Science from the other side of Climate Change

[T. A. Gardner]

I'm not say redistributing adds additional energy. Energy comes in. Energy goes out. The atmosphere CURRENTLY impacts both. If less energy goes out overnight, before the sun comes around to your part of the Earth again, temperatures will rise because there's more residual energy.

The key to this is the energy comes in in one form (light), then is converted to a second type of energy (thermal) after striking the planet. The atmosphere acts as an insulator to the second while it is largely transparent to the first. Thus, changes in the atmosphere's composition can affect the temperature of both the atmosphere and planetary surface. Changes in the surface, such as urbanization and deforestation can also have an effect.

The question on the table is, if the planet is heating up, what's the cause? My view is a miniscule change in a tiny fractional gas in the atmosphere is not the answer to that question regardless of what climate scientists say.

 

[Into the Night]

IBDM and ITN are in essence arguing that you cannot know the temperature inside an oven because the thermocouple that measures the temperature only does so at one point, and that point is definitely not indicative of the temperature of the oven as a whole.

That is true. The inside of an oven is not a uniform temperature.

They further try to argue applying Stefan-Boltzmann incorrectly (among other incorrectly applied laws of thermodynamics), that the atmosphere of the Earth does not act as an insulator to one degree or another and affect the temperature of the surface of the planet as a result.

Mantra 30a. Putting words in people's mouths won't work.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes the conversion of thermal energy to radiant energy.
He is trying to claim that you can trap light. You can't.
He is trying to claim that you can trap heat. You can't.

The atmosphere is not an insulator. It cannot trap light.

 

[Into the Night]

As I have said repeatedly... you don't believe the Earth's atmosphere CURRENTLY impacts temperatures on earth. IOW, you are a science denier.

You can't create energy out of nothing, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

The key to this is the energy comes in in one form (light), then is converted to a second type of energy (thermal) after striking the planet. The atmosphere acts as an insulator to the second while it is largely transparent to the first.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no frequency component in this law. You can't just add one.
The atmosphere is not an insulator. You cannot trap light.

Thus, changes in the atmosphere's composition can affect the temperature of both the atmosphere and planetary surface.

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

Changes in the surface, such as urbanization and deforestation can also have an effect.

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

The question on the table is, if the planet is heating up, what's the cause?

You cannot create energy out of nothing, dude.

My view is a miniscule change in a tiny fractional gas in the atmosphere is not the answer to that question regardless of what climate scientists say.

No gas or vapor has any capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Climate is not a science.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That is true. The inside of an oven is not a uniform temperature.

The differences are negligible and can be ignored. The oven is at the temperature of the thermocouple.

Mantra 30a. Putting words in people's mouths won't work.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes the conversion of thermal energy to radiant energy.
He is trying to claim that you can trap light. You can't.
He is trying to claim that you can trap heat. You can't.

The atmosphere is not an insulator. It cannot trap light.

You are applying Stefan-Boltzmann wrong and yes, the atmosphere can be an insulator to heat. The planet does not radiate light. It does not give off photons. Energy radiated from the planet (the solid part) is thermal and given off by conduction and convection.

 

[ZenMode]

The key to this is the energy comes in in one form (light), then is converted to a second type of energy (thermal) after striking the planet. The atmosphere acts as an insulator to the second while it is largely transparent to the first. Thus, changes in the atmosphere's composition can affect the temperature of both the atmosphere and planetary surface. Changes in the surface, such as urbanization and deforestation can also have an effect.

The question on the table is, if the planet is heating up, what's the cause? My view is a miniscule change in a tiny fractional gas in the atmosphere is not the answer to that question regardless of what climate scientists say.

Right. It's not a complicated process. There are certain gas that act as an insulator, kind of, that keeps the high and low temps in a habitable range. If the atmosphere were to become more efficient at 'insulating', well, you could see higher temperatures.

Miniscule changes by themselves probably aren't, but we don't know how miniscule changes can impact other areas. For example, if the temps rise a little, that might create more water vapor and water vapor also acts as an insulator. That additional water vapor starts a series of events that actually causes temps to rise, which then creates even more water vapor.

Like I said, have no idea if climate change is real. The earth is so complex that we may never know, but the question of how the Earth's atmosphere currently functions, as a result of so-called greenhouse gases, tells us that climate change is possible...

unless you're a science denier, of course.

 

[ZenMode]

You can't create energy out of nothing, Void.

Thanks for confirming your denial.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no frequency component in this law. You can't just add one.
The atmosphere is not an insulator. You cannot trap light.

Light is converted to thermal energy upon striking the surface of the planet you tard.

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

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

You cannot create energy out of nothing, dude.

You can convert energy in form. Photons can pass through the atmosphere and strike the surface of the planet and are converted to thermal energy. The amount converted depends on the reflectivity of the surface. This is where Stefan-Boltzmann and white body / black body theory applies. The albedo of the planet can change. Cloud cover in the atmosphere also can convert photons to thermal energy. That's what makes them such a potent greenhouse gas.

No gas or vapor has any capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Climate is not a science.

This is simply a red herring / canard. You obviously don't know wtf you are talking about here. Energy is conserved. Energy can be changed in form from one type to another.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

The question on the table is, if the planet is heating up, what's the cause? My view is a miniscule change in a tiny fractional gas in the atmosphere is not the answer to that question regardless of what climate scientists say.

I think this is exactly right, and the reason it is correct is because the upper atmosphere has always been the thermal radiation surface of the planet.

That is the IR spectrum produced by the black body-like emissions in planetary temperature range have always been completely absorbed by the "greenhouse gasses" dominated by water vapor. The radiation surface is that altitude of the atmosphere where there are no longer significant greenhouse gas molecules above (and this is very high, where the air becomes very dry and the carbon dioxide rarely reaches)

That IR is not the dominant or even a major conveyor of heat from the crust surface to the radiation surface outside of some (statistically speaking) rare places like high altitude deserts.

The heat moves by convection primarily, and then by conduction, and then a few IR photons make it through the whole pea soup (but not many).

This is why planetary temperature has never drastically changed due to "green house gas" concentration, it's always been "pretty much saturated".


The thermal inertia of the thick atmosphere creates insulation (in concert with the opaqueness to relevant IR) because the more atmosphere there is the higher temperature is needed to keep the convection currents moving. This is why planets like Venus are hot as F despite having a smaller percentage of their atmosphere being carbon dioxide than Mars.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right. It's not a complicated process. There are certain gas that act as an insulator, kind of, that keeps the high and low temps in a habitable range. If the atmosphere were to become more efficient at 'insulating', well, you could see higher temperatures.

All gases have a thermal coefficient.

Each gas is a little different depending on the atomic structure. Water vapor has one too and that varies depending on the form it takes (gas or steam (aka cloud, and yes, clouds are essentially wet steam). The efficiency of the atmosphere at absorbing thermal energy from the surface of the planet and then transferring that by radiation into space varies with composition.

Miniscule changes by themselves probably aren't, but we don't know how miniscule changes can impact other areas. For example, if the temps rise a little, that might create more water vapor and water vapor also acts as an insulator. That additional water vapor starts a series of events that actually causes temps to rise, which then creates even more water vapor.

One that only recently has been looked at are contrails by jet (today) aircraft. These have only existed since about the 1940's. Before that, no aircraft could fly high enough to create them. Since then, their number, abundance, and persistence has increased exponentially. Water vapor in the form of clouds is massively more heat insulating than CO2.

Like I said, have no idea if climate change is real. The earth is so complex that we may never know, but the question of how the Earth's atmosphere currently functions, as a result of so-called greenhouse gases, tells us that climate change is possible...

unless you're a science denier, of course.

It's clear the earth's climate is changing some. It does that. I really don't think scientists have a good handle on why it is happening. I'm prone to discount the CO2 theory however for the same reason they got the CFC hole the ozone layer wrong. They latched onto one variable and made the assumption that it was the only variable that matters.

 

[gfm7175]

IBDM and ITN are in essence arguing that you cannot know the temperature inside an oven because the thermocouple that measures the temperature only does so at one point, and that point is definitely not indicative of the temperature of the oven as a whole.

This is absolutely correct of them to argue.

I've regularly put two (as close to identical as is feasible) pizzas into the oven (onto the same rack, but one in the back left corner and one in the front right corner) and the one pizza will always get done a little bit more/faster than the other one gets done.

They further try to argue applying Stefan-Boltzmann incorrectly (among other incorrectly applied laws of thermodynamics), that the atmosphere of the Earth does not act as an insulator to one degree or another and affect the temperature of the surface of the planet as a result.

But Earth's atmosphere is NOT an insulator (e.g. a one-way "magick blanket").......

 

[Into the Night]

The differences are negligible and can be ignored. The oven is at the temperature of the thermocouple.

You are applying Stefan-Boltzmann wrong and yes, the atmosphere can be an insulator to heat. The planet does not radiate light. It does not give off photons. Energy radiated from the planet (the solid part) is thermal and given off by conduction and convection.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law:
r = C * e * t^4, where 'r' is radiance per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' if temperature in deg K.

You cannot trap light, dude.
The planet and all surfaces radiate light. They all give off photons.

ALL materials greater than absolute zero radiate light according to this law.

There is no conductive heat to space.
There is no convective heat to space.

 

[Into the Night]

Right. It's not a complicated process. There are certain gas that act as an insulator, kind of, that keeps the high and low temps in a habitable range. If the atmosphere were to become more efficient at 'insulating', well, you could see higher temperatures.

The atmosphere is not an insulator. You cannot trap light.

Miniscule changes by themselves probably aren't, but we don't know how miniscule changes can impact other areas. For example, if the temps rise a little, that might create more water vapor and water vapor also acts as an insulator. That additional water vapor starts a series of events that actually causes temps to rise, which then creates even more water vapor.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Like I said, have no idea if climate change is real.

Climate cannot change.

The earth is so complex that we may never know, but the question of how the Earth's atmosphere currently functions, as a result of so-called greenhouse gases, tells us that climate change is possible...

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

unless you're a science denier, of course.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU denying theories of science.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This is absolutely correct of them to argue.

I've regularly put two (as close to identical as is feasible) pizzas into the oven (onto the same rack, but one in the back left corner and one in the front right corner) and the one pizza will always get done a little bit more/faster than the other one gets done.

Try it in a convection oven. Same thermocouple. Same heating element. But now you have a fan circulating the air in the oven.

But Earth's atmosphere is NOT an insulator (e.g. a one-way "magick blanket").......

Yes, it is. The atmosphere as a gas is largely transparent to photons. That same gas is subject to conductive transfer of heat from the planet's surface that absorbs a portion of those photons turning them into thermal energy.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for confirming your denial.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.

 

[ZenMode]

It's clear the earth's climate is changing some. It does that. I really don't think scientists have a good handle on why it is happening. I'm prone to discount the CO2 theory however for the same reason they got the CFC hole the ozone layer wrong. They latched onto one variable and made the assumption that it was the only variable that matters.

Right. Our window of time and accurate record keeping is SO minimal, it's almost impossible to know if we're going through a natural climate change or man-made. There's also the fact that we know CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. That in itself isn't mind blowing, but the Earth is so complex, with so many moving parts, that its really difficult to say "Yep, we know that this gas/these gases are absolutely causing x, y and z".

The MIT research shows just how much is going on and the fact that we don't even know everything that is going on.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm not say redistributing adds additional energy.

You're not outright saying those exact words, but that is precisely what you are arguing in an attempt to rationalize your global warming faith.

Energy comes in.

Correct.

Energy goes out.

Correct, yet you simultaneously attempt to trap this very energy (or at least a portion of it) from "go[ing] out".

The atmosphere CURRENTLY impacts both. If less energy goes out overnight, before the sun comes around to your part of the Earth again, temperatures will rise.

Remember: There is ALWAYS a "day side" and a "night side" of Earth at any given time. You're also attempting to trap heat again via transforming Earth's atmosphere into a "magick (one-way) blanket".

Of course, in order to even approach that question, you have to acknowledge that the atmosphere CURRENTLY impacts high and low temps on earth. That seems to be a "struggle" for some.

"The atmosphere" is a part of Earth. There is no reason for any rational adult to believe that Earth's temperature is increasing.

 

[Into the Night]

Light is converted to thermal energy upon striking the surface of the planet you tard.

Only some light is converted to thermal energy...generally the infrared frequencies.
Most of the light from the Sun is infrared.

You can convert energy in form.

Never said you couldn't. Indeed, I presented one law that describes such conversion, but you ignored and deny it.

Photons can pass through the atmosphere and strike the surface of the planet and are converted to thermal energy.

So? They can also strike molecules in the atmosphere and be converted to thermal energy.

The amount converted depends on the reflectivity of the surface.

Nope. It also depends on the transparency of the surface to a particular color of light, and how much energy the surface already has.
No atom will accept a photon that has less energy then the atom already has.

This is where Stefan-Boltzmann and white body / black body theory applies.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has already been presented to you. There is no 'black body' or 'white body'.

The albedo of the planet can change.

Albedo is not used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Cloud cover in the atmosphere also can convert photons to thermal energy. That's what makes them such a potent greenhouse gas.

Absorbing a photon does not make substance able to trap light or energy.

This is simply a red herring / canard.

Fallacy fallacy.

You obviously don't know wtf you are talking about here.

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

Energy is conserved. Energy can be changed in form from one type to another.

You cannot trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You cannot decrease entropy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right. Our window of time and accurate record keeping is SO minimal, it's almost impossible to know if we're going through a natural climate change or man-made. There's also the fact that we know CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. That in itself isn't mind blowing, but the Earth is so complex, with so many moving parts, that its really difficult to say "Yep, we know that this gas/these gases are absolutely causing x, y and z".

The MIT research shows just how much is going on and the fact that we don't even know everything that is going on.

Exactly. Science follower, not denier. The Gorebal Warming crowd are religious zealots prostrating themselves to the God of Carbon Dioxide.

 

[ZenMode]

Exactly. Science follower, not denier. The Gorebal Warming crowd are religious zealots prostrating themselves to the God of Carbon Dioxide.

Yes... the far right and far left are essentially two doors to the same hell.