texasSlick
VIP MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2013
- Messages
- 4,164
1. Nope sorry, CO2 is non polar. First paragraph. Doesn't make your argument wrong but it doesn't look good either.
https://sciencetrends.com/is-carbon-dioxide-co2-polar-or-nonpolar/amp/
I'll go with the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, over sciencetrends.com
2. Visible light accounts for half of the solar spectrum. Yes, you implied it was visible that was of any concern
3. The radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is reflected by snow, ice, clouds etc... The rest is absorbed. Agree This heat created by shortwave radiation absorption is re-emitted all of it? does not some get conducted into the earth's land and sea mass? as longwave, some escapes the atmosphere and some remains, thus heating the lower atmosphere and making this planet livable. I agree wavelength changes depending on the temperature of the source Read up on the "Earths Radiation Budget" for a better understanding. Not likely to happen
4. Now, the composition (O2, N2, Ar, H2O, and CO2) of our atmosphere warms the planet naturally by reflecting reflecting? or emitting? .... not the same. Clouds will reflect, and being composed of a polar gas, will emit, or radiate as well. CO2 will emit, but the other gasses are transparent to radiation ... they do not absorb or emit, that is, re-radiate. some of this radiation back at the earth, maintaining livable, comfortable conditions. Increasing the concentration of these gasses inhibits the escape of warming long-wave radiation and increased the temp of the lower atmosphere. most of the planet is warmed by incident radiation, just as your hand is warmed ... it does not take the atmosphere reflecting back to make you sense heat. As for ..."Increasing the concentration of these gasses inhibits the escape of warming long-wave radiation" if you limit the gasses to radiation absorbing/emitting gasses, then the statement is true, as the energy absorbed and emitted does depend on wavelength, and is accounted for in Boltzmann's determination of the constant 's'.
As I have heretofore said, a complete accounting of the energy balance is too complex to get very far from the most rudimentary analysis, at least without a robust computer model. I am sure there are such models, but as yet I know of no research that has put the essential number on WHAT PERCENTAGE OF FORCES DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE IS DUE TO CO2?
5. CO2 allows short wave radiation from the sun to pass, while absorbing long-wave from the Earth. This is how it is known to behave through scientific observation. accounted for in Boltzmann's determination of the constant 's'.
6. Long-wave reflection is not unidirectional, I stated 50:50 as an example, 50 in and 50 out. That's being generous. Note my use of the word partially. I did not say it was unidirectional .... you did, in your self contradiction in the previous reply. In order for all your assertions to be true, it would have to be unidirectional. I think you are trying to make CO2 a one way device for radiation, sort of like an electrical diode, or one way valve. As stated above, the value of the Stefan-Boltzmann factor 's' is wavelength dependent, but it by no means shuts down radiation in one direction.
7. I am familiar with Boltzmann but not enough to refute his claims, I'll have to read.
EDIT: After doing a bit of reading on the stefan-boltzmann law it appears that it cannot be applied to the Earth since the earth is not a black body (a perfect black body has 's' = 1.0; it can still radiate with a lower value of 's') with a single radiating layer. In fact, the Earth radiates heat from a variety of heights depending on wavelength.The Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be applied to any body, earth included, that is at a different temperature from a source,or a sink, of radiation. The trick is to determine the value of 's'.
8. Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy. You should have know this is what I was referring to given the context of the conversation. It was Sadi Carnot, not Newton, who postulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics
FYI: to put the three laws of thermodynamics into simple terms, we can postulate:
First Law - you can't get something for nothing
Second Law - worse than that, you can't even break even
Third Law - that is the way things are, you might as well get used to it.
9. No one is claiming the world is going to burn up. Nor has anyone ever. My saying "the planet will become a cinder", is a euphemism to cover the absurd claims that are being made. We have in the US Congress, a person who has stated we have only 9 years left! We also have an autistic 16 year old kid trying to convince the world time is short. Neither have a clue. There will however be consequences, preparing for them is important. Denying they will exist is ignorant. A true statement ... there are always consequences (Second Law). I am not denying the climate is changing ... read Reply #6. I mainly do not want to fork over my tax dollars to a few oligarchs, so they can enrich and empower themselves, based on their promise they will save the world from CO2. (especially when they themselves do not have a clue, and especially when they cannot offer that number I seek). I much prefer to help humanity in ways that are self evident, meaningful, practical, and with measurable results.
10. If 2020 science existed 600 years ago we would have a VERY good idea of what caused the mini ice age. Still it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant! Are we not talking about climate change? We can assemble the facts, and make a conclusion based upon reason, logic, and science. I never claimed what caused the mini ice age .. I merely stated it existed,(fact) then the climate warmed,(fact) and I pointed out this happened before the industrial revolution,(fact) before man dumped CO2 into the atmosphere,(fact) and I conclude nature did this,(most likely) did not stop its processes after the industrial revolution,(most likely) and will revert. (a leap of faith)
11. Yes, it is difficult to put a quantifiable number on the impact of CO2 when a variety of other gasses, activities have a part to play as well. It is afterall the entirety of our world, very complex and hard to quantify. A chain of complexities.
I have been saying this all along. And because it is so complex, I am not about to jump on the globalist's bandwagon, just because they, and a 16 yr old kid, say CO2 is a big bug-a-boo.
I am a bit miffed as to why a self described authority in a scientific field is finding himself at odds with 100% of the authorities in the scientific field we are currently debating? Where did you get 100%? I would say more like 50%. If you cannot understand my position, then I have failed in my tutorial.
You seem to have a lot of questions about the science. I hope you are taking what I am saying to heart.
I am tired of this now, I may not come back to this thread.
Slick
https://sciencetrends.com/is-carbon-dioxide-co2-polar-or-nonpolar/amp/
I'll go with the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, over sciencetrends.com
2. Visible light accounts for half of the solar spectrum. Yes, you implied it was visible that was of any concern
3. The radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is reflected by snow, ice, clouds etc... The rest is absorbed. Agree This heat created by shortwave radiation absorption is re-emitted all of it? does not some get conducted into the earth's land and sea mass? as longwave, some escapes the atmosphere and some remains, thus heating the lower atmosphere and making this planet livable. I agree wavelength changes depending on the temperature of the source Read up on the "Earths Radiation Budget" for a better understanding. Not likely to happen
4. Now, the composition (O2, N2, Ar, H2O, and CO2) of our atmosphere warms the planet naturally by reflecting reflecting? or emitting? .... not the same. Clouds will reflect, and being composed of a polar gas, will emit, or radiate as well. CO2 will emit, but the other gasses are transparent to radiation ... they do not absorb or emit, that is, re-radiate. some of this radiation back at the earth, maintaining livable, comfortable conditions. Increasing the concentration of these gasses inhibits the escape of warming long-wave radiation and increased the temp of the lower atmosphere. most of the planet is warmed by incident radiation, just as your hand is warmed ... it does not take the atmosphere reflecting back to make you sense heat. As for ..."Increasing the concentration of these gasses inhibits the escape of warming long-wave radiation" if you limit the gasses to radiation absorbing/emitting gasses, then the statement is true, as the energy absorbed and emitted does depend on wavelength, and is accounted for in Boltzmann's determination of the constant 's'.
As I have heretofore said, a complete accounting of the energy balance is too complex to get very far from the most rudimentary analysis, at least without a robust computer model. I am sure there are such models, but as yet I know of no research that has put the essential number on WHAT PERCENTAGE OF FORCES DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE IS DUE TO CO2?
5. CO2 allows short wave radiation from the sun to pass, while absorbing long-wave from the Earth. This is how it is known to behave through scientific observation. accounted for in Boltzmann's determination of the constant 's'.
6. Long-wave reflection is not unidirectional, I stated 50:50 as an example, 50 in and 50 out. That's being generous. Note my use of the word partially. I did not say it was unidirectional .... you did, in your self contradiction in the previous reply. In order for all your assertions to be true, it would have to be unidirectional. I think you are trying to make CO2 a one way device for radiation, sort of like an electrical diode, or one way valve. As stated above, the value of the Stefan-Boltzmann factor 's' is wavelength dependent, but it by no means shuts down radiation in one direction.
7. I am familiar with Boltzmann but not enough to refute his claims, I'll have to read.
EDIT: After doing a bit of reading on the stefan-boltzmann law it appears that it cannot be applied to the Earth since the earth is not a black body (a perfect black body has 's' = 1.0; it can still radiate with a lower value of 's') with a single radiating layer. In fact, the Earth radiates heat from a variety of heights depending on wavelength.The Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be applied to any body, earth included, that is at a different temperature from a source,or a sink, of radiation. The trick is to determine the value of 's'.
8. Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy. You should have know this is what I was referring to given the context of the conversation. It was Sadi Carnot, not Newton, who postulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics
FYI: to put the three laws of thermodynamics into simple terms, we can postulate:
First Law - you can't get something for nothing
Second Law - worse than that, you can't even break even
Third Law - that is the way things are, you might as well get used to it.
9. No one is claiming the world is going to burn up. Nor has anyone ever. My saying "the planet will become a cinder", is a euphemism to cover the absurd claims that are being made. We have in the US Congress, a person who has stated we have only 9 years left! We also have an autistic 16 year old kid trying to convince the world time is short. Neither have a clue. There will however be consequences, preparing for them is important. Denying they will exist is ignorant. A true statement ... there are always consequences (Second Law). I am not denying the climate is changing ... read Reply #6. I mainly do not want to fork over my tax dollars to a few oligarchs, so they can enrich and empower themselves, based on their promise they will save the world from CO2. (especially when they themselves do not have a clue, and especially when they cannot offer that number I seek). I much prefer to help humanity in ways that are self evident, meaningful, practical, and with measurable results.
10. If 2020 science existed 600 years ago we would have a VERY good idea of what caused the mini ice age. Still it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant! Are we not talking about climate change? We can assemble the facts, and make a conclusion based upon reason, logic, and science. I never claimed what caused the mini ice age .. I merely stated it existed,(fact) then the climate warmed,(fact) and I pointed out this happened before the industrial revolution,(fact) before man dumped CO2 into the atmosphere,(fact) and I conclude nature did this,(most likely) did not stop its processes after the industrial revolution,(most likely) and will revert. (a leap of faith)
11. Yes, it is difficult to put a quantifiable number on the impact of CO2 when a variety of other gasses, activities have a part to play as well. It is afterall the entirety of our world, very complex and hard to quantify. A chain of complexities.
I have been saying this all along. And because it is so complex, I am not about to jump on the globalist's bandwagon, just because they, and a 16 yr old kid, say CO2 is a big bug-a-boo.
I am a bit miffed as to why a self described authority in a scientific field is finding himself at odds with 100% of the authorities in the scientific field we are currently debating? Where did you get 100%? I would say more like 50%. If you cannot understand my position, then I have failed in my tutorial.
You seem to have a lot of questions about the science. I hope you are taking what I am saying to heart.
I am tired of this now, I may not come back to this thread.
Slick
