The Sound of Settled Science

[SSDD]

Give it up man.. Those statements are only about the INCREASED efficiency of infra red on DIRECT radiation to objects OTHER then air.. Never blatantly says the "air can NOT be warned" by IR.. Only that the heat capacity of the AIR is much less than the heat capacity of a steakburger or a human body..

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

They eat that pseudoscientific bullshit up like candy corn...it is as close to actual science as climate science in its present form is likely to get.

 

[Wuwei]

Did the battery require energy from its surroundings in order to have energy to discharge? If you didn't charge the battery, would it discharge? Sorry that this simple concept is so difficult for you....

If that defines your idea of spontaneity then, according to you, no process is ever spontaneous. According to you, heat can always flow from cold to hot objects because whatever caused the heat required prior work. If, as you once said, nothing man made is spontaneous, it would be impossible to for a spontaneous process to exist in a lab.

However we both know you are still lying about the meaning of spontaneous processes. You clearly know what the physics definition is but choose to defy it. That is the epitome of science nihilism and pseudoscience and lying too, of course.


.

 

[Wuwei]

They eat that pseudoscientific bullshit up like candy corn...it is as close to actual science as climate science in its present form is likely to get.

So says the king of pseudoscience. Your hypocrisy abounds.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wuwei jumps on anyone's wagon who seems to be supporting him...he went on for days once claiming that a f'ing flashlight was a spontaneous process because some nut job told him that an LED was an example of energy moving from cool to warm...if he weren't so damned tedious...he would be hilarious.

That is a total lie.
A battery discharging through a conductor IS spontaneous.

Look it up.

.

Did the battery require energy from its surroundings in order to have energy to discharge? If you didn't charge the battery, would it discharge? Sorry that this simple concept is so difficult for you....

Did the battery require energy from its surroundings in order to have energy to discharge?

Does the Sun's surface require energy from its surroundings in order to have energy to emit?

 

[flacaltenn]

Give it up man.. Those statements are only about the INCREASED efficiency of infra red on DIRECT radiation to objects OTHER then air.. Never blatantly says the "air can NOT be warned" by IR.. Only that the heat capacity of the AIR is much less than the heat capacity of a steakburger or a human body..

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

 

[Billy_Bob]

Give it up man.. Those statements are only about the INCREASED efficiency of infra red on DIRECT radiation to objects OTHER then air.. Never blatantly says the "air can NOT be warned" by IR.. Only that the heat capacity of the AIR is much less than the heat capacity of a steakburger or a human body..

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

That pump does "work".... That thing required for a colder object to warm a warmer one...

 

[flacaltenn]

Give it up man.. Those statements are only about the INCREASED efficiency of infra red on DIRECT radiation to objects OTHER then air.. Never blatantly says the "air can NOT be warned" by IR.. Only that the heat capacity of the AIR is much less than the heat capacity of a steakburger or a human body..

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

That pump does "work".... That thing required for a colder object to warm a warmer one...

But that's not the core point here, because the 2nd law is in the absence of additional power being added to the system. A "refrigerant" in a heat pump is REVERSIBLE. Meaning that the heat capacity of the gas used is sufficient to STORE HEAT.. It can either be used to move heat either to or from the medium it's acting on.. In this case the water coming INTO the system.. There are CO2 air condition/heating pumps as well on the market... Pretty nifty way to avoid expensive, and enviro dangerous fluoro-carbons.

 

[flacaltenn]

Now granted, those CO2 compressor units are not using the RADIANT properties of the gas, but the heat capacity issue is similar for both modes of thermo transfer..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

That pump does "work".... That thing required for a colder object to warm a warmer one...

But that's not the core point here. A "refrigerant" in a heat pump is REVERSIBLE. Meaning that the heat capacity of the gas used is sufficient to STORE HEAT.. It can either be used to move heat either to or from the medium it's acting on.. In this case the water coming INTO the system.. There are CO2 air condition/heating pumps as well on the market... Pretty nifty way to avoid expensive, and enviro dangerous fluoro-carbons.

CO2 in its liquefied state can store heat. CO2 in it gaseous state can not.

But I do understand your point...

 

[flacaltenn]

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

That pump does "work".... That thing required for a colder object to warm a warmer one...

But that's not the core point here. A "refrigerant" in a heat pump is REVERSIBLE. Meaning that the heat capacity of the gas used is sufficient to STORE HEAT.. It can either be used to move heat either to or from the medium it's acting on.. In this case the water coming INTO the system.. There are CO2 air condition/heating pumps as well on the market... Pretty nifty way to avoid expensive, and enviro dangerous fluoro-carbons.

CO2 in its liquefied state can store heat. CO2 in it gaseous state can not.

But I do understand your point...

That's not true.. There are vibrational modes for CO2 that don't exist in other gases that allow GH gases to store heat in the gaseous mode.. CO won't for instance.. But CO2 will...

Those heatpumps/air conditioners using CO2 are using the gaseous form..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

That pump does "work".... That thing required for a colder object to warm a warmer one...

But that's not the core point here. A "refrigerant" in a heat pump is REVERSIBLE. Meaning that the heat capacity of the gas used is sufficient to STORE HEAT.. It can either be used to move heat either to or from the medium it's acting on.. In this case the water coming INTO the system.. There are CO2 air condition/heating pumps as well on the market... Pretty nifty way to avoid expensive, and enviro dangerous fluoro-carbons.

CO2 in its liquefied state can store heat. CO2 in it gaseous state can not.

But I do understand your point...

That's not true.. There are vibrational modes for CO2 that don't exist in other gases that allow GH gases to store heat in the gaseous mode.. CO won't for instance.. But CO2 will...

Those heatpumps/air conditioners using CO2 are using the gaseous form..

As CO2 expands it cools and collects heat/energy (through convection and conduction) until it reaches equilibrium and expansion stops. It then begins radiating that heat. The compressor then creates the CO2 liquid by compressing it (which forces heat/energy out through convection and conduction) in the condenser after the heat has been expended. Very similar to R-12 or other refrigerants.

CO2 can only expend its energy in a gaseous form. The key here being the 100% CO2 concentration in a closed system. In our atmosphere the collisions will expend 99% of the energy they hold leaving a very small amount that can be re-radiated by it. I'm not going to re-litigate what you all are going round and round about, but I think we all need to deal in a bit more information so we compare apples to apples rather than apples to melons.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

That pump does "work".... That thing required for a colder object to warm a warmer one...

But that's not the core point here, because the 2nd law is in the absence of additional power being added to the system. A "refrigerant" in a heat pump is REVERSIBLE. Meaning that the heat capacity of the gas used is sufficient to STORE HEAT.. It can either be used to move heat either to or from the medium it's acting on.. In this case the water coming INTO the system.. There are CO2 air condition/heating pumps as well on the market... Pretty nifty way to avoid expensive, and enviro dangerous fluoro-carbons.

Reversing the flow is not storing heat. It is reversing the process of cooling (collecting energy) where the energy resides. This is why a heat pump is useless at 32 deg F and not much use below 60 deg F.

You are TRANSPORTING ENERGY not storing it. When the pump stops, the gas will return to vapor form and entropy will cause equilibrium with its surroundings.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A prime example is a CO2 fire extinguisher.

The cylinder is filled with liquid CO2 and is at room temp. When deployed, it creates ice in the air as it freezes (collects energy) during the liquid to gas transitional phase change. Once it expands, it rises and dissipates as it is now warmer than the surrounding atmosphere around it. Once it cools it again falls to the ground due to its molecular weight.

There was no energy stored by CO2. There was kinetic energy stored due to gas pressure. Once the gas pressure was expended the heat collected by the liquid going through its transitional state rises, cools, and then acts as every other molecule would due to its weight.

 

[JoeB131]

Humans don't generate enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...hell termites alone produce twice the amount of CO2 that we make... You really are a dupe.

Yeah, we really do... You don't think millions of cars aren't producing massive amounts of CO2, then you are in denial.

Again, no matter how many times I prove it's a weather balloon, you'll insist it's a flying saucer.

 

[SSDD]

Give it up man.. Those statements are only about the INCREASED efficiency of infra red on DIRECT radiation to objects OTHER then air.. Never blatantly says the "air can NOT be warned" by IR.. Only that the heat capacity of the AIR is much less than the heat capacity of a steakburger or a human body..

The air can be heated by energy...just not in the form of infrared....as if it really mattered since radiation is barely a bit player in the movement of energy through the troposphere. Conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...climate models, war mists, and luke warmers assume wrongly that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere which is why the climate models fail so miserably.

If you have some experimental evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a trace gas and warming in the atmosphere, I would like to see it. My bet, however, is that no such evidence will be forthcoming.

Flacalten is correct. Experiments to show IR heats CO2 has been shown in science fair type experiments, not to mention Foote's controlled experiment.


.

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

One of my favorite days with SSDD and his fractured physics was when I linked to several commercial sites offering CO2 compressors for heating and cooling... That one was painful for him...

Like for instance ---
Sanden CO2 Heat Pump Water Heater - SanCO2 - Sanden

Not a bad day for me. It was just another opportunity to illustrate how badly you guys misunderstand physical principles, and are willing to use practically anything in an effort to provide support for a radiative greenhouse effect that doesn't exist.

BillyBob beat me to the punch so there is no point in going over how wrong your example is all over again, but he is perfectly correct when he says that CO2 can't store heat till it is in its liquid form. Engineers, who work in the real world have known this all along...air conditioners, or your heat pump for example...require that the refrigerant be compressed into a liquid form in order to absorb and store heat...then it is allowed to return to its gaseous state at which time it releases the heat because as a gas, refrigerants can not hold heat...

If they could, there would be no point in wasting the energy required to compress them to a liquid form.

Here are a couple of links to sites that speak pretty clearly about CO2 being able to transport heat in its liquid form.

A Heat Pump Using Carbon Dioxide as the Refrigerant

Will cars ever run on carbon dioxide, or is that marketing hype?

It is pretty low to use such a misrepresentation of a physical principle in an attempt to fool someone into believing that the example was a rational analog to the theoretical greenhouse effect. Are you really that ignorant that you thought that it was a valid example, or were you just trying to fool anyone that knew little enough to be fooled? Ignorance can be excused...if it was a deliberate attempt to deceive, however, it speaks volumes to the strength of your position.

 

[danielpalos]

A new tropical Atlantic subsurface temperature reconstruction indicates it was 7°C warmer than today during the Younger Dryas/Bølling-Allerød (~15,000-11,500 years ago), when CO2 concentrations hovered around 210-220 ppm.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018PA003376

Climate change happens, regardless; we should be advancing materials technologies to upgrade our existing port cities.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, we really do... You don't think millions of cars aren't producing massive amounts of CO2, then you are in denial.

No...we don't. The earth, without human beings produces between 200 and 215 gigaton of CO2 per year...the variation from year to year can be as much as 15 gigaton. Human beings, with all our machines and cars, etc, produce about 8 gigatons of CO2 every year...about half of the amount that the earth's own CO2 making machinery varies from year to year.

Sure, cars, and factories, and everything else make a lot of CO2, but you seem to be completely unaware of the scale. Compare our 8 gigatons per year to the 210 to 215 gigatons per year that the earth produces whether we are here or not. Here is a short video that may help you get the scale squared away in your mind...if you can look at it, that is, without denying the truth of it.

Do keep in mind that when that video was made, atmospheric CO2 was at 385 parts per million. It has increased about 15 parts per million since then..our contribution is still 3 to 4% of the total so the number of grains of rice in the manmade bowl will increase to about 15 or 16 and that depends greatly on how much CO2 is actually being produced by all those undersea volcanoes that have been ignored...the 15 or 16 number could drop significantly depending on the total amount that is found to be coming from previously overlooked volcanoes.

Again, no matter how many times I prove it's a weather balloon, you'll insist it's a flying saucer.

What proof do you think you have offered up? Hell, you can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...much less "proof" that we are altering the global climate.

Thus far, all you have proved is that you have just about zero knowledge on the topic. First you made that nutty claim that rain removes CO2 from the air...where the hell did you get that idea? Now, you seem to be under the impression that we produce more CO2 than the earth's own CO2 making machinery. You have no informed opinion on the topic...you have an opinion that someone gave you and you repeat it, and when it is challenged, you resort to name calling and holding up consensus as if that were some sort of evidence.

 

[Wuwei]

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

Nye screwed up on that. But there were better constructed experiments that show that CO2 raised the temperature within a container compared to a control container.

You also seem to be one who believes CO2 that absorbs LW radiation cannot turn it to heat.

The reason that the air heats up near the earth (or in a controlled experiment) is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. The absorbed energy becomes vibrational energy of the GHG molecules.
3. The vibrating GHG molecules will largely hit random air molecules and transfer the vibrational to kinetic energy.
4. Gain of random energy by air molecules is thermal energy, or heat.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the earth radiation energy absorption. (conservation of energy)

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If you disagree with that, which of the 5 steps do you think is wrong.


.

 

[SSDD]

Oh, you mean science fair experiments like the one Bill Nye had to fake?

Nye screwed up on that. But there were better constructed experiments that show that CO2 raised the temperature within a container compared to a control container.

You also seem to be one who believes CO2 that absorbs LW radiation cannot turn it to heat.

The reason that the air heats up near the earth (or in a controlled experiment) is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. The absorbed energy becomes vibrational energy of the GHG molecules.
3. The vibrating GHG molecules will largely hit random air molecules and transfer the vibrational to kinetic energy.
4. Gain of random energy by air molecules is thermal energy, or heat.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the earth radiation energy absorption. (conservation of energy)

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If you disagree with that, which of the 5 steps do you think is wrong.


.

Want to show us the one where they bubbled water with CO2 filling the bottle with water vapor again...that one was funny...the experiment showed that water vapor could be warmed...what a discovery...all you manage to prove is that you can be fooled by any side show huxter

 

[airplanemechanic]

Here is a link to the national weather service...it looks at the warmest and coldest in chicago...as you will see if you are able to look at the truth...the 70's hardly rate. They certainly weren't the coldest temperatures ever recorded nor are they the warmest...they were just average...your memory is flawed..

Wow, that was a nice data d ump that had nothing to do with the point.

Um, no, it really wasn't. I remember the snow was so deep the sidewalks were like trenches and we had to go out and shovel every couple of hours sometimes to keep the sidewalk clear.

And poor Mayor Bilandic lost his job, and we got stuck with Jane Byrne because the city had a hissy over the snow.

"Global warming is real because I remember a lot of snow on the ground." OMFG are we actually being serious here ?

Dude a lot of snow doesn't mean it was colder, it means more precip fell when it was below 32 degrees you moron.

This shit would be funny if it wasn't so asinine.