Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use. So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.
in the below video the author of the video is explaining how the CO2 in the earths atmosphere traps the suns heat in the atmosphere.
but what I see in the video is that after the author adds the CO2 the suns heat never reaches the earth , because the camera is supposed to show the amount of the suns heat that reaches the earth.
to me the video shows exactly what I have been trying to tell people , and that is that CO2 is a global cooling gas.
the video clearly shows that the suns heat is blocked by CO2.
the first and foremost clear danger from CO2 is cooling not warming.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Well, have you considered the fact that CO2 doesn't absorb visible and UV radiation? So visible and UV radiation pass through the atmosphere and warm the surface. The surface then emits IR radiation which is absorbed by CO2.
Since you have been showing a great interest in graphs lately here is a graph of the sunlight that reaches the Earth.
And here is a graph of the absorption of electromagnetic radiation by atmospheric gases.
Notice that the UV/Visible absorption is very low, up to about 0.750 to 0.800 microns (750 to 800 nm) And that the green house gases all have strong absorption bands in longer wavelengths.
And if CO2 cools, why is Venus so hot? Its atmosphere is primarily CO2.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
sunlight at the earth's surface is around 52 or 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 43 or 42 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 5 or 3 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).[
Sunlight, at an effective temperature of 5,780 kelvins, is composed of nearly thermal-spectrum radiation that is slightly more than half infrared. At zenith, sunlight provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.[9]
CO2 is a cooling gas and an abnormally large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would cool the earth to the degree that the missing infrared heat that would get trapped in the atmosphere by the CO2 would normally heat the earth.
over half of the suns heat is a lot of heat that the earths climate will no longer have.
also , I would tend to think that a cooling effect would be the first effect that people would notice on the surface of the earth , what happens high in the atmosphere would take quite a while to transfer down to the surface especially since heat really wants to rise not fall.
heat transfers from hot to cold , and space is much colder than the surface of the earth.
we might want to ask Amaranth what removing half of the suns heat would do to food crops.
and to the ability of plants to process CO2 into Oxygen.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
well , have you considered that over half of the heat that the sun provides to heat the earth is infrared light?
Where do you get that? If you will look at the spectrum in the first graph in my reply you will notice that the peak of the radiation from the Sun, at the top of the atmosphere is in UV and visible? The level in the CO2 absorption bands is a whole lot lower than the level in the UV and visible.
And of course I'm still not sure why Venus is so hot if CO2 cools things off.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
And of course I'm still not sure why Venus is so hot if CO2 cools things off.
CO2 cools the surface of the earth and warms the atmosphere.
that should be pretty clear , right?
what the people who live on the surface of the earth should be concerned with is that CO2 is a cooling gas.
because the first effects that they will notice will be cooling.
only the people who live in the atmosphere should be concerned that CO2 warms the atmosphere.
because the first effects that they will notice will be warming.
no one lives in the atmosphere where the CO2 will be causing the atmosphere to be warming.
everyone else lives on the surface of the earth where the CO2 will be causing the surface to be cooling.
the farmers that do not live and have farms in the atmosphere will experience warming which might even help their crops that they don't have planted in the atmosphere to grow.
all of the other farmers that live and have farms on the surface of the earth will experience cooling that may not help their crops to grow.
people eat food grown in a warm climate.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul, you're only applying your logic ...to the ‘incoming’ energy, but that logic probably explains why the mesosphere warms as one descends, and why the stratosphere then cools (descending) –since the incoming heat has been blocked, I suppose.
the ‘outgoing’ energy, which is much longer (in wavelength) than the incoming energy. Outgoing energy is greater than 3 microns (the Far Infrared, where the planet loses thermal energy to space). ===
The outgoing energy (leaving the surface) gets delayed by GHGs in that lower layer, the troposphere (first graph, above), which heats this lowest layer of atmosphere (that the energy encounters) on the way out.
That may be why my professor said that the ‘greenhouse effect’ is just “another name for vertical layers and structure” in our atmosphere. ===
While some of that ‘incoming’ energy is trapped/blocked by the atmosphere at [very dry] high altitudes....
Below, you can see how much more of the long-wave, “thermal” radiation, greater than 3 microns (3000 nm), outgoing radiation is blocked at low altitudes by water vapor and the GreenHouse Gases (GHGs which somewhat 'block' or overlap the small windowswhere water does not already strongly absorb the outgoing energy).
That is why the sun only accounts for about 1/3 of the energy that directly warms the Earth, while “2/3 of the energy that warms Earth comes from the atmosphere.” –per class notes, 2011
~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
That is why the sun only accounts for about 1/3 of the energy that directly warms the Earth, while “2/3 of the energy that warms Earth comes from the atmosphere.” –per class notes, 2011
then wouldn't that 1/3 of the suns energy be cut in half by CO2 as the video shows?
and wouldn't all of the reflected infrared radiation be removed as the video shows that CO2 traps the Infrared radiation.
wouldn't these things equate to cooling the earths surface before warming the earths surface?
or are you saying that the infrared heat from the sun is not an effect that adds immediate warmth to the earths surface first.
in that the heat that is trapped by the atmosphere warms the surface before the direct immediate heat from the sun warms the earths surface.
if not then how many decades or centuries will pass before the heat in the atmosphere will actually warm the earth?
and while the people of the earth are waiting and preparing for the warmth , how many of the waiters will starve to death and freeze to death waiting for the global warming to begin?
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
That is why the sun only accounts for about 1/3 of the energy that directly warms the Earth, while “2/3 of the energy that warms Earth comes from the atmosphere.” –per class notes, 2011
... or are you saying that the infrared heat from the sun is not an effect that adds immediate warmth to the earths surface first.
...about 1/3 of the "immediate warmth to the ...surface" comes from direct heating (by the sun) [note: not the same as your "1/3 of the suns energy"]
The other 2/3 of "immediate warmth" comes from re-radiation of heat in the troposphere, back downward toward the surface.
The heat in the troposphere comes from the "upgoing thermal radiation" shown in the graphs above. That is why it doesn't get as cold as the dark side of the moon, when it is nightime here. But that is also why dry deserts cool off more rapidly at night, when compared with humid areas, as water vapor in the troposphere affects "immediate warmth to the ...surface" through the nightime.
~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
...about 1/3 of the "immediate warmth to the ...surface" comes from direct heating (by the sun) [note: not the same as your "1/3 of the suns energy"]
The other 2/3 of "immediate warmth" comes from re-radiation of heat in the troposphere, back downward toward the surface.
so you agree that over 1/2 of the 1/3 of the suns heat would be trapped in the atmosphere by CO2.
would you agree that increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will bring a proportional cooling to the earths surface?
Quote:
The other 2/3 of "immediate warmth" comes from re-radiation of heat in the troposphere, back downward toward the surface.
would you also agree that increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere would bring a proportional cooling to the atmosphere due to the proportion of lost re-radiation or reflected heat from the surface?
bear with me , Im working on a anti green house effect.
global warmers want to count the heat each time it bounces back and fourth from the surface to the atmosphere , Im planning to counter that with run away cooling...
because its exactly backwards from what science says it will be , therefore it must be correct.
main line science makes a excellent backwards barometer.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
...bear with me , Im working on a anti green house effect.
global warmers want to count the heat each time it bounces back and fourth from the surface to the atmosphere , Im planning to counter that with run away cooling...
because its exactly backwards from what science says it will be , therefore it must be correct.
...so does that make you a denialist, or simply a contrarian or an automatic gainsayer? ...or is this just 'being hit-in-the-head lessons' ?
But seriously, you seem to ignore the difference between the incoming radiation (short wave, on the left of the graph), and the outgoing, long-wave (over three microns, on the right of the graph) radiation, which is where the 2/3 of surface (and nighttime) heating comes from.
The atmosphere is mostly invisible to incoming energy (visible, UV & near IR), [...so it gets to the ground and is absorbed or reflected back into space]
but the graph above shows that the atmosphere is more opaque to the outgoing, thermal energy [...which leaves the ground and is trapped or delayed, nearby, in the water vapor and GHGs].
...which is where 2/3 of the surface (especially nighttime) heating comes from.
~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
as you know , I have been saying that CO2 is a cooling gas for awhile now , that shouldn't be conspired as automatic gainsaying simply because the video shows that CO2 is a cooling gas.
and I wouldn't say that I am a denialist , more of a realist because I don't care which way the cards fall , I read what the cards say.
Quote:
But seriously, you seem to ignore the difference between the incoming radiation (short wave, on the left of the graph), and the outgoing, long-wave (over three microns, on the right of the graph) radiation, which is where the 2/3 of surface (and nighttime) heating comes from.
how can you say that , when I am saying that the atmosphere will experience a proportionate amount of cooling because the incoming IR will be trapped by the CO2 and therefore will not be re-emitted / reflected by the surface because the IR gets trapped in the atmosphere and never reaches the surface.
any amount of IR that is outgoing from the surface due to the heat from visible light will also be proportionately trapped by the CO2 in the atmosphere so even the nighttime heating will diminish by the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.
this will all cool the earths surface not warm it.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
How can you say that: ...of the heat trapped near the surface ("IR that is outgoing due to the heat from
visible light will also be proportionately
trapped by the CO2 in the atmosphere") ...that the nearby atmosphere would not also then re-radiate that extra heat, to warm the surface, especially at night?
Do you think the nearby heat is trapped forever, or that it does slowly re-radiate away --in random directions (half of it back downwards)? ~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
any amount of IR that is outgoing from the surface due to the heat from visible light will also be proportionately trapped by the CO2 in the atmosphere so even the nighttime heating will diminish by the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I was talking about the CO2 , you were talking about near surface.
also if your going to quote what I say , please try to resist manipulating and inserting words.
Quote:
How can you say that: ...of the heat trapped near the surface ("IR that is outgoing due to the heat from
visible light will also be proportionately
trapped by the CO2 in the atmosphere") ...that the nearby atmosphere would not also then re-radiate that extra heat, to warm the surface, especially at night?
Do you think the nearby heat is trapped forever, or that it does slowly re-radiate away --in random directions (half of it back downwards)? ~
its getting harder to find what your replying to.
Quote:
you seem to ignore the difference between the incoming
how can you say that?
Quote:
...not me, but mainstream science does say that.
does main stream science really say that I seem to ignore the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation?
or was it you that said that?
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
...but that is where the greenhouse effect, and the climate, operate. ===
As I said, your logic works ...for incoming IR energy ...blocking some heat from getting to the planet (so in that sense, it has some cooling effect).
But in the troposphere, with outgoing long-wave thermal radiation, GHGs "block" the heat and 're-warm' the surface.
If you want to call it a cooling gas, that's fine; but it still contributes to the greenhouse effect down here, warming the region "about near surface."
~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
As I said, your logic works ...for incoming IR energy ...blocking some heat from getting to the planet (so in that sense, it has some cooling effect).
your some above is over 50% , lets not forget that part.
Quote:
GHGs "block" the heat and 're-warm' the surface.
would you say that as the GHGs "block" the heat and re-warm the surface the heat is re-emitted?
ie...
a total exchange 100 up 100 down
or is it a percentage
100% up 50% down
Quote:
If you want to call it a cooling gas, that's fine; but it still contributes to the greenhouse effect down here, warming the region "about near surface."
CO2 ?
how does CO2 still contribute to "about near surface" if long wave radiation is trapped by CO2?
other GHGs I can understand such as water vapor , and the near objects that can hold heat near or on the surface.
you have never answered my question about the lag time that it takes temperatures to move from the atmosphere to the surface , but in another thread you stated that the lag time could be decades even hundreds of years does this mean that you also think that surface temperatures might drop before they rise due to an increase in CO2 levels?
you have pretty much already agreed that they will , but Im not sure that you have.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
...how does CO2 still contribute to "about near surface" if long wave radiation is trapped by CO2?
other GHGs I can understand such as water vapor , and the near objects that can hold heat near or on the surface.
Earlier I asked: "Do you think the nearby heat is trapped forever, or that it does slowly re-radiate away --in random directions (half of it back downwards)?"
Apparently you thought it was the former, but:
That (the latter) is how all GHGs operate (re-radiating heat away after absorption ...in a random direction). Do you think CO2 operates differently from other GHGs?
~ edit: You added,
Quote:
"you have never answered my question about the lag time that it takes temperatures to move from the atmosphere to the surface , but in another thread you stated that the lag time could be decades even hundreds of years does this mean that you also think that surface temperatures might drop before they rise due to an increase in CO2 levels?"
No, the lag time I talked about was for climate systems such as the oceans warming or ice sheets melting, which can take decades or centuries to adjust to a few Watts of extra heating.
The "lag time" here, with CO2 greenhouse warming, is essentially the speed of light ...plus about 10 minutes, which is about the time that CO2 hold on to the absorbed long-wave radiation, before it is re-emitted ...in a random direction (with half of it downward, re-warming the nearby surface).
Last edited by samwik; 08/21/1407:52 PM. Reason: answer additional question
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
with half of it downward, re-warming the nearby surface).
how could 1/2 of it ( re-emitted radiation )be downward?
that seems improbable unless your talking about from 91 degrees to 269 degrees in a downwards direction , in which case the probability of "it" encountering clouds and being absorbed or reflected by the clouds is rather large.
wouldn't this reduce the half of "it" by a large factor?
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
with half of it downward, re-warming the nearby surface).
how could 1/2 of it ( re-emitted radiation )be downward?
that seems improbable unless your talking about from 91 degrees to 269 degrees in a downwards direction , in which case the probability of "it" encountering clouds and being absorbed or reflected by the clouds is rather large.
...right; and yet not impossible, but actual.
Originally Posted By: paul
wouldn't this reduce the half of "it" by a large factor?
...by some amount....
And recall, all the absorbed UV, visible, and near IR, are soon re-emitted as the long-wave IR, shown in those graphs from earlier as "upgoing thermal radiation."
in the other thread that also contains the video discussed in this thread , you asked me to describe the video because you could not view the video due to your system problems.
you also stated that:
Quote:
Paul, I don't watch videos such as this, because they often cause my computer to freeze. Plus, I don't think they are "peer-reviewed" or authoritative enough for a science forum.
peer-reviewed? you must mean only those who allow their minds to accept the claims that are dictated to them by the propaganda machine or the IPCC that has been constructed by non scientist and relies on non scientist to further their agenda , because the claims are not constructed by scientist or supported by scientist.
so when you say peer-reviewed you mean reviewed and accepted by non scientist.
so , I thought I would also post my description here in the mostly viewed thread.
but theres something that I noticed that you might want to explain about this physical occurrence.
it is said that the IR light would pass through the atmosphere to the surface were it not for GHGs that block or trap the IR , then portions of the IR is either reflected or absorbed and then re-emitted by the surface.
correct?
I find it hard to believe that this video does not show any trace IR heat signatures that should be seen as the IR is absorbed beyond the glass cylinder and re-emitted back into the cylinder then absorbed by the CO2 and re-emitted downwards as you have said.
there should be a overall glow on the screen from all of the re-emitted IR that is emitted by the CO2 , but theres no evidence of re-emission in any direction towards the thermal imaging camera.
re-emission does occur as IR right?
heres my description of the video.
the man in the video has made an experiment that shows how IR is trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 gas.
the experiments materials consist of:
a thermal imaging video camera. (the surface of the earth) a candle.( the source of thermal heat ) a sealed glass cylinder that has transparent ends.( the atmosphere) a bottle of compressed CO2 ( the source of CO2) a control valve on the CO2 bottle a tube that leads from the CO2 bottle through the valve and into the glass cylinder.
a video monitor that is displaying the video feed from the thermal imaging camera.
the experiment :
the man in the video lights the candle. he holds the candle to one end of the glass cylinder. the thermal imaging camera is mounted on the other end of the glass cylinder. the glass cylinder is apx 1 meter long and 15 cm in diameter.
he then directs the focus of the video to the monitors display that shows the white yellow and red thermal heat signatures of the lighted candle that are picked up by the thermal imaging camera located at the opposite end of the glass cylinder.
he then opens the valve that allows CO2 to flow into the glass cylinder and as he does the thermal image of the candle quickly and fully dissipates and the monitor shows only a cool blue screen.
showing that the CO2 has blocked the thermal portion of the light emitted by the candle.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
...after a lag, of about 10 minutes, afaik (how long was that video?). ===
Hey Paul, I searched the phrase "NASA report verifies CO2" and got these [sample of] results:
Originally Posted By: google
NASA Report Verifies Carbon Dioxide Actually COOLS ... northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/.../global-warming-debunked-nasa-rep... May 22, 2013 - Global Warming Debunked: NASA Report Verifies Carbon Dioxide Actually COOLS Atmosphere! It has indeed been a while since I put up an ...
Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies CO2 actually cools ... www.city-data.com › ... › Politics and Other Controversies City‑Data May 23, 2013 - 10 posts - ‎9 authors Interesting. I wonder how the "Science says that man's carbon emissions are causing Global Warming, and you MUST believe science" crowd ...
A misinterpreted claim abouta NASA press release, CO2 ... wattsupwiththat.com/.../a-misinterpreted-claim-abou... Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts - Mar 28, 2013 - They have completely misread the NASA study and reinterpreted it for their purpose, ... CO2 (and other greenhouse gases – GHG's) in the lower ...... It should be easy to verify it experimentally, it's simple physics correct ?
It seems that even the 'Watts Up' folks understand the simple misreading, which you've been caught up in for some time now ("...completely misread the NASA study and reinterpreted it...") ...since last summer! ===
Paul, since the only links about your claims are from a few months in 2013, which even the normal denialist crowd seem to disavow; I'm skeptical, and will wait for the scientific process to verify this....
~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
and I don't see any links to any page where the NASA findings have been refuted , if you have a link that does refute the NASA findings could you please post the link.
until then I will remain skeptical of your reply.
BTW , the search engine I used above to find the links does not utilize your search history or tracking data that is collected by each of the 100 - 200 TCP connections that you have right now to your computer , so the results that you find will be more of what your searching for , not a bunch of unrelated stuff that you have searched for in the past year or so.
if you don't believe me about the number of TCP connections just check your resource monitor.
resmon.exe
in your system folder.
I personally believe that all these companies should pay us for the bandwidth that they eat up , unless they remove the caps on bandwidth usage.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Paul, your link is obvious; but if that is all you can find, it is not worth the paper it is printed on ...is it?
Is 'duckyduck' another link from the Spring of 2013? (Should this perhaps be in NQS, The Not Quite Science Forum)?
Does it repeat your argument? Is this where your 'unique' notions have been coming from? ===
Originally Posted By: paul
...your search history or tracking data that is collected by each of the 100 - 200 TCP connections that you have right now to your computer , so the results....
if you don't believe me about the number of TCP connections just check your resource monitor.
resmon.exe in your system folder.
...is this just for me, or do you mean everyone's computer? ===
Are you saying you get different search results, because your computer is different?
~
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.