Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[IanC]

When using the S-B equations there are two classes of objects. Those without a power source that emit a fraction of their stored energy every unit of time, and will eventually cool to absolute zero when all the energy is gone. The second type does have a power source, and comes to an equilibrium temperature that emits exactly as much radiation as the energy inputted.

There are two main types of environment that an object can radiate towards. A diffuse thermal bath that sends some radiation towards the object but does not change temperature due to the radiation given off by the object. Or a second object is nearby, both immersed in the thermal environment, and the two objects exchange radiation until they both reach the same temperature.

Of course there is a lot of overlap and these four main types do not even come close to all the possibilities.

So far we have more or less assumed objects and environments are at a single temperature. They are not, temperature gradients are the rule and consistent temperature is very much the exception.

Thermodynamics is incredibly complex. Yes, we have divined many of the simple underlying rules. Translating them to reality is at best a poor approximation.

 

[IanC]

The Stefan experiment was amazingly clever. Finding the relationship was amazingly useful.

It says that any object radiates in relationship to its temperature. All the time, no exceptions. j=sigmaT^^4

That equation only applies if you are dealing with a perfect black body that is all alone in a perfect vacuum. Your insistence that it applies to everything all the time is either ignorance or plain old dishonesty...I lean towards dishonesty since I provided you with emails from some top shelf physicists who said that that equation only applies to black bodies in a vacuum devoid of other matter.

Nope. All the radiation, all the time.

Until you overthrow the laws pertaining to moving electric charges it is full emission. You will also have to break the first law of thermodynamics, and thwart entropy while you're at it.

No one believes in your bizarre version of physics except perhaps for a few other crackpots. It simply doesn't work.

 

[Mousterian]

Thermodynamics is incredibly complex. Yes, we have divined many of the simple underlying rules. Translating them to reality is at best a poor approximation.

You right there, Ian.
All these systems have so many variables, the apocryphal butterfly's flapping can derail even the most astute argument.
But the fact that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate is undeniable.
Check this (11 minutes) and be afraid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Thermodynamics is incredibly complex. Yes, we have divined many of the simple underlying rules. Translating them to reality is at best a poor approximation.

You right there, Ian.
All these systems have so many variables, the apocryphal butterfly's flapping can derail even the most astute argument.
But the fact that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate is undeniable.
Check this (11 minutes) and be afraid.

Ha ha that stupid "unprecentened warming" claim again......

Here is what it looks like from 1990:

 

[Mousterian]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looks serious.
I guess we should start building 100 new nuke plants, to save the permafrost.

 

[Mousterian]

Looks serious.
I guess we should start building 100 new nuke plants, to save the permafrost.

The lead time on a new nuclear plant is about 20 years.
We've left our run too late, I'm afraid.

 

[IanC]

that equation only applies to black bodies in a vacuum

Two Suns in an otherwise empty universe. I say they both radiate fully. You say every particle of their surfaces are somehow prohibited from emitting at each other. Not only that but they must also know the speed at which the Suns are moving relative to each other, because it takes time for radiation to get there.

Add a little dust in between them and the surface particles must know all their positions as well.

Are the opposite sides of the Suns a little hotter to make up for the radiation not allowed to be emitted on the facing surfaces?

Does the dust control the emission of radiation it receives? Does the dust increase entropy by scattering the radiation?

Are your epicycles due to an unknown law of physics really necessary when they interfere with so many of the known laws of physics?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Looks serious.
I guess we should start building 100 new nuke plants, to save the permafrost.

The lead time on a new nuclear plant is about 20 years.
We've left our run too late, I'm afraid.

Such moronically long lead times are moronic.
I guess we'll just keep emitting CO2 instead.

 

[IanC]

It kinda makes you wonder why the permafrost and clathrates didn't collapse during the Medieval Warm Period. Or the Roman Warm Period. Or the Holocene Optimum.

 

[Mousterian]

It kinda makes you wonder why the permafrost and clathrates didn't collapse during the Medieval Warm Period. Or the Roman Warm Period. Or the Holocene Optimum.

Yeah, there's just so much shit happening, even the most erudite scientists are struggling to pull it all together.
But looking at the obvious results of our folly points to some very potent feedback loops we've unleashed.
And increased ocean acidity is already affecting the viability of the foraminifera which are the basis of all oceanic life.
We've really fucked up on the CO2.
High risk of extinction of benthic foraminifera in this century due to ocean acidification

Don't mean to derail the thread, but quibbling about the fundamentals of black-body radiation is ignoring the elephant in the room.
I'll get out of here now, let you carry on the mathematical argy-bargy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It kinda makes you wonder why the permafrost and clathrates didn't collapse during the Medieval Warm Period. Or the Roman Warm Period. Or the Holocene Optimum.

Yeah, there's just so much shit happening, even the most erudite scientists are struggling to pull it all together.
But looking at the obvious results of our folly points to some very potent feedback loops we've unleashed.
And increased ocean acidity is already affecting the viability of the foraminifera which are the basis of all oceanic life.
We've really fucked up on the CO2.
High risk of extinction of benthic foraminifera in this century due to ocean acidification

Don't mean to derail the thread, but quibbling about the fundamentals of black-body radiation is ignoring the elephant in the room.
I'll get out of here now, let you carry on the mathematical argy-bargy.

And increased ocean acidity is already affecting the viability of the foraminifera which are the basis of all oceanic life.

Sounds serious!

So what CO2 level ends oceanic life? 500 ppm? 600 ppm?
When should we start to worry?

 

[Mousterian]

If you bothered to read the link, you would have found:
'Foraminifera were almost absent at sites with pH < 7.9 (>700 μatm pCO2).'
Or maybe you did read it, and are confused by such esoteric mathematical language.
Translates as 'absent at CO2 levels of 700ppm.'
This, of course is the point of extinction, and we will feel the effects long before these little buggers disappear altogether.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yawn.....Zzzzz....

 

[SSDD]

But the fact that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate is undeniable.
Check this (11 minutes) and be afraid.

There is absolutely nothing unprecedented going on in the climate today...if there were, my request for a single piece of observed measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability would not have gone unanswered for damned near 3 decades now...but hey, if you think you have something, by all means, lets see it.

 

[SSDD]

Are you under the impression that such a thing has never happened before?

 

[SSDD]

that equation only applies to black bodies in a vacuum

Two Suns in an otherwise empty universe. I say they both radiate fully. You say every particle of their surfaces are somehow prohibited from emitting at each other. Not only that but they must also know the speed at which the Suns are moving relative to each other, because it takes time for radiation to get there.

Add a little dust in between them and the surface particles must know all their positions as well.

Are the opposite sides of the Suns a little hotter to make up for the radiation not allowed to be emitted on the facing surfaces?

Does the dust control the emission of radiation it receives? Does the dust increase entropy by scattering the radiation?

Are your epicycles due to an unknown law of physics really necessary when they interfere with so many of the known laws of physics?

Again..it all looks like magic to you...or that some sort of intelligence is required...I accept that there is far more that we don't know than that we do know...I don't need fairy tales to fill in the gaps so that I can pretend that we know all and see all. I am fine with waiting for actual answers based on actual evidence.

 

[SSDD]

It kinda makes you wonder why the permafrost and clathrates didn't collapse during the Medieval Warm Period. Or the Roman Warm Period. Or the Holocene Optimum.

Yeah, there's just so much shit happening, even the most erudite scientists are struggling to pull it all together.
But looking at the obvious results of our folly points to some very potent feedback loops we've unleashed.
And increased ocean acidity is already affecting the viability of the foraminifera which are the basis of all oceanic life.
We've really fucked up on the CO2.
High risk of extinction of benthic foraminifera in this century due to ocean acidification

Don't mean to derail the thread, but quibbling about the fundamentals of black-body radiation is ignoring the elephant in the room.
I'll get out of here now, let you carry on the mathematical argy-bargy.

You have clearly drunk deeply of the kook aid... I predict that you will not be able to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...not one...If you try...which is doubtful, like all who have tried before you, you will merely show that you really don't have any idea what evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis might look like.

 

[SSDD]

If you bothered to read the link, you would have found:
'Foraminifera were almost absent at sites with pH < 7.9 (>700 μatm pCO2).'
Or maybe you did read it, and are confused by such esoteric mathematical language.
Translates as 'absent at CO2 levels of 700ppm.'
This, of course is the point of extinction, and we will feel the effects long before these little buggers disappear altogether.

Foraminifera are little changed over the past 500 million years and virtually identical to those that lived during the period before the present ice age began when atmospheric CO2 levels were around 1000ppm...then they survived through the ice age when the oceans would have held far more CO2 due to the fact that cold water holds more CO2 than warm water...a great deal of CO2 has outgassed since the holocene optimum. Over the past500 million years, rarely has the atmospheric CO2 level been as low as it is at present except during very cold periods when the amount of CO2 held in the oceans would have been far higher than it is at present.

Look for some other reason for the disappearance besides CO2, because they have demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt and survive wild swings in CO, and temperature over the past 500 million years.

Or maybe you think CO2 has always been at 350ppm until the onset of the industrial revolution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you bothered to read the link, you would have found:
'Foraminifera were almost absent at sites with pH < 7.9 (>700 μatm pCO2).'
Or maybe you did read it, and are confused by such esoteric mathematical language.
Translates as 'absent at CO2 levels of 700ppm.'
This, of course is the point of extinction, and we will feel the effects long before these little buggers disappear altogether.

Translates as 'absent at CO2 levels of 700ppm.'

Is that why life all ocean life went extinct when CO2 was 6000 ppm?