The Sound of Settled Science

[Billy_Bob]

Neither you nor climate science has yet produced any actual evidence that the planet needs to be saved from our CO2 production. If you want to spend trillions of dollars, don't you think some observed, measured evidence indicating a problem might be in order?

Again, 95% of climate scientists say it is..

View attachment 260945

95% of scientists said Copernicus was wrong and labeled him a heritic and then jailed him.. Guess who was wrong then too..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your storage capacity of CO2 is less than .003ns. This means its ability is so limited it is to be near zero in the gas form.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole.. Heat storage is not measured in nanoseconds. And there is NO TIME LIMIT that would be quoted like for heat energy retention because it would have many parameters determining WHEN the molecule could lose the acquired the heat energy from a photon absorption.. Like random KINETIC collisions or which band of IR it absorbed..

Please stop.. It's embarrassing...

Your talking ENTROPY not storage... Your conflating the time it takes heat to leave the earths atmosphere and the energy stored by a molecule. They are very different things..

Sorry Flac... On this one your wrong.

No sources. No discussion.. You're making me uncomfortable, but not informing me of ANYTHING I can square with the Chemistry and Physics that I understand.. You can certainly CLAIM you're right, but you've not won a single honesty point here...

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

No...

It must re-emit the photon or lose its energy via collision within the time the photon resides before the dipole moment of the molecule expels it. This is not storage. You cant access it at will and it is time dependent due to the molecules make up.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/energy-transfer-rate

You're confused. There is no LONGTERM BULK STORAGE required for the GHouse effect or with regard to ANY of the gases that make up the same..

That's because the Earth is CONSTANTLY emitting and LOSING heat energy to the sky via IR and convection. It does this every hour/minute/second/nanosec of the day.. The atmos layer in which these GH gases resides only RETARDS that loss of heat. And as the concentration of GH gases INCLUDING water vapor increases, there is incrementally LESS going to the heavens and MORE being back-radiated/reflected/mirrored to the surface.

That not only causes new surface temp equilibriums, but the INSTANTANEOUS temperature of the troposphere where the bulk of these gases reside also increase in temperature because of the ability to retain that intercepted IR for however SHORT the residence time is... BECAUSE this is happening CONSTANTLY -- and ALL day and ALL night.. More GH gas -- the more heat RESIDES in those atmos layers.

Not "stored" as tho it's an energy tank with a spigot on it... The only efficient long term STORAGE of heat ANYWHERE on the planet is in the oceans or at the core.. And the oceans do not benefit from back-radiated IR as much as it does down-radiated total solar irradiance.

So we are talking ENTROPY and what adding mass to the atmosphere does not 'storage'... Good to know..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Neither you nor climate science has yet produced any actual evidence that the planet needs to be saved from our CO2 production. If you want to spend trillions of dollars, don't you think some observed, measured evidence indicating a problem might be in order?

Again, 95% of climate scientists say it is..

View attachment 260945

95% of scientists said Copernicus was wrong and labeled him a heritic and then jailed him.. Guess who was wrong then too..

You're not Copernicus.

 

[Wuwei]

You're not Copernicus.

I think he is asking to be jailed.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're not Copernicus.

I think he is asking to be jailed.


.

If there was a law against stupid, he'd be in the cell between SSDD and jc456.

 

[Wuwei]

You really can't figure out that it is conducted to the top of the atmosphere where it is then radiated out to space? Was that a mystery to you?

Ah, so you agree that 15 micron IR radiation from the earth warms the surface atmosphere. I thought both you and the sock puppets once said that radiation can't warm the atmosphere. My bad.


.

 

[SSDD]

You really can't figure out that it is conducted to the top of the atmosphere where it is then radiated out to space? Was that a mystery to you?

Ah, so you agree that 15 micron IR radiation from the earth warms the surface atmosphere. I thought both you and the sock puppets once said that radiation can't warm the atmosphere. My bad.


.

Of course not...IR can not warm the air.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really can't figure out that it is conducted to the top of the atmosphere where it is then radiated out to space? Was that a mystery to you?

Ah, so you agree that 15 micron IR radiation from the earth warms the surface atmosphere. I thought both you and the sock puppets once said that radiation can't warm the atmosphere. My bad.


.

You morons are priceless...

Conduction at the surface and convection are what warm the near surface atmosphere.

 

[flacaltenn]

We'll be all dead from another 0.15DegC change in the MASTemperature in 12 years? Get a fucking grip or INVEST some research on your own.. You know virtually nothing about the projections or the scientific claims for GW futures...

Again, matter of scale. I'll probably be dead by the time it has an effect. That wasn't the point being made at all....

the point is, it is a problem, we need to do something about it..

I'm not saying it's NOT a problem.. But from 20+ years of following the developments and reading the papers, the message the public has gotten is more hysteria than information for rational planning.. The cataclysmic projections for accelerated or "all positive feedback" warming are NOT accepted theory and in the 30 years we've able to accurately measure there is ZERO evidence that we have experienced anything like "runaway" GW or a "tipping point"..

 

[flacaltenn]

And there is no back radiation any more than there is back conduction or back convection...the simple fact is that CO2 can not hold energy beyond a fraction of a nanosecond unless it is in liquid form.

And again your gap in thermodynamics stems from the fact you didn't study ALL the modes of thermal transfer.. CLEARLY radiative thermal transfer is two way transfer.. AND - without violating the 2nd Law.. Because the hotter object ALWAYS loses heat to the cooler one.. Just like the Earth's surface does to the sky...

That's it.. You were gipped out of a complete knowledge of thermo... Simple.. Shouldn't be a continuing problem. Go take a course... Don't make EVERY thread about your misconceptions of science...

 

[flacaltenn]

And the claim of a record fails even in the past 150 years...here are the results of over 90,000 chemical analyses of atmospheric CO2...and by the way, chemical analysis is far more accurate than the spectral analysis which is being used by climate science today..

That's hysterical stuff. Especially if those hundreds or so points in the "local measurements" were taken indoors, outdoors, under the sea and 12,000 ft up by balloon... You got a SOURCE for that "locally measured CO2 data"??

You and BillyBob would have a MUCH EASIER time destroying a lot of the panicked GW assertions if you just STUCK to mainstream science and the facts. Making shit up and LOOKING for conspiracy science to make your case is a LOT HARDER than actually using real science...

Mainstream science on the topic is dead wrong...why would I want to be on that crazy train?

That right there is called "Jumping the Shark"... Good move Fonzi.....

 

[flacaltenn]

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

Storage doesn't enter the picture -- is PRETTY much what I described in the post above. Some posters are rejecting the fact that absorption/re-emission is a thing. Quoting "residency times" for that energy to be RETAINED by a CO2 molecule that don't have a fixed number..

GH theory doesn't require "storage" in the sense that the layer doesn't have to heat up to radiate back thermal energy to the planet.. But it does require that one accept the ability of those molecules to "retain" energy from kinetics and photons and pass that energy off again.. Which is where SSDD and BillyBob are stick in the ditch..

As for the saturation effect, you can see that by isobar levels there's substantial projection of the surface warming thru most of the troposphere. Lots to do with mighty strong convection processes.. In fact, have you ever read about the "hot spot" prediction?

Climate scientists find warming in higher atmosphere: Elusive tropospheric hot spot located

All of the logarithmic basics of CO2 saturation are based on "well mixed" assumptions. And there's lots of debate on HOW well-mixed one can assume the Troposphere to be...

 

[Billy_Bob]

GH theory doesn't require "storage" in the sense that the layer doesn't have to heat up to radiate back thermal energy to the planet.. But it does require that one accept the ability of those molecules to "retain" energy from kinetics and photons and pass that energy off again.. Which is where SSDD and BillyBob are stick in the ditch..

Please, Post up your evidence of this.

 

[flacaltenn]

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it absorbs from IR.

They both know that near the surface CO2 absorbs 15 micron energy. They both know that CO2 does not hang on to that energy but loses it through collision. That leaves the question, where does the energy go? (Conservation of energy etc.)


.

Doesn't lose it all from kinetics. In fact, just as likely to be gaining total thermal energy from collision.. They just dont believe that CO2 "back radiates".. Which is simply because in SSDD's case, photons can not travel towards warmer objects.

Or in BillyBob's case, I think the issue is he believes the layer of gas has to warm and store in order to reflect or backradiate a portion of the energy coming from surface IR... So the word "store" enters a discussion in a misunderstood way..

 

[JoeB131]

I pointed out that the GW people stand to make orders of magnitude more money and they require us to believe their evidence which is manufactured by poorly designed computer models and the only way for us to know if they were successful in saving the planet is to live 100 more years.

It's the perfect scam

Yes, yes, these scientist are all in this scam to get six figure grants and live on food stamps...

Are you fucking retarded?

 

[SSDD]

And again your gap in thermodynamics stems from the fact you didn't study ALL the modes of thermal transfer.. CLEARLY radiative thermal transfer is two way transfer.. AND - without violating the 2nd Law.. Because the hotter object ALWAYS loses heat to the cooler one.. Just like the Earth's surface does to the sky...

Why? Because your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model says so? Got an observed, measured example of spontaneous two way energy transfer between objects of different temperatures made with an instrument that isn't cooled to a temperature lower than at least one of the objects? And by measurement, I mean measurements of discrete energy frequencies, not simply a measurement of a temperature change within an internal thermopile and then "interpreted" via a calculation based on an assumption.

 

[SSDD]

And the claim of a record fails even in the past 150 years...here are the results of over 90,000 chemical analyses of atmospheric CO2...and by the way, chemical analysis is far more accurate than the spectral analysis which is being used by climate science today..

That's hysterical stuff. Especially if those hundreds or so points in the "local measurements" were taken indoors, outdoors, under the sea and 12,000 ft up by balloon... You got a SOURCE for that "locally measured CO2 data"??

You and BillyBob would have a MUCH EASIER time destroying a lot of the panicked GW assertions if you just STUCK to mainstream science and the facts. Making shit up and LOOKING for conspiracy science to make your case is a LOT HARDER than actually using real science...

Mainstream science on the topic is dead wrong...why would I want to be on that crazy train?

That right there is called "Jumping the Shark"... Good move Fonzi.....

And that right there is called jumping to an ill considered, uninformed conclusion.

Mainstream science has been dead wrong far more often than it has been dead right...consider history...

 

[SSDD]

GH theory doesn't require "storage" in the sense that the layer doesn't have to heat up to radiate back thermal energy to the planet.. But it does require that one accept the ability of those molecules to "retain" energy from kinetics and photons and pass that energy off again.. Which is where SSDD and BillyBob are stick in the ditch..

But GH hypothesis does require that radiation be the main mode of energy transport through the troposphere...it isn't...conduction and convection are the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere...the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere so completely dominated by conduction and convection is laughable.

 

[SSDD]

I pointed out that the GW people stand to make orders of magnitude more money and they require us to believe their evidence which is manufactured by poorly designed computer models and the only way for us to know if they were successful in saving the planet is to live 100 more years.

It's the perfect scam

Yes, yes, these scientist are all in this scam to get six figure grants and live on food stamps...

Are you fucking retarded?

So you ever have any evidence at all to support your statements or are you a buzzword bot who just repeats simple unsupportable phrases on command? Do you ever provide anything to support your claims or do you actually believe that just saying it is enough?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Or in BillyBob's case, I think the issue is he believes the layer of gas has to warm and store in order to reflect or backradiate a portion of the energy coming from surface IR... So the word "store" enters a discussion in a misunderstood way..

LOL

Wrong again;

You folks are conflating the mass of the atmosphere and its ability to SLOW energy release to some magical property, of a trace gas, you can not prove by empirical evidence. IF your belief were true then warming and cooling of the deserts should equal that of green and lush areas. The Empirical Evidence shows your hypothesis failed.

The only difference in these two atmospheres is water vapor, which by the way also radiates in the band, to a small degree, that wipes out any 'back radiation' that could possibly be from CO2. SO where is your proof CO2, in our atmosphere, has the ability to warm it?