Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Into the Night]

Meaningless labels meant to distract from the topic.

You are describing yourself again.

Yes, if less of the energy radiating from the Earth's surface escaped into space, the temperatures on earth would increase.

You cannot trap light.

No additional energy created.

You cannot warm the Earth by using carbon dioxide. You are attempting to create energy out of nothing.

I'm hoping this straw man can be put down once and for all.

It is YOUR straw man!

Right. Nobody is trying to trap light.

YOU are.

"Yes, if less of the energy radiating from the Earth's surface escaped into space, the temperatures on earth would increase."
"Light can impact liquids, solids and gases without being trapped."

You're a liar, dude.

Light can impact liquids, solids and gases without being trapped.

You cannot trap light.

I'm hoping this straw man can be put down once and for all.

YOUR straw man.

Nope. Gas can't make choices.

So you are trying to deny your own posts again.

Another straw man.

YOUR straw man.

Provide your source for the claim that darker surfaces don't absorb more light than lighter surfaces.

Already did. The Stefan-Boltzmann law and quantum mechanics. RQAA.

Nope. All heating of the Earth's surface is being done by the Sun.

YOU claim otherwise. You are attempting to heat the Earth by the mere presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are a liar. Don't try to deny your own posts.

Some part of the atmosphere is also being heated by the Sun.

ALL of the atmosphere is heated by the Sun.

IR energy leaving the earth's surface is also heating the atmosphere.

It takes energy to emit light. That energy doesn't come for free.
You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Nope. Gases have whatever absorption signature they're going to have. I'm not claiming to be able to change anything.

Blatant lie.

Unlike you, I'm just acknowledging that different gases have different absorption signatures.

Blatant lie.

As requested above, what is your source for this?

RQAA. The Stefan-Boltzmann law and Plank's laws.

I have no problems. Different gases absorb different wavelengths of IR energy.

So you finally admit that oxygen and nitrogen absorb infrared light.

That fact doesn't negatively impact me in any way. Nope.Nope.It's a bunch of babbling nonsense, meant to distract from the discussion.

It is YOUR nonsense. It IS your discussion. Don't try to deny your own posts.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Can we get rid of this fucking bird brain Milquetoast Macaw on the basis of bandwidth wasting with his absurd scrambled posts?

People like him need nothing less than two behind the ear, the useless prick,
but JPP is willing to tolerate him.

I mostly ignore him now, but when I feel like calling for his disappearance,
I will not restrain myself from doing so.

Being limited to these responses and actions is just one reason why I hate the internet.
It's as strong an addiction as smoking, and doubtless worse for our health.

 

[ZenMode]

You have not "explained" anything multiple times. You have merely chanted your dogma that when CO2 or any other greenhouse substance redistributes a quantity of thermal energy, somehow there ends up being a greater quantity of thermal energy which performs "warming", as if additional thermal energy is somehow created by magic. You are quick to say "See, I never said 'energy is created out of nothing'." You describe energy being created out of nothing, and state that you aren't saying that energy is being created out of nothing. gfm7175 has tried repeatedly to get you to see your error (apples and baskets). You can't slice a pizza in such a way that you end up with more pizza. Yet when CO2 changes the form of a quantity of energy, i.e. from electromagnetic to thermal, via absorption, somehow a greater quantity of energy results, in violation of the 1st LoT.

Right. If CO2, and other greenhouse gases, redistribute energy that would have otherwise escaped into space, it stands to reason that there would be a temperature increase. The same is true if less of the Suns energy was reflected by the atmosphere before it gets to the Earth's surface. There's no more energy coming from the sun - it's just a matter of letting more in or less out.

So once again, I am aware that you vehemently deny ever having stated the words "greenhouse substances create energy out of nothing." You nonetheless insist that the quantity of thermal energy is increasing, and you refuse to explain when and how the quantity of energy increases. You will only mention energy changing form and energy being redistributed, neither of which increases the quantity of the energy.

Right. Energy going into a molecule of CO2 would equal energy coming out.

You then claim that "warming" then occurs ... which translates into a mysterious, unexplained increase in energy, and a violation of the 1st LoT.

No. Energy in/Energy out:

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

On a side note, i mentioned the "vibration" of the CO2 molecules on page 15 of this thread: here.

To save us both time, don't repeat the idea that a greenhouse substance converts IR into thermal energy. All substances do this.

Some portion of the IR energy leaving the Earth is a different wavelength than the energy coming in, as was mentioned above in the italic font section. Oxygen and Nitrogen don't absorb the frequency of IR leaving the Earth's surface.

All this does is change the form of energy, not the quantity. If all of the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, all of the IR that would have otherwise been absorbed by the CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean or the lithosphere and converted to thermal energy, i.e. the earth would still have the exact same quantity of thermal energy and would remain at the exact same global average equilibrium temperature. As it stands now with the quantity of CO2 that we have in the atmosphere, some solar IR is absorbed directly in the atmosphere before it would otherwise be absorbed by the ocean or lithosphere and convected into the atmosphere. The net result is that the ocean surface and the lithosphere are cooled by receiving (negligibly) less solar IR instead of a (negligibly) warmer ocean surface and lithosphere being cooled by a (negligibly) cooler atmosphere. Again, the existence of CO2 in the atmosphere (atmospheric composition) merely serves to affect the distribution of earth's existing surface thermal energy and does not alter the quantity.

Some amount of IR that is leaving the earth's surface goes into space, unimpeded, because 98% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen - both of which are invisible to the IR wavelength leaving the Earth. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, which absorbs the IR wavelength leaving the Earth, the less that is escaping into space. That is what is believed to cause the warming. CO2 concentration (96%) is the reason the temperatures on Venus are so high when compared to planets closer to the sun. In that case, no 'additional' energy is being created - just less escaping into space.

Since you claim an increase in the quantity of thermal energy, all "explanations" need to pinpoint precisely when and where the quantity of energy is increasing and account for the additional energy that causes the temperature increase in question. Like I said, all you have done is mention the occurrences of energy changing form. Whoop-tee-dooo.

No increase in energy, just less energy escaping into space because CO2 is absorbing it and, in turn, warming the atmosphere.

What you just wrote is that greenhouse substance absorbs one form of energy (IR at one wavelength) and converts it to another form of energy (IR at a different wavelength). As we know from the 1st LoT, energy can change form all the live-long day, but can never be created nor destroyed. No greenhouse substance can cause warming, i.e. create thermal energy out of nothing, despite being able to alter the form of energy.

it's not creating it out of nothing. It's absorbing what is radiating from the Earth.

But wait, that makes all substances greenhouse substance because all substances absorb IR, even oxygen and nitrogen, despite warmizombie dogma to the contrary.

Nitrogen and Oxygen absorb different IR wavelengths:

For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.

That's why I posted this on page 123. It shows the wavelengths of INCOMING energy vs OUTGOING. Nitrogen and Oxygen DO reflect some amount of the Suns energy coming in because it's a different wavelength. Note that the total Incoming and Outgoing energy is identical.

INCOMING ENERGY

UNITS/ SOURCE
+100 Shortwave radiation from the sun.

OUTGOING ENERGY

UNITS/ SOURCE
-23 Shortwave radiation reflected back to space by clouds.

-7 Shortwave radiation reflected to space by the earth's surface.

-49 Longwave radiation from the atmosphere into space.

-9 Longwave radiation from clouds into space
.
-12 Longwave radiation from the earth's surface into space.

+100 Total Incoming -100 Total Outgoing

Where in the description is the increase in energy specified? Answer: it never is. Nonetheless, it mesmerized you into not asking any questions.

Every single time, I am going to ask you to account for the additional energy that causes the increase in temperature that you claim. Temperature can only increase via an increase in thermal energy. Matter can, at most, change the form of energy and can never actually increase its quantity.

I'm hoping that the alleged "increase in energy" claim has been sufficiently addressed in the rest of the post.

 

[ZenMode]

You are describing yourself again.

You cannot trap light.

It's not being trapped. It's being absorbed and released as energy.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

Provide your source for the claim that darker surfaces don't absorb more light than lighter surfaces.

Already did. The Stefan-Boltzmann law and quantum mechanics. RQAA.

LOL.... Ok. Next summer, on a super, duper hot day, take your shoes and socks off and stand on the sidewalk. THEN, stand on the asphalt road and tell me they've absorbed equal amounts of energy.

 

[IBDaMann]

Taking this one step at a time, a lot of things have mass. Glass has mass, but it is a terrible insulator.

Your science illiteracy is getting burdensome. I am not the only one who has informed you that "insulation" does not come into play. Earth is surrounded by a vacuum. There is neither conduction nor convection in a vacuum. Insulation only applies to conduction and convection.

Ergo, your religion had really fucked with your mind by reaming that "warm, fuzzy wool blanket that cradles the earth in loving warmth" imagery into you. Just go outside one of these days, look up into the sky, and snap out of your delerium. Realize that there is nothing mystical and magical going on. There is no glass (unless you are Spongy Iris, but that's a different story). There is no warm, fuzzy blanket. There is nothing but vacuum above the atmosphere. You should never, ever, ever mention "insulation" when discussing your faith because that alone renders it FALSE right then and there.

p.s. - CO2 is a terrible insulator. For the right temperature and pressure, CO2 is a champion thermal conductor, which is why it is an industrial refrigerant. Say it with me: "CO2 is an industrial REFRIGERANT."

It felt good to say that, didn't it? We can do it again if you want: "CO2 is an industrial REFRIGERANT."

How does the mass of atmospheric gases impact the energy leaving the Earth's surface that results in the Earth's temperatures?

It doesn't. Nothing can. You have been often told that atmospheric composition does not affect the average global equilibrium temperature. All bodies of matter radiate per Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. proportional to the body's temperature to the 4th power. This means that if the Temperature increases, the Radiance necessarily increases. If the Temperature decreases then Radiance decreases. Temperature and Radiance always move in the same direction, never in opposite directions. When warmizombies try to argue, as you keep trying to do in between pivots, that greenhouse effect somehow increases earth's Temperature via a decrease in earth's Radiance, not only are they demonstrating mathematical incompetence by getting the dependent and independent variables confused, but they are egregiously violating Stefan-Boltzmann by having Temperature and Radiance move in opposite directions. I shouldn't have to tell you that this renders the argument FALSE immediately, full stop.

The mass of the atmosphere simply takes time to heat and to cool. The heating and the cooling is per Planck's law (considering Kirchhoff's law), although cooling is greatly simplified with Stefan-Boltzmann. Please read up on those, they are very good to know. This partly answers your question about why the earth doesn't have the extreme daytime/nighttime temperature difference of the lunar surface. The main part of the answer is that the moon takes about a month to rotate, i.e. the sun cooks the same place for roughly 24 hours. Combine this with the moon's lack of any substantive atmosphere (or as Cypress would say, the moon's militant lack of any substantive atmosphere), and all temperature changes are slow, with slow reversal of the temperature change in the opposite direction.

If you are familiar with electronic components, the atmosphere's mass smooths out temperature changes in the same way that a capacitor smooths out an electrical current. If you are not familiar with capacitors, ask an electrical engineer to describe it to you and everything should be very clear.

 

[ZenMode]

Can we get rid of this fucking bird brain Milquetoast Macaw on the basis of bandwidth wasting with his absurd scrambled posts?

People like him need nothing less than two behind the ear, the useless prick,
but JPP is willing to tolerate him.

I mostly ignore him now, but when I feel like calling for his disappearance,
I will not restrain myself from doing so.

Being limited to these responses and actions is just one reason why I hate the internet.
It's as strong an addiction as smoking, and doubtless worse for our health.

No reason to ban someone for having a different POV.... and being annoying.

 

[IBDaMann]

It's not being trapped. It's being absorbed and released as energy.

... and it's exactly the same quantity of energy. It's not like there is somehow any additional energy created that can increase the temperature.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

No reason to ban someone for having a different POV.... and being annoying.

No justifiable, legitimate reason, perhaps,

but more than enough reason by my personal standards!

 

[ZenMode]

... and it's exactly the same quantity of energy. It's not like there is somehow any additional energy created that can increase the temperature.

Correct. It's also energy that would have normally escaped into space because Nitrogen and Oxygen are invisible to the IR wavelength leaving the earth's surface. This is why I've been saying that there is nothing that violates the 1st LoT. There is NO magical creation of energy. It's the existing energy being prevented from escaping into space. BTW, this happens to sunlight on the way IN also, but it's Oxygen and Nitrogen doing the absorbing and radiating of energy.

This is what the whole closed window/car example was TRYING to show. Not because there is a similarity between the inside of a car and the earth/atmosphere, it was to try to make a very simple point that it is possible to see an increase in temperature WITHOUT additional energy. Getting anyone to concede that simple point was clearly impossible.

.

 

[Into the Night]

Can we get rid of this fucking bird brain Milquetoast Macaw on the basis of bandwidth wasting with his absurd scrambled posts?

People like him need nothing less than two behind the ear, the useless prick,
but JPP is willing to tolerate him.

I mostly ignore him now, but when I feel like calling for his disappearance,
I will not restrain myself from doing so.

Being limited to these responses and actions is just one reason why I hate the internet.
It's as strong an addiction as smoking, and doubtless worse for our health.

Whining gets you nowhere.

 

[Into the Night]

Right. If CO2, and other greenhouse gases, redistribute energy that would have otherwise escaped into space,

You cannot trap light. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

it stands to reason that there would be a temperature increase.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

The same is true if less of the Suns energy was reflected by the atmosphere before it gets to the Earth's surface.

Composition does not change emissivity.

There's no more energy coming from the sun - it's just a matter of letting more in or less out.

You cannot trap light.

Right. Energy going into a molecule of CO2 would equal energy coming out. No. Energy in/Energy out:

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different.

No different.

Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy.

There is no such thing as 'infrared energy' or an 'overlap' here.

As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions.

An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. It is not re-emitted.

About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat anything by simply the presence of any material. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

On a side note, i mentioned the "vibration" of the CO2 molecules on page 15 of this thread: here. Some portion of the IR energy leaving the Earth is a different wavelength than the energy coming in, as was mentioned above in the italic font section. Oxygen and Nitrogen don't absorb the frequency of IR leaving the Earth's surface. Some amount of IR that is leaving the earth's surface goes into space, unimpeded, because 98% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen - both of which are invisible to the IR wavelength leaving the Earth.

There is no single frequency anywhere. You cannot trap light. You are STILL ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Repeating your gobbledegook gains you nothing. It's still gobbledegook.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, which absorbs the IR wavelength leaving the Earth, the less that is escaping into space.

You cannot trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

That is what is believed to cause the warming.

You cannot measure the temperature of Earth.

CO2 concentration (96%) is the reason the temperatures on Venus are so high when compared to planets closer to the sun.

You cannot trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the ideal gas law again.

In that case, no 'additional' energy is being created - just less escaping into space.

You cannot trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

No increase in energy, just less energy escaping into space because CO2 is absorbing it and, in turn, warming the atmosphere.

You cannot trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

it's not creating it out of nothing.

You are attempting to create energy out of nothing.

It's absorbing what is radiating from the Earth.

You cannot trap light.

Nitrogen and Oxygen absorb different IR wavelengths:

ALL gases absorb infrared light.

For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers.
Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.

There is no single wavelength. You cannot trap light. Light is not heat.

That's why I posted this on page 123. It shows the wavelengths of INCOMING energy vs OUTGOING. Nitrogen and Oxygen DO reflect some amount of the Suns energy coming in because it's a different wavelength. Note that the total Incoming and Outgoing energy is identical.

There is no single frequency. You cannot trap light.

INCOMING ENERGY

UNITS/ SOURCE
+100 Shortwave radiation from the sun.

OUTGOING ENERGY

UNITS/ SOURCE
-23 Shortwave radiation reflected back to space by clouds.

-7 Shortwave radiation reflected to space by the earth's surface.

-49 Longwave radiation from the atmosphere into space.

-9 Longwave radiation from clouds into space
.
-12 Longwave radiation from the earth's surface into space.

+100 Total Incoming -100 Total Outgoing

Random numbers. It is not possible to measure reflected or emitted light from Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.

I'm hoping that the alleged "increase in energy" claim has been sufficiently addressed in the rest of the post.

As long as you continue to try to create energy out of nothing, you are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Don't try to deny your own posts.

 

[Into the Night]

It's not being trapped.

But you say it is. You are now locked in paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

It's being absorbed and released as energy.

An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. It is not 'released' again. It is DESTROYED.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

You cannot trap light. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

LOL.... Ok. Next summer, on a super, duper hot day, take your shoes and socks off and stand on the sidewalk.
THEN, stand on the asphalt road and tell me they've absorbed equal amounts of energy.

Attempted proof by contrivance. Special pleading fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

You cannot trap light. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Composition does not change emissivity.

You cannot trap light.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No different.

There is no such thing as 'infrared energy' or an 'overlap' here.

An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. It is not re-emitted.

You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat anything by simply the presence of any material. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

There is no single frequency anywhere. You cannot trap light. You are STILL ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Repeating your gobbledegook gains you nothing. It's still gobbledegook.

You cannot trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

You cannot measure the temperature of Earth.

You cannot trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the ideal gas law again.

You cannot trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

You cannot trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

You are attempting to create energy out of nothing.

You cannot trap light.

ALL gases absorb infrared light.

There is no single wavelength. You cannot trap light. Light is not heat.

There is no single frequency. You cannot trap light.

Random numbers. It is not possible to measure reflected or emitted light from Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.

As long as you continue to try to create energy out of nothing, you are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Don't try to deny your own posts.

 

[IBDaMann]

Right. If CO2, and other greenhouse gases, redistribute energy that would have otherwise escaped into space, it stands to reason that there would be a temperature increase.

Only energy that has not escaped can be redistributed. There is no "trapping" of any energy. The earth's equilibrium remains maintained, i.e. energy in = energy out.

The same is true if less of the Suns energy was reflected by the atmosphere before it gets to the Earth's surface.

The atmosphere does not reflect any. All with which you should be concerned is earth's emissivity which, as I mentioned, is unfortunately not known.

There's no more energy coming from the sun - it's just a matter of letting more in or less out. Right.

Incorrect. The earth is in equilibrium. This only considers what is absorbed. The earth has an emissivity value strictly between 0.0 and 1.0, and nobody knows what that is. The earth absorbs that percentage of incident solar energy. The earth, being in equilibrium, radiates exactly that quantity out. This is black body science.

Every claim you make that pretends to alter the "energy in" or the "energy out" is falsified by black body science. You can't take the earth out of equilibrium. You can't have Temperature and Radiance move in opposite directions. You can't concern yourself with earth-to-earth energy flows because they are mere redistributions and are not escaping to space, e.g. anything absorbed by CO2.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions.

... and we aren't concerned with any of this because all of this is earth-to-earth.

About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

... and this is the classic violation of the 2nd LoT, with the cooler atmosphere heating the warmer solid surface and ocean surface. Dismissed. Besides, the half that "goes out into space" actually radiates into more atmosphere, and is also earth-to-earth.

On a side note, i mentioned the "vibration" of the CO2 molecules on page 15 of this thread: [link deleted]. Some portion of the IR energy leaving the Earth is a different wavelength than the energy coming in, ...

Energy changes form. This happens all the time with all substances. IR incident to the substance is absorbed most readily per the signature, converting the IR to thermal energy, and the thermal energy is then converted to thermal radiation per its Temperature according to Stefan-Boltzmann. Nothing is ever "re-radiated" or "re-emitted." Those terms get any argument rejected summarily.

Oxygen and Nitrogen don't absorb the frequency of IR leaving the Earth's surface.

Were you going to call boooolsch't on this, or were you going to explain to me what happens to the temperature of a cloud of oxygen and/or nitrogen as it gets close to the sun?

Some amount of IR that is leaving the earth's surface goes into space, unimpeded,

Correction: ALL IR leaving the earth's surface goes into space unimpeded. Any impediment is simply an earth-to-earth flow about which we are not concerned.

because 98% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen - both of which are invisible to the IR wavelength leaving the Earth.

Were you going to call boooolsch't on this, or were you going to explain to me what happens to the temperature of a cloud of oxygen and/or nitrogen as it gets close to the sun?

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, which absorbs the IR wavelength leaving the Earth, the less that is escaping into space.

Incorrect. The earth is in equilibrium. No earth-to-earth flow somehow affects either the energy-in or the energy-out. There is never "less that is escaping into space."

You know the earth is in equilibrium. You are supposed to be calling boooolsch't on this.

CO2 concentration (96%) is the reason the temperatures on Venus are so high when compared to planets closer to the sun.

We've exhaustively covered why this is crap. Atmospheric composition is not a factor. Atmospheric quantity, and the Ideal Gas law are the complete explanation.

For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths

What the fuck is this supposed to mean? "Tightly packed"? You have been told that this is fodder for the gullible and the scientifically illiterate, and yet you continue to regurgitate this crap.

Dismissed. This is becoming painful.

Actually, I'm done. I considered checking in at urgent care when this last one hit me.

 

[IBDaMann]

Correct. It's also energy that would have normally escaped into space

Nope, and we've been over this. The earth is in equilibrium. Your miraculous greenhouse substance does not have the magical superpower to take the earth out of equilibrium.

because Nitrogen and Oxygen are invisible to the IR wavelength leaving the earth's surface.

Let's presume for the moment that this is true. So what?

This is why I've been saying that there is nothing that violates the 1st LoT.

None of what you have written excuses your violation of the 1st LoT. You still claim a temperature increase, yes? This can only happen from additional thermal energy, and you maintain that your magical greenhouse substance brings this additional thermal energy into existence. Until something changes, you are still in violation of the 1st LoT, I'm sorry.

* You still insist that thermal energy is increasing.
* You refuse to account for any additional thermal energy
* you simply point to earth-to-earth redistributions of thermal energy and claim that there is magically more thermal energy for having been redistributed by greenhouse substance.

Until you are much clearer about exactly how the quantity of thermal energy increases, yes, you are still in violation of the 1st LoT.

There is NO magical creation of energy.

You insist that there is a magical increase in temperature. Right there you are in violation of the 1st LoT until you satisfactorily account for the sudden appearance of this additional thermal energy, I'm sorry

It's the existing energy being prevented from escaping into space.

ZenMode Error: Denial of earth's equilibrium. Nothing simply "prevents" any of earth's thermal radiation from exactly equaling the amount of solar energy-in. Also, if you are claiming a decrease in earth's Radiance (i.e. thermal radiation escaping into space) then you are claiming a decrease in temperature, not an increase. Stefan-Boltzmann explains why Temperature and Radiance always move in the same direction.

This is what the whole closed window/car example was TRYING to show.

But that's not what it shows. The car windows example shows convection being reduced and thus the flow of thermal energy being altered. The inside of the car increases in temperature while the outside of the car remains cool, not being heated by the rising hot air from inside the car. The example does nothing to show any average temperature being altered, which is what you really wanted to show so you could relate it to earth and say "See, the average temperature increases!"

it was to try to make a very simple point that it is possible to see an increase in temperature WITHOUT additional energy.

But the sun is heating the earth, with the car being part of the earth being heated and the closed windows affecting the flow of thermal energy. You never commented on my simpler example, i.e. an ice cube left on hot asphalt melts. Why? The sun is heating the earth and the ice cube is part of the earth in that case.

Getting you to concede that simple point was clearly impossible.

 

[Into the Night]

Your science illiteracy is getting burdensome. I am not the only one who has informed you that "insulation" does not come into play. Earth is surrounded by a vacuum. There is neither conduction nor convection in a vacuum. Insulation only applies to conduction and convection.

Ergo, your religion had really fucked with your mind by reaming that "warm, fuzzy wool blanket that cradles the earth in loving warmth" imagery into you. Just go outside one of these days, look up into the sky, and snap out of your delerium. Realize that there is nothing mystical and magical going on. There is no glass (unless you are Spongy Iris, but that's a different story). There is no warm, fuzzy blanket. There is nothing but vacuum above the atmosphere. You should never, ever, ever mention "insulation" when discussing your faith because that alone renders it FALSE right then and there.

p.s. - CO2 is a terrible insulator. For the right temperature and pressure, CO2 is a champion thermal conductor, which is why it is an industrial refrigerant. Say it with me: "CO2 is an industrial REFRIGERANT."

It felt good to say that, didn't it? We can do it again if you want: "CO2 is an industrial REFRIGERANT."

It doesn't. Nothing can. You have been often told that atmospheric composition does not affect the average global equilibrium temperature. All bodies of matter radiate per Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. proportional to the body's temperature to the 4th power. This means that if the Temperature increases, the Radiance necessarily increases. If the Temperature decreases then Radiance decreases. Temperature and Radiance always move in the same direction, never in opposite directions. When warmizombies try to argue, as you keep trying to do in between pivots, that greenhouse effect somehow increases earth's Temperature via a decrease in earth's Radiance, not only are they demonstrating mathematical incompetence by getting the dependent and independent variables confused, but they are egregiously violating Stefan-Boltzmann by having Temperature and Radiance move in opposite directions. I shouldn't have to tell you that this renders the argument FALSE immediately, full stop.

The mass of the atmosphere simply takes time to heat and to cool. The heating and the cooling is per Planck's law (considering Kirchhoff's law), although cooling is greatly simplified with Stefan-Boltzmann. Please read up on those, they are very good to know. This partly answers your question about why the earth doesn't have the extreme daytime/nighttime temperature difference of the lunar surface. The main part of the answer is that the moon takes about a month to rotate, i.e. the sun cooks the same place for roughly 24 hours. Combine this with the moon's lack of any substantive atmosphere (or as Cypress would say, the moon's militant lack of any substantive atmosphere), and all temperature changes are slow, with slow reversal of the temperature change in the opposite direction.

If you are familiar with electronic components, the atmosphere's mass smooths out temperature changes in the same way that a capacitor smooths out an electrical current. If you are not familiar with capacitors, ask an electrical engineer to describe it to you and everything should be very clear.

The effect is more like an inductor, not a capacitor. A capacitor passes AC very well, but an inductor resists any change in current, acting exactly like a mass.
Indeed, if you have a mass on a spring, the capacitor is like the spring, but the mass is like the inductor. Together, they can produce a resonance, just like a mass on a spring. It's even the same formula (converting for the different units).

In terms of thermal mass, again the better comparison is like the inductor.

In a DC power supply, capacitors are used to soak off (short out) the AC component of the ripple. An inductor in series is often included to further smooth out the ripple, creating what is often called a 'pi' circuit (because it looks like the letter pi). Capacitors are often used to soak off transients caused by switching circuits (such as logic gates). It is the inductor that is the key, though (even if it's just the inductance of a straight wire!).

BTW, nice image of a compressor you found! THAT sucker has a lot of mass!

 

[IBDaMann]

The effect is more like an inductor, not a capacitor.

Thank you for the explanation. Inductor it is.

 

[ZenMode]

Only energy that has not escaped can be redistributed. There is no "trapping" of any energy. The earth's equilibrium remains maintained, i.e. energy in = energy out.


The atmosphere does not reflect any. All with which you should be concerned is earth's emissivity which, as I mentioned, is unfortunately not known.


Incorrect. The earth is in equilibrium. This only considers what is absorbed. The earth has an emissivity value strictly between 0.0 and 1.0, and nobody knows what that is. The earth absorbs that percentage of incident solar energy. The earth, being in equilibrium, radiates exactly that quantity out. This is black body science.

Every claim you make that pretends to alter the "energy in" or the "energy out" is falsified by black body science. You can't take the earth out of equilibrium. You can't have Temperature and Radiance move in opposite directions. You can't concern yourself with earth-to-earth energy flows because they are mere redistributions and are not escaping to space, e.g. anything absorbed by CO2.


... and we aren't concerned with any of this because all of this is earth-to-earth.


... and this is the classic violation of the 2nd LoT, with the cooler atmosphere heating the warmer solid surface and ocean surface. Dismissed. Besides, the half that "goes out into space" actually radiates into more atmosphere, and is also earth-to-earth.


Energy changes form. This happens all the time with all substances. IR incident to the substance is absorbed most readily per the signature, converting the IR to thermal energy, and the thermal energy is then converted to thermal radiation per its Temperature according to Stefan-Boltzmann. Nothing is ever "re-radiated" or "re-emitted." Those terms get any argument rejected summarily.


Were you going to call boooolsch't on this, or were you going to explain to me what happens to the temperature of a cloud of oxygen and/or nitrogen as it gets close to the sun?


Correction: ALL IR leaving the earth's surface goes into space unimpeded. Any impediment is simply an earth-to-earth flow about which we are not concerned.


Were you going to call boooolsch't on this, or were you going to explain to me what happens to the temperature of a cloud of oxygen and/or nitrogen as it gets close to the sun?


Incorrect. The earth is in equilibrium. No earth-to-earth flow somehow affects either the energy-in or the energy-out. There is never "less that is escaping into space."

You know the earth is in equilibrium. You are supposed to be calling boooolsch't on this.


We've exhaustively covered why this is crap. Atmospheric composition is not a factor. Atmospheric quantity, and the Ideal Gas law are the complete explanation.


What the fuck is this supposed to mean? "Tightly packed"? You have been told that this is fodder for the gullible and the scientifically illiterate, and yet you continue to regurgitate this crap.

Dismissed. This is becoming painful.

Actually, I'm done. I considered checking in at urgent care when this last one hit me.

In a conversation where we have been talking past each other most of the time, it's still odd that something so basic is so confusing and also so triggering.

"Tightly packed" just refers to the wavelengths at the far right side of this image.

 

[IBDaMann]

In a conversation where we have been talking past each other most of the time,

I wouldn't characterize it that way. You have been stuck in "preaching" mode and don't want to discuss science whatsoever.

it's still odd that something so basic is so confusing and also so triggering.

"packed" is the result of a deliberate action. One packs things, meaning, the things are put where they are and did not occur there naturally. "tightly" means barely sufficient space, or exactly the needed quantity of space. "tightly packed" does not mean "high frequency".

"Tightly packed" just refers to the wavelengths at the far right side of this image.

Nope. I speak English and "tightly packed" does not mean that any more than "hand-picked" or "finely-tuned." Your one job on this forum is to write what you mean and to mean what you write. If you weren't so scientifically illiterate, you wouldn't have any trouble writing "higher frequencies" or "shorter wavelengths." If all you can do is copy-paste from other scientifically illiterate morons from your congregation, perhaps it's time you hang it up.

 

[ZenMode]

I wouldn't characterize it that way. You have been stuck in "preaching" mode and don't want to discuss science whatsoever.

I don't see any preaching. I see repeating and rewording things because, honestly, it's been incredibly difficult to establish agreements on things that should be very simple. For example, the claim that additional energy is being created as part the warming seen from climate change. How you and others continue to claim this is baffling.

The other "talking past" example is related to the energy coming FROM the sun vs energy leaving the surface of the Earth and how the interaction with different atmospheric gases works. The entire premise for how temperatures would rise has everything to do with energy leaving the earths surface and the energy interacting with greenhouse gases. That is quite literally the ONLY transaction that in involved, yet there's continual references to energy FROM the sun and oxygen/nitrogen interacting with energy FROM the sun.

"packed" is the result of a deliberate action. One packs things, meaning, the things are put where they are and did not occur there naturally. "tightly" means barely sufficient space, or exactly the needed quantity of space. "tightly packed" does not mean "high frequency".


Nope. I speak English and "tightly packed" does not mean that any more than "hand-picked" or "finely-tuned." Your one job on this forum is to write what you mean and to mean what you write. If you weren't so scientifically illiterate, you wouldn't have any trouble writing "higher frequencies" or "shorter wavelengths." If all you can do is copy-paste from other scientifically illiterate morons from your congregation, perhaps it's time you hang it up.

An odd thing, to say the least, to spend two paragraphs focusing on. There have been a few such oddities in the entirety of the conversation with you and others where attention and energy is wasted on things that have no relevance in the conversation. I mean, tightly packed means close together. If you're talking about a wave cycle or wave length it seems clear that one end of the spectrum could be described as "tightly packed" when compared to the other end of the spectrum. Why put so much time and effort into debating something to trivial?