Leftists don't give a damn about the environment... change my mind

[ReinyDays]

Oh no, out here in the sticks we burn tires and drain our oil straight to the ground.

Here in the City, we have oil sumps built right into the street gutters ...

 

[Crick]

We had a neighbor when we first moved to this house, who worked on cars and dirtbikes in his yard. He would actually drain his oil into the ground. Trouble was, his water came from a well and the oil started showing up in their tap water. And then the neighbors.

 

[ReinyDays]

We had a neighbor when we first moved to this house, who worked on cars and dirtbikes in his yard. He would actually drain his oil into the ground. Trouble was, his water came from a well and the oil started showing up in their tap water. And then the neighbors.

UP did this exact same thing to us ... we were on city water but we got all the notices and such ... don't drink the well water ... the railroad moved classification operations someplace else ...

 

[Crick]

UP did this exact same thing to us ... we were on city water but we got all the notices and such ... don't drink the well water ... the railroad moved classification operations someplace else ...

We never drink our well water, but we do brush our teeth and shower with it. I have an oversized softener and multiple large charcoal filters. but I wouldn't drink it unless it went through a distiller. We are thinking about a large, whole house RO unit but it's a shitpot full of money.

 

[ReinyDays]

We never drink our well water, but we do brush our teeth and shower with it. I have an oversized softener and multiple large charcoal filters. but I wouldn't drink it unless it went through a distiller. We are thinking about a large, whole house RO unit but it's a shitpot full of money.

In Iowa, we could smell the ag chemicals in the sand-point wells ... generally unfit for human consumption, though the water tasted sweet otherwise ... the wells used for drinking water had to be drilled very deep, and boy was the water hard ... wreak the plumbing hard ... safe but awful to drink ... even treated ...

Lots of alcoholism in the area ...

 

[gfm7175]

Okay, here goes.

First, all matter whose temperature is above absolute zero - which is to say, ALL matter - radiates electromagnetic radiation (light).

This is correct.

Most of the time, particularly under the conditions we have on Earth, that light is in the infrared (IR) spectrum but the actual spectrum getting radiated is determined by the temperature of the matter and is described by the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation.

...an equation which you deny later in this post, via your later claim that Earth is somehow increasing in temperature yet radiating less. According to the Stefan Boltzmann equation, if Earth were increasing in temperature, then Earth would be radiating MORE, not less (supposedly due to "trapped heat", which doesn't exist either).

The Earth is constantly chasing thermal equilibrium. At equilbrium, the amount of energy comng in to the planet from the sun would equal the amount going out via IR radiation. If the amount coming in or the amount going out change for some reason, the Earth is pushed away from equilibrium and tries to get back to it by changing the other paramters.

The path that most of that incoming energy takes is that it comes in as visible light and is either absorbed or reflected. The absorbed energy will raise the temperature of whatever absorbs it. The reflected light will either hit something else or get bounced right back to space. The energy that is absorbed raises the temperature of the gas, the ground or the oceans that absorbed it. That increased temperature will cause increased IR radiation from the stuff, which will carry that energy away.

This is correct.

Some of that IR will hit the Earth or the seas somewhere else and get absorbed again.

Absorbed "again"?

Some will head upwards for space. On a planet with no greenhouse gases, that energy would shoot right out to space and be gone.

There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". That's just AGW church literature. No such thing exists re: science.

But greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb IR, so the IR that the earth and the seas radiate upwards, gets absorbed by the GHGs, at the surface, almost completely within 10 meters.

SOME IR gets absorbed by gases (such as CO2), which does ultimately heat the atmosphere somewhat. But that heat then goes out into space. It's a continuous thing.

But, just like any other matter, that warms them up and makes them radiate more IR. So, the IR skips from CO2 molecule to water molecule to nitrous oxide molecule back to a CO2 molecule and so forth.

Here you are attempting to "trap" heat. That's not possible.

It's direction is random so some of it gets turned around and strikes the Earth or the ocean once again and the whole thing has to start over. But some works its way higher and higher in the atmosphere.

There is only one direction. Heat flows from hot to cold, which in this case is from the Sun, to the Earth, to the atmosphere, and finally out into space. This is happening continuously.

The longer and more complex is the path that IR has to take to escape to space, the slower that energy leaves.

Here, you are attempting to "slow" heat. That's not possible either.

That causes the temperature of the atmosphere, the surface of the Earth and the water in the oceans to rise.

Not possible. Assuming constant energy from the sun, where is the additional energy required to increase Earth's temperature coming from? Even if "slowing" heat were a thing (it's not), you have yet to account for any ADDITIONAL heat. Where is this "ADDITIONAL heat" coming from? You are still violating thermodynamics.

There is a good analogy. Imagine a big tank of water that has a pipe filling it at a constant rate. That represents the sun and the energy it is constantly pouring on the Earth. The tank has a drain but there is a valve in the drain's pipe that can restrict waterflow. If that drain pipe is wide open, almost no water builds up in the tank. If we close that drain valve a bit, water will build up to some level in the tank. That level will produce enough pressure that the drain pipe and its partially open valve will let out just as much water as is coming in. But if we close the valve a little more, the water level in the tank will rise.

This is a bad analogy. CO2 is not a drain valve.

This is like heat and CO2. Added CO2 slows the escape of IR

You are now attempting to "slow" heat again... Not possible.

and the planet will warm

Now you are violating Stefan Boltzmann again... If Earth's temperature has increased, then it's radiance must have also increased... However, you are claiming that Earth's radiance has decreased due to "trapped" and/or "slowed" heat.

until it is pushing IR out hard enough that it once again equals the incoming solar energy. Raise the CO2 level and the temperature will go up again.

There is no "pushing out hard enough", and CO2 cannot warm the Earth. You are now violating thermodynamics again.

I know this is a pretty crappy explanation.

Right, because you continue to violate thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann.

You keep trying to "slow" and "trap" heat, which is not possible and in violation of thermodynamics. You keep making claim of a "temperature increase" while simultaneously reducing radiance (in rejection of stefan boltzmann). You keep making claim of a "temperature increase" without any additional energy input (in rejection of thermodynamics).

I should have been able to do better but I've been doing some projects at the same time and did this sort of piecemeal, hit-or-miss. Sorry.

Yes you should have, but you can't because you continue to reject thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann in favor of your wacky religion.

The internet is full of people explaining how it works, better than this. Give them a shot.

It doesn't matter who preaches the dogma... the dogma is in violation of logic, science, and mathematics regardless.

Point is, global warming does not require extra energy input.

"Global Warming" is an undefined buzzword. You might as well be speaking Mandarin to me.

However, with regard to an increase in temperature, such as what your AGW faith claims is happening to Earth, that absolutely requires extra energy input. It takes additional energy to raise the temperature of something. So, I ask once again, assuming constant energy from the sun, where is this additional energy coming from?

It's just like you warming yourself up at night by getting under a blanket.

Earth doesn't have a blanket around it.

Here you are attempting to compare a scenario involving trapped air to a scenario that doesn't involve trapped air; a false equivalence. You are also attempting to compare a heat source to a non-heat source, another false equivalence.

 

[gfm7175]

How much? ...

He has no idea.

and show your math ...

He can't, as he can only quote random numbers from someone else.

 

[ReinyDays]

This is correct.

...an equation which you deny later in this post, via your later claim that Earth is somehow increasing in temperature yet radiating less. According to the Stefan Boltzmann equation, if Earth were increasing in temperature, then Earth would be radiating MORE, not less (supposedly due to "trapped heat", which doesn't exist either).

This is correct.

Absorbed "again"?

There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". That's just AGW church literature. No such thing exists re: science.

SOME IR gets absorbed by gases (such as CO2), which does ultimately heat the atmosphere somewhat. But that heat then goes out into space. It's a continuous thing.

Here you are attempting to "trap" heat. That's not possible.

There is only one direction. Heat flows from hot to cold, which in this case is from the Sun, to the Earth, to the atmosphere, and finally out into space. This is happening continuously.

Here, you are attempting to "slow" heat. That's not possible either.

Not possible. Assuming constant energy from the sun, where is the additional energy required to increase Earth's temperature coming from? Even if "slowing" heat were a thing (it's not), you have yet to account for any ADDITIONAL heat. Where is this "ADDITIONAL heat" coming from? You are still violating thermodynamics.

This is a bad analogy. CO2 is not a drain valve.

You are now attempting to "slow" heat again... Not possible.

Now you are violating Stefan Boltzmann again... If Earth's temperature has increased, then it's radiance must have also increased... However, you are claiming that Earth's radiance has decreased due to "trapped" and/or "slowed" heat.

There is no "pushing out hard enough", and CO2 cannot warm the Earth. You are now violating thermodynamics again.

Right, because you continue to violate thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann.

You keep trying to "slow" and "trap" heat, which is not possible and in violation of thermodynamics. You keep making claim of a "temperature increase" while simultaneously reducing radiance (in rejection of stefan boltzmann). You keep making claim of a "temperature increase" without any additional energy input (in rejection of thermodynamics).

Yes you should have, but you can't because you continue to reject thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann in favor of your wacky religion.

It doesn't matter who preaches the dogma... the dogma is in violation of logic, science, and mathematics regardless.

"Global Warming" is an undefined buzzword. You might as well be speaking Mandarin to me.

However, with regard to an increase in temperature, such as what your AGW faith claims is happening to Earth, that absolutely requires extra energy input. It takes additional energy to raise the temperature of something. So, I ask once again, assuming constant energy from the sun, where is this additional energy coming from?

Earth doesn't have a blanket around it.

Here you are attempting to compare a scenario involving trapped air to a scenario that doesn't involve trapped air; a false equivalence. You are also attempting to compare a heat source to a non-heat source, another false equivalence.

I agree with you until ...

There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas".

Well ... yeah ... there is ... better to think of oxygen, nitrogen and argon as non-greenhouse gases ... as they don't interact very much with the EM at the wavelengths we're interested in ... whereas water reacts to a considerable degree in Earth's longwave ... c.f. GOES Satellite imagery, 7 of 16 bandwidths dedicated to water vapor ...

SB gives us -19ºC ... obviously that's incorrect ... and we usually cite the water vapor in our atmosphere absorbing the Earth's radiation and ... in part ... re-radiating the energy back to the Earth ... where it is absorbed again ... which raises the temperature to +14ºC ... and we define our ideal greybody radiator with the emissivity factor, where 1 is transparent and 0 is completely opaque ...

T^4 = ( S ( 1 - a )) / 4eo

AGW Theory assumes this `e` above is lowered by carbon dioxide which would raise temperatures by super duper magical properties that nothing else in the universe has ... including water vapor ... but I digress ...

This is why the Hystericals avoid the math ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiation ... so any effect CO2 has will be trivial ... just not enough of the stuff ...

 

[Crick]

I agree with you until ...



Well ... yeah ... there is ... better to think of oxygen, nitrogen and argon as non-greenhouse gases ... as they don't interact very much with the EM at the wavelengths we're interested in ... whereas water reacts to a considerable degree in Earth's longwave ... c.f. GOES Satellite imagery, 7 of 16 bandwidths dedicated to water vapor ...

SB gives us -19ºC ... obviously that's incorrect ... and we usually cite the water vapor in our atmosphere absorbing the Earth's radiation and ... in part ... re-radiating the energy back to the Earth ... where it is absorbed again ... which raises the temperature to +14ºC ... and we define our ideal greybody radiator with the emissivity factor, where 1 is transparent and 0 is completely opaque ...

T^4 = ( S ( 1 - a )) / 4eo

AGW Theory assumes this `e` above is lowered by carbon dioxide which would raise temperatures by super duper magical properties that nothing else in the universe has ... including water vapor ... but I digress ...

This is why the Hystericals avoid the math ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiation ... so any effect CO2 has will be trivial ... just not enough of the stuff ...

Why would you think water vapor can raise the Earth's temperature tens of degrees but that CO2 will be trivial?

 

[Moonglow]

only in blue cities

Untrue but you know that.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why would you think water vapor can raise the Earth's temperature tens of degrees but that CO2 will be trivial?

Simple ratios ... water is 20,000 ppm ... carbon dioxide is 425 ppm ... 98% less by volume ... 97% less by mass ...

Unless you have the calculations that say different ... [giggle] ... your 15 µm photon only carries 0.08 eV of energy ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... 10^-22 J ...

 

[Crick]

Simple ratios ... water is 20,000 ppm ... carbon dioxide is 425 ppm ... 98% less by volume ... 97% less by mass ...

Unless you have the calculations that say different ... [giggle] ... your 15 µm photon only carries 0.08 eV of energy ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... 10^-22 J ...

Global Warming Potential​

In the context of contributions of different gases to atmospheric warming the concept of global warming potential (GWP) can be useful. GWP is a measure of how much energy a greenhouse gas would add to atmospheric warming in a given time compared to CO2. A molecule’s GWP depends on three factors:

• the wavelengths where the molecule absorbs. (The absorption needs to be in the thermal IR range where the Earth emits and will be more effective if it absorbs where water vapor and CO2 do not.)
• the strength of the relevant absorptions. (The more energy the molecule absorbs, the more effective it will be in warming.)
• the atmospheric lifetime of the molecule. (The longer the gas persists, the more warming it can produce.)

GWP values are calculated as a ratio of the combined effect of these factors if 1 kg of the gas in question is injected into the atmosphere compared to the effect if 1 kg of kilogram of CO2 is injected. CO2 is assigned a value of unity, so the resulting ratio is the GWP. GWPs for a few selected gases are given in the table. To interpret GWPs, consider, for example, the 20 year GWP of 72 for CH4. This means that injecting 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere today would have 72 times more atmospheric warming effect over the next 20 years than injecting 1 kg of CO2. However, since the amount of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude greater than for these other gases, radiative forcing by CO2 still exceeds their combined effect on atmospheric warming.

		GWP time horizon
Gas	Lifetime, yr	20 yr	100 yr	500 yr
Carbon Dioxide, CO2	see text	1	1	1
Methane, CH4	12	72	25	7.6
Nitrous Oxide, N2O	114	289	298	153
CFC-12, CCl2F2	100	11,000	10,900	5,200
HFC-23, CHF3	270	12,000	14,800	12,200
HFC-134a, CH2FCF3	14	3,830	1,430	435
Sulfur Hexafluoride, SF6	3,200	16,300	22,800	32,600

Note that no lifetime is given for CO2 in the atmosphere. The sources and sinks for CO2 involve the complex interplay of CO2 among the hydrosphere (temperature dependent dissolution and release), the biosphere (respiration and photosynthesis), and the lithosphere (weathering and deposition), all of which complicate its rate of disappearance. About half of a CO2 sample emitted today will be gone in a century, but a portion of the rest will persist for 1000s of years.
The table shows that a gas with a lifetime of about a century has about the same 20- and 100-year GWPs, which suggests that the concentrations of this gas and of CO2 disappear roughly in parallel during this period. For the short-lived gases, the GWPs decline with time as they disappear faster than the CO2 standard. Conversely, the GWPs for very long-lived gases, like SF6, increase with time as they remain in the atmosphere longer than CO2.
Although the production and use of CFCs has been phased out, they have substantial lifetimes in the atmosphere and will persist through the 21st century. Similarly, the HFCs, whose phase-out is ongoing, will continue to build up during the century. These halogenated gases have very high GWPs, largely because they have multiple intense absorptions in the thermal IR region. However, the actual contribution of a greenhouse gas to atmospheric warming depends not only on its GWP, but also on its concentration. At present, the concentrations of halogenated gases in the atmosphere are low and their combined radiative forcing is only about one-fifth that of CO2. Because of overlapping absorptions, total radiative forcings and GWPs are not simple sums of values for individual gases, but require calculating the effects for individual gases over narrow wavelength ranges and summing these over the whole thermal IR spectral region.
GWPs for water vapor and tropospheric O3 are not calculated because their atmospheric lifetimes are only days long and their concentrations highly variable. More to the point for water vapor is that human activities have almost no direct influence on its tropospheric concentration, which is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere and the liquid water from which it evaporates (or ice from which it sublimes). Rising planetary temperature increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases its warming effect. This is a feedback mechanism that adds substantially to the radiative forcings of the other non-condensable greenhouse gases.

ACS Advocacy Workshops - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

 

[ReinyDays]

Global Warming Potential​

In the context of contributions of different gases to atmospheric warming the concept of global warming potential (GWP) can be useful. GWP is a measure of how much energy a greenhouse gas would add to atmospheric warming in a given time compared to CO2. A molecule’s GWP depends on three factors:

• the wavelengths where the molecule absorbs. (The absorption needs to be in the thermal IR range where the Earth emits and will be more effective if it absorbs where water vapor and CO2 do not.)
• the strength of the relevant absorptions. (The more energy the molecule absorbs, the more effective it will be in warming.)
• the atmospheric lifetime of the molecule. (The longer the gas persists, the more warming it can produce.)

GWP values are calculated as a ratio of the combined effect of these factors if 1 kg of the gas in question is injected into the atmosphere compared to the effect if 1 kg of kilogram of CO2 is injected. CO2 is assigned a value of unity, so the resulting ratio is the GWP. GWPs for a few selected gases are given in the table. To interpret GWPs, consider, for example, the 20 year GWP of 72 for CH4. This means that injecting 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere today would have 72 times more atmospheric warming effect over the next 20 years than injecting 1 kg of CO2. However, since the amount of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere is orders of magnitude greater than for these other gases, radiative forcing by CO2 still exceeds their combined effect on atmospheric warming.

		GWP time horizon
Gas	Lifetime, yr	20 yr	100 yr	500 yr
Carbon Dioxide, CO2	see text	1	1	1
Methane, CH4	12	72	25	7.6
Nitrous Oxide, N2O	114	289	298	153
CFC-12, CCl2F2	100	11,000	10,900	5,200
HFC-23, CHF3	270	12,000	14,800	12,200
HFC-134a, CH2FCF3	14	3,830	1,430	435
Sulfur Hexafluoride, SF6	3,200	16,300	22,800	32,600

Note that no lifetime is given for CO2 in the atmosphere. The sources and sinks for CO2 involve the complex interplay of CO2 among the hydrosphere (temperature dependent dissolution and release), the biosphere (respiration and photosynthesis), and the lithosphere (weathering and deposition), all of which complicate its rate of disappearance. About half of a CO2 sample emitted today will be gone in a century, but a portion of the rest will persist for 1000s of years.
The table shows that a gas with a lifetime of about a century has about the same 20- and 100-year GWPs, which suggests that the concentrations of this gas and of CO2 disappear roughly in parallel during this period. For the short-lived gases, the GWPs decline with time as they disappear faster than the CO2 standard. Conversely, the GWPs for very long-lived gases, like SF6, increase with time as they remain in the atmosphere longer than CO2.
Although the production and use of CFCs has been phased out, they have substantial lifetimes in the atmosphere and will persist through the 21st century. Similarly, the HFCs, whose phase-out is ongoing, will continue to build up during the century. These halogenated gases have very high GWPs, largely because they have multiple intense absorptions in the thermal IR region. However, the actual contribution of a greenhouse gas to atmospheric warming depends not only on its GWP, but also on its concentration. At present, the concentrations of halogenated gases in the atmosphere are low and their combined radiative forcing is only about one-fifth that of CO2. Because of overlapping absorptions, total radiative forcings and GWPs are not simple sums of values for individual gases, but require calculating the effects for individual gases over narrow wavelength ranges and summing these over the whole thermal IR spectral region.
GWPs for water vapor and tropospheric O3 are not calculated because their atmospheric lifetimes are only days long and their concentrations highly variable. More to the point for water vapor is that human activities have almost no direct influence on its tropospheric concentration, which is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere and the liquid water from which it evaporates (or ice from which it sublimes). Rising planetary temperature increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases its warming effect. This is a feedback mechanism that adds substantially to the radiative forcings of the other non-condensable greenhouse gases.

ACS Advocacy Workshops - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

Doesn't include water .. fucking moron ...

 

[Crick]

Doesn't include water .. fucking moron ...

GWPs for water vapor and tropospheric O3 are not calculated because their atmospheric lifetimes are only days long and their concentrations highly variable. More to the point for water vapor is that human activities have almost no direct influence on its tropospheric concentration, which is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere and the liquid water from which it evaporates (or ice from which it sublimes). Rising planetary temperature increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases its warming effect. This is a feedback mechanism that adds substantially to the radiative forcings of the other non-condensable greenhouse gases.

--ibid

You really should have read the entire excerpt before making absolute comments about it.

 

[ding]

GWPs for water vapor and tropospheric O3 are not calculated because their atmospheric lifetimes are only days long and their concentrations highly variable. More to the point for water vapor is that human activities have almost no direct influence on its tropospheric concentration, which is controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere and the liquid water from which it evaporates (or ice from which it sublimes). Rising planetary temperature increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which increases its warming effect. This is a feedback mechanism that adds substantially to the radiative forcings of the other non-condensable greenhouse gases.

--ibid

You really should have read the entire excerpt before making absolute comments about it.

That's odd because according to climate sensitivity (i.e. water vapor feedback from increased CO2 GHG effect) it's three times the GHG effect of CO2.

 

[Crick]

That's odd because according to climate sensitivity (i.e. water vapor feedback from increased CO2 GHG effect) it's three times the GHG effect of CO2.

Can you not read?

 

[ding]

Can you not read?

Yes, I can read. The first sentence is contradictory.

 

[Crick]

Yes, I can read. The first sentence is contradictory.

Nope.

 

[Flash]

I offer your post as evidence that conservatives either don't understand logic, reason or the rules of evidence or that they simply don't care.

I am a Conservative. I am also an Environmental Engineer. Cleaned up more real pollution in my 30 year career than a million Moon Bats will see in their life.

These stupid Libtards always bitch about things but never have a viable solution to anything.

What they do is always more destructive than what they think they were fixing.

 

[Crick]

I am a Conservative. I am also an Environmental Engineer. Cleaned up more real pollution in my 30 year career than a million Moon Bats will see in their life.

These stupid Libtards always bitch about things but never have a viable solution to anything.

What they do is always more destructive than what they think they were fixing.

Like the Clean Water Act? The Clean Air Act? The EPA? If it weren't for liberals, you'd have had a different career.