How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[jc456]

Only GHGs in the lower half of the atmosphere are raising temperatures

not to be an ass, although I will come off as one here, but if C02 doesn't create heat, how can it raise temperatures? You just said GHG's, are you saying water molecules or all of the properties do it? Again, temperatures don't go up because of GHGs, the GHGs hold the heat the sun provided longer in an area lower in the atmosphere.

I don't have the year to teach you general chemistry ... sorry ... you'll need to find out on your own the what and why of emission spectra ... when "Balmer Series" means something to you, let me know ...

I actually use thermometers. they actually read temperatures. and heating an object to say 70 degrees, the object will radiate 70 degrees. And you have no link to support that it would radiate at 80 degrees.

 

[ReinyDays]

Only GHGs in the lower half of the atmosphere are raising temperatures

not to be an ass, although I will come off as one here, but if C02 doesn't create heat, how can it raise temperatures? You just said GHG's, are you saying water molecules or all of the properties do it? Again, temperatures don't go up because of GHGs, the GHGs hold the heat the sun provided longer in an area lower in the atmosphere.

I don't have the year to teach you general chemistry ... sorry ... you'll need to find out on your own the what and why of emission spectra ... when "Balmer Series" means something to you, let me know ...

I actually use thermometers. they actually read temperatures. and heating an object to say 70 degrees, the object will radiate 70 degrees. And you have no link to support that it would radiate at 80 degrees.

I actually use thermometers. they actually read temperatures. and heating an object to say 70 degrees, the object will radiate 70 degrees. And you have no link to support that it would radiate at 80 degrees.

Wein's Law says it radiates at 80º if it radiates at 70º ... I'm assuming Fahrenheit ...

Mehra, J.; Rechenberg, H.; The Historical Development of Quantum Theory; Springer-Verlag., New York City; 1982; Chapter 1.

Do you even know what temperature is? ... I've explained this to you before, you didn't understand then, you're not going to understand now ...

 

[jc456]

Only GHGs in the lower half of the atmosphere are raising temperatures

not to be an ass, although I will come off as one here, but if C02 doesn't create heat, how can it raise temperatures? You just said GHG's, are you saying water molecules or all of the properties do it? Again, temperatures don't go up because of GHGs, the GHGs hold the heat the sun provided longer in an area lower in the atmosphere.

I don't have the year to teach you general chemistry ... sorry ... you'll need to find out on your own the what and why of emission spectra ... when "Balmer Series" means something to you, let me know ...

I actually use thermometers. they actually read temperatures. and heating an object to say 70 degrees, the object will radiate 70 degrees. And you have no link to support that it would radiate at 80 degrees.

I actually use thermometers. they actually read temperatures. and heating an object to say 70 degrees, the object will radiate 70 degrees. And you have no link to support that it would radiate at 80 degrees.

Wein's Law says it radiates at 80º if it radiates at 70º ... I'm assuming Fahrenheit ...

Mehra, J.; Rechenberg, H.; The Historical Development of Quantum Theory; Springer-Verlag., New York City; 1982; Chapter 1.

Do you even know what temperature is? ... I've explained this to you before, you didn't understand then, you're not going to understand now ...

70 degrees =70 degrees.

thermostat on the wall says 70 degrees thermometer in another room says 70 degrees. The walls didn’t increase the inside temp. Hmmm

 

[Crick]

Only GHGs in the lower half of the atmosphere are raising temperatures ... the GHGs in the upper half of the atmosphere work to keep solar longwave off Earth's surface, reducing temperatures ... this fact mitigates much of the man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide ...

Are you suggesting that the Earth and the Sun have similar radiative spectrums? It seems to me that there's a pretty significant temperature difference between the two and thus a pretty significant difference in their spectrums. While a few meters of CO2 at 400 ppm in our atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of the IR radiated by the surface, while 22.5% of the incoming radiation from the Sun makes it through the complete thickness of our atmosphere, including reflective and opaque clouds. CO2 in the Stratosphere is not mitigating ANY significant amount of global warming

 

[daveman]

With CO2, the source of heat -- the sun -- is outside the blanket.

It's a good analogy, not a perfect one.

If you restrict heat flow, then an object has to get hotter to lose the same amount of heat. That's what the blanket or atmosphere does here.

Okay. Is anyone ever going to get around to proving CO2 has anything to do with that?

 

[jc456]

With CO2, the source of heat -- the sun -- is outside the blanket.

It's a good analogy, not a perfect one.

If you restrict heat flow, then an object has to get hotter to lose the same amount of heat. That's what the blanket or atmosphere does here.

Prove it. That seems rather simple to experiment with

 

[jc456]

Only GHGs in the lower half of the atmosphere are raising temperatures ... the GHGs in the upper half of the atmosphere work to keep solar longwave off Earth's surface, reducing temperatures ... this fact mitigates much of the man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide ...

Are you suggesting that the Earth and the Sun have similar radiative spectrums? It seems to me that there's a pretty significant temperature difference between the two and thus a pretty significant difference in their spectrums. While a few meters of CO2 at 400 ppm in our atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of the IR radiated by the surface, while 22.5% of the incoming radiation from the Sun makes it through the complete thickness of our atmosphere, including reflective and opaque clouds. CO2 in the Stratosphere is not mitigating ANY significant amount of global warming

Not at all, he’s saying our body is a heat source, the earth isn’t

 

[ReinyDays]

Only GHGs in the lower half of the atmosphere are raising temperatures ... the GHGs in the upper half of the atmosphere work to keep solar longwave off Earth's surface, reducing temperatures ... this fact mitigates much of the man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide ...

Are you suggesting that the Earth and the Sun have similar radiative spectrums? It seems to me that there's a pretty significant temperature difference between the two and thus a pretty significant difference in their spectrums. While a few meters of CO2 at 400 ppm in our atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of the IR radiated by the surface, while 22.5% of the incoming radiation from the Sun makes it through the complete thickness of our atmosphere, including reflective and opaque clouds. CO2 in the Stratosphere is not mitigating ANY significant amount of global warming

You've been misinformed ... a corollary to Wein's Law states that at any given wavelength, the hotter object always emits more energy that a colder object ... if we superimpose the light curves of both the Sun and Earth, the Sun's trace will always be above Earth's ... the Earth receives more energy from the Sun in the IR than the Earth emits ... per square meter ... perhaps your confusion stems from forgetting the Earth has 4 times as many m^2 emitting energy than receiving ... high school geometry ...

The Earth's albeto is usually given as 30% ... so in fact about 70% of solar energy reaches Earth's surface ... once again, you seem seriously misinformed ... solar IR is almost entirely absorbed by the Mesosphere and Stratosphere ... the top 18% of our atmosphere ... this is demonstrated by the temperature peak at the Stratopause, this is the area of our maximum absorption of solar radiation in the atmosphere ... how is it you don't know this basic fact of nature? ...

Seems you subscribe to the failed notion that photons come with return addresses, and molecules have the intelligence to decide which photons they accept and which to reject ... is someone keeping you as a pet in a kennel reading to you items out of the National Enquirer? ... just how much time did your parent keep you locked up in a wicker basket? ... I've met people with Kanner's autism who have more common sense than you ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Only GHGs in the lower half of the atmosphere are raising temperatures

not to be an ass, although I will come off as one here, but if C02 doesn't create heat, how can it raise temperatures? You just said GHG's, are you saying water molecules or all of the properties do it? Again, temperatures don't go up because of GHGs, the GHGs hold the heat the sun provided longer in an area lower in the atmosphere.

I don't have the year to teach you general chemistry ... sorry ... you'll need to find out on your own the what and why of emission spectra ... when "Balmer Series" means something to you, let me know ...

I actually use thermometers. they actually read temperatures. and heating an object to say 70 degrees, the object will radiate 70 degrees. And you have no link to support that it would radiate at 80 degrees.

I actually use thermometers. they actually read temperatures. and heating an object to say 70 degrees, the object will radiate 70 degrees. And you have no link to support that it would radiate at 80 degrees.

Wein's Law says it radiates at 80º if it radiates at 70º ... I'm assuming Fahrenheit ...

Mehra, J.; Rechenberg, H.; The Historical Development of Quantum Theory; Springer-Verlag., New York City; 1982; Chapter 1.

Do you even know what temperature is? ... I've explained this to you before, you didn't understand then, you're not going to understand now ...

70 degrees =70 degrees.

thermostat on the wall says 70 degrees thermometer in another room says 70 degrees. The walls didn’t increase the inside temp. Hmmm

70 degrees =70 degrees.
thermostat on the wall says 70 degrees thermometer in another room says 70 degrees. The walls didn’t increase the inside temp. Hmmm

Wait ... your post #561 says 70º and 80º ... if both rooms are at 70º, then no energy will flow ... which is kinda outside the field of thermodynamics; /thermo/ = heat energy, /dynamics/ = movement ... that's an extremely rare circumstance in our atmosphere ...

Again, you need to take a course in chemistry at your local community college ... you need to perform these experiments yourself to see how thermodynamics works in a practical situation, as well as learning basic atomic structure ... the explainations you've been given are suitable for high school students, I'm not sure we can dumb this down enough for middle school students ... your eyes glaze over and your jaw drupes whenever you come across a triple integral ... not very becoming ...

 

[jc456]

Wait ... your post #561 says 70º and 80º ... if both rooms are at 70º, then no energy will flow ... which is kinda outside the field of thermodynamics; /thermo/ = heat energy, /dynamics/ = movement ... that's an extremely rare circumstance in our atmosphere ...

actually, my furnace is a heat source and distributes the energy through forced air. Now what doesn't happen, is the walls then radiate at a higher temperature as noted by the two devices thermostat and thermometer.

 

[ReinyDays]

actually, my furnace is a heat source and distributes the energy through forced air. Now what doesn't happen, is the walls then radiate at a higher temperature as noted by the two devices thermostat and thermometer.

Thank you for demonstrating that quoted text can be edited ... pushed me to figure out how ...

Right, you're equally distributing the energy ... of course your energy measurements will be the same ... which by definition means equal temperatures ... duh ...

You need a new thermostat ... if temperature is 70º, and your thermostat is set to 70º ... your furnace should shut off ... also, there are no walls in atmosphere ... it's a fluid medium and the way we describe the physics is somewhat different ...

Anyway, the walls will certainly radiate no matter the temperature ... the mistake in your logic is that you assume that average temperature over 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per mole represents the exact temperature of each individual molecule ... nothing could be further from the truth ... any individual molecule above 70º will radiate photons until it gets back down to 70º ... barring getting smacked by another photon ...

You don't understand this, and you refuse to learn ... which is a whole bunch of "not my problem" ...

 

[Crick]

jc buys fully into the nonsense that matter refuses to radiate to a target that is already warmer. So, don't get your hopes up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

jc buys fully into the nonsense that matter refuses to radiate to a target that is already warmer. So, don't get your hopes up.

You bought into the nonsense that Mike's Nature Trick made the data "more accurate".........

 

[Grumblenuts]

Oh wait! Haven't those same scientists you're talking about predicted that the world would be without ice caps within a decade thirty years ago and that we were all going to die?

 

[jc456]

Anyway, the walls will certainly radiate no matter the temperature ... the mistake in your logic is that you assume that average temperature over 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per mole represents the exact temperature of each individual molecule ... nothing could be further from the truth ... any individual molecule above 70º will radiate photons until it gets back down to 70º ... barring getting smacked by another photon ...

again, the argument is that they don't radiate hotter than they are. not that they don't.

 

[jc456]

Oh wait! Haven't those same scientists you're talking about predicted that the world would be without ice caps within a decade thirty years ago and that we were all going to die?

here you go.

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

Former Vice President Al Gore said at a conference in 2009 that a scientist predicted a “75 percent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.”

In 2014, the ice caps were still there. In fact, it’s 2019 and the ice caps are still there.

Gore wasn’t the only one to make such bold prognostications about the future of Arctic ice.

In his book “A Farewell to Ice,” Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, predicted that polar ice in the Arctic would be gone by mid-decade.

 

[Crick]

Anyway, the walls will certainly radiate no matter the temperature ... the mistake in your logic is that you assume that average temperature over 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per mole represents the exact temperature of each individual molecule ... nothing could be further from the truth ... any individual molecule above 70º will radiate photons until it gets back down to 70º ... barring getting smacked by another photon ...

again, the argument is that they don't radiate hotter than they are. not that they don't.

Are you denying that you support the idea that matter does not radiate towards warmer matter? If so, I can probably bring up the posts. As to the actual question, I'd say you need a course in statistical thermodynamics, but I'm pretty sure its dramatically over your head. But go ahead and look it up. You might still get the picture.

 

[ReinyDays]

Anyway, the walls will certainly radiate no matter the temperature ... the mistake in your logic is that you assume that average temperature over 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per mole represents the exact temperature of each individual molecule ... nothing could be further from the truth ... any individual molecule above 70º will radiate photons until it gets back down to 70º ... barring getting smacked by another photon ...

again, the argument is that they don't radiate hotter than they are. not that they don't.

Are you denying that you support the idea that matter does not radiate towards warmer matter? If so, I can probably bring up the posts. As to the actual question, I'd say you need a course in statistical thermodynamics, but I'm pretty sure its dramatically over your head. But go ahead and look it up. You might still get the picture.

This is covered in 1st year Chemistry ... might even be touched upon in high school ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Generally speaking, "matter" doesn't radiate anything anywhere in particular.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Only GHGs in the lower half of the atmosphere are raising temperatures ... the GHGs in the upper half of the atmosphere work to keep solar longwave off Earth's surface, reducing temperatures ... this fact mitigates much of the man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide ...

Are you suggesting that the Earth and the Sun have similar radiative spectrums? It seems to me that there's a pretty significant temperature difference between the two and thus a pretty significant difference in their spectrums. While a few meters of CO2 at 400 ppm in our atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of the IR radiated by the surface, while 22.5% of the incoming radiation from the Sun makes it through the complete thickness of our atmosphere, including reflective and opaque clouds. CO2 in the Stratosphere is not mitigating ANY significant amount of global warming

400PPM absorbs 100% IR? Are you insane?