One of the standard alarmist claims is that Methane is 30 times more potent than CO2 at wrecking the climate, and that cow farts threaten the future of humanity.
Radiative transfer model show that methane has almost no effect on the radiative balance of the atmosphere, and that even very large increases in methane have essentially no effect.
As with everything else about this scam, the claims about Methane are pure, unadulterated BS.
so then where the heck does methane come in in the ‘greenhouse’ theory? I thought all the Satanic Gases were like a blanket holding in the (longwave) heat.
Methane is unstable and quickly ozidizes, so it make up less than 2 PPM of the atmosphere.
so then does upper atmospheric methane ‘eat’ ozone and turn it back into O2? I would think one could measure a reduction in oxygen percentage wherever such action took place (unless at the surface).
No. It eats O2.
If methane is 2 ppm and O2 is 210,000, how are you going to measure the reduction of O2 to 209,998 ppm?
Only, there is an atmospheric window rounds about 10 – 12 um; notice, too the Wein curve begins to rise as a peak there at something like 250 K as well … coincidence by nature? It’s almost a spill-over effect when earth’s surface temperature rises …
Methane, the simplest hydrocarbon, when it burns, (oxidizes) produces CO2 and H20, like any other hydrocarbon., Its shorter duration in the atmosphere makes it less potent, but it does have many oscillations which means it can absorb more IR frequencies.
CH4 + O2 -> CO2 + 2H2
yes Steven but isn’t H2 unstable? It’s been a long time since I did these sort of calculations. If this happens in an O3 area that would completely use up the O3 as the third atom would be used by some of the H2. What then happens to the rest?
Yes, the H2 will oxidize and become H2O.
Darrylb is correct. It goes to CO2 and H2O upon completion in the atmosphere.
Technically, the oxidant in the atmosphere would be hydroxyl radical and oxidation would proceed first via H abstraction. H2 could not be formed in that mechanism. Commercially methane is converted to hydrogen via steam methane reforming using Ni catalysts in which oxidation is incomplete, also forming CO, and water gas shift plays a major role. The mechanism is more complex, involving several primary reactions.
As far as cow farts go, there were over a million bison roaming the Midwest US before whites and indians killed them off. I observe we just just replaced them with cattle so the general methane balance has not changed with regards to one moo or another.
We do have more trees than when the Pilgrims arrived and rotting vegetation would contribute more methane but it would seem that surface oxygen would ‘eat’ that methane and the trees contribute the oxygen. I would guess methane percentage would vary but overall be trendless while CO2 should increase somewhat after the reaction.
On that basis we should cut down all the trees then, I guess. [/sarc, for those who couldn’t tell]
Regarding the huge herds that used to exist, this guy says that the key to reversing desertification is mimicking the huge herds. Basically, highly concentrated herds of livestock, that are moved frequently, as used to happen with herds and packs of predators. The herbivores had to keep moving so they never over grazed an area.
Since the massive herds no longer exist, he’s advocating the use of livestock to replicate the cycle. He’s been doing it for over 40 years.
Shorter version. Little older and less polished a presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMjKcCfBtfI&feature=youtu.be
Longer version, that is much more polished, and now he adds climate change and carbon capture to his talk due to the audience. But the core idea is still the same.
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change.html?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=button__2013-03-04
This is known to livestock farmers. I have about forty 30 ft X 300 ft paddocks. My animals are moved every three to seven days and the paddocks are allowed to rest for 1 to 2 months. This breaks up the parasite cycle if you graze cows then sheep or goats and allows each section to be mowed and the weeds treated.
Most US herds are about 30 animals (small farmers) The Food Safety Modernization Act will have the effect of wiping out the small farmer who raises grassfed animals and replacing them with Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that use large amounts of tax payer subsidized grain. Large amounts of grain cause digestive upset including colic/bloat and death they also increase CO emmisions.
Sometimes the best response to a bogus statement is just to laugh – out loud.
Methane does not matter – at all. It may absorb LWR over broader wavelengths, but it is two orders of magnitude less common than CO2
And BTW, CO2 doesn’t matter either because it pales in significance to water vapor.
As science-minded folk, we often feel obliged to explain things as counter-argument. But the right response is laughter – no sense getting in a pie-throwing fight with a clown.
And neither Methane, CO2 or water vapor matter in terms of the so-called “green house effect” since a “green house effect” via “back radiation” is impossible. A cooler object (atmosphere) cannot re-heat a warmer object (ground), the source of the IR to begin with. This is a clear violation of physical law and cannot happen in this universe.
Squid, you should read this from skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer: “Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space….”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/
It isn’t a 2nd law violation for a cooler object (air) to reduce net radiative losses from the surface to the 3 Kelvin of outer space.
@bm: What squid said was accurate. What you said was an attempt to change what he said–the famous “red herring”.
You really need to ask yourself why you want to promote garbage.
Geran, No, Squid wasn’t accurate, greenhouse effect exists, and I offered a skeptic scientist’s explanation, and mine also. While a cooler object can’t heat a warmer one, it can reduce losses, which can result in global warming.
Squid, you don’t seem to be able to learn. Im not going to explain for a 101nd time why your famous “colder objects don’t emit radiation” nonsense is wrong. I’ve tried and failed, you seem to be incapable of learning. Geran, he’s wrong, and so are you.
Morgan, I have never claimed “colder objects don’t emit radiation” .. quit lying … Of course they emit radiation. However, the radiation from a COLDER object cannot WARM a WARMER object … Learn a little bit about thermodynamics Morgan, and quit looking like such a fool.
@bobmaginnis,
Perhaps, maybe, although nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that. But more importantly, that is NOT what is described by the “green house effect” hypothesis, as prescribed by the IPCC. The GHE hypothesis claimed by the IPCC is the back radiation re-HEATS the ground even more, causing ADDITIONAL warming, which if physically IMPOSSIBLE.
Can back-radiation SLOW cooling? … Perhaps, but that still does NOT constitute WARMING! … You cannot manufacture energy from nothing.
@bobmanginnis,
Yes Bob, I have read all about that. I have read it ever which way from Sunday on a half dozen web sites. I have been reading about it for about two years now.
Let me make this very clear for you. Roy Spencer (as has been shown repeatedly) could not be more wrong and clearly has absolutely no clue what he was talking about. This is like his post entitled “Yes Virginia, a colder object can make a warmer object warmer still” … Purely, unadulterated bullshit and proven to be wrong for centuries. If you would bother to read thoroughly through these discussions, you should realize just how incredibly absurd Spencer is on this subject. Laughable…and quite sad really.
squid2112 June 14, 2014 at 9:52 pm
… Can back-radiation SLOW cooling? … Perhaps, …
See, he’s not even willing to consider a net, overall ‘flux’ (energy flow) slow-down from earth-surface to space that exists as a result of some percentage of energy being reflected ‘back’ (I have simplified the wording for argument sake).
Lucky for science, “Scattering Parameters” (S-Parameters or S-Parms for short) were developed and are used by engineers all over the country to describe microwave wave behavior in both waveguides and coaxial cables …
S-Parms allow the ‘net’ flux to be determined easily, without resorting to the knowledge of individual element quantities like I and E which vary dynamically over a cycle, but rather power flows (and perhaps a relative phase angle between the two.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering_parameters
.
I tried 100 times. I tried the analogy of the 70 degree blanket keeping a 98.6 degree object (you) warm. I tried explaining 99 other times.
Last try. Warm objects emit radiation. Cold objects emit less radiation. Lachatliers principle says the warm object emits more and absorbs less, where the cold object emits less and absorbs more, until they both emit the same and absorb the same and reach equilibrium (same temperature).
Now imagine there are 3 objects. One is 90 degrees, one is 50, and the third is 3 degrees K (outer space). The 50 degree object can’t warm the 90 degree object, but it keeps it warm better than the 3 K object.
I can’t believe I had to do that. I WILL NOT do it again.
Sorry Morgan but your “3 objects” analogy is wrong. Photons bounce due to wavelength/temp mismatch. The 90K object would not even know the 50K object is radiating. It’s all about quantum physics. (Many famous “climate scientists” get this wrong too.)
Wrong. Stand next to a large 200 K object and then stand next to a large 3 K object, and tell me which one makes you feel colder.
Rats, I said I wasn’t going to do that again.
Squid, you’re not considering the Sun. If the slowing of cooling is large enough *the incoming heating from the Sun* would the cause warming. The problem I see in their “models” is that the Sun is not a constant source of power (the intensity of radiations vary in cycles) and CO2 seems a very inefficient GHG.
Perhaps, you may be correct in the “slowing”, however, I doubt it, since it takes only a microsecond for a photon to travel from the surface of earth to TOA.
But that doesn’t really matter because that is NOT what their GHE hypothesis says. It says NOTHING about “slowing” anything. It claims that the cooler atmosphere can heat the warmer ground. And that is impossible.
For a laugh, go read comments by Morgan. What an absurd airhead, who has absolutely no understanding of radiation physics, thermodynamics, the GHE hypothesis, or any of it. He seems to believe that its all in the “amount” of radiation (kind of to your “slowing” point). The “amount” of radiation is only but one constituent with the most important being the frequency of the radiation. For example, as Geran points out, radiation from a 200k object has absolutely no effect on a 300k object. The 300k object doesn’t even know that the 200k object is radiating anything. It can feel it, it can’t see it, nothing. The 300k object simple and immediately (instantaneously) re-emits any radiation from the 200k object, with no absorption what so ever. Because the 200k object is radiating at a lower wavelength, the 300k object cannot be excited by it.
This is extremely fundamental and basic thermodynamics. I just laugh when I read all of this other nonsense. I find it comical how some people try to twist and contort in all sorts of pretzel shapes to try to get a 200k object to heat a 300k object. Like Morgan trying to get a 70F blanket to add additional heat to the system through some sort of mental gymnastics. Absolutely priceless and as stupid as anything I have seen commented most anywhere.
The fact of the matter is, at its very basic and fundamental foundation, the GHE hypothesis, as proposed by the IPCC (and others), as well as half a dozen other version of the GHE hypothesis, are not physically possible, and there is no way around it, no amount of mental masturbation by folks like Morgan can get around the very fundamental and universal physical laws that dictate that a cooler object cannot make a warmer object warmer still. There is no mechanism (via radiation) that this is possible in this universe. I don’t care how dumbasses like Morgan twist it, try to use all sorts of sophistic mental contortions and bullshit analogies, you still get back to the basic problem that an object at 200k cannot, by any radiative means, make a 300k object warmer, AND, the 200k (or 300k) object CANNOT, and I can’t stress this enough, make ITSELF any warmer either. You can surround these objects with any material found in this universe, and they still, under NO circumstances, can they heat themselves. But, according to the GHE hypothesis (as identified above) they should be able to. And the only way for the GHE to work as hypothesized, ALL objects would be able to heat themselves. If this were true, then why do we pay for energy? Why don’t we take advantage of this phenomenon and create energy from nothing? Further, if the GHE were true, we could not exist. Our planet would have never cooled, ice would not be possible, there would have been runaway processes happen all throughout our universe that would have destroyed this universe before it even got started.
All this GHE talk and radiative this and that is just laughable nonsense. None of these people commenting on any of this has actually studied any radiation physics what-so-ever, or they would not be able to bring themselves to typing such nonsensical drivel.
Moron alert.
Obviously, squid is not an EM (electromagnetics) major …
“But that doesn’t really matter because that is NOT what their GHE hypothesis says. It says NOTHING about “slowing” anything. It claims that the cooler atmosphere can heat the warmer ground. And that is impossible.”
I agree, if the Sun or other “external” (not from the atmosphere) mechanism is not included, any warming of the surface by the atmosphere would be impossible.
As you said, it’s basic thermodynamics. First and 2nd laws.
I am afraid that Squid is correct but not for the reason stated.
Dr Robert Brown @ Duke Unuversity said the same thing on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/quote-of-the-week-howler-from-the-world-meteorological-organization-what-warming/#comment-1648000
So while CO2 can capture an IR packet of energy it does not have time to release it before it is transfered as HEAT to O2 and N2. In other words the IR is heating the lower atmosphere not the earth’s surface. Only when CO2 it is much higher in the atmosphere does it reradiate the IR packet.
Of course CO2 is heavier than air and despite the Climastrologists ASSumption it is well-mixed it is not. (That is another long argument.)
Ppl should get away from this weak, grade-school-level ‘photon’ concept of EM energy and rather think in terms of ‘waves’ … because at this stage it will only ‘hamper’ further understanding of EM (electromagnetic) ‘workings’ and interaction between a an incoming IR ‘wave’ and a EM-active ‘polar’ molecule like CO2 or H2O …
It’s okay to consider ‘packets’ of energy when considering quantum mechanics, with electrons moving between different energy levels, and maybe this is why people ‘cling’ to that concept when it’s not applicable to other areas, because of a lack of exposure to such new fields as oscillatory emissions from vibrating, torquing, etc molecules. At this stage, better to consider them as antennas, which MOST people do NOT understand either …
.
The molecular (quantum) excitation is *not* equal to molecular motion (kinetic energy), therefore the energy lost by collision usually is not equal to the total molecular energy either.
An excited particle may collide many times without loosing its excitation.
If all energy coming the Sun was absorbed only by molecular excitations (CO2 or other molecules), there would be *no warming effect* from solar radiation.
The basic idea is that the total energy from the incoming photon (in a photon + molecule/atom scattering) is divided as part absorbed as quantum excitation (that will be re-emitted again as a photon later) and molecular/atomic motion (kinetic energy), which is the part that is perceived/measured as increasing the temperature of the gas (atmosphere).
ps.: A photon can only be absorbed (as molecular/atomic excitation) if it has the exact amount of energy required by the excitation, Otherwise, energy transfer may happen via scattering or no energy-transfer may also occur, if the photon energy is too low or too high.
_Jim, I am taking it that Dr. Robert Brown who teaches physics at Duke University just might know what he is talking about when he says transfer of energy by collision is the major method of energy transfer at the surface ( troposphere) and not radiation.
Why? because N2 and O2 are transparent to the IR radiated by the earth but the lower atmosphere is warm. You can also toss in phase change energy from water too of course not to mention conduction.
According to NASA
“ Nearly all atmospheric water vapour or moisture is found in the troposphere. “
So almost all of the latent heat of evaporation gets dumped in the troposphere and you also get direct heat transfer via conduction.
CONDUCTION
WUWT has a chart giving the thermal conductivity of gases as a function of temperature. (Units are milliwatts per meter kelvin and 300K = 80.33 °F)
N2 @ 300K – 26.0
O2 @300K – 26.3
CO2 @300K – 16.8
H2O @300K – 18.7
http://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/thermal-conductivity-gases.htm
Actually the whole CAGW thing is nothing more than a tempest in a thimble. (It does not make teapot status.)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the change in Anthropogenic CO2 forcing between 1850 (start of the industrial age] and 1990 was only 1.5 W/m 2 [Reid, 1997].
And for this we shut down our entire civilization and go live in caves???
NOTE:
I do understand that radiation is a two way street but the net on a macro scale is cool can not warm a warm object to a hotter level. However if you are looking at vectors then warm atmosphere will not allow a hot surface to cool as fast as a cold atmosphere and the most rapid cooling is in a vacuum at 3K. In other words “Green house gases” make night time temperatures warmer.
Gail Combs June 16, 2014 at 4:36 pm
_Jim, I am taking it that Dr. Robert Brown who teaches physics at Duke University just might know …
Those are perhaps the ones you should challenge most; if he’s wrong, he propagates an error to an awful lot of ppl.
Besides, I don’t think his specialty is EM (electromagnetics, antennas, resonant circuits, filters, RF etc) …
I think he is also wrong on the so-called delay or ‘storage time’ as a gas molecule ‘retains’ it’s vibratory (thermal) energy. There should be a logarithmic decay curve like any electrical or mechanically resonant circuit, with the 63% energy decay ‘time constant’ determined by the “Q” of the resonator. The molecule, if moving/vibrating, is radiating EM energy. The movement of electrical charges is the very heart of EM wave radiation.
.
Jim, near the top of the troposphere, there is a higher concentration of CO2 than water vapor:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
No Bob. The TOA is only 12 to 14 km high. The radiant top of the atmosphere is nowhere near the actual top of the atmosphere (62 miles). It is actually in the troposphere. The radiant TOA is defined as the point where 50% of the photon emit to space, which happens around 12,000 meters. It also happens to be the top of the water vapor, where cirrus clouds form, but even at that elevation, water vapor is more abundant. The only place where CO2 is more abundant than H2O is way above the TOA, where there isn’t a greenhouse effect at all.
To clarify, the TOA is lower than the top of the troposphere. Jim was talking about the surface, and you are talking about an elevation that is not relevant because it’s above the radiant TOA
NASA considers TOA to be 100km.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7373
Right. Thats the 62 miles I mentioned before. That’s the definition of outer space, NOT the radiant TOA.
The figure of 12 kilometers for the radiant TOA (the point where 50% of the photons emit to space) comes from John Houghton’s book about global warming. I can’t give you a page number.
Morgan, I offered the graph which shows at 300 millibars or about 9 km, 0.24 g/kg water vapor. That is 240 parts per million by mass. CO2 at 400 ppmv is about 600 ppm by mass.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
“The troposphere starts at Earth’s surface and goes up to a height of 7 to 20 km”
Ok Bob, let’s not split hairs, according to your numbers, at the TOA the CO2 and the H2O are in the same ball park (not so much by mass, but ppmv is how it’s done).
I wonder what those alarmist clowns would have thought of the estimated 60-100 million bison eating, burping and farting their way up and down the Great Plains circa1800’s. Considering bison emit more methane per head than today’s cattle, this fact makes ruminant methane emissions a non-issue, but a great story to scare little children around a nighttime campfire.
it’s the bunny huggers and PETA clowns who want us all to go vegan
It’s probably what spelled doom for the Wisconsin glacier.
/sarc (if I need it)
Amazing and difficult to comprehend that so many bison dominated the landscape and biota of the time. It’s interesting that many of the trails that became today’s highways followed migration paths.
geologyjim says “ But the right response is laughter –”
When I can’t avoid interaction with “climate clowns” I do exactly as you suggest. Usually I will avoid those with climoreligion. Many such seem to have internalized the “guilt” of being born into a developed society that uses autos, airplanes, and refrigeration. I’m not interested in dissuading a person regarding their religious beliefs.
–—
Cows versus Bison – seems to be a wash or zero sum issue. Now, about the billions of Passenger Pigeons that have not been hatched. Passenger Pigeons
If you want to get rid of methane fill in the swamps! (And watch the greenies SCREAM… snicker)
Morgan says “Wrong. Stand next to a large 200 K object and then stand next to a large 3 K object, and tell me which one makes you feel colder.”
>>>>>>
Again, it is quantum physics here. When dealing with photons, you MUST use quantum physics. You are trying to deal with photons from a classical perspective. You can NOT do that and get valid results. Your previous mention of “Le Chatelier’s principle” does NOT apply to photons. Photons are not “equal”. Unlike the 1st law of thermo, photons can be both created and destroyed. If you try to use classical physics on photons, you will be wrong more than you will be right.
In your query, above, you are still thinking that a 200K object will “warm” a human body (approx 310K) more than a 3K object. That thinking fits your classical intuition, because you think 200K object is indeed “giving off more heat energy”. And since the 200K object gives off more heat, you believe it will heat the human body more. That is not how it works. Just because a photon gets emitted does not require the photon to ever be absorbed. The photon can be reflected based on the instantaneous mismatch of wavelength. You can NOT heat a warmer object by emitting photons from a cooler object!
For example, in your present thinking, if you put an ice cube in a glass of warm water, then the ice cube will heat the water, as it if giving off “heat energy”. [WRONG] And, if you put 10 ice cube in the glass, it will heat it even more. [WRONG]. And, if you put enough ice cubes in the glass, you can boil the water! [WRONG]
You get a lot of science correct. You see through the CAGW scam. But, PLEASE, review quantum physics, especially the early experiments. The IPCC’s theory of CO2/AGW is WRONG!
Misapplication of quantum physics and ‘photons’ to vibratory/oscillatory modes of EM wave creation or radiation from a molecule; not everything is rooted in QM. Ppl need to ‘up their game’ and understand this. Go study IR Spectroscopy and molecule vibration.
This seems to be where most ppl are falling short on this subject.
.
“Obviously “ppl” are falling short on this subject.”
>>>>>>>>>
1) We are talking photon creation and annihilation. That is the ONLY way heat energy is transferred radiatively.
2) Photon creation and annihilation is the basis for quantum physics.
3) The energy contained by a created photon is based on frequency (“vibratory/oscillatory modes”, for those that do not understand quantum physics) and the atomic structure of the emitter.
4) The frequency, at the time of creation, is determined by the temperature.
5) The frequency of the photon determines its wavelength.
6) In transit, a photon never changes its energy, frequency, or wavelength.
7) A photon emitted from an object at a high temp will have a shorter wavelength than a photon emitted for the same object at a lower temp.
8) A photon that has too long a wavelength will be rejected (reflected) by an absorber.
9) A photon that is accepted by an absorber will be annihilated, and its heat energy transferred to the accepting atom/molecule.
10) The heat energy from an annihilated photon can never heat above the temperature of its creation.
These points cannot be that hard to understand.
I beg to differ. You just buckle your seatbelt. You are likely to have all sorts of dimwits like Morgan piping in with all sorts of obfuscated sophistry with some of the ugliest mental gymnastics you have ever seen. You just wait.
I thank you for iterating these very important and fundamental physical processes, that firstly, are well known and cannot be denied (hence the physical laws that have been built upon these premises) and to wit, render the GHE hypothesis impossible.
Thanks Geran, succinctly illustrated!
Bzzzt!
Education seems to be ‘locked in’ at some level before consideration of VSEPR even (Valence Shell Electron Repulsion Theory, which defines molecule shape, and whether it is ‘polar’). From understanding VSEPR you can then move on to understanding molecular vibration and the exchange of EM energy in the form of EM wave ‘radiation’ or absorption.
“VSEPR Theory & Molecular Shapes – Valence Shell Electron Repulsion Theory”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvPKWcXdo7Y
.
Now a quick look at molecule stretching, bending, scissoring – which, since these molecules are polar (actually, CO2 isn’t when at rest) meaning they have a notable, measurable ‘electric field about them (owing to the attached, but offset atoms at the periphery) create and/or absorb EM energy ‘waves’ (lets ditch this ‘photon’ concept) at the FREQUENCY at which they VIBRATE.
This is really elementary, but, if you aren’t prepared for it, you will encounter severe cognitive dissonance. This would account for your reaction.
“Explaining what occurs at a molecular level during absorption of IR by molecules”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xITzGUjongU
.
Refresher:
Cognitive dissonance – the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who
(1) holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time or
(2) is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.
This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction.
– – –
“(2)” above would seem to be operative here …
.
_Jim,
Here is a pretty good paper on the subject of VSEPR, but I fail to see how this refutes the fact that a 200k object cannot add thermal energy to a 300k object.
What temperature is your mirror on the wall at squid?
Quit obfuscating _Jim, you know what the exercise is about. Are you really this daft?
So, when you put one of Morgan’s blankets on a corpse, how much warmer does that corpse get?
But, for argument sake, let us say that the mirror is EXACTLY the same temperature as your face. Does your face begin to heat from the IR radiation that your face is emitting towards the mirror, and then reflecting back to your face?
Double moron alert. Let these two idiots hash it out. They don’t know the difference between gas and solid/liquid. Do you think they will figure it out?
” Do you think they will figure it out? ”
Not in my lifetime.
I know I’m wading into the alligator pool, but I don’t think that’s what Morgan was saying.
Using your example of corpses, if you were about to put two 90F corpses into morgue refrigerators, and slapped a 70F blanket over one of them, the corpse with the blanket on it would cool slower than the one without the blanket.
Y’all correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what Morgan said above.
Squid says: “You just buckle your seatbelt. You are likely to have all sorts of dimwits like Morgan piping in with all sorts of obfuscated sophistry with some of the ugliest mental gymnastics you have ever seen. You just wait.”
>>>>>>
Indeed you were right. Instead of offering meaningful rebuts to my points, they offer only the obfuscation, the “red herrings”, and the personal attacks. But, I have seen this before. And, we know there are several well known, and well meaning, folks out there that are as equally confused. My MO has been to try about 3 times on a comment thread, but if they show no willingness to understand, I move on. The science is well established, but some folks want to argue over whether or not a tomato is red.
My thinking is that there are some readers that may like to see the facts behind true skepticism. So, I think my time is not totally wasted. Some in academia and some early bloggers get trapped in the “Lukewarmer” category. The good news is I think I see a slight trend of moving away from “Lukewarming”. At this point, I believe it is more about “turf protection” than science.
The science is on the side of true skepticism, and as we “look-out-the-window” and see increasing CO2, but flattening temps, it appears there is some massive validation for the science.
Not everyone was cut out to be a scientist….
squid and geran, I read through your posts for entertainment, and now have a craving for pretzels and feel like going to the gymnasium. Thanks.
Now I have a question for you, either of you can answer. How may Fraunhofer lines are there in the spectrum of a glowing tungsten light bulb filament? I’m not talking about the spectrum of tungsten in the solar spectrum, talking about solid tungsten. How many lines are there? Do tell.
Morgan, your desperate attempt to obfuscate is hilarious. The more you try to pretend you know the science, the more you look like Mosher.
The subject here is the methane scam, CO2, AGW, and the related physics.
So, how much tungsten is in the atmosphere, Bubba?
Oh, and if you are turned on by light bulbs, don’t miss this hilarious entertainment:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_MbHAOhuKQ
Morgan and _Jim, see if you can find the fatal flaw in the light bulb experiment. This is your chance to redeem yourselves….
Answer tomorrow.
OK geran, so you didn’t know the answer. I won’t wait for squib because I’m sure he doesn’t either. Didn’t get the hint of solid vs gas, let’s try again with another question:
When they say a solid object like Earth is a blackbody radiator, what frequency corresponds with these blackbody photons? Must be some sort of quantum or other, right? Do tell.
Morgan, I have these guys figured out. They never progressed out of simple solid thermo and that’s all that they can ‘work on’. Nothing else ‘computes’.
I shudder to think how these guys think antennas and radio work; IR is not to far off from either (esp. microwaves) to draw some strong parallels or analogies from.
Not everybody understands the ‘black art’ of EM (electromagnetic) ‘fields and waves’.
.
It’s much more simple than that. They are confusing radiation from gas molecules and the specific wavelengths that they radiate according to various stretching, wobbling, vibrating, rotating, or whatever, with radiation from solids, which don’t do any of that crap.
If they need help (if they can’t find their azz with both hands now it’s hopeless.)
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/html/spectrometer.html
.
Reblogged this on Liberalism is Trust Fucked with Prudence. Conservatism is Distrust Tainted with Fear and commented:
whatever’s your agenda. obamaphobes. methane is a byproduct of decay of hydrocarbon substance which eventually warm up the overfucked planet earth climate
policycritic says:
June 16, 2014 at 3:42 am
>>>>>>>>
Putting a blanket over the corpse will NOT warm it. If it is at 90ºF, putting a blanket over it will not raise the temp to 91ºF. Putting 10, or 100, blankets on it will never raise the temp above 90ºF.
This is a point the Lukewarmers cannot understand. Insulation does not add heat. It will not cause temps to rise. CO2 will not add heat. It will NOT cause temps to rise.
You have taken moron alert to a new level. You have jumped past imbecile alert and idiot alert right straight though to anencephalic alert.
And policycritic never said that. Check the thread.
I guess I used the wrong analogy. I’ll use El Pollo Loco, the best fast-food chicken in the Southwest.
If I put a warm thigh of El Pollo Loco in the fridge on a plate, and another warm chicken thigh in a styrofoam container in the same fridge, the chicken in the styrofoam cools more slowly than that lonely thigh on the plate; moreover, the purpose of the fridge is to cool, not warm. Or lukewarm. Just like the morgue.
_Jim and Morgan, your replies indicate you do not understand quantum physics. Further, your replies indicate you do not intend to learn about quantum physics. You cannot rebut the 10 points I listed above. You cannot admit that the “science” of CO2/GHE/AGW is flawed. You have demonstrated you do not follow the scientific process, and I am moving on. But, I leave by addressing your last comments.
First, Morgan, you keep asking about spectrum, first tungsten and then black body. I can tell by your questions that you are confused and do not even understand what you are asking:
“When they say a solid object like Earth is a blackbody radiator, what frequency corresponds with these blackbody photons? Must be some sort of quantum or other, right? Do tell.”
The very definition of a black body is that it absorbs and emits the ENTIRE frequency spectrum. A black body (two words, BTW) is not associated with only ONE frequency.
Second, _Jim, you keep trying to hint that E/M radiation is somehow mysterious and hard for you to understand. That is probably why you do not understand quantum physics. But, just to see if I can somehow trigger something in your brain, consider this–Man-made E/M radiation is many magnitudes higher energy than what a single photon “carries”. You can get some very interesting results, if the power is high enough. For example, it might be possible to pick-up AM radio stations with a microwave antenna, due to field strength. This same phenomenon does not occur with single photons. That may be one of the things confusing you.
Finally, I promised you both an answer to why the infamous light bulb experiment is flawed. This is actually worth spending some time on, because Anthony, and most “Lukewarmers” seriously believe you can reflect light back from a mirror and cause a light bulb to heat up.
What they do not understand is that the bulb filament is operating at a temperature of at least 1200ºF. In very close proximity, is the bulb surface. Visible light, and high energy IR can penetrate the bulb. But, the filament is trying to heat the bulb to a temp of 1200ºF. Heat transfer from the bulb via conduction, convection, and radiation, help to keep the bulb at a much lower temperature.
So, when Anthony positions the mirror in close proximity to the bulb, he blocks some air flow (convection). The surface of the bulb is not heated a few degrees by reflected light from the mirror. Rather, its temperature rises because the air flow is restricted.
If actual thermal equilibrium were to be established, the bulb’s surface would be at the same temperature as the filament, at least 1200ºF. For Anthony to prove his “theory”, he would have to heat the bulb higher than the filament temp, with the mirror.
What Anthony proved is that he did not understand the experiment. The experiment is flawed from the get-go, because a returning photon would either pass right through the bulb again, or be reflected from the surface. (Most IR wavelengths do not penetrate glass.) Even if it somehow managed to be absorbed by the bulb, it would not be able to heat beyond the equilibrium temp. The mirror/light bulb experiment was DOA.
I won’t respond further, gents, but thanks for putting up with me. Have a great week.
Why do you post on advanced scientific blogs? You are an extremely stupid person.
Geran, there is a simple experiment that one can perform that refutes Anthony’s light bulb experiment (provided you have a way of measuring color temperature).
Take a 100W light bulb with a filament temperature of about 2029 °K and plug it in to your deep freezer light socket. Close the lid and allow the freezer to get to its lowest temperature. Open your freezer and measure the color of the light. The bulb will be emitting a color of exactly 2029 °K. Take that same light bulb and plug it into your oven socket. Heat your over to its maximum temperature. Measure the color of the light again, and you will find it will be exactly 2029 °K again. Despite the fact that you were able to obtain at least a 600 °K differential between these two environments, the filament within the light bulb did not change temperature as the surrounding environment was much below the temperature of the filament, and even though it is being bombarded with so-called LWIR “back radiation” (which it was), there was no additional heating of the filament, thanks to the Laws of Thermodynamics, a cooler object cannot heat a warmer object. period.
For reference on calculating the filament color, here is a generally good one that will work with most common C6 type filaments.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law gives the power/unit area as:
I = ??T^4
– I = radiated power/area
– ? = emissivity = 0.26
– ? = 5.677e-8 (J/(s * (°K)^4 * m^2))
– T = temperature
The cylindrical surface area of the filament is:
Area = 2*?*r*L = (4e-4)*(0.3)*? = 3.77e-4
The total radiated power is then:
100 (W) = I * Area = I * (3.77e-4)
I = 100/3.77e-4 = (10/3.77)*e5 = 2.65e5
2.65e5 = I = ??T^4
T^4 = 2.65e5/(2.6e-1 * 5.677e-8) = (2.65/(2.6*5.677))e14 = 1.795e13 = 16.95e12
T = (16.95e12)^(1/4) = 2029 °K
Squid, If you turned on a light bulb and the filament was 2029 K, and then you threw the whole thing in the sun, where the temperature was 200 million degrees at the core, would the filament still be 2029 K?
geran does not understand James Clerk Maxwell, and all that his work revealed or entailed.
“Never send an ME to do a EE’s work.”
Quantum physics has little to do with this exercise, as has been stated before.
You are ill equipped to hit these nails with your simple thermo hammers.
.
_Jim (or Morgan) attempt to straighten out the liberal arts majors who comprise the company and the customer on what is practical and what is not within the realm of reality –
“The Expert” (Short Comedy Sketch)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
.
For the above (and I do _not_ regard anyone in this debate to be an ID 10T by the way, just mis-guided for the interim):
– – – – – – – –
This is how an engineer feels when he’s surrounded by ID 10Ts
A marvelous video fully expresses the contrast between an engineer’s rational mind and the others he sometimes must encounter at work for whom words are the wind that powers sales.
My engineer friend George sometimes looks at me as if I’m a rancid chicken wing in a Michelin-starred restaurant.
He doesn’t understand why I don’t think logically, rationally, understandably — in short, why I don’t think like him.
It causes him to foam at the lips and emit high-pitched noises, not unlike those created by sheepdogs that have been run over by tractors.
I never quite grasped what his problem was until I saw a YouTube video called “The Expert.”
This shows a meeting in which, quite frankly, everyone is either ridiculous or obsequious. Everyone except Anderson the engineer, of course.
The task his organization is being set is to create seven red lines.
One slight kink is that these lines must be perpendicular. Moreover, some must be drawn with green ink and some with transparent ink.
Of course, this is nonsense. But Anderson’s project manager doesn’t mind if it’s nonsense. He says yes to everything. That’s his job.
You know you’re in trouble with an engineer when he says: “I’ll simplify.” Translation: “I’ll try to get you complete dunderheads to understand why you’re such complete dunderheads.”
These dunderheads, however, are so dunderheadish that they won’t take sense for an answer. They believe red lines can be transparent and that seven lines can all be perpendicular to each other.
Anderson tries so hard. He begins with patience. He resorts to his days at high school. Nothing works.
He gets accused of not seeing the overall picture. He gets spoken to as if it is he, in fact, who is the complete idiot.
So many businesses truly run like this. So many times co-workers or clients will come to you and call you the expert. This is shortly before they tell you they know better.
“Why are you asking me then?” you shriek inside.
That is the kind of “why” that bedeviled Socrates until the very end.
– – – – – – –
geran says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:50 am
“The very definition of a black body is that it absorbs and emits the ENTIRE frequency spectrum. A black body (two words, BTW) is not associated with only ONE frequency.”
Congratulations, you answered my second question correctly. Now the big question is, if you already knew that, then why you and Squid don’t understand that a blackbody radiator (Earth’s surface) is also a blackbody absorber and the Earth can therefore absorb any wavelength from the sky. Just because the sky is colder than the surface doesn’t mean the surface can’t absorb the downwelling photons, thereby slowing the cooling of the surface, the way the 70 degree blanket slows the cooling of your 98.6 degree body. Please explain this to Squid because I’ve tried 101 (102?) times and failed.
Blackbody is one word if it’s an adjective. As a noun, black is the adjective and body is the noun. For blackbody radiation, your liberal arts degree should let you know what’s up with that.
Also, if you and squid understand this about blackbody radiators, then what’s all that nonsense about the reflection of the light bulb not being able to heat the bulb? People routinely use mirrors to direct and even concentrate radiation. What would happen if instead of using a flat mirror, they used a concave mirror where the focal point was where the light bulb filament was? The reflecting radiation would destroy the bulb! How can you not understand this?
You’re right Morgan, but you must also consider the source of energy that is powering the current in the filament, in the case of the atmosphere the source is the Sun.
I know you’re considering this, but I think Squid’s argument is that no warming may happen in the absence of such source, and he’s right.
I mean, “pure reflection” cannot cause warming because it cannot increase the total energy of the system, but “powered reflection”, as in your example, can.