Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[IanC]

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

The sun shines into the ocean.

Incomplete. The Sun directly warms the ocean. A warmer atmosphere impairs the ocean's ability to shed energy.

So is it the Sun which hasn't changed, or the atmosphere which has changed, that 'heats' the ocean?




... obviously it is the high quality energy from the Sun. Low quality IR can't 'do' much of anything, except be a placeholder in an energy budget.

So you're saying we're getting higher quality energy from the Sun and that's the heat that trapped in the ocean.

"This new learning amazes me"

I think the word you were looking for is 'baffled'. As in, "Any explanation, no matter how simple, left Frank baffled".

 

[IanC]

It was my understanding from IPCC 5, that the oceans "trapped" 90% of the excess heat. Can you please elaborate on both the mechanism that makes the transfer possible and the amount of energy it would take for the atmosphere to heat the ocean by say 1C?

The sun shines into the ocean.

Incomplete. The Sun directly warms the ocean. A warmer atmosphere impairs the ocean's ability to shed energy.

So is it the Sun which hasn't changed, or the atmosphere which has changed, that 'heats' the ocean?




... obviously it is the high quality energy from the Sun. Low quality IR can't 'do' much of anything, except be a placeholder in an energy budget.

I agree. Frank was only interested in a protracted argument. I decided to only answer his question on the mechanism that makes the transfer possible in a snide remark.

Of course!

It is one of his tactics for arguing. He makes a purposely stupid response to imply that the question or answer is also stupid, and not really worthy of any discussion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can't answer the question, so double down and look worse by mocking the questioner.

OK.

Good Plan.

 

[Wuwei]

Can't answer the question, so double down and look worse by mocking the questioner.

OK.

Good Plan.

Now he is doing the troll type response of mockery in an attempt to shame the person who doesn't want to bother with him.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.

 

[Wuwei]

Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.

Why don't you read it yourself? You have a distorted belief in the simplest aspects of thermodynamics, and that makes the whole dialog pointless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right Tyndall didn't know about Equipartition Theory. Of course CO2 can't hang on to the energy. There is a high likelihood that the CO2 will lose it's energy by a collision with air molecules which will absorb CO2 vibration energy.

CO2 can not hold on to energy at atmospheric temperatures...you would have to cool it to either its liquid or solid form in order for it to be able to actually store energy. Once again, there are observed, measured, quantified, REPEATABLE experiments and literally millions of hours of industry testing, and observation, and commercial application that PROVE that infrared radiation does not warm the air it is passing through.

That being said, all conversation about the ability of CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere is nothing more than a pointless discussion of a fictitious effect which does not happen in reality...ie magic.

Your promoting science of the mid 1800's. They didn't even know matter was composed of atoms back then. What they and you don't understand is that CO2 in an excited vibrational state is highly likely to dispose of that energy through collisions with N2 and O2 - air. Thus much of the CO2 doesn't even emit the energy it picks up from IR, it is directly transfered to air without IR emission. It warms up the air. If you doubt that you will have to come up with your own model that tells where the IR absorbed energy of CO2 does go.

And let me guess...you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air? Engineers who are far better educated in the hard sciences than any climate scientist...engineers who are paid to know what is going on in the real world and how their systems effect other systems? Is that what you are saying bucky?

you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air?

That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
My thermostat agrees.
Or am I being fooled by instrumentation?

So that's why window manufacturer have double glazed CO2 windows.

Why?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.

Why don't you read it yourself? You have a distorted belief in the simplest aspects of thermodynamics, and that makes the whole dialog pointless.

You couldn't find an answer at IPCC5 either. I feel your pain

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 can not hold on to energy at atmospheric temperatures...you would have to cool it to either its liquid or solid form in order for it to be able to actually store energy. Once again, there are observed, measured, quantified, REPEATABLE experiments and literally millions of hours of industry testing, and observation, and commercial application that PROVE that infrared radiation does not warm the air it is passing through.

That being said, all conversation about the ability of CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere is nothing more than a pointless discussion of a fictitious effect which does not happen in reality...ie magic.

Your promoting science of the mid 1800's. They didn't even know matter was composed of atoms back then. What they and you don't understand is that CO2 in an excited vibrational state is highly likely to dispose of that energy through collisions with N2 and O2 - air. Thus much of the CO2 doesn't even emit the energy it picks up from IR, it is directly transfered to air without IR emission. It warms up the air. If you doubt that you will have to come up with your own model that tells where the IR absorbed energy of CO2 does go.

And let me guess...you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air? Engineers who are far better educated in the hard sciences than any climate scientist...engineers who are paid to know what is going on in the real world and how their systems effect other systems? Is that what you are saying bucky?

you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air?

That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
My thermostat agrees.
Or am I being fooled by instrumentation?

So that's why window manufacturer have double glazed CO2 windows.

Why?

They use Argon, not CO2

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your promoting science of the mid 1800's. They didn't even know matter was composed of atoms back then. What they and you don't understand is that CO2 in an excited vibrational state is highly likely to dispose of that energy through collisions with N2 and O2 - air. Thus much of the CO2 doesn't even emit the energy it picks up from IR, it is directly transfered to air without IR emission. It warms up the air. If you doubt that you will have to come up with your own model that tells where the IR absorbed energy of CO2 does go.

And let me guess...you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air? Engineers who are far better educated in the hard sciences than any climate scientist...engineers who are paid to know what is going on in the real world and how their systems effect other systems? Is that what you are saying bucky?

you don't believe that the engineers and physicists involved in the radiant heat industry today are qualified to say that infrared from their devices does not warm the air?

That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
My thermostat agrees.
Or am I being fooled by instrumentation?

So that's why window manufacturer have double glazed CO2 windows.

Why?

They use Argon, not CO2

Ok. So what?

 

[Wuwei]

You couldn't find an answer at IPCC5 either. I feel your pain

I have never read any IPCC document and I don't intend to. I am not a chicken-little warmer. But when people here use trash thermodynamics to try to make a point then I will challenge them. Physics says CO2 and other GHGs do have an effect on climate, but I'm not going to take a stance on how large that effect is, nor whether or when anyone should panic.

 

[SSDD]

That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
My thermostat agrees.
Or am I being fooled by instrumentation?

Of course you are being fooled by your thermometer...being a solid object, the radiant heat in your house warms the thermometer..but it doesn't warm the air...perfect example of being fooled by instrumentation...the thermometer is accurate, you just don't know what the hell it is measuring.

My bet, however is that you don't even have radiant heat...pure radiant heaters are rarely used in homes..you mostly find them over the french fry bin in restaurants...they keep the food warm without heating up the air....if you have a radiant heater in your home, then it probably has a fan which blows air across the hot element in which case, your air is being warmed via conduction....not radiation.

 

[SSDD]

This is what you don't get, bucky.

The radiant heater in my house glows red hot - the visible range; around 1000 degrees. The amount of 15 micron IR is very small for that heater compared with the visible red and near IR. Simply look at the Boltzmann distribution for 1000 degrees you will see that it gets vanishingly small at around 15 microns. Only a vanishingly small amount of the heaters energy is absorbed by the CO2 in air. The Engineers are correct for red hot heaters. That heat will hit walls and warm the air by conduction or convection.

Here is what you aren't getting bucky...same as toddster...if you have a radiant heater in your home, it has a fan which blows air across that hot element...conduction is why the air in the room gets warm...not radiation. You mostly only see true radiant heaters with no fan in restaurant settings...above the fry bin...over the pies etc...they keep the food warm without warming the air...

So you are wrong again...congratuations to you bucky..

 

[SSDD]

You couldn't find an answer at IPCC5 either. I feel your pain

I have never read any IPCC document and I don't intend to. I am not a chicken-little warmer. But when people here use trash thermodynamics to try to make a point then I will challenge them. Physics says CO2 and other GHGs do have an effect on climate, but I'm not going to take a stance on how large that effect is, nor whether or when anyone should panic.

Challenge them with what? Your religious fervor? Certainly not your knowledge of thermodynamics...you have proven over and over that you don't have any...want to tell me again how you have a pure radiant heater in your home with no fan and yours happens to be the only place in the known universe where radiant heat warms the air?

 

[IanC]

Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.

You have asked this question at least a hundred times.

Do you really expect an answer? Are you really being serious? I don't think so.

Have you ever paid any any attention to an answer? I don't think so.

Wuwei told you how it got there. I told you how it got 'trapped'. Did you thank us for responding to your question? I don't think so.

Have you ever tried to answer your poorly worded question yourself? I don't think so.

Why haven't you quoted the relevant AR5 section. What do you mean by 'trapped'? What do you mean by 'excess heat'? Would it matter if the amount was 10% instead of 90%, or is the general mechanism and direction enough?

This is obviously a burning question in your mind. Have you tried to understand it by relating it to any or many of the topics that have been discussed here?

Or are you just being a dick?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.

You have asked this question at least a hundred times.

Do you really expect an answer? Are you really being serious? I don't think so.

Have you ever paid any any attention to an answer? I don't think so.

Wuwei told you how it got there. I told you how it got 'trapped'. Did you thank us for responding to your question? I don't think so.

Have you ever tried to answer your poorly worded question yourself? I don't think so.

Why haven't you quoted the relevant AR5 section. What do you mean by 'trapped'? What do you mean by 'excess heat'? Would it matter if the amount was 10% instead of 90%, or is the general mechanism and direction enough?

This is obviously a burning question in your mind. Have you tried to understand it by relating it to any or many of the topics that have been discussed here?

Or are you just being a dick?

All you had to say was that you didnt read IPCC 5.

 

[IanC]

Q. Per IPCC 5, please describe the mechanism by which 90% of excess heat is trapped in the ocean.

You have asked this question at least a hundred times.

Do you really expect an answer? Are you really being serious? I don't think so.

Have you ever paid any any attention to an answer? I don't think so.

Wuwei told you how it got there. I told you how it got 'trapped'. Did you thank us for responding to your question? I don't think so.

Have you ever tried to answer your poorly worded question yourself? I don't think so.

Why haven't you quoted the relevant AR5 section. What do you mean by 'trapped'? What do you mean by 'excess heat'? Would it matter if the amount was 10% instead of 90%, or is the general mechanism and direction enough?

This is obviously a burning question in your mind. Have you tried to understand it by relating it to any or many of the topics that have been discussed here?

Or are you just being a dick?

All you had to say was that you didnt read IPCC 5.

I have read certain parts of the AR5. The parts that I thought would have pertinent information on a question I had. I have also gone back to their referenced papers that they laid out their position from. I am probably most familiar with AR4, but I have read parts of all of them.

What parts have you read? Do you not understand this part that you keep asking about or do you just disagree with it?

Most likely you have not read it, don't understand it, and just like the idea of dismissing it with stupid questions that you don't really want an answer to.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's weird, my radiant heat warms the air in my home.
My thermostat agrees.
Or am I being fooled by instrumentation?

Of course you are being fooled by your thermometer...being a solid object, the radiant heat in your house warms the thermometer..but it doesn't warm the air...perfect example of being fooled by instrumentation...the thermometer is accurate, you just don't know what the hell it is measuring.

My bet, however is that you don't even have radiant heat...pure radiant heaters are rarely used in homes..you mostly find them over the french fry bin in restaurants...they keep the food warm without heating up the air....if you have a radiant heater in your home, then it probably has a fan which blows air across the hot element in which case, your air is being warmed via conduction....not radiation.

...being a solid object, the radiant heat in your house warms the thermometer..but it doesn't warm the air...

Ummmm....the thermostat measures the temperature of the air in my house.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is what you aren't getting bucky...same as toddster...if you have a radiant heater in your home, it has a fan which blows air across that hot element...conduction is why the air in the room gets warm...not radiation. You mostly only see true radiant heaters with no fan in restaurant settings...above the fry bin...over the pies etc...they keep the food warm without warming the air...

So you are wrong again...congratuations to you bucky..

1. You are wrong again bucky. My radiant heater has no fan, but it does have a reflector behind the coils. But that is just another distraction of yours.
2. You have again avoided the entire post that radiant heat from the sun and from the earth are in two different realms. The engineer is only interested in the visible light radiation which is not absorbed by earth gases. We are talking about radiation at earth ambient where GHGs do absorb IR.
3. Do you understand the difference, bucky?

 

[Wuwei]

Challenge them with what? Your religious fervor? Certainly not your knowledge of thermodynamics...you have proven over and over that you don't have any...want to tell me again how you have a pure radiant heater in your home with no fan and yours happens to be the only place in the known universe where radiant heat warms the air?

My gosh you didn't comprehend my post! I already said a heater glowing red does not significantly warm the air. Reread my previous post, #1475, more carefully for the difference between visible and micron radiation.