Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
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.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 306 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Topic Options
#52824 - 08/19/14 03:45 PM Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
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.

Top
.
#52851 - 08/21/14 09:19 PM Re: Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
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. But....

Can you describe what happens, in lurid and graphic detail. wink

...or at least a brief description of the set up and results.

~ smile
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#52853 - 08/22/14 02:30 PM Re: Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I will try.

Its also the same video in the other thread that we are
discussing.

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 the far 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.

Top
#52856 - 08/22/14 08:40 PM Re: Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
I'd like to know if this camera can see Far IR, or if it only sees Near IR (below 3 microns),
which would be outside the range of any real-world 'greenhouse' processes.

But Paul, this is a bit mixed up:
In this "experiment," the candle would represent "the surface of the earth,"
and the camera would be deep space.
It's the effects of outgoing, long-wave radiation (over 3 microns),
which global warming theory describes.

Originally Posted By: paul
the thermal imaging camera is mounted on
the other end of the glass cylinder.

showing that the CO2 has blocked the thermal
portion of the light emitted by the candle.
...this undoes science? I thought we already knew CO2 absorbs heat.

It would be nice to see into the tube, from the candle's
point of view, to see if any "back radiation" was evident.

Remember "back radiation" (also known as the 'greenhouse effect')
from this thread?

...overturned the foundations of spectroscopy and atomic theory?

It's no wonder you've been going on about the blocking
of incoming (short-wave, near-IR) heat from the sun
...as "evidence" that CO2 works differently
than over 100 years of study has demonstrated!

~
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#52858 - 08/23/14 02:09 AM Re: Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
In this "experiment," the candle would represent "the surface of the earth,"
and the camera would be deep space.


no , the experiment is exactly as I described it.

of course it would help if your computer would allow you
to watch the video.

Quote:
It's no wonder you've been going on about the blocking
of incoming (short-wave, near-IR) heat from the sun
...as "evidence" that CO2 works differently
than over 100 years of study has demonstrated!


also , its not that I have been saying that CO2
works differently , because I have been saying that CO2
does absorb IR , what I am saying is that over 1/2 of the
heat from the sun is IR and a proportionate amount
of that heat is blocked by the CO2 in the atmosphere and
that proportion of heat never reaches the earths surface.

Quote:
Remember "back radiation" (also known as the 'greenhouse effect')


the IR heat that is blocked would normally be
absorbed and re-emitted from the surface to the atmosphere
if it were not blocked at the atmosphere , so since the proportion of IR heat is blocked its pretty clear that
since that heat never reaches the surface then it
also never gets re-emitted by the surface in order to
provide the "back radiation" therefore a proportion of
the "back radiation" will also be decreased.

the missing surface heat equates into the outgoing
heat also being decreased , doesn't that make sense to
you?

the incoming IR heat that is trapped by the CO2 will decrease
the final total of the heat that the earth absorbs of the initial total of incoming heat from the sun.

as is depicted at the bottom of your image as ( net absorbed 0.9 W/m^2).



in the above image , do you see the cloud in the center
of the picture?

to your left of that cloud as your looking at it
you will see the number 78 , that number 78 represents
the amount of incoming solar radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere.

if you follow that dark yellow band downwards until it
reaches the surface you will see the number 161 , that
number represents the amount of incoming solar radiation that the earths surface absorbs (it says absorbed by surface)
that number is 161 because 341 is the initial number that
represents the incoming solar radiation and there are several
numbers that are subtracted from the number 341.

if the number 78 beside the cloud increases because more
and more of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the
atmosphere due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
then the number 161 will decrease.

if the number 161 decreases then the
number 396 ( surface radiation) also decreases.

decreasing the number 333 ( back radiation )


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52860 - 08/23/14 09:01 AM Re: Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
Originally Posted By: sam
In this "experiment," the candle would represent "the surface of the earth,"
and the camera would be deep space.


no , the experiment is exactly as I described it.

I'm not saying the experiment is different from what you describe.

But is that your list, which describes "a thermal imaging video camera. (the surface of the earth)," or is that a quote from the video?

Wouldn't that mean that "a candle. (the source of thermal heat)" was referring to the sun?

I assumed that was your description, rather than from the video, since that is a backwards description of the greenhouse effect. Wikipedia, or even the denialist sites, all explain the greenhouse effect in similar ways. Only you, in keeping with your proud ideal of assuming the opposite (of mainstream science) must be true, have this odd notion about how the greenhouse effect works.

I was looking it up on wikipedia, to make sure I wasn't imagining this,
and I found a reference to the 'anti-greenhouse effect' that you can easily look up. It is just what you've been describing here for weeks now on various threads, and there is apparently an example of it on the moon Titan.

So sorry, if the video said that backwards stuff; I thought that was your interpretation.

Originally Posted By: paul
Originally Posted By: sam
It's no wonder you've been going on about the blocking
of incoming (short-wave, near-IR) heat from the sun
...as "evidence" that CO2 works differently
than over 100 years of study has demonstrated!


also , its not that I have been saying that CO2
works differently , because I have been saying that CO2
does absorb IR , what I am saying is that over 1/2 of the
heat from the sun is IR and a proportionate amount
of that heat is blocked by the CO2 in the atmosphere and
that proportion of heat never reaches the earths surface.
...Right!

But ...again, you're only focusing on the "incoming radiation" (short IR) as the heat source.

But that is only 1/3 of the heating!

The other 2/3 comes from the absorption of UV and visible light, and its conversion into long-wave IR,
which then leaves the surface as "outgoing longwave radiation."

That is the source of heat for the greenhouse effect; "outgoing longwave radiation,"
from the ground/surface ...and headed into space.
So that's why the candle should represent the ground (source of heat)
and the camera should represent deep space (destination of heat), istm.


Originally Posted By: paul
Originally Posted By: sam
Remember "back radiation" (also known as the 'greenhouse effect')


the IR heat that is blocked would normally be
absorbed and re-emitted from the surface to the atmosphere
if it were not blocked at the atmosphere , so since the proportion of IR heat is blocked its pretty clear that
since that heat never reaches the surface then it
also never gets re-emitted by the surface in order to
provide the "back radiation" therefore a proportion of
the "back radiation" will also be decreased.

the missing surface heat equates into the outgoing
heat also being decreased , doesn't that make sense to
you?
...totally right; yes it makes sense.
Does it make sense to you that whatever affects 2/3 of the heating,
is more important than whatever affects 1/3 of the heating?

Originally Posted By: paul
the incoming IR heat that is trapped by the CO2 will decrease
the final total of the heat that the earth absorbs of the initial total of incoming heat from the sun.

as is depicted at the bottom of your image as ( net absorbed 0.9 W/m^2).
...your statement is true, but has nothing to do with the 0.9 W/m^2 mentioned in the picture.
That number comes from subtracting the outgoing total from the incoming total, iirc.

Originally Posted By: paul


in the above image , do you see the cloud in the center
of the picture?

to your left of that cloud as your looking at it
you will see the number 78 , that number 78 represents
the amount of incoming solar radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere.

if you follow that dark yellow band downwards until it
reaches the surface you will see the number 161 , that
number represents the amount of incoming solar radiation that the earths surface absorbs (it says absorbed by surface)
that number is 161 because 341 is the initial number that
represents the incoming solar radiation and there are several
numbers that are subtracted from the number 341.

if the number 78 beside the cloud increases because more
and more of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the
atmosphere due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
then the number 161 will decrease.

if the number 161 decreases then the
number 396 ( surface radiation) also decreases.

decreasing the number 333 ( back radiation )

...again, totally right UNTIL your conclusion.

Agreed:
It [your mechanism] would decrease the "number 396 ( surface radiation)".

But it [CO2] would also decrease that little "40" number (CO2's "atmospheric window" -right-hand side of graphic)
by double (2/3 v. 1/3, remember?) ...whatever your incoming was decreased by.
And that amount would be added onto the 333 number, or whatever the new "back radiation" number would be after being lowered slightly by your blockage of incoming IR.

That is all included, when they make these calculation; you haven't discovered a new mechanism for how CO2 works.
CO2 still operates just like the other GHGs, which would all act the same, or do the same thing ...in that video ...if the video used them instead of CO2
.


So that is why the net change is "heating" ...from extra CO2.
....Rather than cooling
, as you keep deducing
(because you're only looking at 1/3 of the picture, the
incoming heat).

~
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#52863 - 08/23/14 08:41 PM Re: Sex Climate Change and CO2 Trapping [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I am not looking at only 1/3 of the picture.

I am looking and focusing on the entire picture.

and looking through unbiased eyes I might add.

if anyone is neglecting any element in the picture it
would have to be you.

your trying to say that by reducing the amount of IR heat
from the sun that heats the surface the earths heat will
be increased.

Quote:
But it [CO2] would also decrease that little "40" number (CO2's "atmospheric window" -right-hand side of graphic)
by double (2/3 v. 1/3, remember?) ...whatever your incoming was decreased by.
And that amount would be added onto the 333 number, or whatever the new "back radiation" number would be after being lowered slightly by your blockage of incoming IR.


by double !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so the 40 becomes whatever the global warming alarmist need
it to be at that time , or does that number need to fit in and
balance out with the rest of the numbers?

from what I can see through unbiased eyes the 161 number
is the number that represents the incoming solar radiation
that is absorbed by the surface.

this 161 number becomes a part of the 396 number.

the 396 number is made up of the 161 number and obviously
the "earths heat itself" as there is no shown numbers that
could add up to 396 (surface radiation) in the image.

396 - 161 = 235

so 235 is the earths own heat that it already has and has
nothing to do with past incoming radiation from the sun or
any back radiation from the past.

so as we are looking at this image that depicts the
global energy flow , the surface radiation that is due
to the earth itself is not shown.

I can only guess that the 396 number includes the earths
own heat prior to this moment in time that the image
is describing.

therefore only the 161 number ( absorbed by surface ) will
be affected by the amount of blocked IR heat from the sun.

therefore the 40 will not decrease by double , it will not
even decrease by half.

I know that the alarmist want to but they cannot dictate
to the earth how much heat it can radiate from the surface.

if I add the 396 + 80 + 17 I get 493
it just so happens that if I subtract the 333 from 493
guess what !!! I get 160 !!! the ( absorbed by surface)
number minus the 0.9 number at the bottom.

so if the (absorbed by surface) number decreases then
the ( surface radiation ) number must also decrease.

the ( back radiation ) number is due to and locked into
the ( surface radiation ) number and cannot avoid decreasing
when the ( absorbed by surface ) number decreases.

and , plus and also , you cant pull yourself up by your
bootstraps.

if this image were a true representation of the global
energy flow then the earth could supply its own energy
simply by capturing all the hot air in the image.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.