How far have we already gone?

[wirebender]

Not sure where you got 2% seeing as all sources I see say Venus has an albedo of .75. But this doesn't matter much anyway because a great portion of the sun's heating power is on the infared specturm.... which does not get reflected.

Here, from one of your own idiot AGW sources.

Venus

And again, you demonstrate that you are nothing but a poser who doesn't know jack. A very little portion of the incoming energy from the sun is in the form of IR. That is why greenhouse gasses aren't a factor where inicoming radiation from the sun is concerned. Most of the sun's energy is in the visible to UV range. It is absorbed by the surface of the earth and then radiated back out towards space in the form of infrared.

Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.

Also to entirley base the surface temperature on preasure leaves some question marks... as you must know when you posted the ideal gas law equation "rudimentary knowledge of science" tells us that that temperature and pressure are directly proportional therefor pressure can increase temperature, BUT also temperature can increase pressure. So we observe high temperature and high pressure on Venus, but where is the causality and to what degree?

And where might the energy to raise temperature on venus come from since 98% of the sun's energy is reflected away from the planet before it even enters the atmosphere? As I pointed out, N&Z have accurately predicted the temperatures at every altitude for every planet in the solar system using little more than the ideal gas laws and the relative distances from the sun proving that atmospheric composition is the next thing to irrelavent. The laws of physics supports and predicts their work while the laws of physics deny your faith.

As for Nikolov and Zeller, as you mentioned their paper came out recently sometime this year.. so the jury is still out on them. Doing a simple internet search reveals there are many other "PHD Physisits" who disagree with them.

Scientists who will no doubt be out of work when they change the paradigm.

I'm not going to condone or condemn their theory as I don't know what methods and equations they used (and I'm sure you don't either)... but I'd like to point out how ironic it is that one who claims to be a skeptic is quick to whole hartedly embrase something so fast.

Well, we both know that you don't have a clue as to what sort of equations they are using or what methods. I, on the other hand do. In fact, if you go back to some earlier discussions I have had with ian you will see that a very large part of my arguments with ian have been born out by N&Z and those arguments were made before N&Z's work was even presented. Especially my arguments about the corrupted and therefore invalid SB equations in use by climate pseudoscience.

I am sure that you like to imagine that the people on this board are an uneducated and unknowledgeable as you and like you, arguing from a position of faith in those you call scientists. Alas, that isn't true.

I am a skeptic, but I am an educated skeptic. I examined N&Z's work with the same skepticism that I apply to everything. The difference between their work and that that climate pseudoscience as a whole is putting out is that the laws of physics actually support and predicted the outcome of their work while the laws of physics flatly deny that of climate pseudoscience.

You probably are not even aware that their model apperently predicts the mean surface temperature of Mercury to be 40K lower than the earth's.... something that most "skeptics" might quesiton.

That would be because they are using the proper form of the SB equations as opposed to the corrupted equations in use by climate pseudoscience. If you care to discuss those equations, just ask.

You just seem to take pick and choose whatever laws of science you want and there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you seeing as you are only concerned with flaming.

Since there are no laws of physics that support or predict a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience, there is no need to pick and choose. And of course we can't have a rational discussion because you don't know enough about the science to enter into a rational discussion. For example, here is the actual SB equation:

Would you care to show me, or attempt to explain where backradiation in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics might be found in that equation?

Don't bother wasting your time respoing with more insults, they will only make you look like you are trying hard to look superior on the internet because I'm telling you right now that not going back in this thread to check for responses.

We both know who can actually discuss the science here. And of course you won't be back because it has become clear that you have already got in way over your head. Now, like the school yard bully when called on his bluff, you are telling me that it's lucky for me that you hear your mother calling you for dinner. I am so relieved.

You skirted dangerously close to actually having to enter a scientific discussion there and scared the hell out of yourself. There is precious little available on the internet to cut and paste in defense of your position because on close examination of the planet venus, it becomes abundantly clear that the conditions on venus aren't due to a greenhouse effect.

In order to bolster the lack of info on the internet, you have to leave the script and then do nothing more than show how little you actually know like claiming that a great portion of the sun's energy is in the IR spectrum.

Here, from the chemistry departement of Duke University:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~bonk/EnvSupp/Chp7/Chp7.html

CLIP: "Due to this high temperature, the Sun emits relatively high energy radiation, primarily in the ultraviolet and visible portions of the spectrum. Recall that high-energy radiation has short wavelength and high frequency. When this radiation strikes Earth, it is absorbed by rock and soil. After the radiant energy is absorbed, the rock and soil re-emit it. But the Earth's surface is much cooler than the Sun's" and on average is about 15 deg. C. Using Wein's Law, 2.9 x 106 K nm = lambdamax (278 K), gives lambdamax = 1.0 x 104 nm. The radiation emitted by Earth is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[IanC]

And again, you demonstrate that you are nothing but a poser who doesn't know jack. A very little portion of the incoming energy from the sun is in the form of IR. That is why greenhouse gasses aren't a factor where inicoming radiation from the sun is concerned. Most of the sun's energy is in the visible to UV range. It is absorbed by the surface of the earth and then radiated back out towards space in the form of infrared.

Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.

do you mind if I quote you?........."Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat."

 

[Old Rocks]

Furthermore Venus's surface temperature remains the same even on the night side of the planet despite the fact that one day (full rotation of the planet on its axis) takes 243 earth days. Such a slow rotation would normally freeze the night side of the planet... the fact that such a uniform temperature is still maintained across the entire planet demonstrates the extremely strong greenhouse effect on Venus.

You know so little that you didn't even realize that you gave the correct answer and certainly couldn't recognize the why several posts back. As you said, most of the light incoming from the sun is, in fact, reflected back away from venus. Atmospheric pressure is the reason it is so hot and atmospheric pressure doesn't care whether it is day or night. You can apply the ideal gas laws in light or dark and that is precisely why there is so little difference between daytime temps and night time temps on venus. The sun really isn't much of a factor.

I'm not going to try and insult you with a "care to try again response", instead I encourage you to think

The fact is that you don't know enough to insult anyone but yourself and with this little venus exchange you have done your intellect a grave disservice. That you have shown your self to be so wrong in public is sad to watch.

And I encourage you to actually learn something. Your knowledge base is so small that I can only suggest that perhaps you begin with some elementary school science texts. You don't know enough at this point to even consider thinking about the topic.

So, Bent, what you are stating is that even without the sun, the surface of Venus would melt lead. You are really full of shit.

 

[wirebender]

do you mind if I quote you?........."Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat."

Perhaps I should have got my crayons and drew a picture of IR in a frequency that matters in so far as so called greenhouse gasses go. I forget that you warmers and luke warmers as a group simply aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. IR not in the absorption range of the so called greenhouse gasses is as irrelavent to the conversation as are x rays.

 

[wirebender]

So, Bent, what you are stating is that even without the sun, the surface of Venus would melt lead. You are really full of shit.

Do you ever understand anything you hear? I said that the temperature on venus is not a result of a greenouse effect because the temperature of the planet can be accurately predicted, at any altitude without taking atmospheric composition into account. That is not to say that venus's closer proximity to the sun is not a factor.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Bent. What you are stating is that if the atmosphere of Venus was the same as the Earth's, it would still have the temperatures it does today. But according the astro-physicists, Venus is in the Goldilocks zone. So, where does that leave your hypothesis?

 

[skookerasbil]

On the coming clean tech bust.....................

Boom and Bust: Renewable Energy's Future? - Energy & Environment Experts



Ooooooooops!!!!


So..........how exactly is all the "real science"mattering?

 

[IanC]

do you mind if I quote you?........."Perhaps you should stop talking because the more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat."

Perhaps I should have got my crayons and drew a picture of IR in a frequency that matters in so far as so called greenhouse gasses go. I forget that you warmers and luke warmers as a group simply aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. IR not in the absorption range of the so called greenhouse gasses is as irrelavent to the conversation as are x rays.

????

do you not know how to look at a graph?

the gray line is the theoretical blackbody radiation for an object at the Sun's temperature. the yellow portion is the Sun's actual radiation as measured at the top of the atmosphere. the red is the amount of radiation that makes it through the atmosphere to reach the surface at sea level. eyeballing the graph, it looks like ~5% of the energy received in in UV, and the rest is pretty evenly split between visible and IR.

and yet you say IR makes no difference. is this another case of magically disappearing photons?

I find it insulting that you pretend to be 'instructing the message board on physics' when you in fact dont know the basic facts and continue to throw out priceless bits of buffoonery. remember when you swore up and down that molecules and atoms couldnt absorb radiation of the same wavelength that they emit? and then you found an obscure link with an out-of-context sentence to back up your claim? hahahahaha priceless!

 

[IanC]

My god, I cannot believe how flawed your logic is... so now your argument has regressed to the point where you are saying sunlight has no effect on temperature. Let me break it down even further so your feeble brain can understand:

You are full of it and you have demonstrated it beyond any reasonable doubt. In order to have a greenhouse effect as claimed by warmers you must have IR from the sun reaching the surface, being absorbed, and then being emitted as IR which CO2 can then absorb and re eimit. How much energy from the sun, in watts per square meter reaches the surface of venus? Answer? About 2% of the solar energy that reaches venus actually reaches the surface. Sorry but the numbers don't add up to a greenhouse effect.



Again, 2% of the energy from the sun actually reaches the surface. Not enough energy to explain the temperature in terms of a fictitious greenhouse effect. It is atmospheric pressure, simple as that. Nikolov and Zeller (a couple of PhD physicists) recently produced a body of work using nothing more than the atmospheric pressure, and distance from the sun to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere, and demonstrated via the DIVINER data from the moon that the SB equations being used by climate sciecne are so flawed that they are essentialy useless.



Sorry, but only 2% reaches the surface. Not enough energy to produce the temperatures on venus even if you multiplied the claimed greenhouse effect by 10 orders of magnitude. But feel free to do the math if you care to try and prove your point,

And yet the temperature on Venus is the same on both sides... the reason is Venus has extremely strong winds that blow at 60 times the planet's rotational speed, evenly distributing the hot air from the side that is being heated by the sun to the night side. And of course the heat on night side of the planet is trapped by......
The greenhouse effect!

{/quote]

Atmospheric pressure, and that is it. N&Z accurately predicted the temperature of venus using only its atmospheric pressure and distance from the sun. Atmospheric composition is irrelavent as far as anything like a greenhouse effect goes. They have proven that CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses are not the reason for the temperature anywhere.

Not sure where you got 2% seeing as all sources I see say Venus has an albedo of .75. But this doesn't matter much anyway because a great portion of the sun's heating power is on the infared specturm.... which does not get reflected.

Also to entirley base the surface temperature on preasure leaves some question marks... as you must know when you posted the ideal gas law equation "rudimentary knowledge of science" tells us that that temperature and pressure are directly proportional therefor pressure can increase temperature, BUT also temperature can increase pressure. So we observe high temperature and high pressure on Venus, but where is the causality and to what degree?

As for Nikolov and Zeller, as you mentioned their paper came out recently sometime this year.. so the jury is still out on them. Doing a simple internet search reveals there are many other "PHD Physisits" who disagree with them. I'm not going to condone or condemn their theory as I don't know what methods and equations they used (and I'm sure you don't either)... but I'd like to point out how ironic it is that one who claims to be a skeptic is quick to whole hartedly embrase something so fast. You probably are not even aware that their model apperently predicts the mean surface temperature of Mercury to be 40K lower than the earth's.... something that most "skeptics" might quesiton.

You just seem to take pick and choose whatever laws of science you want and there is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you seeing as you are only concerned with flaming.

Don't bother wasting your time respoing with more insults, they will only make you look like you are trying hard to look superior on the internet because I'm telling you right now that not going back in this thread to check for responses.

one of my biggest issues with N&Z's theory is that heat of compression is a one time thing. sure things heat up when you compress them but once there is no longer a change in compression other factors define how that heat is distributed.

of course it is a tricky question that has had some of the great physicists of all time on either side but even if there is some residual effect it will be swamped by other mechanisms of heat distribution.

 

[wirebender]

and yet you say IR makes no difference. is this another case of magically disappearing photons?

Exactly how much water vapor is present in the atmosphere of venus?

I find it insulting that you pretend to be 'instructing the message board on physics' when you in fact dont know the basic facts and continue to throw out priceless bits of buffoonery.

Ian, I can't instruct you. You are terribly wrong but unable to recognize it. You have some very mistaken notions but are so set on being right that you simply can't see how wrong you are. Then in an effort to somehow save face, you throw up a graph pointing out how much LW is absorbed by water vapor when there is virtually no water vapor on venus.

remember when you swore up and down that molecules and atoms couldnt absorb radiation of the same wavelength that they emit? and then you found an obscure link with an out-of-context sentence to back up your claim? hahahahaha priceless!

I didn't swear up and down to anything. I stated that a CO2 atom couldn't absorb the emission spectra of another CO2 atom. Then I provided a link which was from the departement of energy describing in exactly the same context as my statement. You have become such a liar in your frenzied attempt to be right. Here is the link:
Renewable & Alternative Fuels - Analysis & Projections - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) And here is the pertinent clip:

CLIP: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."

Hardly out of context ian and not "a" sentence either. In fact, it reiterates exactly what I said. Bad enough you are wrong but now you are wrong and demonstrably dishonest.

Here is another link that describes precisely why a CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule in a much more formal way. Do feel free to do the math to prove the author wrong if you like.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/recycling-of-heat-in-the-atmosphere-is-impossible/

 

[konradv]

Ian, I can't instruct you.

LOL!!! You'e the one that's uninstructable. You've wasted enough of my time with your fantasy theories. I won't be responding any longer and suggest others do the same.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK, Bent. What you are stating is that if the atmosphere of Venus was the same as the Earth's, it would still have the temperatures it does today. But according the astro-physicists, Venus is in the Goldilocks zone. So, where does that leave your hypothesis?

Composition or volume or both?

 

[IanC]

and yet you say IR makes no difference. is this another case of magically disappearing photons?

Exactly how much water vapor is present in the atmosphere of venus?

I find it insulting that you pretend to be 'instructing the message board on physics' when you in fact dont know the basic facts and continue to throw out priceless bits of buffoonery.

Ian, I can't instruct you. You are terribly wrong but unable to recognize it. You have some very mistaken notions but are so set on being right that you simply can't see how wrong you are. Then in an effort to somehow save face, you throw up a graph pointing out how much LW is absorbed by water vapor when there is virtually no water vapor on venus.

remember when you swore up and down that molecules and atoms couldnt absorb radiation of the same wavelength that they emit? and then you found an obscure link with an out-of-context sentence to back up your claim? hahahahaha priceless!

I didn't swear up and down to anything. I stated that a CO2 atom couldn't absorb the emission spectra of another CO2 atom. Then I provided a link which was from the departement of energy describing in exactly the same context as my statement. You have become such a liar in your frenzied attempt to be right. Here is the link:
Renewable & Alternative Fuels - Analysis & Projections - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) And here is the pertinent clip:

CLIP: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."

Hardly out of context ian and not "a" sentence either. In fact, it reiterates exactly what I said. Bad enough you are wrong but now you are wrong and demonstrably dishonest.

Here is another link that describes precisely why a CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule in a much more formal way. Do feel free to do the math to prove the author wrong if you like.

Jennifer Marohasy » Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

I cant believe you have taken any physics courses. atoms and molecules absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. it is the principle used in spectography.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~jbattat/a35/cont_abs_em.html

Key Points:
Anything that absorbs also emits.
A cloud of cool gas that absorbs certain colors from a blackbody will emit exactly those colors as the gas atoms de-excite
If we look at the cloud without the blackbody in our line of sight, we will see an emission line spectrum.
The lines of emission have the same color as the absorption lines in the absorption line spectrum
If you added an emission line spectrum and an absorption line spectrum, you would get a continuous spectrum.

I could understand if you were saying that higher energy wavelengths will tend to be transformed into lower energy wavelengths as they are absorbed and emitted. but that is entirely different than saying a molecule of CO2 or methane is incapable of absorbing radiation emitted by the same type of molecule. the type of radiation absorbed is exactly the same as the type of radiation emitted.

 

[code1211]

OK, Bent. What you are stating is that if the atmosphere of Venus was the same as the Earth's, it would still have the temperatures it does today. But according the astro-physicists, Venus is in the Goldilocks zone. So, where does that leave your hypothesis?

The "Goldilocks" Zone?

What does this mean in terms of how warm Earth Would be if if it was in the same orbit that Venus now occupies?

 

[code1211]

I could understand if you were saying that higher energy wavelengths will tend to be transformed into lower energy wavelengths as they are absorbed and emitted. but that is entirely different than saying a molecule of CO2 or methane is incapable of absorbing radiation emitted by the same type of molecule. the type of radiation absorbed is exactly the same as the type of radiation emitted.

Hi Ian,

Liberal Arts degree here.

With regard to CO2 specifically, I've been a little confused by the references to how the warming works as some say the radiation is reflected back to the surface warming that and some say that CO2 just plain absorbs the heat, warming the air around us.

Is it one or the other or both that is occurring when CO2 is exercising its GHG properties?

 

[IanC]

Hi Ian,

Liberal Arts degree here.

With regard to CO2 specifically, I've been a little confused by the references to how the warming works as some say the radiation is reflected back to the surface warming that and some say that CO2 just plain absorbs the heat, warming the air around us.

Is it one or the other or both that is occurring when CO2 is exercising its GHG properties?

I understand how you could be confused! there is a little bit of truth in all the explainations but they focus on narrow mechanisms without properly integrating with the overall system.

CO2 does absorb IR and vibrate, therefore warmer by definition. when it releases that IR some is directed at the surface, which causes less net energy to escape to space. the problem is that the effects are small and probably compensated by other mechanisms in the atmosphere. a theoretical 1C increase for doubling CO2 is likely to be perhaps 0.5C once all is said and done and we arent even halfway to the first manmade doubling yet. in the past increased temperature has been good for mankind and the other flora and fauna.

the warmers say that there is a positive feedback because the increase in temps causes more water vapour but the majority of heat close to the surface is airlifted by conduction, convection and the latent heat of phase change, all of which gets released at the top of the clouds. no one ever talks about why ocean temps never get above ~29C in the tropics because it is obvious that different mechanisms like thunderstorms automatically use up any extra heat.

CO2 makes a small difference in a range of IR that accounts for about 8% of the surface's radiation but it is almost totally blocked in the lower atmosphere and only becomes important between the cloudtops and space once water vapour stops having its dominant effect.

there are dozens of factors at play, some that we know about and others that we dont. the interplay between them is even less understood. just because some climate scientists want to use unsupported fear mongering to scare us into uselessly wrecking our economies for even less understood abatement policies, that doesnt mean that we should follow them when it is obvious that we havent developed the right technologies yet.

code- which specific things are bugging you? some people find Trenberth's energy flow diagram confusing because it seems that the atmosphere is adding more energy to the surface than the sun. the reality is that the radiation just cancels out a large portion of the surface's emissions. the energy from the sun in visible light is not cancelled out therefore it has a bigger impact.

 

[code1211]

I understand how you could be confused! there is a little bit of truth in all the explainations but they focus on narrow mechanisms without properly integrating with the overall system.

CO2 does absorb IR and vibrate, therefore warmer by definition. when it releases that IR some is directed at the surface, which causes less net energy to escape to space. the problem is that the effects are small and probably compensated by other mechanisms in the atmosphere. a theoretical 1C increase for doubling CO2 is likely to be perhaps 0.5C once all is said and done and we arent even halfway to the first manmade doubling yet. in the past increased temperature has been good for mankind and the other flora and fauna.

the warmers say that there is a positive feedback because the increase in temps causes more water vapour but the majority of heat close to the surface is airlifted by conduction, convection and the latent heat of phase change, all of which gets released at the top of the clouds. no one ever talks about why ocean temps never get above ~29C in the tropics because it is obvious that different mechanisms like thunderstorms automatically use up any extra heat.

CO2 makes a small difference in a range of IR that accounts for about 8% of the surface's radiation but it is almost totally blocked in the lower atmosphere and only becomes important between the cloudtops and space once water vapour stops having its dominant effect.

there are dozens of factors at play, some that we know about and others that we dont. the interplay between them is even less understood. just because some climate scientists want to use unsupported fear mongering to scare us into uselessly wrecking our economies for even less understood abatement policies, that doesnt mean that we should follow them when it is obvious that we havent developed the right technologies yet.

code- which specific things are bugging you? some people find Trenberth's energy flow diagram confusing because it seems that the atmosphere is adding more energy to the surface than the sun. the reality is that the radiation just cancels out a large portion of the surface's emissions. the energy from the sun in visible light is not cancelled out therefore it has a bigger impact.

Thank for this explanation.

Bugging is not the right word. Confusing due to so many folks making so many claims about absorption and reflection. It's pretty obvious that the predictions of the Warmers are not coming true so the complete system that they predict must be wrong at least in part.

People refer to CO2 reflecting or trapping the heat near the surface and say that the inability of the heat to escape back into space is what is causing the warming. Many of the illustrations show the little heat arrows hitting the ground then bouncing up and then bouncing off the CO2 to stay on the surface.

The absorption and subsequent radiation in all directions seems to make more sense, especially given the end result. It also seems to jive more with the amount of CO2 needed to add one degree to the climate.

I had a science teacher in high school who would applaud your ability to explain things so that even I can grasp it. Thank you.

 

[IanC]

Thank for this explanation.

Bugging is not the right word. Confusing due to so many folks making so many claims about absorption and reflection. It's pretty obvious that the predictions of the Warmers are not coming true so the complete system that they predict must be wrong at least in part.

People refer to CO2 reflecting or trapping the heat near the surface and say that the inability of the heat to escape back into space is what is causing the warming. Many of the illustrations show the little heat arrows hitting the ground then bouncing up and then bouncing off the CO2 to stay on the surface.

The absorption and subsequent radiation in all directions seems to make more sense, especially given the end result. It also seems to jive more with the amount of CO2 needed to add one degree to the climate.

I had a science teacher in high school who would applaud your ability to explain things so that even I can grasp it. Thank you.

CO2 doesnt reflect IR but water droplets in clouds are extremely good at reflecting IR

 

[wirebender]

I cant believe you have taken any physics courses. atoms and molecules absorb and emit the exact same wavelengths. it is the principle used in spectography.

Then ian, you know exactly jack about spectrography. Tell me ian, how do you suppose the energy that a CO2 atom absorbs causes a vibration within the molecule without expending some small bit of the energy? Do you believe that vibration happens without the loss of any energy at all? And if there is some energy expended in causing the vibration, how could the molecule emit exactly the same frequency as it absorbed.

Again, you are so far off here that I am becoming embarassed for you.

I suggest that you read this and try your best to actually learn something from it.

Jennifer Marohasy » Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible: A Note from Nasif S. Nahle

 

[skookerasbil]

On the coming clean tech bust.....................

Boom and Bust: Renewable Energy's Future? - Energy & Environment Experts



Ooooooooops!!!!


So..........how exactly is all the "real science"mattering?
__________________