Science from the other side of Climate Change

[T. A. Gardner]

Once again you are asking the wrong person. T. A. Gardner is the one insisting that light can be trapped.

It can be, but that is irrelevant to planetary climate. Stop producing red herrings.

 

[Into the Night]

RQAA

Again we agree!

Random phrase. Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

Again.....we agree, but making things up, and calling it science, doesn't make it science.

Then stop making things up.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you believe that all of the energy that enters the Earth's atmosphere and/or radiates from the Earth's surface in infrared form, stays with the Earth's atmosphere?

RQAA. You are gnoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly. The equilibrium itself, which is the result of balanced input and output, nonetheless is a closed system, thanks to there being no other inputs/outputs.

What troubles me is that T. A. Gardner simply posted something that he assumed was true because he found it on the internet. He actually thought that he was "throwing it in my face." How can I break it to him gently that what he did was very stupid?

There is energy from the stars. Like any given closed system, you cannot consider any energy source or sink outside that system.

 

[Into the Night]

Because it is a gas, it has properties of a gas. That makes it largely transparent to light (photons) which react weakly with it, while it can absorb thermal conducted energy much better.

Again, there is no frequency component. ALL frequencies of light are considered. Most gasses are opaque to some frequencies of light.

So, because of those properties, sunlight passes through the atmosphere lighting the planet and only slightly warming the atmosphere, while that same sunlight when it strikes the planet is absorbed energy that warms the surface (on average about 250 watts / m^2 per day).

It is not possible to measure the absorption of Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.

That in turn, per the Second law of thermodynamics (Not the 1st as some imbeciles here claim) is conducted back into the atmosphere in whole or part warming it. That is, this system works like a Carnot Heat Engine.

No piston or cylinder, dude. It is not a Carnot Heat Engine. You are AGAIN ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL materials radiate light.

Now, if you change the albedo of the Earth,

Albedo is not used with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

or the atmosphere with cloud cover, (Stefan-Boltzmann white-black body theory)

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not an ideal black body or an ideal white body.

and / or composition of it or the atmosphere, you change the rate of energy exchange between the solid surface of the planet and the atmosphere (gases).

There is no 'materials' component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

There is the addition of human generated energy being dumped into the system, but this currently is a tiny fraction of the whole (~20 - 21 TW currently).

It is not possible to measure the absorption of Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.

So, yes the climate can change.

Climate cannot change.

Yes, humans can have an impact on that.

Climate cannot change.

The question is, cause and effect and the Gorebal Warming crowd, fixated on CO2 are myopic idiots because the system is far more complex than they've reduced it to. Only a simpleton would attribute something as complex as a planetary environment to a single cause, but they do.

Complexity fallacy. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are now ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.

 

[Into the Night]

It can be, but that is irrelevant to planetary climate. Stop producing red herrings.

You cannot trap light.
There is no such thing as a 'planetary climate'.
Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

 

[AProudLefty]

Once again you are asking the wrong person. T. A. Gardner is the one insisting that light can be trapped.

Actually he said that MIT scientists said they have trapped light.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

*sigh* a couple of autistic kids endlessly repeating themselves is not interesting science/engineering talk.

 

[ZenMode]

I'm not sure what you're asking, nor how it has anything to do with explaining to me where the ADDITIONAL thermal energy (that is REQUIRED to increase Earth's temperature) is coming from.

How can Earth be in equilibrium yet simultaneously be increasing in temperature?

The earth's surface is hit with some amount of energy. Does all of that energy stay within the Earth's atmosphere?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

*sigh* a couple of autistic kids endlessly repeating themselves is not interesting science/engineering talk.

Actually he said that MIT scientists said they have trapped light.

It's abundantly clear that ITN has never taken thermodynamics of physics. To not know what a Carnot Heat Engine is says he has no idea what the laws of thermodynamics are or how they work. To say something about pistons and cylinders in relation to the Carnot Heat Engine is to admit complete ignorance on the subject.

Q = m(∆T)

Then he claims that Stefan-Boltzmann has nothing to do with white bodies and black bodies.

This is how the temperature of the Sun is measured for example.


Then to utterly and absurdly say that "climate cannot change" shows willful ignorance on this subject.

 

[ZenMode]

Random phrase. Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

i'm not arguing both sides.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA. You are gnoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just asking a simple question about energy coming to and going out of the earth's atmosphere, one that you are claiming you answered but haven't.

Oh, wait... I forgot... your views on the atmosphere are science denier stuff.

I've gotta remember that.

 

[gfm7175]

*sigh* a couple of autistic kids endlessly repeating themselves is not interesting science/engineering talk.

Yet here you are, whining about it, instead of explaining to the "autistic kids" precisely how the Earth is warming without the presence of any additional thermal energy or precisely how the Earth is warming while it is in equilibrium.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually he said that MIT scientists said they have trapped light.

You cannot trap light. MIT cannot trap light either.

 

[gfm7175]

The earth's surface is hit with some amount of energy. Does all of that energy stay within the Earth's atmosphere?

How can Earth be in equilibrium yet simultaneously be increasing in temperature?

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Yet here you are, whining about it, instead of explaining to the "autistic kids" precisely how the Earth is warming without the presence of any additional thermal energy or precisely how the Earth is warming while it is in equilibrium.

You may have missed the point. Since they're autistic (not sure if that's exactly the right medical term) their conceptual frameworks are cross linked across abstraction layers in an incoherent way. They can't perform useful logic outside of narrow scopes.

There is no way to explain it to them. Zen and Gardner are utterly wasting their time.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

How can Earth be in equilibrium yet simultaneously be increasing in temperature?

It is slightly out of equilibrium but approaching another equilibrium. AS ALWAYS

 

[Into the Night]

It's abundantly clear that ITN has never taken thermodynamics of physics.

Inversion fallacy.

To not know what a Carnot Heat Engine is

Inversion fallacy.

says he has no idea what the laws of thermodynamics are or how they work.

I have already presented the equations to you. You simply want to ignore them.

To say something about pistons and cylinders in relation to the Carnot Heat Engine is to admit complete ignorance on the subject.

No, it isn't.

Q = m(∆T)

You just described a reciprocating engine cycle dumbass.

Then he claims that Stefan-Boltzmann has nothing to do with white bodies and black bodies.

This is how the temperature of the Sun is measured for example.


Then to utterly and absurdly say that "climate cannot change" shows willful ignorance on this subject.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies.

Emissivity is a measured constant. To measure it, you MUST accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface. The temperature of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured.

Wien's law is not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

i'm not arguing both sides.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!