What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

1G12

Active member
I'll re-post this for those that haven't seen it.

I'll re-post this for those that haven't seen it.

To get a good understanding of the greenhouse effect, you have to look at reflection and wavelength, and/or by looking at the Earth's energy balance

Most of our heat comes from the sun, but a smaller share comes from the internal heat of the earth, but the internal heat from inside the earth is reasonably consistent and can be ignored for the sake of this argument. Stored heat is also important, and that, for example, explains why the lowest sunshine day of the year (December 21) isn't the coldest day of the year, but to keep this reasonably short, lets ignore stored heat too.

The heat in / heat out balance works kind of like this:

71% of the energy we get from the sun warms the earth, 29% is directly reflected back into space.
Of that 71%, 59% is returned to space from the atmosphere and just 12% is returned to space from the surface. That's the atmospheric blanket effect in a sense. Most of the heat, in the form of infra-red light has to travel through the atmosphere to leave the earth and the greenhouse effect reflects that light, just like colored dye in water reflects light, where clear water mostly lets light pass through it.

Atmospheric circulation plays a role too, so do clouds, but lets ignore that for now as well. The greenhouse effect, caused by CO2 or other greenhouse gas, H20 or CH4 (H20 in clouds is different, that's tiny ice particles), but water vapor, which, in the air is invisible to our eyes. They work in essentially the same way as putting colored dye in water, the colored water absorbed and reflects more light than clear water, and the sky, to infrared light, is opaque with greenhouse gas. That Opaqueness can only be removed by reducing the amount of greenhouse gas. It can't be removed by adding other gas, so the greenhouse effect is essentially, directly tied to the total amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

What Greenhouse gas does is it affects the 12% and 59%, and the rate and way that heat leaves the earth. If heat leaves the earth more slowly, the earth gradually warms.

What "global cooling" gases do, doesn't undo what greenhouse gas does. That's not possible, any more than it's possible to make a dye in water stop being opaque by adding another color.
Global cooling gases do exist, but they work in a different way, by affecting the 71%-29% ratio.

Volcanic gas, for example, raises the 29% of immediate reflection and that cools the earth. Volcanic cooling however is quite temporary, lasting a few years at most, but that's basically the gist of things, what reflective to visible light gases can be used to raise the 29% so that the thicker blanket of greenhouse gas is counteracted.

From the web site Earth Science Stack Exchange
 

TychoMonolyth

Boreal Curing
Thanks 1G12. Like volcanic, only with longer staying power, are aerosols and they're banned for that and other reasons (Ozone depletion).
 

igrowone

Well-known member
Veteran
He changed his ID a couple of times back there a ways.
that they did
the posts here and on other global warming sites show a good deal of effort
which doesn't seem like someone posting for their own enjoyment, too much work
 

LadyGuru

Member
What's amazing to me, is nobody in this thread has first hand knowledge of anything. However people are at each others throats. Crazy stuff.
 

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
You guessed it was possible for less light going into a rock

to make more light start coming out of it.

I'm guessing that you aren't versed in scientific research.

I'll also venture a guess that, because of that, you are not reading findings accurately.

I'm sure you're misinterpreting values if you are hung up on others proving your point.

Therefore I conclude that any researcher that is using your 29% data has a better grip on it than you.

You also guessed you'd hand-wave your way past the fact neither you nor your church admits the world knows the actual temperature of the planet surface, and your church doesn't reach that temperature when they fake trying to calculate it.

You also guessed it's possible to calculate the temperatures of gases not using the gas law necessary for that. The gas law you can't even name.


You also guessed that CO2 is accounted as warming air when the sole chart on the planet for the Energy Constants of CO2 and Air,

assigns CO2 the lower Energy Constant, ''R''.

You also guessed you'd front yourself as having the first clue about any of this with YOURSELF - not being versed in scientific research.

That's why you believed the story about 29% less energy into the planet making more than 100% come out,

and that

it's possible to calculate the temperature of the Atmosphere not using gas law, and come up 33 degrees Kelvin short,

and that be "science."

That's ''fraud'' when your church tells you they did that, and then they arrive at the wrong surface temperature for Earth and Venus both.
 

St. Phatty

Active member
What's amazing to me, is nobody in this thread has first hand knowledge of anything. However people are at each others throats. Crazy stuff.

Most of us have first-hand knowledge of the effects of CO2 supplementation, on Cannabis.

And most of us have first-hand experience with wildfires and sometimes, doing controlled burns to prevent wildfires.

The connection being related to what a BLM scientist warned me about when I told him I wanted to compost some of the trees I bought from him.

He said I should be careful about making them grow fast, because they will eventually run out of water and then there is more combustible fuel above-ground.
 

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
No,

no matter how fervently you told yourself 29% less light into a rock meant more than 100% coming back out,

the very definition of fraud is telling you 29% less energy going into something means anything else but 29% less out.

You're not gonna just hand wave your way past it, and you're also not going to hand wave your way past the fact your church calculates the temperature of the planet arriving at a temperature 33 degrees short of the REAL temperature of it,

known and calculated properly by the entire rest of the world

using gas law known to be required to properly calculate that temperature.



To get a good understanding of the greenhouse effect, you have to look at reflection and wavelength, and/or by looking at the Earth's energy balance

Most of our heat comes from the sun, but a smaller share comes from the internal heat of the earth, but the internal heat from inside the earth is reasonably consistent and can be ignored for the sake of this argument. Stored heat is also important, and that, for example, explains why the lowest sunshine day of the year (December 21) isn't the coldest day of the year, but to keep this reasonably short, lets ignore stored heat too.

The heat in / heat out balance works kind of like this:

71% of the energy we get from the sun warms the earth, 29% is directly reflected back into space.
Of that 71%, 59% is returned to space from the atmosphere and just 12% is returned to space from the surface. That's the atmospheric blanket effect in a sense. Most of the heat, in the form of infra-red light has to travel through the atmosphere to leave the earth and the greenhouse effect reflects that light, just like colored dye in water reflects light, where clear water mostly lets light pass through it.

Atmospheric circulation plays a role too, so do clouds, but lets ignore that for now as well. The greenhouse effect, caused by CO2 or other greenhouse gas, H20 or CH4 (H20 in clouds is different, that's tiny ice particles), but water vapor, which, in the air is invisible to our eyes. They work in essentially the same way as putting colored dye in water, the colored water absorbed and reflects more light than clear water, and the sky, to infrared light, is opaque with greenhouse gas. That Opaqueness can only be removed by reducing the amount of greenhouse gas. It can't be removed by adding other gas, so the greenhouse effect is essentially, directly tied to the total amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

What Greenhouse gas does is it affects the 12% and 59%, and the rate and way that heat leaves the earth. If heat leaves the earth more slowly, the earth gradually warms.

What "global cooling" gases do, doesn't undo what greenhouse gas does. That's not possible, any more than it's possible to make a dye in water stop being opaque by adding another color.
Global cooling gases do exist, but they work in a different way, by affecting the 71%-29% ratio.

Volcanic gas, for example, raises the 29% of immediate reflection and that cools the earth. Volcanic cooling however is quite temporary, lasting a few years at most, but that's basically the gist of things, what reflective to visible light gases can be used to raise the 29% so that the thicker blanket of greenhouse gas is counteracted.

From the web site Earth Science Stack Exchange

There's no such thing as calculating the temperature of an object and coming up 33 degrees short because you didn't use the proper gas law, and being right. Period.

No negotiation, you're done when you reach the wrong surface temperature for the planet.

There's also no such thing as o.n.e. i.o.t.a. of your thermodynamic law-violating claim about "every time less energy reaches the Earth it makes more come back out of it because of the magicalness of the gaissiness, of the GHGs''

in ACTUALLY calculating, the REAL temperature of the planet using REAL gas laws that match REAL space ship instruments we sent to Venus to check your church's Quack-0-Dynamics story.

https://goo.gl/6Y9HEL This is how you calculate the temperature of the surface for Earth, using REAL gas law, to arrive at the

REAL temperature.


https://goo.gl/FMqPZe This is the generic formula re-arranging the law, for the temperature of any planet.

no crank fakery about magical gassiness making more energy come out of things it makes less energy go into is e.v.e.r. involved in real gas mass-energy calculations.

Which is why you never mention them,

learn them,

or use them, in your church's teachings.

The teachings about less energy go into a rock, causing more energy to come out, every time you make less go in, if what makes less go in, is gases with magical properties,

that make you able to calculate the temperatures of them without using gas law.

The teachings telling you "Being wrong by 33 degrees because you refused to use gas law," "..isn't being wrong by 33 degrees because you refused to use gas law."

LoL. :laughing:

But B+ for trying to sound serious when you claimed you were "explaining" how more energy comes out of rocks when you put less energy into them if a magical gassiness

makes the less energy in

never go in.

Regarding your claim "Cooling doesn't undo the magical warming you claim takes place and REAL math reveals NEVER does,"

it's the GHGs responsible for the vast majority of that 29% cooling.

Which is why all charts show them being the main ones doing it.

https://goo.gl/hKgzDZ <---- Shows you c.l.e.a.r.l.y, the GHGs being responsible for the VAST majority of all that 29% cooling.

Your vague hand wave is all you're ever going to come up with so get used to using it when people explain to you that

(1)There's no such thing as magical insulation that makes more light come out of things it makes less light go into,

(2)We know the real temperature of the planet, and how to calculate it, as well as the temperatures of all the other planets, and there's not ONE I.O.T.A. of MENTION of magical WARMING by GHGs,
anywhere,

(3)We flew more than 25 craft to Venus and landed 13, and your church's claims about the surface temperature not matching calculated temperature EXACTLY are completely FAKE,
which is why ALL RECORDS of the 25 VENERA CRAFT

show ZERO atmospheric anomalies anywhere,

(4)Even the claim CO2 can warm air is fake the sole chart on the planet for calculating REAL gas temperatures names CO2 and Air by NAME and assigns CO2 the LOWER Gas Energy Constant, ''R.''

That chart is named the chart of Specific Heats of Gases, and is all over the internet because every gas-related science on the planet, uses it.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

Do you have any explanation for why the 13 Venera craft landing on Venus and nearly 20 total craft that the Americans and Russians passed through it's atmosphere,

never discovered any notable ''scientific findings about the magical gassiness'' ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera#Scientific_findings

No. No you do not have any answers for that, not for the first question because

we know the real temperature of the planet.

And we know how the real temperature is calculated,

and we know what happens when you refuse to use gas law where you're supposed to: you come up 33 degrees short.

And we also know there's only one chart on the planet regarding energy in CO2 and Air calculations and it names CO2, and names Air, and assigns CO2 the lower ''R'' or Gas Energy Constant.

Which means CO2 added to Air COOLS it.

Just as the chart of Sunlight top of Atmosphere vs Sea Level shows you, CO2 being part of that 29% cooling the GHGs do the vast majority of.

https://goo.gl/ABYJdk

And we know how to calculate the temperature of Venus' surface and that temperature matches our findings exactly as well.

Your desperate hand wave about "I read an article on the internet" simply parroting your church's teachings aren't remotely close to any "explanation" of "more energy coming out of the planet every time the GHGs make less go in'' because of a magical effect only believers in your church can understand.

https://i.imgur.com/BQ7tNHK.png
 
Last edited:

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
Too much work to explain to you we know how to calculate the temperature of the planets and that you're 33 degrees short for Earth, and several HUNDRED degrees short on Venus, because you don't use gas law?

Or too much work to check your story about the laws of physics being wrong one planet over on Venus by looking up the scientific findings of the dozen + craft we landed on it's surface?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera#Scientific_findings

that they did
the posts here and on other global warming sites show a good deal of effort
which doesn't seem like someone posting for their own enjoyment, too much work

Or, ''too much work'' to explain to people there's no such thing as a magical gassiness that makes more energy leak out of something every time it makes less leak in?

:laughing:

LoL!
 

Gypsy Nirvana

Recalcitrant Reprobate -
Administrator
Veteran
Oh jeez - is he still stuck on the 29% - and the magical gassiness?

Definition of gassy. : having or using many words but not saying things that are very important or interesting.
 

Koondense

Well-known member
Veteran
What does this even mean: "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]29% less light into a rock means more than 100% coming back out" ?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Maybe make a more precise statement because I don't speak bible belt.
[/FONT]
 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
I tried that.

Then there were repetitions and circles were circled.

I think that the very basic idea of greenhouse effect or even general thermodynamics are ignored.

You will get 29%, mispellings galore, and claims you worship something somewhere.

I advise you to not bother!

:friends:
 

Cannavore

Well-known member
Veteran
He doesn't account for GHG's.


Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth's climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth's climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif


https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
 

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
Actually the real calculation of the temperature of the planet doesn't acccount for any green house gases, as you've been shown already almost a dozen times.

https://goo.gl/6Y9HEL <-- That's how the real temperature of the planet surface, is really calculated, in real gas mathematics, using real gas law.

He doesn't account for GHG's.


Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.

This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.

Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth's climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth's climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

View Image

https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

There is never a.n.y. m.e.n.t.i.o.n. of a.n.y. G.H.G.s in resolving the REAL temperature of the planet,

which is why the church of ''more energy comes back out every time the magic insulation makes less go in"

is the only group of people on the planet

who teach you it's surface temperature is 255 Kelvin, when it's actually 288 Kelvin.
 

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
You speak something but you're not even able to recognize your own teachings.

You've also been shown this: about a half dozen times, to keep coming back repeating you've never seen it or heard it before.

You have, you're just lying so you can stall till you can figure something out besides - lying about not knowing.

What does this even mean: "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]29% less light into a rock means more than 100% coming back out" ?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Maybe make a more precise statement because I don't speak bible belt.
[/FONT]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/EnergyBalance/images/reflected_radiation.jpg

Halfway down the page on a NASA website is the IMAGE: REFLECTED_RADIATION.

Just below that are the words "About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system."

"The atmosphere and the surface of the Earth together absorb 71 percent of incoming solar radiation, so together, they must radiate that much energy back to space for the planet’s average temperature to remain stable. "

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance

Then just a couple of paragraphs below in your Church's Bible

we see you being taught that "The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere."

That's open in your face fraud. One of the bylaws of all thermodynamics is that definitionally the warmest any astronomical object can be is no-atmosphere conditions because single-mode energy loss through radiation alone, is the least efficient method of energy loss possible in all thermodynamics.

D'oH!

There are plenty of people whose scientific endeavors depend on their knowing what gases create the 29% loss.

There are charts showing you which ones. Note water doing nearly all the cooling with CO2 doing some of the cooling as well, joined by Ozone and Oxygen.

https://goo.gl/1u2Wxv

There are no gases other than the GHGs doing anywhere near the majority of that cooling.

Your church doesn't deny the cooling is almost all done by the GHGs, it tells you repeatedly ''Water'' - and trace gases.

When you look at those charts you see represented to you - ''Water'' and some other trace gases.

That's not my Bible telling you that the same gases making nearly 30% less energy in make more than 100% come back out, by making the 30% never go in.

That's straight from the heart of your teachings.

So - if you want to explain what makes you think it's possible go ahead and try, you're gonna lock up and start acting like you can't remember being shown the 6 times before, and sit around for a week or so then post up the very same denial as this time, and the last time, and the one before that.

No? You want me to go get em and show everybody the links?

Maybe you don't remember, we're on a pot site I get baked myself and forget sometimes so we'll pretend I never showed you this before.

But I definitely showed you this time. So next time make whatever remark about not remembering what day it is you want to - but you've been shown.

Haven't you been shown that even your teachers acknowledge the Atmosphere's first direct action on the planet is

cooling it,

by 29%.

https://goo.gl/SvV63c <--- They drew you a picture,

Then they told you.

"About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance
 

Koondense

Well-known member
Veteran
What if we set the 29% matter on side(*) and focus on temperatures getting higher and weather getting more unpredictable, sea level rise, melting caps, icebergs... what does your church say about it?


*obviously a bigger than life straw man which prevents any further development
 

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
Looking at all those charts that clearly depict the atmosphere cooling the planet nearly 30% just by virtue of it's existence,

I realized there's one chart your handlers forgot to draw for you guys, so you can show real science what it looks like, for more than 100% of the sun's energy to glow out of the planet.

Do you guys think your leaders just forgot to include that graph in their explanation of what the spectral profile of Earth looks like?

You could just have all the real charts showing what's really happening, the hundreds of them I've shown you guys are all over the internet.

You know, the ones that have the bell curve of all sunlight arriving at the top of the Atmospheric envelope,

and then -

then, just like in all these we all agree is showing how much less energy warms Earth because of the atmosphere the charts could show the

29% smaller, jagged cut-out of the cooling GHGs stopping all that high energy visible light from reaching the planet and all that infrared, etc.

And then it's really hilariously odd your ''scientists'' - every last one on Earth,

have forgotten to add that THIRD layer onto the graph,

where they depict for you in a graph the enormous infrared glow coming out of Earth that's so large it is bigger than the bell curve of 100% of the sun's energy.

Let's all go look all over the internet for the one showing

(1)bell curve for 100% of the sun's energy across all spectra

(2)Earth receiving the jagged cut-out and smaller quantity due to the Atmosphere's cooling GHGs, just like they all show -

(3)Then the enormous infrared glow coming off Earth so large that it's actually glowing off more energy than the 100% energy-in bell curve.

When I find one I'll let you guys know!
:laughing:

You guys go find that one, I'm sure if I could see that chart - 100% in, then 71%, - then more than 100% of all energy in, coming out - in infrared alone - I'd believe you

when you say nearly 30% less energy into the Earth is making more than 100% come back out. LoL

:woohoo:

Hey guys - we could have a game called "Where's that chart?"

And if I say something you can say ''Where's that chart?"

And if you do, I can say the same and it'll be really funny. We can make a whole bunch of funny images and stuff it'd be HiLaRiouS.

Like right now. You've all told me about how the planet is being made hotter by the cold light blocking nitrogen bath and it occurs to me, that - this would be much better shown,

if your scientists had just thought to make that chart up and have it available for you guys to show people. Maybe that's why the rest of the world insists the surface temperature of the planet is 288 K. -because nobody ever showed them the chart, of what

100% sunlight looks like, then
71%, and then

that enormous graph of more than all sunlight combined glowing out of Earth as infrared energy.

LoL
 

Yamaha FG-840

Active member
What *you just did was create a bigger than life strawman so you can desperately deflect, and change the subject.

Don't keep trying the Jedi mind-trick projections.


What if we set the 29% matter on side(*) and focus on temperatures getting higher and weather getting more unpredictable, sea level rise, melting caps, icebergs... what does your church say about it?


*obviously a bigger than life straw man which prevents any further development

You have writ you consider inerrant and without appreciable flaw, you hold is inviolable word of them whom you follow.

I told you they're full of sh*, and that there's no such thing as less and less energy in making more and more, come out.

You said "LooK a STRaWMaN let's TaLK about THAT!" and that's all you've done.
 

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
There's a distinct possibility that he was simply trying to get you to say anything else besides 29%.

And a possibility that by doing so he could reveal you as capable of rational thought does still exist......

Unless you simply can't face a conversation that won't revolve around your magic number.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top