mean to strike a nerve!

What makes you think you did?




.


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
04-12-2019 03:50
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
CO2 can slow the ability of heat to radiate to outer space. That is the whole thing about this.
Not talking about heat generated during the production of CO2.



At 175° F. it takes 2.97 joules per gram for 1° k.
At 200° F. it's. 308 joules per gram k(elvin).
At 75° F. it'd be about 2.64 joules per gram k.

Using 5.137 x 1018 kg as the mass of the atmosphere (Trenberth, 1981 JGR 86:5238-46), 1 ppmv of CO2= 2.13 Gt of carbon.

This is one thing Wake was always on about. CO2 isn't very reactive. Without an increase in the solar constant, how does it warm the atmosphere? This is also what itn's been talking about.
It takes more energy to warm CO2 than it does O2 or N2.
I was trying to be nice and give you a source of heat.

1 point for ITN.
Edited on 04-12-2019 04:08
04-12-2019 04:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
James___ wrote:
It takes more energy to warm CO2 than it does O2 or N2.
Isn't this just because it's more massive?
04-12-2019 04:14
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Infrared interacts with CO2 because of the size of the CO2 and the wavelength of IR. It isn't about the heat of a chemical reaction involving CO2.
04-12-2019 04:15
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
It takes more energy to warm CO2 than it does O2 or N2.
Isn't this just because it's more massive?



It's mass could decrease the amount of solar radiation it absorbs and emits. The IPCC talks about spectrum (bandwidth) but not amplitude. In a Joules-Thomson field it stays warmer than other gases.
Basically it could be a weakly interacting molecule.

In a Joules-Thompson field, as vacuum increases temperature decreases.
Edited on 04-12-2019 04:22
04-12-2019 04:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
James___ wrote:... it could be a weakly interacting molecule.
keepit wrote:
Infrared interacts with CO2 ...

"2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063)."

We know that infra red of the frequency emitted by the Earth is absorbed by CO2 since Tyndall because the infrared isn't able to pass through the gas. So that would make it completely interacting wouldn't it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk
04-12-2019 04:45
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:... it could be a weakly interacting molecule.
keepit wrote:
Infrared interacts with CO2 ...

"2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063)."

We know that infra red of the frequency emitted by the Earth is absorbed by CO2 since Tyndall because the infrared isn't able to pass through the gas. So that would make it completely interacting wouldn't it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk



I hope you don't mind my stating the obvious. The IPCC accepts that natural climate change happens. The debate is if CO2 is increasing natural warming.
It was observed in 1870 and today the IPCC will say that it is warmer over the oceans than it is over land.
CO2 is found over land where little warming has occurred. There is something I am not mentioning because I am stating known or accepted facts.
In the 2nd or 3rd grade in math I was taught to look for the lcd. With algebra, it's an oft repeated mantra.
There is a possible explanation that would suggest that CO2 is influencing atmospheric temperatures. I even gave you guys a clue.

You can consider this a Christmas present
Edited on 04-12-2019 04:47
04-12-2019 04:54
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
The interaction we're talking about isn't a chemical interaction. It's a physical interaction that takes place as the IR from the sun reaches earth (50% of it gets through and 50% doesn't). It's the same when the IR leaves the earth. 50% gets out and 50% doesn't. It is absorbed and reemitted in all directions (including back to earth) by the CO2. It is energy absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere which raises the temp.
04-12-2019 06:12
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
keepit wrote:
The interaction we're talking about isn't a chemical interaction. It's a physical interaction that takes place as the IR from the sun reaches earth (50% of it gets through and 50% doesn't). It's the same when the IR leaves the earth. 50% gets out and 50% doesn't. It is absorbed and reemitted in all directions (including back to earth) by the CO2. It is energy absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere which raises the temp.


Deleted post. CO2 and IR is said about as often as itn says define climate.
Edited on 04-12-2019 06:57
04-12-2019 08:10
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
James,
I'd like it if things were more interesting too but ...
It just happens that CO2 and IR are at the crux of the disagreement.
I tried to make a case for spending less money and therefore producing less CO2 but many here ware outraged because of the effect on the economy. It's true that the economy would be greatly affected but the ability of central banks to mitigate the problem wasn't appreciated. Also, the willingness of people to work 1/2 time and share jobs was something that wouldn't happen without govt intervention and that is a difficult thought to accept.
Edited on 04-12-2019 08:13
04-12-2019 16:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote:Infrared interacts with CO2

"interacts"? What do they do, play chess?


.


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
04-12-2019 16:59
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:Infrared interacts with CO2

"interacts"? What do they do, play chess?


.



It plays Hide and Seek (and no, you're not getting wRmer).

Oceans Are Warming Faster Than Predicted
Up to 90 percent of the warming caused by human carbon emissions is absorbed by the world's oceans, scientists estimate. And researchers increasingly agree that the oceans are warming faster than previously thought.

Multiple studies in the past few years have found that previous estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may be too low.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-are-warming-faster-than-predicted/

Since CO2 levels are obviously higher over land, why is 90% or more of temperature increase in the oceans and seas?
04-12-2019 17:19
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
Please note that the vents were not found by observing ocean temperatures.

Like another vent field in the Gulf that MBARI discovered in 2012, the Pescadero Basin vents were initially identified in high-resolution sonar data collected by an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150602171917.htm


Note that "seeing the seafloor" and sea surface temperature omits temperature at depth. The frequency necessary to hit the seafloor would be an extremely low frequency.

Using satellites, NOAA researchers closely study the ocean. Information gathered by satellites can tell us about ocean bathymetry, sea surface temperature,

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/satellites-ocean.html

I think it was in the 80's when scientists said that deep ocean warming predicted atmospheric warming 10 years in advance.

What is kind of sad is that search engines only like returning searches about CO2. It's very difficult to find different perspectives and research when search engines are so biased on what they return.
Edited on 04-12-2019 17:49
04-12-2019 18:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I didn't say anything about creating energy out of nothing. The "nothing" that you speak about is only in your head.


Yes you did.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
CO2 can slow the ability of heat to radiate to outer space.

It is not possible to trap or slow heat.
It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
It is not possible to trap light.
You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase it's temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law).
keepit wrote:
That is the whole thing about this.

Fine. The whole thing about this religion of yours indicates your religion is false.
keepit wrote:
Not talking about heat generated during the production of CO2.

Contextomy fallacy. No one is.

Yet you try to create energy out of nothing. That is not possible.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
It takes more energy to warm CO2 than it does O2 or N2.
Isn't this just because it's more massive?


James is wrong. It takes less energy to warm CO2 by one degree than either oxygen or nitrogen.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Infrared interacts with CO2 because of the size of the CO2 and the wavelength of IR. It isn't about the heat of a chemical reaction involving CO2.


So infrared light heats CO2. Big deal. That doesn't warm the Earth if the infrared light is coming from Earth's surface.

It's just another way for the surface to be cooled by heating the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
It takes more energy to warm CO2 than it does O2 or N2.
Isn't this just because it's more massive?



It's mass could decrease the amount of solar radiation it absorbs and emits. The IPCC talks about spectrum (bandwidth) but not amplitude. In a Joules-Thomson field it stays warmer than other gases.
Basically it could be a weakly interacting molecule.

In a Joules-Thompson field, as vacuum increases temperature decreases.


Word salad. Try English.You get into trouble when you use so many buzzwords to sound 'scientific'.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:... it could be a weakly interacting molecule.
keepit wrote:
Infrared interacts with CO2 ...

"2.6% of the atmosphere, mostly water vapor, is responsible for (14+6)/48= 42% of it's temperature. CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063)."

We know that infra red of the frequency emitted by the Earth is absorbed by CO2 since Tyndall because the infrared isn't able to pass through the gas. So that would make it completely interacting wouldn't it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGaV3PiobYk


Doesn't warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-12-2019 18:38
04-12-2019 18:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
The interaction we're talking about isn't a chemical interaction. It's a physical interaction that takes place as the IR from the sun reaches earth (50% of it gets through and 50% doesn't).
It's the same when the IR leaves the earth. 50% gets out and 50% doesn't.

* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law).
keepit wrote:
It is absorbed and reemitted in all directions (including back to earth) by the CO2.

* You cannot warm a warmer surface using a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics).
keepit wrote:
It is energy absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere which raises the temp.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Working definition of climate change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Definition of Climate Change9910-12-2019 17:21
working and spending8422-08-2019 05:46
What the USA Government has been working on to mitigate the problem821-02-2013 12:52
▲ 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