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 (), 326 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Topic Options
#52872 - 08/26/14 07:23 PM NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere

(NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community *and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.

As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.

The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming.


Quote:
Almost all 'heating' radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2
According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere.



* because the media only reports what science says


http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html


so , if CO2 is only a reflector then that explains why
the thermal imagery in the below video did not pick up
any absorbed heat inside the cylinder being filled with CO2
from the heat of the candle.

if CO2 absorbed heat then the CO2 in the cylinder should
have been heated up by the heat from the candle.
but the CO2 did not heat up.

the heat is all reflected away from the camera and is not
absorbed by the CO2 , otherwise there would be an increasing
glow that would appear on the screen as the CO2 heated up.

the thermal imaging camera would have picked up any
heat in the CO2 , and it didn't.




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

Top
.
#52883 - 08/28/14 07:00 AM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Wholly horse-hockey, Paul! shocked You’ve been duped by extraneous details.

It is the air down here near the surface that produces the greenhouse effect
(warmed from below by the surface, which itself is heated by absorption of the UV and visible [short] wavelengths).

The greenhouse effect doesn’t much involve the upper atmosphere, nor big changes of direct solar radiation (such as the day/night difference …or solar storms).

What don’t you see, which even this well-known 'denialist' blog sees:
Quote:
A misinterpreted claim about a 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...
...?


Since 2013, when they (some blogger?) cooked it up ...and it then quickly faded, istm,
you’ve been the only one believing in some blogger’s
misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release.”
===


Is there any source for your claim, other than these 2013 blogs, that you’ve found?

~ confused

p.s. please see:
"greenhouse heating (from below) explained"
...and
"natural climate change & AGW"
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#52884 - 08/28/14 02:32 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
sam

you can find articles that refute each other all over the
internet , this is why I posted the video of the experiment.

although you didn't notice , in my description of the
video that you requested because of your computer systems
capabilities the ends of the glass tube were not covered
with glass as I first stated , they were covered with a thin
sheet of plastic wrap of some sorts.

because glass will reflect IR.

you still haven't commented on what you think happened to
the IR heat from the candle.

do you think that the IR heat from the candle was absorbed by the CO2?

and if that is what you think then why didn't the camera
pick up the absorbed heat of the CO2 as the heat builds up
in the CO2?

also , do you really think that it takes 10 minutes for
the atoms of the CO2 molecule to re-emit a photon after
the atom has absorbed a photon?

if so could you provide a link to that information.

when the atom becomes excited by an IR photon and due to the
added energy from the IR photon that it absorbed the
electrons in the atom must move outwards to a higher orbit
around the atom.

this results in a stored energy by the atom.

can the CO2 store this energy as heat that can heat the earth
and at a later date re-emit that energy to further heat the earth?

wouldn't the atmosphere cool as heat is re-emitted
from the atmosphere?

wouldn't the surface cool as heat is re-emitted
from the surface?

Im going to say that either the atmosphere or the surface will cool when either of them re-emits heat.

so instead of building up heat , heat is simply being moved
from place to place.

one other question I have is that when a IR photon has
excited atoms in a CO2 molecule , it should not be capable
of further excitement by IR photons.

so that the molecules of CO2 that have already been excited
in the atmosphere cannot absorb another IR photon until after re-emission occurs and the IR photon will pass by.

if the earths atmosphere were composed entirely of
CO2 molecules that were excited then at that point
in time the suns inbound IR would pass through
the CO2 atmosphere , and would be absorbed or
reflected by the surface , then the surface
emitted outbound radiation would also pass
through the CO2.

all of the surface emitted thermal heat would simply
pass through the excited CO2 molecules , and this includes
the earths own heat that is generated internally.

there would not be a continuous heating of the atmosphere as
the atmosphere can only hold so many CO2 molecules and only
so many CO2 molecules can be excited.

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

Top
#52886 - 08/28/14 06:41 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
do you think that the IR heat from the candle was absorbed by the CO2?

The IR was absorbed by the CO2. That is what happens when ground warmed by incoming UV and visible light, which aren't absorbed by CO2, re-emits the energy as CO2. The experiment you are so happy with shows that global warming can indeed be produced by increases in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52889 - 08/29/14 12:21 AM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
That is what happens when ground warmed by incoming UV and visible light, which aren't absorbed by CO2, re-emits the energy as CO2.


did you mean

re-emits the energy as thermal heat (short wave radiation)?

Quote:
The IR was absorbed by the CO2. That is what happens when ground warmed by incoming UV and visible light, which aren't absorbed by CO2, re-emits the energy as CO2. The experiment you are so happy with shows that global warming can indeed be produced by increases in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.


ok , the IR photons were absorbed by the atoms in the
CO2 molecules.

when the ground heats up through IR , Visible , UV radiation
and then later emits heat (thermal heat) , do you think
that the ground would cool by the amount of heat that the
ground emits?

or does the ground heat remain unchanged even as the ground
heat transfers upwards.

likewise , when an atom in an excited CO2 molecule emits a photon and stabilizes bringing the electrons orbits in closer to the center of the atom , and causing the atom to be not excited , wouldn't you agree that the energy that the emitted photon then has would be subtracted from the energy that the
CO2 molecule had prior to photon emission.

I cant see where there would be an energy build up.
as soon as and even while re-emission is occurring an
equal cooling occurs in the emitting medium.

especially in a situation where CO2 levels have risen
significantly which should drastically reduce any amounts
of surface re-emission because of incoming IR absorption.

its basically simple addition and subtraction.

this CO2 global warming thing can be seen as two thought
experiments.

(1) 0% CO2 in the atmosphere.

none of the IR radiation will be absorbed by CO2.
there will be more heat that reaches the surface.
there will be more re-emission by the surface.
the overall effect will be heating.

(2) 100% CO2 in the atmosphere.

all of the IR radiation will be absorbed by CO2.
there will be less heat that reaches the surface.
there will be less re-emission by the surface.
the overall effect will be cooling.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#52891 - 08/29/14 12:40 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
did you mean

re-emits the energy as thermal heat (short wave radiation)?

Yes, my bad.

Originally Posted By: Paul
ok , the IR photons were absorbed by the atoms in the
CO2 molecules.

when the ground heats up through IR , Visible , UV radiation
and then later emits heat (thermal heat) , do you think
that the ground would cool by the amount of heat that the
ground emits?

Yes the ground cools as it emits the heat. Of course during the day there is more incoming UV and visible radiation than there is IR radiation. So during the day the ground warms up. At night when the incoming radiation goes away the ground cools. Of course then some of the IR radiation is trapped by the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) so that it warms the air, which then transfers some of the heat back into the ground.

The rest of your message seems to still be ignoring the fact that there is much more UV and visible radiation coming in from the Sun during the day than there is IR. So the reduction of energy that doesn't reach the ground due to IR absorption is a very small fraction of the total energy that does reach the ground in the other wavelengths.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52892 - 08/29/14 04:47 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
The rest of your message seems to still be ignoring the fact that there is much more UV and visible radiation coming in from the Sun during the day than there is IR.


that's because there is clearly more IR light coming in from the sun than there is UV and Visible light !!!

Solar spectral distribution entering the lower parts of the atmosphere.



UVC 100-280 nm N/A
UVB 280-315 nm N/A
UVA 315-400 nm

the above graph correctly shows that the UVC and the UVB light
never enters the lower atmosphere and therefore never
reaches the surface , notice the line in the graph begins
at 315 nm.

I cant seem to understand how or why you seem to think that there is more incoming UV and Visible light than there is IR light.

just looking at the graph shows there is more IR than
UV and Visible combined.





so its not that ---> I <--- am ignoring any fact now is it?

Quote:
So the reduction of energy that doesn't reach the ground due to IR absorption is a very small fraction of the total energy that does reach the ground in the other wavelengths.


we shouldn't just claim things to be a certain way
because we want things to appear to be the way we want things to be.

we must use the reality information that we have vs imagining information to fit into an agenda.


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

Top
#52893 - 08/30/14 01:43 AM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Check back on the graph I included in a reply in the other thread about CO2. That shows the level of radiation from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere and at the ground. You might be surprised that it shows just what I have been saying. One of them even shows the part of the spectrum absorbed by various components of the atmosphere. Study that and you might actually be able to see the real facts instead of what you are trying to get us to believe, just because you don't want to believe the truth.

Bill gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52894 - 08/30/14 06:18 AM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
How we define "IR" (InfraRed light or radiation or wavelengths), and then also conflate IR with 'heat,' seems to be confusing.

For our earthly purposes:

http://elte.prompt.hu/sites/default/files/tananyagok/atmospheric/images/m62ed64fb.jpg
...or also:
http://www.helpsavetheclimate.com/atmoswindows1.gif

The 'Near-IR' radiation isn't much affected by, or involved with, the greenhouse effect.
Heat transfer (and cooling) occur at wavelengths longer than 3 microns (to the right, above).

This is because (to get detailed)
...wavelengths shorter than 3 micron get absorbed by atoms, excite electrons ...yada yada yada,
but that is not what "temperature" or heat transfer are.

Molecular absorption (or emission) of wavelengths longer than 3 microns,
and the consequent molecular vibrations or excitations,
is what causes (creates/is perceived as) temperature and heat transfer.

If shortwave energy (re: atomic -not molecular- absorption) can find
a transparent route in to the surface, then it can become potential (longwave)
molecular heating and heat transfer and cooling.

That is why concern with the greenhouse effect
focuses on outgoing "longwave" radiation.

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

Top
#52898 - 08/30/14 04:53 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136

Quote:
That is why concern with the greenhouse effect
focuses on outgoing "longwave" radiation.


yes I see , like focusing on the blast vs controlling the airplane that will drop the nuclear bomb.

Brilliant !!! we'll control the blast of the nuclear bomb after it drops from the sky as the uncontrolled airplane
flys overhead.

or lets try another.

how about this one , lets not focus on the tiny fire that
the bolt of lightning started for a few days , lets focus
on the resultant 200000 acre forest fire that will develop if we don't put the tiny fire out.




look at all of the heat being absorbed by the atmosphere from
the 0.7 - 4.0 range above.

don't focus on that because that is the cause for most of the
outgoing radiation from the 4.0 - 30.0 range , yes , we need only focus only on the effects after the cause.

but never the cause of the effects.



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

Top
#52899 - 08/30/14 05:22 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
That is why concern with the greenhouse effect
focuses on outgoing "longwave" radiation.


look at all of the heat being absorbed by the atmosphere from
the 0.7 - 4.0 range above.

don't focus on that because that is the cause for most of the
outgoing radiation from the 4.0 - 30.0 range , yes ,
we need only focus only on the effects after the cause.

but never the cause.


Focus on what we can change, CO2, which is the 'cause' of the extra greenhouse heating.


Water does most of the absorbing, for incoming wavelengths
(blue, on the left, in the previous graph). But....

It's that bigger CO2 absorption 'hump' (just right of 10 microns, at about 14 microns
...that overlaps the 'declining' H2O absorption), which is the causal factor we can control.

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

Top
#52900 - 08/30/14 05:36 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
its like you seem to understand , that water vapor is a major
absorber of heat in the atmosphere.

what happens to that water vapor as the decrease in
IR light decreases the possible total incoming light by as much
as 55%.

nothing ?

something ?

we don't focus on it ?

the water vapor decreases !!!

has water vapor decreased ?

if you don't like my links , search it yourself.

my search words

has water vapor decreased

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-scienc...es-warming.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Dropping+Water+...rticle17553.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/earth/29vapor.html?_r=0


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

Top
#52901 - 08/30/14 07:28 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Paul, just fyi, the point about how 2/3 of the days heat comes from greenhouse (atmospheric) 'reheating,' while only 1/3 comes directly from the sun, is from measurements rather than theory. Though that does include the nighttime, I suppose.

Originally Posted By: paul
if you don't like my links , search it yourself.

my search words

has water vapor decreased
...well Paul, if that is what you search for,
then you'll certainly find some odd blogs (or media articles) repeating it.
What do your links say? A hint, or a few quotes, would be nice.
===

Try searching: has water vapor changed
...to find some reliable sounding links, such as:

Quote:
Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities
...//www-pls.llnl.gov/?...
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
“The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms...
“Fingerprint” studies seek to identify the causes of recent climate change and...
===

Fundamentals of Climate Change (PCC 587): Water Vapor
...ww.atmos.washington.edu/.../587/587_3.pdf
University of Washington
troposphere has warmed in recent decades. And why global...
Can't change water vapor content directly
: it responds to the global mean temperature


If your point is that we should better manage our GHGs,
to moderate the large feedback warming that water vapor contributes,
then I'd agree.

It is the very large 'absorption peak' (longwave) of CO2, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.

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

Top
#52902 - 08/30/14 09:06 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
sam

I just checked and all three of my links are clickable and
will cause your ( or at least my ) web browser to browse to the
page that the link is designed to browse to using a web browser.

however , I cant click on your links , would you mind leaving
out the peripheral addiditions and subtractions of your links
so that the links you posted will work with a web browser?

Quote:
If your point is that we should better manage our GHGs,
to moderate the large feedback warming that water vapor contributes,
then I'd agree.

It is the very large 'absorption peak' (longwave) of CO2, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.


my point is that the heat from the incoming IR ( my focus begins here )
(the 1/3 you don't focus on)
that is blocked or absorbed by the CO2 is causing
LESS SURFACE HEAT
which causes
LESS SURFACE ABSORBTION
which equates to
LESS SURFACE RADIATION your focus begins here
which causes
LESS HEAT ABSORBTION IN THE ATMOSPHERE
which results in
LESS WATER VAPOR

please excuse the rant like text behavior

the above would also lessen the 2/3 you focus on.
because the 2/3 is a result of the 1/3

without the 1/3 there wouldn't be a 2/3 sleep

which will also lessen your very large 'absorption peak' (longwave) of CO2, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.

shouldn't we be saying that the man made GHGs are contributing
to the natural greenhouse effect that has been in place long
before man could strike a match or even knew what fire was.







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

Top
#52907 - 08/31/14 10:38 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Paul, I wasn't trying to 'share' those links (above); but rather was
only trying to show you how to "search" for unbiased information,
and what those results would look like.

Originally Posted By: paul
shouldn't we be saying that the man made GHGs are contributing
to the natural greenhouse effect that has been in place long
before man could strike a match or even knew what fire was.
Of course that is correct.
Anyone who has studied the basics would learn how greenhouse
heating is a natural, and critically important, part of our planet.
Life evolved to depend upon that natural heating effect.
Did this just occur to you?

Maybe you can’t see how drastically changing that long-evolved
balance (of biochemical equilibria and geological processes)
would cause changes to climate and biodiversity, but those who can see
are very concerned.

Originally Posted By: paul
without the 1/3 there wouldn't be a 2/3

Actually Paul, since the 2/3 comes mostly from absorbed UV/visible, it would still be about 2/3.
As you noted earlier, "glass will reflect IR," so how do you think a real greenhouse becomes heated?

Originally Posted By: paul
which will also lessen your very large 'absorption peak' (longwave) of CO2, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.

No, the size of the ‘peak’ is not due to heating; the size & shape of the peak is a property or characteristic of the gas.

The peak would get larger as more CO2 is added.
===

That confusion about the 'absorption peak' might explain why you thought adding more CO2 should "prevent" more heat, instead of "retain" more heat, as it actually does.
~


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

Top
#52910 - 09/01/14 01:41 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Actually Paul, since the 2/3 comes mostly from absorbed UV/visible, it would still be about 2/3...


Im going to re-quote this bit of yours then because this is
where that 1/3 vs 2/3 of mine came from.

Quote:
That is why concern with the greenhouse effect
focuses on outgoing "longwave" radiation.


its just like I said , your denying the fact that over
1/2 ( 55% )of the suns heat that reaches the earths surface
is due to IR radiation.

and on top of that your basically ignoring all incoming
radiation and focusing only on outgoing radiation.

cause and effect !

any non surface heat radiation is not a part of the
greenhouse effect.

so the stability of the climate cannot be correctly studied
by only studying the outgoing heat radiation.

Quote:
Maybe you can’t see how drastically changing that long-evolved
balance (of biochemical equilibria and geological processes)
would cause changes to climate and biodiversity, but those who can see
are very concerned.


they don't seem to be very concerned because they don't
focus on the incoming radiation that is absorbed by the
GHGs.
and by reading your post it seems they only focus on the things
they can change and make money off of during the
change here on the earth and they ignore the major things
such as incoming IR ( 55% of the heat that the earth gets from the sun).

they even claim that the incoming IR provides little heat
and that the majority of heat is from the 45% visible and uv.


Quote:
so how do you think a real greenhouse becomes heated?


a greenhouse heats up and stays warm by confining and heating
air.

why do greenhouses use plactic sheeting vs glass.

if IR is worthless as a heat source and if visible and uv
are sooooo much better then why wouldn't people always
use glass instead of plastic when building a greenhouse?

because glass would reflect the worthless IR and there would
be soooo much more heat in the greenhouse. ( 55% less )

lets test this , does anyone know of some house or a building
that has glass windows installed?


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

Top
#52911 - 09/01/14 05:27 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
why do greenhouses use plactic sheeting vs glass.

if IR is worthless as a heat source and if visible and uv
are sooooo much better then why wouldn't people always
use glass instead of plastic when building a greenhouse?

because glass would reflect the worthless IR and there would
be soooo much more heat in the greenhouse. ( 55% less )

lets test this , does anyone know of some house or a building
that has glass windows installed?


They build greenhouses with plastic because it is cheaper than glass. It used to be that all greenhouses were built of glass.

And for a testing. I have a car with glass windows. In the Summer it helps to open the doors and let the hot air out before getting in. I expect your car does the same. Supposedly it can get up to 140 degrees F (60 C) in just a few minutes inside a car parked in the Sun. Every year there are babies who die from being left in a car with the windows closed.

So you might want to check your facts before you start making extravagant claims to back up your beliefs when your beliefs don't match reality.

Bill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52912 - 09/01/14 10:52 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
It used to be that all greenhouses were built of glass.


I didn't ask , why they no longer use glass.

I asked "why do greenhouses use plastic sheeting vs glass."

I think that using plastic on a greenhouse would
be the economic thing to do , especially on a commercial greenhouse where the emphasis is on the return on investment
55% extra heat using plastic equates into less fuel being burned at night or on colder days when the extra heat is stored.

and plastic is sometimes in these situations more costly
than glass.

I think that the reason they choose plastic is for the higher
temperatures that plastic provides due to the 55% extra heat
of the IR range.

I don't think that the reason they use plastic is because
of the initial price of the plastic.

Quote:
And for a testing. I have a car with glass windows. In the Summer it helps to open the doors and let the hot air out before getting in. I expect your car does the same. Supposedly it can get up to 140 degrees F (60 C) in just a few minutes inside a car parked in the Sun.


so does your test somehow show that glass windows will make
the insides of a car hotter than plastic windows?

or are you saying that glass windows would not reflect IR light.



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

Top
#52915 - 09/02/14 01:50 AM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
What I am trying to say is that you are really struggling to try to find things wrong with the facts of life that include global warming. You ignore the corrections we make to your incorrect statements about a lot of different things that affect the climate. If you refuse to look at the facts just so that you can maintain your incorrect beliefs then there really isn't much more to say.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#52918 - 09/02/14 03:23 PM Re: NASA report verifies CO2 cools atmosphere [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
the facts of life that include global warming.


LOL.

Im not the one ignoring corrections bill.

just like your post about the heat in your car due to
your cars windows , I questioned you about the purpose
of your test because from what I understand glass will
reflect IR ( 55% of suns heat ), your reply was to claim that I was ignoring
the corrections you make , are you saying that it would be correct to say that
glass does not reflect IR
or were you ignoring the correction's I made?

Quote:
So you might want to check your facts before you start making extravagant claims to back up your beliefs when your beliefs don't match reality.


I agree , and you should practice what you preach.




_________________________
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.