Instead of destroying A $211 billion industry that touches ALL our lives, why not use wastewater to absorb CO2?

[Crick]

Carbon dioxide is part of the emissivity of the atmosphere in the greybody form of SB ...

T^4 = S ( 1 - a ) / 4eo ... [where T=temperature, S=solar constant, a= albedo, e = emissivity and o = SB constant]

Emissivity is a dimensionless ratio where 1 = transparent and 0 = opaque ... AGW Theory predicts that increasing GHG decreases the transparency of air, it's emissivity; thus increasing temperature ... high school algebra ...

Right ... this is discontinuous at 0 ... all we can say is that when e approaches zero, temperature approaches infinity ... except it's not a radiator, this surface would retain all the energy it receives ...

So SB supports the Greenhouse effect. Good to know.

 

[ReinyDays]

So SB supports the Greenhouse effect. Good to know.

SB defines the Greenhouse Effect ... stupid ... greybody radiation ... how else would we model this? ...

Oh wait ... you don't know what temperature is, or why it matters ... nevermind what a fourth root is ... or why we divide by 4 ... yeesh that should be a red flag ... stupid ...

 

[Crick]

SB defines the Greenhouse Effect ... stupid ... greybody radiation ... how else would we model this? ...

Oh wait ... you don't know what temperature is, or why it matters ... nevermind what a fourth root is ... or why we divide by 4 ... yeesh that should be a red flag ... stupid ...

What I don't yet know is why you seem to think that SB disproves AGW.

 

[Flash]

CO2 supports all life on earth. It makes Photosynthesis work.

Life will come to an end on earth if CO2 levels get low enough.

We had better be careful about messing around with it.

 

[Crick]

CO2 supports all life on earth. It makes Photosynthesis work.

Life will come to an end on earth if CO2 levels get low enough.

We had better be careful about messing around with it.

Was that intentionally ironic?

 

[ReinyDays]

What I don't yet know is why you seem to think that SB disproves AGW.

It disproves CCC ...

Global warming is a scientific fact ... NOAA's data is close enough ... and man-kind has altered ALL terrestrial ecosystems ... it's not hard to find example of humans effecting weather and climate ... all SB says is GHGs are a small part of this whole AGW Theory ... I've never said CO2 doesn't raise temperatures, just not very much ... and a degree Celsius is tiny tiny tiny ... will not do what the media says it will ... that's meteorology ...

It take huge amounts of carbon dioxide to change temperatures a tiny bit ... a fourth root relationship ...

 

[Crick]

It disproves CCC ...

Global warming is a scientific fact ... NOAA's data is close enough ... and man-kind has altered ALL terrestrial ecosystems ... it's not hard to find example of humans effecting weather and climate ... all SB says is GHGs are a small part of this whole AGW Theory ... I've never said CO2 doesn't raise temperatures, just not very much ... and a degree Celsius is tiny tiny tiny ... will not do what the media says it will ... that's meteorology ...

It take huge amounts of carbon dioxide to change temperatures a tiny bit ... a fourth root relationship ...

How about you pop up some numbers that will allow SB to show us how GHGs are a small part of this. I'm also curious how you've come to the conclusion that "1C... will not do what the media says it will"

 

[Crick]

How about you pop up some numbers that will allow SB to show us how GHGs are a small part of this. I'm also curious how you've come to the conclusion that "1C... will not do what the media says it will"

I'm also wondering how many climate scientists you think are unfamiliar with SB and what its 4th power relationship looks like

 

[ReinyDays]

How about you pop up some numbers that will allow SB to show us how GHGs are a small part of this. I'm also curious how you've come to the conclusion that "1C... will not do what the media says it will"

For discreet solutions, we'll need to know the climate sensitivity values ... the IPCC assumes very large values for this, though these are not demonstrated, so they assume emissivity will change greatly with added CO2 ... if you could review IPCC AR5 1WG chapter 12 again, they're using the Classical form ∆T=5.35 W/m^2 k ln (Cf/Co) ... and this is satisfactory in the infrared range ... tell me what k equals and I can tell you temperature ...

Yeah ... just 1ºC is less than a mile ... alternately, "show me" where 1ºC makes any difference at all in weather, or the averages calculated for climate studies ... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... can humans even feel the difference? ... one room to the next? ... pretend I'm from Missouri and you gotta "show me" ...

I'm also wondering how many climate scientists you think are unfamiliar with SB and what its 4th power relationship looks like

If you don't know ... then admit your knowledge base doesn't extend this far and you're arguing from a position of ignorance ... spend some time in Ground School, then come back and we can fill in the details they leave out ...

SB is astrophysics ... stupid ... your climate hypothesis fails upon cross-examination ...

 

[Crick]

For discreet solutions, we'll need to know the climate sensitivity values ...

You stated "
It disproves CCC ... Global warming is a scientific fact ... NOAA's data is close enough ... and man-kind has altered ALL terrestrial ecosystems ... it's not hard to find example of humans effecting weather and climate ... all SB says is GHGs are a small part of this whole AGW Theory ..."

Then show us how

the IPCC assumes very large values for this,

The IPCC estimates of ECS and TCR have varied over a small range since AR1. AR6 gives them as

There are decades of work behind these numbers. I have no idea what you mean by "these are not demonstrated".

so they assume emissivity will change greatly with added CO2 ...

CO2 has a very low emissivity between 0.002 and 0.2. Adding it to the atmosphere will lower total emissivity

if you could review IPCC AR5 1WG chapter 12 again, they're using the Classical form ∆T=5.35 W/m^2 k ln (Cf/Co) ... and this is satisfactory in the infrared range ... tell me what k equals and I can tell you temperature ...

I didn't ask you for a temperature. I asked you to demonstrate the claims you have made about SB: that it "disproves CCC" or that GHGs are a small part of AGW theory. You are still stalling.

Yeah ... just 1ºC is less than a mile ...

I haven't the faintest idea what you intend by that remark

alternately, "show me" where 1ºC makes any difference at all in weather

You stated "a degree Celsius is tiny tiny tiny ... will not do what the media says it will ... that's meteorology ...".
This statement strenuously implies that you have at least some idea of what the media says it will do and are able to demonstrate their error. If not, you need to admit it.

, or the averages calculated for climate studies ... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... can humans even feel the difference? ... one room to the next? ... pretend I'm from Missouri and you gotta "show me" ...

You are weaseling and stalling. If you are unable to do what you claim you could do, you need to admit it.

If you don't know ... then admit your knowledge base doesn't extend this far and you're arguing from a position of ignorance ... spend some time in Ground School, then come back and we can fill in the details they leave out ...

I'm the one that's had two semester of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer; none of which really matters since SB could be understood and used by an 8th grader. You have made claims about SB and AGW. When asked to demonstrate these claims you have been a great deal less than forthcoming.

SB is astrophysics ... stupid ... your climate hypothesis fails upon cross-examination ...

SB was deduced by Josef Stefan in 1877 from measurements presented by John Tyndall in 1864 of the infrared emission of a platinum filament and its corresponding color. It had been experimentally verified twice before 1900. It may certainly be applied to astrophysics today, but that is certainly NOT the field from which it originated. You will find it taught in physics and thermodynamics.

Now then, what climate hypothesis do you believe fails upon what cross-examination?

​

 

[ReinyDays]

I didn't ask you for a temperature. I asked you to demonstrate the claims you have made about SB: that it "disproves CCC" or that GHGs are a small part of AGW theory.

What is there about AGW Theory that doesn't have to do with temperature? ... SB predicts that more carbon dioxide effects AGW less ... the "catastrophic" scenarios require the opposite, your "runaway greenhouse effect" ... IPCC AR5 1WG Figure 12-5 ... see how the RPC4.5 Scenario consensus model tails off? ...

How many ppm CO2 does it take to give 4.5 W/m^2 forcing? ... you say you've taken thermodynamics classes, then you should be able to solve the field equations for us ... and tell us what the calculated value is ... I say you're lying ... you know nothing of thermodynamics ...

You don't even know why we have two definitions for temperature ... so, what catastrophe has occurred because of the 1ºC temperature increase we have seen these past 140 years ... if there is none, then I have nothing to disprove ... why should we belief another single degree will be any different ... IPCC AR5 1WG Figure 12-5 ... it is unlikely for any further temperature increase ... for reasons you should already understand, except you lie ... cleverly ignoring the parts of the IPCC report you don't understand ...

2 feet sea level rise over 100 years ... that's not even a nuisance the way Florida builds with concrete ...

 

[Crick]

What is there about AGW Theory that doesn't have to do with temperature? ...

More stalling. More weaseling. More bullshit science trying to make it look like you know what you're talking about.

SB predicts that more carbon dioxide effects AGW less ...

Do you actually believe that the world's climate scientists do not understand that equation? They use it for a fucking living. You don't use it at all.

the "catastrophic" scenarios require the opposite, your "runaway greenhouse effect" ...

The scenarios vary only in what humans do, not in the transient or equilibrium sensitivities nor in the effect of feedback mechanisms.

IPCC AR5 1WG Figure 12-5 ... see how the RPC4.5 Scenario consensus model tails off? ...

All but the worst case models have always tailed off. And they are not called "consensus models".

How many ppm CO2 does it take to give 4.5 W/m^2 forcing? ... you say you've taken thermodynamics classes, then you should be able to solve the field equations for us ...

I have taken thermodynamics and heat transfer and physics with calculus which all tells me that, among other things, I know for a fact that there is no application of field equations involved in any of this. And even those with no higher education at all can clearly see that you are stalling. Show us how SB disproves CCC. Use SB to show us where the IPCC and the thousands of studies they have assessed got it so wrong

and tell us what the calculated value is ... I say you're lying ... you know nothing of thermodynamics ...

I don't care what you think. I do care that you have made numerous claims that you cannot back up because they are false.

You don't even know why we have two definitions for temperature ... so, what catastrophe has occurred because of the 1ºC temperature increase we have seen these past 140 years ...

I should not have to keep pulling up quotes of your statements to remind you what have actually claimed to be true.

if there is none, then I have nothing to disprove ... why should we belief another single degree will be any different ... IPCC AR5 1WG Figure 12-5 ... it is unlikely for any further temperature increase ... for reasons you should already understand, except you lie ... cleverly ignoring the parts of the IPCC report you don't understand ...

2 feet sea level rise over 100 years ... that's not even a nuisance the way Florida builds with concrete ...

And, so, once more you do absolutely nothing to demonstrate what you have claimed to be able to demonstrate. The IPCC breathes a sigh of relief. ; - ) Reiny_Days is not a scientist and does not have a scientist's education. And, on top of that, he seems more interested in his reputation for knowledge than his reputation for honesty. If he tells you something that differs from what the world's scientists are telling you, believe the scientists.

 

[ReinyDays]

More stalling. More weaseling. More bullshit science trying to make it look like you know what you're talking about.

Do you actually believe that the world's climate scientists do not understand that equation? They use it for a fucking living. You don't use it at all.

The scenarios vary only in what humans do, not in the transient or equilibrium sensitivities nor in the effect of feedback mechanisms.

All but the worst case models have always tailed off. And they are not called "consensus models".

I have taken thermodynamics and heat transfer and physics with calculus which all tells me that, among other things, I know for a fact that there is no application of field equations involved in any of this. And even those with no higher education at all can clearly see that you are stalling. Show us how SB disproves CCC. Use SB to show us where the IPCC and the thousands of studies they have assessed got it so wrong

I don't care what you think. I do care that you have made numerous claims that you cannot back up because they are false.

I should not have to keep pulling up quotes of your statements to remind you what have actually claimed to be true.

And, so, once more you do absolutely nothing to demonstrate what you have claimed to be able to demonstrate. The IPCC breathes a sigh of relief. ; - ) Reiny_Days is not a scientist and does not have a scientist's education. And, on top of that, he seems more interested in his reputation for knowledge than his reputation for honesty. If he tells you something that differs from what the world's scientists are telling you, believe the scientists.

Then let's start by discussing temperature ... which definition are you using? ...

I use SB for photometry ... how about yourself? ... ever use a filter-pack on a telescope? ...

 

[Crick]

Then let's start by discussing temperature ... which definition are you using? ...

I use SB for photometry ... how about yourself? ... ever use a filter-pack on a telescope? ...

How about you quit stalling?

 

[ReinyDays]

How about you quit stalling?

T^4 = ( S - a )/4eo ...

Would you rather start with the solar constant? ... do you know that definition? ...

You don't know what we mean by temperature here ... so really no point going on ... you don't think temperature has anything to do with global warming ... "I didn't ask you for a temperature." ... because you don't know what temperature is ...

SB defines the Greenhouse Effect ... stupid ... greybody radiation ... how else would we model this? ...

 

[Crick]

T^4 = ( S - a )/4eo ...

Would you rather start with the solar constant? ... do you know that definition? ...

You don't know what we mean by temperature here ... so really no point going on ... you don't think temperature has anything to do with global warming ... "I didn't ask you for a temperature." ... because you don't know what temperature is ...

SB defines the Greenhouse Effect ... stupid ... greybody radiation ... how else would we model this? ...

Every time you open your posts asking me what I'd prefer I know it just gonna be more stalling.

Quit stalling and do what you told us you could do.

 

[Crick]

Every time you open your posts asking me what I'd prefer I know it just gonna be more stalling.

Quit stalling and do what you told us you could do.

Or be a fucking man and admit you can't.

 

[ReinyDays]

Every time you open your posts asking me what I'd prefer I know it just gonna be more stalling.

Quit stalling and do what you told us you could do.

Any discussion of SB starts with temperature ... how are you defining this and why? ... this is first year physics ... and you don't understand ... maybe stop claiming you do? ... Ground School for pilots would give you a better understanding of weather, and the averages that can be calculated from weather data ... including temperature ...

Avail yourself ...

 

[Crick]

Any discussion of SB starts with temperature ... how are you defining this and why? ... this is first year physics ... and you don't understand ... maybe stop claiming you do? ... Ground School for pilots would give you a better understanding of weather, and the averages that can be calculated from weather data ... including temperature ...

Avail yourself ...

I think at this point it is completely obvious to anyone whose been watching this dialog that you are incapable of using SB to demonstrate any of the several things you have claimed on its behalf. SB does not refute AGW.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think at this point it is completely obvious to anyone whose been watching this dialog that you are incapable of using SB to demonstrate any of the several things you have claimed on its behalf. SB does not refute AGW.

As everyone is convinced you don't know what temperature is ... how would you know what SB says? ... or why Climatologists model atmospheric physics with it ...

Ground School ... cheapskate ... maybe learn something about weather ...