What does "equilibrium temperature of CO2 = -80F" mean?

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans love to use the word "equilibrium".

They think it makes them sound smart.

It's got all those letters.

Dean, Mr. Science, what do your studies show about the following:

What's the expected temperature increase from raising CO2 from 280 to 400PPM, and

How much must we lower CO2 to stop the climate from ever changing again?

 

[IanC]

Several posts have recently made the above statement and attempted to use it to argue against the greenhouse effect. However, I haven't the faintest idea what this statement is intended to mean. I have made several requests for an explanation but none have been forthcoming. Any thoughts?

Lets answer the idiot..

Photon temperature is defined by its EM wavelength signature. (The temperature of a black body radiating)

-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C.. ON this graph we have included the power curve of the photons emitted, which shows why the photons have little effect in our atmosphere without water.

/Thread Dead...

Hahahahaha, this is priceless!

BillyBoob finally got around to attempting to explain his statement. Was it -80F or the -80C like I suggested?

Then he doubled down on stupid with his fake precision and total lack of understanding the basics. The shorter the wavelength, the more energy the photon is composed from.

Water in its gaseous form, water vapour, is very much like CO2 because they both have three atoms and two bonds that react with IR. It is only water's ability to change phase at terrestrial temperatures that adds a different pathway for energy transport.

BillyBoob is not studying to be an atmospheric physicist. He is just too ignorant and confused. He may have a parent, sibling or child that has tried to explain certain aspects but he has totally garbled them to the point where even if he says something correct it is only by accident. If you mix a gallon of shit with a gallon of ice cream you get two gallons of shit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares about this.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Several posts have recently made the above statement and attempted to use it to argue against the greenhouse effect. However, I haven't the faintest idea what this statement is intended to mean. I have made several requests for an explanation but none have been forthcoming. Any thoughts?

Lets answer the idiot..

Photon temperature is defined by its EM wavelength signature. (The temperature of a black body radiating)

-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C.. ON this graph we have included the power curve of the photons emitted, which shows why the photons have little effect in our atmosphere without water.

/Thread Dead...

Hahahahaha, this is priceless!

BillyBoob finally got around to attempting to explain his statement. Was it -80F or the -80C like I suggested?

Then he doubled down on stupid with his fake precision and total lack of understanding the basics. The shorter the wavelength, the more energy the photon is composed from.

Water in its gaseous form, water vapour, is very much like CO2 because they both have three atoms and two bonds that react with IR. It is only water's ability to change phase at terrestrial temperatures that adds a different pathway for energy transport.

BillyBoob is not studying to be an atmospheric physicist. He is just too ignorant and confused. He may have a parent, sibling or child that has tried to explain certain aspects but he has totally garbled them to the point where even if he says something correct it is only by accident. If you mix a gallon of shit with a gallon of ice cream you get two gallons of shit.

WOW..

Attack the poster while ignoring the facts presented...

Way to go skidmark...

Do you even know how to calculate the emission temperature? Didn't think so..

 

[IanC]

WOW..

Attack the poster while ignoring the facts presented...

Way to go skidmark...

Do you even know how to calculate the emission temperature? Didn't think so.

Which facts? Are there any facts? Nothing you said makes any sense or matches up with any common conversions.

You said -80F many times in the past. Were you mistaken or lying or what....?

I assumed you were mistaken because a blackbody with a peak emission wavelength of 15 microns (the main CO2 wavelength) has a temperature of -80C.

16 microns is -92C. 12 microns is -31C. How the **** did you get your numbers?

Did you even go back and re-read what you wrote? You are a moron.

 

[IanC]

Why haven't BillyBoob or SSDD explained what they meant ?

It shouldn't be that hard to clear things up, even if it is just to admit they fucked up.

 

[IanC]

Several posts have recently made the above statement and attempted to use it to argue against the greenhouse effect. However, I haven't the faintest idea what this statement is intended to mean. I have made several requests for an explanation but none have been forthcoming. Any thoughts?

Lets answer the idiot..

Photon temperature is defined by its EM wavelength signature. (The temperature of a black body radiating)

-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C.. ON this graph we have included the power curve of the photons emitted, which shows why the photons have little effect in our atmosphere without water.

/Thread Dead...

Hahahahaha, this is priceless!

BillyBoob finally got around to attempting to explain his statement. Was it -80F or the -80C like I suggested?

Then he doubled down on stupid with his fake precision and total lack of understanding the basics. The shorter the wavelength, the more energy the photon is composed from.

Water in its gaseous form, water vapour, is very much like CO2 because they both have three atoms and two bonds that react with IR. It is only water's ability to change phase at terrestrial temperatures that adds a different pathway for energy transport.

BillyBoob is not studying to be an atmospheric physicist. He is just too ignorant and confused. He may have a parent, sibling or child that has tried to explain certain aspects but he has totally garbled them to the point where even if he says something correct it is only by accident. If you mix a gallon of shit with a gallon of ice cream you get two gallons of shit.

WOW..

Attack the poster while ignoring the facts presented...

Way to go skidmark...

Do you even know how to calculate the emission temperature? Didn't think so..

Why are you too chickenshit to answer the OP?

 

[Billy_Bob]

WOW..

Attack the poster while ignoring the facts presented...

Way to go skidmark...

Do you even know how to calculate the emission temperature? Didn't think so.

Which facts? Are there any facts? Nothing you said makes any sense or matches up with any common conversions.

You said -80F many times in the past. Were you mistaken or lying or what....?

I assumed you were mistaken because a blackbody with a peak emission wavelength of 15 microns (the main CO2 wavelength) has a temperature of -80C.

16 microns is -92C. 12 microns is -31C. How the **** did you get your numbers?

Did you even go back and re-read what you wrote? You are a moron.

Not sure where your getting your numbers, but they are wrong!

Blackbody Radiation | COSMOS

Wavelength | COSMOS

Electromagnetic Radiation | COSMOS

 

[IanC]

WOW..

Attack the poster while ignoring the facts presented...

Way to go skidmark...

Do you even know how to calculate the emission temperature? Didn't think so.

Which facts? Are there any facts? Nothing you said makes any sense or matches up with any common conversions.

You said -80F many times in the past. Were you mistaken or lying or what....?

I assumed you were mistaken because a blackbody with a peak emission wavelength of 15 microns (the main CO2 wavelength) has a temperature of -80C.

16 microns is -92C. 12 microns is -31C. How the **** did you get your numbers?

Did you even go back and re-read what you wrote? You are a moron.

Not sure where your getting your numbers, but they are wrong!

Blackbody Radiation | COSMOS

Wavelength | COSMOS

Electromagnetic Radiation | COSMOS

Hahahahaha. So you are going the SSDD route. Ignore the question and refuse to answer.

What a chickenshit loser.

Don't worry. After a week or so I will get tired of bumping this thread up to the top.

But you will still be too cowardly to explain your statement.

 

[Rigby5]

The equilibrium temperature at which co2 changes from a solid to a gas/gas to solid at a certain pressure.
It should read Celsius rather than Fahrenheit

Goes to liquid rather solid, no? I wasn't aware it sublimed.

{...
Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 standard atmospheres (520 kPa). At 1 atmosphere (near mean sea level pressure), the gas deposits directly to a solid at temperatures below −78.5 °C (−109.3 °F; 194.7 K) and the solid sublimes directly to a gas above −78.5 °C. In its solid state, carbon dioxide is commonly called dry ice.
Liquid carbon dioxide forms only at pressures above 5.1 atm; the triple point of carbon dioxide is about 5.1 bar (517 kPa) at 217 K (see phase diagram). The critical point is 7.38 MPa at 31.1 °C.[25][26] Another form of solid carbon dioxide observed at high pressure is an amorphous glass-like solid.[27] This form of glass, called carbonia, is produced by supercooling heated CO2 at extreme pressure (40–48 GPa or about 400,000 atmospheres) in a diamond anvil. This discovery confirmed the theory that carbon dioxide could exist in a glass state similar to other members of its elemental family, like silicon (silica glass) and germanium dioxide. Unlike silica and germania glasses, however, carbonia glass is not stable at normal pressures and reverts to gas when pressure is released.
...}

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.
The explanation for global warming, essentially is that earth is surrounded by a vacuum, so it can not lose any heat by conduction.
It can only lose the heat constantly radiating onto the earth by radiating it away again.
But much like light going through glass or plastic, the light energy in the atmosphere is altered from the frequencies from the sun originally.
The reflected or reradiated heat has to pass up to the outer atmosphere in order to leave the plant by radiation.
And the problem is that carbon tends to block radiation of energy, by converting it essentially into vibratory motion, in any asymmetric, bi-polar molecule, like CO2 or H2O. And vibratory energy can not leave the atmosphere. It is trapped.

 

[Crick]

Several posts have recently made the above statement and attempted to use it to argue against the greenhouse effect. However, I haven't the faintest idea what this statement is intended to mean. I have made several requests for an explanation but none have been forthcoming. Any thoughts?

Lets answer the idiot..

Photon temperature is defined by its EM wavelength signature. (The temperature of a black body radiating)

-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C.. ON this graph we have included the power curve of the photons emitted, which shows why the photons have little effect in our atmosphere without water.

/Thread Dead...

Hahahahaha, this is priceless!

BillyBoob finally got around to attempting to explain his statement. Was it -80F or the -80C like I suggested?

Then he doubled down on stupid with his fake precision and total lack of understanding the basics. The shorter the wavelength, the more energy the photon is composed from.

Water in its gaseous form, water vapour, is very much like CO2 because they both have three atoms and two bonds that react with IR. It is only water's ability to change phase at terrestrial temperatures that adds a different pathway for energy transport.

BillyBoob is not studying to be an atmospheric physicist. He is just too ignorant and confused. He may have a parent, sibling or child that has tried to explain certain aspects but he has totally garbled them to the point where even if he says something correct it is only by accident. If you mix a gallon of shit with a gallon of ice cream you get two gallons of shit.

WOW..

Attack the poster while ignoring the facts presented...

Way to go skidmark...

Do you even know how to calculate the emission temperature? Didn't think so..

Aside from your basic physics errors, there is the point that -80F is not -80C.

If you're going to tell someone their numbers are wrong, you need to provide either a good reference to the numbers or to the formula with which to calculate them. Not a website explaining c=lambda t

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Several posts have recently made the above statement and attempted to use it to argue against the greenhouse effect. However, I haven't the faintest idea what this statement is intended to mean. I have made several requests for an explanation but none have been forthcoming. Any thoughts?

Lets answer the idiot..

Photon temperature is defined by its EM wavelength signature. (The temperature of a black body radiating)

-80 deg C is the rough mean of 12um-16um bandwidth. At 16um its temperature is calculated to 78.1C and at 12um its temperature is 80.9C.. ON this graph we have included the power curve of the photons emitted, which shows why the photons have little effect in our atmosphere without water.

/Thread Dead...

Hahahahaha, this is priceless!

BillyBoob finally got around to attempting to explain his statement. Was it -80F or the -80C like I suggested?

Then he doubled down on stupid with his fake precision and total lack of understanding the basics. The shorter the wavelength, the more energy the photon is composed from.

Water in its gaseous form, water vapour, is very much like CO2 because they both have three atoms and two bonds that react with IR. It is only water's ability to change phase at terrestrial temperatures that adds a different pathway for energy transport.

BillyBoob is not studying to be an atmospheric physicist. He is just too ignorant and confused. He may have a parent, sibling or child that has tried to explain certain aspects but he has totally garbled them to the point where even if he says something correct it is only by accident. If you mix a gallon of shit with a gallon of ice cream you get two gallons of shit.

WOW..

Attack the poster while ignoring the facts presented...

Way to go skidmark...

Do you even know how to calculate the emission temperature? Didn't think so..

Aside from your basic physics errors, there is the point that -80F is not -80C

Meh, compared to his "covailent [sic] bonds prevent cooler photons from hitting warmer matter"and his "photons are influenced by magnetic fields" idiocy, that error is nothing.

 

[Crick]

And the Earth's magnetic field prevents the atmosphere from leaving the planet

 

[Wuwei]

side from your basic physics errors, there is the point that -80F is not -80C.

Look at Billy's chart and it becomes obvious that magnetism also prevents the sky from falling.

.

 

[IanC]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.
The explanation for global warming, essentially is that earth is surrounded by a vacuum, so it can not lose any heat by conduction.
It can only lose the heat constantly radiating onto the earth by radiating it away again.
But much like light going through glass or plastic, the light energy in the atmosphere is altered from the frequencies from the sun originally.
The reflected or reradiated heat has to pass up to the outer atmosphere in order to leave the plant by radiation.
And the problem is that carbon tends to block radiation of energy, by converting it essentially into vibratory motion, in any asymmetric, bi-polar molecule, like CO2 or H2O. And vibratory energy can not leave the atmosphere. It is trapped.

This type of comment is very scary to me because it appears to be made by a reasonably intelligent person who unfortunately has been influenced by media propaganda.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is not the same thing as global warming. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Etc.

 

[IanC]

Not sure where your getting your numbers, but they are wrong!

Okay. Unlike you I am willing to explain my thought processes.

I tried to figure out what actual condition you had garbled to come up with to get a number like -80F as an important figure for CO2.

My best guess was that you simply screwed up the temperature units for the Wien's Law temperature for CO2's main frequency of 15 microns.

That is only my guess. You have not been forthcoming in explaining what you were actually thinking.

You claim my other numbers were wrong. I just went to an online Wien's Law calculator and inserted numbers. How did you get yours? How could you possibly get a lower temperature for a higher energy frequency?

 

[Wuwei]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.

If you substituted the phrase green house gas for the phrase global warming your post would be more accurate. If all GHG's including water were gone, there would not be anything to prevent the surface from losing a great deal of radiation. If I remember right, the calculation is that the earth would be around -40 ℃. Is that what you intended?

.

I thought the number was closer to -18 ℃.

 

[Rigby5]

First of all, global warming not only is a well documented fact, but the earth's average temperature would be about 40 degrees colder, F, if not for global warming.
The explanation for global warming, essentially is that earth is surrounded by a vacuum, so it can not lose any heat by conduction.
It can only lose the heat constantly radiating onto the earth by radiating it away again.
But much like light going through glass or plastic, the light energy in the atmosphere is altered from the frequencies from the sun originally.
The reflected or reradiated heat has to pass up to the outer atmosphere in order to leave the plant by radiation.
And the problem is that carbon tends to block radiation of energy, by converting it essentially into vibratory motion, in any asymmetric, bi-polar molecule, like CO2 or H2O. And vibratory energy can not leave the atmosphere. It is trapped.

This type of comment is very scary to me because it appears to be made by a reasonably intelligent person who unfortunately has been influenced by media propaganda.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is not the same thing as global warming. Carbon is not carbon dioxide. Etc.

Sorry, but you are totally wrong. The greenhouse effect is identical to the force behind global warming.
The greenhouse effect is what retains heat in some sort of differential more than is allowed to escape.
It is what shifts the equilibrium out of a simple balance of in equals out.
Global warming is when you add more of whatever implements that imbalance, causing it to increase.
While there are more ways to do that other than carbon, carbon historically appears to be the MAIN one that initiates and ends the cyclic ice ages that are about 120,000 years long.
So by messing with carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, adding over 5 trillion tons a years with a form that accumulates because it does not decay, you ensure global warming.
Yes, water then is evaporated by the rising temperatures from the carbon, and that acts as an accelerator.
But it is always carbon that initiates the rise, historically.
So then yes, it is mostly the carbon we need to consider.
It is not just CO2, as methane, and lots of other carbon gases have even far greater effect than CO2.
CO2 is actually about the weakest of all greenhouse gases.
It just is the most common.