Sciencescience

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 07:00 AM

An easy (and serious) question on global warming

Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2018, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Which greenhouse gas causes global cooling?

84 replies, 2194 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply An easy (and serious) question on global warming (Original post)
oflguy Jun 2018 OP
rampartb Jun 2018 #1
Lowrider1984 Jun 2018 #9
DDKick Jun 2018 #2
oflguy Jun 2018 #4
Jack Burton Jun 2018 #3
Paradigm Jun 2018 #5
Cold Warrior Jun 2018 #6
oflguy Jun 2018 #16
Cold Warrior Jun 2018 #17
oflguy Jun 2018 #18
Cold Warrior Jun 2018 #19
oflguy Jun 2018 #21
Cold Warrior Jun 2018 #37
oflguy Jun 2018 #47
Cold Warrior Jun 2018 #51
oflguy Jun 2018 #55
Cold Warrior Jun 2018 #57
oflguy Jun 2018 #58
Cold Warrior Jun 2018 #59
oflguy Jun 2018 #60
Cold Warrior Jun 2018 #61
Tovera Jun 2018 #7
oflguy Jun 2018 #8
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #10
oflguy Jun 2018 #11
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #12
oflguy Jun 2018 #13
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #14
oflguy Jun 2018 #15
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #20
oflguy Jun 2018 #22
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #23
oflguy Jun 2018 #24
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #25
oflguy Jun 2018 #27
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #29
oflguy Jun 2018 #31
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #33
oflguy Jun 2018 #43
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #46
oflguy Jun 2018 #48
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #52
oflguy Jun 2018 #54
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #62
oflguy Jun 2018 #64
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #66
oflguy Jun 2018 #68
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #69
oflguy Jun 2018 #70
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #71
oflguy Jun 2018 #72
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #73
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #74
oflguy Jun 2018 #75
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #76
oflguy Jun 2018 #77
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #78
oflguy Jun 2018 #79
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #80
oflguy Jun 2018 #81
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #82
oflguy Jun 2018 #83
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #84
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #35
Micrometer Jun 2018 #26
oflguy Jun 2018 #28
Micrometer Jun 2018 #32
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #34
Micrometer Jun 2018 #36
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #38
Micrometer Jun 2018 #39
Cold Warrior Jun 2018 #40
Micrometer Jun 2018 #41
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #42
oflguy Jun 2018 #44
Micrometer Jun 2018 #45
oflguy Jun 2018 #49
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #30
oflguy Jun 2018 #50
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #53
oflguy Jun 2018 #56
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #63
oflguy Jun 2018 #65
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #67

Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 07:26 AM

1. all contribute

but maybe global warming is caused by the massive heat generated by bitcoin mining?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 9, 2018, 02:52 PM

9. I admit, you caught me by surprise!

I chuckled.
Well played!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 08:48 AM

2. Removing all humans from the planet will solve the man made part of the problem.

However, the planet will always change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DDKick (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 08:58 AM

4. Come on guys

This is a real question with a real answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 08:56 AM

3. Those would be the gases produced by 7 billion dead bodies

after climate change has exterminated the human race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 10:21 AM

5. hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, magnesium and iron.

In other words, the Sun.

Or for the doomers, that big orange thingy in the daytime sky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 10:28 AM

6. They're on to you. No one wants to play your silly games anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 11:08 AM

16. You have long since proven yourself irreverent in discussions in this forum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 11:18 AM

17. As opposed to your one trick pony act?

I see below SS666 beat the shit out of you regarding your assertion regarding the cooling effects of water vapour and, after various attempts to deflect, your last retort (post #15) was effectively an unsubstantiated “no, you’re wrong.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 11:20 AM

18. You don't even know what water vapor is, silly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 11:22 AM

19. From reading your replies to SS666 evidently you don't either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 11:56 AM

21. I love it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:33 PM

37. No I love it. Your vast scientific knowledge is being put on display

You’re being completely exposed.

Wait! I know! Why don’t you ask “why is the sky blue?”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #37)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 09:20 PM

47. You want a question? OK

A. Is a cloud water vapor?

B. Is water vapor visible, invisible, or both?

C. What happens to water on the ground when it is heated by the sun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 03:04 AM

51. Nope. I've already told you I don't play your silly games anymore

Besides, I’m having too much fun watching the two posters below kick your ass in your own thread. But if you like questions, here you go:

1. How much carboniferous material could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck carboniferous material?

2. How many joules can be saved by a stitch in time?

3. What do you call a guy whose diet consists of animal entrails and internal organs?

Now, back to you...

https://m.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:00 AM

55. Precisely the evasion I expected

You haven't answered a single question I have ever asked.

You can't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:05 AM

57. Oh, but I did

That's where I realised you were contributing no information to the discussion and simply playing games.

BTW, any answers to my questions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #57)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:09 AM

58. Absolutely

1. How much carboniferous material could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck carboniferous material? 2

2. How many joules can be saved by a stitch in time? 4

3. What do you call a guy whose diet consists of animal entrails and internal organs? Cold Warrior

Your turn to answer a question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:11 AM

59. Nope, you got two wrong!

No questions for you. Come back next year!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #59)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:13 AM

60. Why don't you just go away?

Congratulations. You are the first and only person in ANY forum I have ever put on ignore.

You are a troll

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #60)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:16 AM

61. Awww, because you're so much fun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 12:28 PM

7. Smog.

Okay not a gas, per se, but aerosol particulates are the atmospheric component most able to reduce temperatures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 06:58 PM

8. Answer: Water Vapor

The Water Cycle is a tremendous cooling factor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 11, 2018, 09:14 AM

10. Except in the atmosphere, where water vapor condenses.

Condensation is a heating process.
Evaporation is a cooling process.
The energy released during condensation, according to the first law of thermodynamics, is equal to the energy gained during evaporation. For example, when you change a gram of liquid water to gas it requires approximately 4 times the energy as it does to heat up 1 gram of liquid water by 1 degree Celsius, even though no temperature change occurs at the time. Same with ice to water.
The energy needed to melt ice into water at 0 degrees C is 4 times the energy required to heat it from 0 to 1 degree in liquid form.

Now let's use some round numbers to make it easier.
1 Kg of ice at 0 Celsius would require 4,000,000 calories of heat to change to liquid water at 0 degrees Celsius. But it will only take 1,000,000 calories to go from 0 to 1,another million from 1 to 2 etc until it evaporates. The water vapor then condenses in the sky releasing it's energy back into the system. The change of phase from gas to liquid requires 4 times the energy from the gas as it does to heat up the gas 1 degree.
The phase change will release energy, some will dissipate into space but not nearly enough to counteract the energy required for the phase changes that occurred. Most of the energy stays. The liquid water also retains potential and thermal energy that is released as it falls and will not be released into space. Warming the oceans up a little more as they fall.
So in order for water vapor to cool the earth in any signifigant way, all the energy gained through the phase changes from solid to liquid and liquid to gas has to be dissipated into space.
It isn't. Most of the energy stays and is used to melt more ice and evaporate more water. Once a certain point is reached and the energy we receive from the sun isn't used up in the water cycle, the small amounts of energy lost to space means nothing. Water vapor now has a greenhouse effect, trapping energy.
Melting ice is a clear sign of a lot of energy being used. By the time it is melted and evaporated the amount of energy used is put back into the system through condensation and stored potential energy that is later changes to kinetic energy and is dissipated as it falls back to earth, remaining in the system.
The water cycle moves energy around but does not create or destroy energy. It is a result of energy being used.

So here's a question or 2.
How much energy released (%age) through condensation of water vapor would have to be released into space for water vapor to actually have a net cooling effect on the planet?
Considering the energy required to drive the water cycle and water vapors greenhouse effect, how much more energy would have to be released to counter water vapors greenhouse effect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 11, 2018, 09:09 PM

11. At any moment, the sun emits about 3.86 x 1026 watts of energy.

So add 24 zeros to the end of that number, and you’ll get an idea of how unimaginably large an amount of energy that is!

Most of that energy goes off into space, but about 1.74 x 1017 watts strikes the earth. (ie: 174,000,000,000,000,000, or 174 quadrillion watts).

If there are no clouds in the way, then one square meter of the earth will receive about one kilowatt of that energy. (note: clouds or no clouds, the heat is still deposited on the earth) So for the six hours in the middle of a sunny day, an area the size of a small backyard swimming pool (48 m2) will receive about 288 kilowatts of energy. That’s nearly 10 times what the average US household uses in an entire day! (In the United States, the average daily electricity use is around 30 kilowatt hours per household).

Even on an overcast day, that same area will receive about 28 kilowatts of energy in the same six hour period. And best of all, solar power is extremely clean, with zero greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.yourturn.ca/solar/solar-power/how-much-power-does-the-sun-give-us/

Let’s think about that. During a period of six hours the earth the size of a small backyard swimming pool receives about 288 kilowatts of heat energy. Divide by six and that amounts to 48 kilowatts per hour. The average 3 ton air conditioner uses about 3.6 kilowatts per hour if it runs continuously for the hour.

Now, that only applies to an area on earth the size of a swimming pool. Jam a bunch of swimming pools together and it becomes evident how much heat the entire earth receives from the sun. Multiply that six hours times four and the amount of heat in a 24 hour period is mind boggling.

Are you trying to say the vast majority of that heat stays on the earth to melt ice and warm oceans? Every day?

Considering global warming models do not account for this heat, it is a big factor the global warmers have left unaccounted for.
So in other words, man is causing no appreciable heating of the earth.

Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 03:53 AM

12. Water vapor.

We're talking about water vapor and your statement that it cools the earth.
So, since earth and the atmosphere absorb about 70 percent of that energy it has to release that much for the earth to remain at a stable state of energy.

Nowhere did I mention man made anything. ???

I was talking about the energy in our earth/atmosphere system, that is rising, due in part to the greenhouse effect that water vapor contributes to. This extra energy that remains due to this remains. We lose very little of it to space and it builds up. Bigger storm systems, weather events, snow, droughts are all a result of this extra energy being moved and exchanged in parrlt by he water cycle. Which cannot create of destroy energy.. just because something has a cooling effect doesn't mean it is making everything cooler. For example, evaporation cools the air by using the energy to change the phase of water, but not everywhere at the same time. That energy has to be replaced somewhere else. The more energy you retain the more energy you have to move around and replace.
We are retaining more energy than we used to due to certain factors. There's no doubt about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 10:31 AM

13. It is a wonder of nature

The heat we receive continuously from the sun comes to us as radiant energy in the form of electromagnetic waves through the vacuum of space. It is a form of energy that can travel through space, absent any solid material. We call that heat radiant heat, which is one of the five types of energy. Radiant energy does not need a solid medium to be transmitted.

Some of that heat is re-radiated back into space directly, but not nearly enough to keep the earth in a thermal balance. That is where the water cycle comes into play. Latent heat of vaporization (evaporation) utilizes water on land and in the oceans to absorb the majority of that excess heat, thus cooling those mediums. It ascends as water vapor in the atmosphere where it condenses into visible moisture, or clouds. That latent heat of condensation is given up within the clouds. Any pilot that flies small airplanes knows that the inside of clouds is relatively warm.

As the visible, condensed moisture ascends farther into colder layers of air, the visible moisture forms raindrops, which, because of their weight, falls to earth, but not before the water vapor has done its job, dispersing its heat through its latent properties, and condensed water through sensible cooling. That warming of the atmosphere is how heat escapes earth into space. (warm air rises).

Thus, water vapor plays a major role in keeping the earth cool.

Through the water cycle, earth maintains a relatively constant temperature. Any variation in that role of the water cycle must result in either global cooling or warming. More heating will result in more cooling by virtue of the physics involved. It is one of the many self-regulating "miracles" of nature that enables the presence of animal and plant life here.

If earth retained any appreciable amount of that radiant heat over time, all life, including plant and animal, would be extinguished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 10:57 AM

14. I get how it works.

The thing is, energy is being trapped through the greenhouse effect.
If the water cycle was 100% efficient all the time for radiating heat out to space we would still be warming because the longer wavelength radiation cannot escape as easily as it has before.
This is evident in precipitation or lack of it as the water cycle and atmospheric currents move this energy around. The more energy the water cycle has means more energy to drive the water cycle. If everything is ramped up by 10 percent for example, that means larger storms, heatwaves and precipitation events due to the increase of energy in our earth system.
Even if these larger storms are able to release more energy to space, it has to work 100 % efficiency, and given the greater amount of energy, it doesn't. Energy stays in and slowly builds up as the exchanging of energy in the water cycle tries to keep up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 11:02 AM

15. The earth is not warming appreciably

In fact, the degree of warming claimed by global warmers cannot be measured using conventional instruments and methods.

And, data does not indicate that weather is more violent than in the past.

Also, if energy was being trapped through the greenhouse effect, we would see warming in the layer of the atmosphere that is affected by CO2. Its not happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 11:25 AM

20. Not necessarily.

Energy content is increasing in our system.
If CO2 or other greenhouse gasses trap and/or reflect radiation it won't necessarily mean warming where the bulk of the gas is. It will balance as the gas rises and cools and falls and rises and cools. It moves all around. As gases get energy they move faster, they spread out and rise with the warm air, which then cools but CO2 won't condense to liquid, it will just slow down and fall with the cooler air.. CO2 goes directly from gas to solid (dry ice) at very low temperatures.. I think it's around -75 C and at 1 atmosphere of pressure. It can get absorbed but it will most likely stay in the atmosphere for a very long time before it does. Any that is absorbed ends up back in the air or in he oceans until it is released again. That isn't counting what plants use up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 11:59 AM

22. "Energy content is increasing in our system"

Who told you that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 03:20 PM

23. That's what the greenhouse effect is.

Satellite estimates are between .5 and 1 watt per square meter is being retained due to the greenhouse effect. There is an imbalance now. It's not a huge imbalance but it's there. The earth's ability to cool itself isn't as good as it should be. Instead of being balanced and rejecting the same amount of energy we receive from the sun, up to a watt per square meter is being retained.
Might not sound like much, what's a watt here and there right? However over every square meter of earth, every day of every year, it adds up. It's not constant globally, some places at certain times of year will retain more or less throughout the year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 03:39 PM

24. "The earth's ability to cool itself isn't as good as it should be"

Actually, the earth's ability to cool itself is as good as it needs to be.

Heat drives the water cycle. The warmer an area is, the more rapid the water cycle works to remove the heat.

Turn up the heat on the stove and the pot of water boils faster.

Advocates of global warming ignore this.

The uneven heating and cooling of the earth is what drives weather.

Fronts, hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms......all a product of the water cycle. They all contribute to earth's cooling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 03:53 PM

25. Right. They contribute.

But earth still is retaining energy and the balance is off.
In a perfect earth system, overall, it should remain fairly constant, it isn't.
The water cycle and natural cooling can't keep up, between .5 and 1 watt per square meter.
It's trying, but it's a natural process. You can't just keep heating earth and the water cycle is going to be able to reject all the extra energy into space forever. Something will eventually give. The only way this happens is if a system retains energy over periods of time.

Now if you keep adding heat to a boiling pot of pure water, to use your example, it will continue to boil at 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Now put a lid on it. The temperature of the water will rise because the excited molecules have no where to go. That's why pressure cookers can cook at such high temperatures. The energy is retained. Even if you only add a tenth of a joule to it every hour, it is still going to boil eventually and with a sealed lid it will retain the energy until it has no option but to explode. Minor additions of small amounts of energy at a time, but it builds up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:03 PM

27. You went way too far with the analogy

We are not a pot of boiling water.

"The water cycle and natural cooling can't keep up, between .5 and 1 watt per square meter"

5 and 1 watt per square meter per what time frame?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:07 PM

29. You brought up the pot of water.

So I figured it would be easier to use your example. It works the same way, if the method of cooling can't keep up with the addition of energy, the energy builds up, it has nowhere to go. The "lid" in the earth system is the greenhouse effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #29)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:09 PM

31. There is no lid on the earth's atmosphere

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2018, 08:42 PM - Edit history (1)

If there was, we would not last two days

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:16 PM

33. That's why I used " " around lid.

I didn't say there was a physical lid.
It works the same though. If you decrease the ability for the pot to release it's energy by covering it, the water will get hotter than boiling. It's also why coffee cools faster if you blow on it. The steam acts as a blanket holding heat in, remove the blanket by blowing it away and the energy is released.

If you decrease the earth's ability to cool itself with greenhouse gases (lid) it will continue to get hotter unless you slow down or halt the addition of energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 08:43 PM

43. Except that the earth is not getting hotter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #43)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 09:09 PM

46. Temperature and heat aren't the same thing.

Saying "hotter"may have confused you.
Heat is energy. There are other forms of energy, but heat, thermal energy, is what we are talking about.
We are retaining more thermal energy from the sun than goes back into space.
At an average of .5 to 1 watt per square meter on earth.

So, what does that tell you?
If you continue to put thermal.energy into a system that doesn't expel it at the same rate it enters the system, what happens?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #46)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 09:26 PM

48. When I say "hot" I'm referring to actual heat, not temperature

I mean hot in terms of actual heat measured in joules, watts, or BTUs.

One Watt of Power is equal to one Joule per second, so the two are directly interchangeable.

A degree is not a unit of heat.

Do you know what constitutes heat in air?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #48)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 03:57 AM

52. So what happens when you keep adding thermal energy

To a system at a rate faster than it can expel it?

I know what a watt is, I told you what it was when you asked about a time frame for watts. In the case we are talking about, about .5 to 1 watt of thermal energy is retained per square meter of the planet.
It doesn't measure heat though.
It measures the rate at which energy is transferred, in othet words, work. 746 watts is one horsepower

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #52)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 06:18 AM

54. .5 to 1 watt of thermal energy is retained per square meter per what time frame?

Where are you getting those numbers? Heat gain means nothing unless you know the rate.

Horsepower has nothing to do with it.

Do you know what constitutes heat in air?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #54)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:17 AM

62. Answer my question.

You completely refuse to answer any questions posed to you.
What happens when you add thermal energy to a system that can't get rid of it all?

What time frame? .5 to 1 joule/sec per meter squared.
Right now, the total for the earth is 0.3 petawatts. From 2005-2010, after the effects of cooling we talked about before it was retaining .513 +/- .15 watts/square meter. Earth's surface is 510 trillion square meters. Do the math. Tell me if it went up, down or stayed the same and what that means in either case.

It's measured from space by multiple satellites designed to measure that stuff.
You post about climate change an awful lot but you have a hundred questions and no answers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #62)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:22 AM

64. "What time frame? .5 to 1 joule/sec per meter squared"

No time, huh?

Heat gain is measured in the amount over time. I knew you made it up. You don't even understand what I'm talking about.

And you keep evading my question about what constitutes heat in air. You don't even know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #64)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:41 AM

66. Oh.. I fucking know any question you can pose

About heat, energy transfer, thermodynamics, the water cycle and why it does what it does.
You clearly can't. I understand the laws governing those things. You don't.
You can't even tell me what happens when you add thermal energy to a system. I'm not gonna school you on it anymore.
This all questions and no answer game is fucking lame. I've seen you do it to others here. If you understood thermodynamics, energy transfer, the terminology and what specific units of measurement meant, you'd have answers. Not questions.

I gave you a 6 year time frame there.. 2005-2010. You completely ignore it and try to insult me.
You think a watt measures heat. That's all anyone has to know, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #66)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 08:34 AM

68. FINALLY! a rate!!

It must have finally sunk in that a value of heat gain means nothing without a rate.

You STILL haven't told us who gave you that juicy statistic.

Lets see.......as a guru on thermodynamics, such as you are, you don't know what constitutes heat in air?

Hummmmmmmmm........

"You think a watt measures heat. That's all anyone has to know, really" Really???? I rest my case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 08:51 AM

69. Yeah.. 3 fucking posts ago.

Now do the math and tell me if it has gone up or down or stayed the same compared to today's total rate of 0.3 petawatts globally.
I gave you all the data you need.

You said heat is measured in joules, BTUS and watts.
You didn't even know what a watt was until I told you yesterday.
The RATE is joules per second.
The 6 years I gave you was a time frame for the RATE.
Terminology means something you know.
We'll, maybe you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 08:54 AM

70. "You didn't even know what a watt was until I told you yesterday"

I hate to have to tell you this and be the bearer of bad news, but a watt IS a unit of heat over time.

And you ridicule ME?



Want me to explain to you what constitutes heat in air?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #70)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 09:00 AM

71. Really.

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2018, 09:34 AM - Edit history (1)

A watt is a unit of heat.
It's a unit of the transfer of energy.
Not the energy..
It measures the rate of joules transferred. It isn't a unit of heat.
It's like saying an amp is a volt.
Really dude.. do some studying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #71)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 09:09 AM

72. Again, I rest my case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #72)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 09:20 AM

73. What does that even mean?

You rest your case?

Hahaha hah
Oh.
What case? You made absolutely no case. You don't even know what a watt is. Then when you think you are saying something smart, and slightly insulting, you prove again that you don't know what the fuck it is.
Haha

I rest my case he says..

Anyone reading this thread can easily see that you have no idea how any of this works.
You ask little questions, ignore evidence, refuse to answer questions, ask for more things then ignore them when presented.

Then say you rest your case. . What case?
That you don't know what a fucking watt is?
We can consider that case rested, yes.
Oh my fucking lord thundering Jesus.
Hahahahha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #70)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 09:49 AM

74. Here's an easy one for you then.

How many watts of heat are in a liter of water at 15 degrees C?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #74)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 05:12 PM

75. Watts are expressed in units of heat over time

A more appropriate way to word your question would be how many watts would it take to raise a liter of water 15 degrees C in an hour?

Its taking time, but you will eventually be educated, just stick with it.

Did you give up on the explanation of what constitutes heat in air?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #75)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 12:45 AM

76. But you said it's a unit of heat.

Not a unit of heat over time, which it isn't either. Heat over time is expressed in the heat equation. Not watts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #76)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 07:37 AM

77. Watts are definitely a unit of heat

Hang in there

Read what I posted

A watt is a unit of power which can be expressed as a unit of heat over time, equivalent to one joule per second. It can be expressed as the amount of heat it takes to raise the temperature of a vessel a certain number of degrees in a designated time. Want to heat the water faster? Just add more watts. A watt is the function of one volt at one ampere

Volts times amps = watts

Volts = watts divided by amps

amps = watts divided by volts

Think of volts in a circuit as the pressure of water in a hose, and the amps as the flow rate of the water.

Think of Watts as the result of that pressure and flow rate.

Did you google what constitutes the amount of heat in air yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #77)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 10:29 AM

78. "A watt is a unit of power."

So you google what a watt is and miss the first line?
It can be expressed as heat over time. That doesn't make it a unit of heat.
It can be expressed as a transfer of heat in joules per second.
It can be used in all different ways because it is not a unit of heat.
Oh well, at least you tried to learn something.

Why would I try to answer your query about heat in the air?
You can't admit anything. Even when you are patently wrong about something as simple as a watt.
You've dodged all my questions and hang on to this one. I don't want to prove you wrong again just so you can change the definitions of words and units of measurement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #78)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 11:05 AM

79. What is a question of yours that I dodged?

Why would you try to answer my query about heat in the air?

Because this whole thread is about heat, silly. I figure an expert like yourself would eagerly explain to the forum what heat in air is.

By the way, you have given yourself away. When we finish this thread, I want you to debate me how many elephants can fit on the head of a pin. That kind of discussion is right up your alley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #79)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 11:17 AM

80. I really don't care that you didn't answer them.

It's meaningless really.

It just goes to show how you discuss things you really don't understand and can never admit fault even when something like the definition of a watt, that you provided, contradicts you.
I'm not an expert in heat. I understand the laws that it must follow. If I didn't, I wouldn't have worked as a chemist for 20 years. I saw how these laws work and confirmed it everyday or else none of my work would have done what I expected it to do. That doesn't make me an expert and I've never claimed to be an expert.

When you say things like
To paraphrase, "Why isn't there warming where the CO2 is?" And I explain it to you, you don't acknowledge the explanation, you ask me more questions. I understand you are inquisitive and that's fine, but really, without being able to admit fault and attempting to gish gallop instead of understanding the explanation is getting old and tired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #80)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 11:33 AM

81. I knew you was lying about me not answering your question

But I wanted you to admit it.

If CO2 is trapping heat, then it is going to trap it in the layer of the atmosphere where CO2 exists, silly, not on the earth's surface.

DUH

I put food on my table dealing with watts. I certainly don't need you to lecture me on what a watt is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #81)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 12:37 PM

82. Apparently I do need to.

You refuse to accept the definition that you provided. It's hilarious.
There are questions you didn't answer but, like I said, it doesn't matter and I'm not going back through to find them. That's hardly a lie.

CO2 moves around with the air, up, down, north, south, east and west. It doesn't heat anything up and it doesn't sit there retaining heat. It absorbs and/or reflects longer wave radiation. If it absorbs some radiation the molecules will get excited and heat up but not in any appreciable way, not enough to have a noticeable difference directly.
The shorter wave radiation from the sun can get through but the reflected radiation has a longer wavelength and isn't able to get through the CO2 in the atmosphere and is reflected back or absorbed. This retains the energy and warms things up. This is common knowledge in regards to the greenhouse effect, that's what the greenhouse effect is. You seem very interested in the forces that drive these effects but seem unable to, or refuse to, understand why.
You'd rather assume, or get misleading information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #82)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 02:04 PM

83. You are the one making the assumptions

I have asked you multiple times to cite your source for this .5 to 1 watt of heat per square meter retention. (then you said a watt has nothing to do with heat)

I finally got you to realize a heat gain means nothing without a time frame and that is when you came up with 6 years, but you will not cite a source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #83)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 03:19 PM

84. I told you. Satellites.

Satellites designed to measure these things.
That's my source.
You asked for a time frame and I gave it to you. Are you really going to tell me you can't find any sources that say what I said the rate and time line of stored energy in our earth system is? You either didn't look or didn't care to look.
Several counties over the world have them, what source do you need? You are on the Internet. Look it up!
That's what I do when I want to know where someone gets their information. I look it up.
Another problem with that is when you give people sources, they attack the source and not the information. If I'd say, I don't know, NASA for example, some people would go off on NASA, ignoring everything and whipping out some fucking ridiculous conspiracy theory because they don't understand the data.

It's happened to me several times here, so if you want to debunk it, go ahead. If you think I'm making everything up because you won't check my facts, that's on you. If I question your debunking I'll find information to the contrary if it exists and tell you. I won't whine about a source, I'll find the source.
I'll read the relevant papers, not some loony blog somewhere. I'm not saying you get your information from loony blogs, so don't take it that way, but a lot of people do. They trust the person writing the story actually read and understood the data they are reporting on, they assume the people have the credentials to report accurately and not emotionally when they read the articles. Most don't. They are bloggers and journalists that find little blurbs in a paper and blow it out of proportion because that's what gets them the clicks.
Go to the source of the information.
Here's an example, you were talking about CO2 in the atmosphere showing heat retention in the layers it's in. I told you it moves around. If you want to limit it to the troposphere, say so.
Here's a paper about the carbon cycle and what happens with CO2 in the upper troposphere and stratosphere.
It has all kinds of information and data regarding CO2 in the upper troposphere and stratosphere.
From that data you should be able to answer your own question regarding why you don't see exponential warming in a specific place where there may be more CO2 than elsewhere.
Read it.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/3861/2017/acp-17-3861-2017.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #27)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:21 PM

35. A watt is 1 joule per second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:00 PM

26. The warmer an area is, the more rapid the water cycle works to remove the heat.

The warmer an area is, the more rapid the water cycle works to remove the heat.

Where is the heat removed to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:03 PM

28. space

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:15 PM

32. Is all the heat removed to space?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:20 PM

34. Ideally we should reject as much energy into space as we receive

To.maintain the balance. It can shift up and down for various reasons but the energy has to go somewhere. If something happens that upsets the balance as like a one time event, the balance will eventually come back, but if something else is slowly building up over time and the balance shifts due to that, it will probably take a lot longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #34)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:22 PM

36. I was hoping oflguy would know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:33 PM

38. K. sorry for jumping in there.

You asked him, not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:39 PM

39. It's alright. oflguy is usually unwilling to answer hard questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #39)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:41 PM

40. However, he is not shy about asking his gotcha questions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #40)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:45 PM

41. oflguy probably thinks the questions are a perjury trap,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:47 PM

42. He thinks me and nolidad are the same person

But I won't hold that against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 08:45 PM

44. yes

and it is a tremendous amount every day.

To understand how much heat the earth loses every day, one must realize how much heat the earth receives from the sun every day in the form of radiant energy. I stated this in an earlier post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 08:54 PM

45. Is all the heat removed to space?

You say all the heat is removed. Why don't we freeze?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 10:23 PM

49. Come on, don't be silly

In order for the earth to maintain a relatively stable temperature, the amount of radiant heat received from the sun each day must be removed daily.

This is common sense

Otherwise, we would not last two days on this spaceship we call earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #26)

Tue Jun 12, 2018, 04:08 PM

30. It's moved around.

The water cycle helps reject energy into space, but not fast enough due to the retention of energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 12:36 AM

50. Where is the extra heat going?

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2018, 01:09 AM - Edit history (1)

And how much is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #50)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 04:05 AM

53. It's staying in the system.

At least .5 to 1 joule per second per square meter. I don't know how many different ways I have to explain that.

I'm not going to calculate it.
Google the area of the surface of the earth and multiply that by .5 J/s. It will tell you how many watts the entire surface of the earth is retaining. It's not staying right there, it is transferred (moved around) like I said.
So when there is enough energy equal to a watt per square meter being retained, it means it isn't going back out. It's in the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #53)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:03 AM

56. "I don't know how many different ways I have to explain that"

You can start by making your claim relevant. What is the rate for that heat gain?

So you are admitting you made it up? You have no source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #56)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:19 AM

63. I said it multiple times.

Satellites designed to measure that is my source.
I said the watts per square meter too.
I'm not telling you again.
Lmao.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:24 AM

65. You STILL don't get it

I love this forum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #65)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:49 AM

67. Oh. I get it.

You don't have a clue how any of it works.
You think the water cycle will handle it. Despite being told why it isn't handling it, giving you numbers, teaching you terminology and units.. you still don't understand.
You can't answer basic energy questions.
So ya.. roll around all you want. Ignore everything and pretend to have a clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience