Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: There Are Holes in the Greenhouse (Theory)

  1. #1 There Are Holes in the Greenhouse (Theory) 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    In the beginning...the light moveth through the firmament unabsorbed, unscattered, unreflected until it reacheth the surface of the earth. The surface saw that the light was good and absorbed it and transformed it to heat.

    The heat then arose from the earth and escaped into the black abyss. Then the Lord made man, and the Lord said unto the man, ďEmit carbon dioxide and multiply.Ē

    The carbon dioxide then multiplied and formed a firmament that absorbs and scatters some of the heat arising from earth. Some heat escaped, but some was sent to the surface and was trapped for a thousand years, causing floods, famines and mayhem--and global warming.

    I apologize for the satire, but I have some problems with the greenhouse theory. Letís start with light. The solar constant, the amount of the sunís incoming radiation, which is measured at the outer atmosphere, is approximately 1400 W/sq. m. Thatís a pretty hot light bulb if you ask me.

    In fact the molecules in the thermosphere (upper atmosphere) are doggone hot! Ranging from about 600 K to 3000 K. Light has more wave lengths than just the visible spectrum, yet most global warming models I look at pretend that the infrared and UV wavelengths donít exist when light is heading to earthís surface.

    Additionally, I think the thermosphere proves that oxygen, nitrogen, and argon can get hot notwithstanding claims to the contrary. Allegedly, only carbon dioxide can absorb and emit infrared even though these other gases have specific heat capacities. Liquid nitrogen, for example, vaporizes at room temperature. Even if no wavelength of IR causes nitrogen to heat, there are plenty more sources of heat and wavelengths of light.

    Anyhow, a lot of that heat from inbound light is thwarted. If there is anything to the greenhouse theory, then more greenhouse gases should prevent even more heat caused by varied wavelengths of light from reaching the earth, causing a cooling that would offset any warming.

    So why should we expect warmer temperatures?

    Well, from what I understand, carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up .033% of the atmosphere, or maybe itís .0384%. Various sources show different figures. So how can we be sure the presence CO2 is really increasing?

    Anyway, it seems like an insignificant figure no matter which figure we use. Supposedly CO2 will prevent certain wavelengths of infrared(IR) or heat from escaping the earth by absorbing and scattering that heat or IR. Some of the heat will escape anyway but some will head back to the surface and fry us.

    But what about density? CO2 has more density than the surrounding air, so rather than rising to form a firmament to prevent heat from escaping, it would simply sink to the surface and be absorbed by the oceans.

    What about thermodynamics? If CO2 scatters heat, the heat heading for the surface would simply rise and be absorbed again or escape. At night, when the earthís heat escapes, the thermal flow is like a river flowing up into outer space.

    Hereís an analogy: imagine you are standing in a river, facing upstream. You have a sponge in your hand. The sponge represents CO2 at an atmospheric concentration of .0384%. The sponge absorbs some of the water flowing toward you. You then squeeze the sponge and the water scatters. Some of it scatters upstream. What happens to that water? Does it end up a mile upstream? No, it ends up downstream like the rest of the water.

    The same is true with heat. It goes to where it is cooler, not where it is warmer.

    Suppose you used two sponges? That would be like doubling the amount of CO2. Do you think the water droplets would end upstream then? LOL!

    But what of greenhouses? Donít they prove that heat can be trapped? Sure, but they are sealed containers. If you punch holes in a greenhouse (i.e. spread the molecules apart), the heat escapes. Greenhouse gas molecules are spread apart and are allowed to circulate unlike a sealed greenhouse.

    At this juncture, I firmly believe that greenhouse gases do not increase or decrease mean temperatures, but simply reduce extreme temperatures. Look what happens when you apply the same heat energy to nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and water. (Using T = Q/cm; T = change in temperature; Q = heat; c = specific heat capacity; m = mass/mole).

    N2: T = 100J/(1.040)(28g) = +3.43 deg. C
    O2: T = 100J/(.92)(32g) = +3.3 deg. C
    CO2: T = 100J/(.839)(44g) = +2.7 deg. C
    Water: T = 100J/(4.1813)(18g) = +1.32 deg. C

    Notice that CO2 and water do not heat up as much as oxygen and nitrogen when the same measure of heat is applied. By contrast, CO2 and water cool down slower than oxygen and nitrogen when heat energy is released:

    N2: T = -100J/(1.040)(28g) = -3.43 deg. C
    O2: T = -100J/(.92)(32g) = -3.3 deg. C
    CO2: T = -100J/(.839)(44g) = -2.7 deg. C
    Water: T = -100J/(4.1813)(18g) = -1.32 deg. C

    The net result is all of these molecules heat up during the day and summers and cool down during the nights and winters at varied rates--but the median temperature for each, in this instance, is 0 deg. C. The mean temperature is conserved.

    Therefore, adding more greenhouse gases will not increase mean temperatures, but will only increase the frequency of the current mean temperatures of all places on the globe, and curb the extremes.

    Any global warming or cooling of mean temperature is due to natural causes such as ice-age cycles.

    Sources:

    http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum...7.04.05.x.html
    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...6/gen06405.htm
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb
    http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...ce+new+Ice+Age


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: There Are Holes in the Greenhouse (Theory) 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Well, from what I understand, carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up .033% of the atmosphere, or maybe itís .0384%. Various sources show different figures. So how can we be sure the presence CO2 is really increasing?
    Because we've been measuring it since the 19th century and continuously since the 1950s. We can also still sample bubbles of air trapped over a century ago which confirm much lower CO2 ratios of about 0.028%. The 0.0384% is part per unit volume as of sometime last year.

    [/quote]But what about density? CO2 has more density than the surrounding air, so rather than rising to form a firmament to prevent heat from escaping, it would simply sink to the surface and be absorbed by the oceans. [/quote] Gasses are pretty well mixed in the open atmosphere by a variety of processes.

    What about thermodynamics? If CO2 scatters heat, the heat heading for the surface would simply rise and be absorbed again or escape. At night, when the earthís heat is allowed to escape, the thermal flow is like a river flowing up into outer space.
    Heat escape is actually greater during the day because of higher temperatures than at night.

    Hereís an analogy: imagine you are standing in a river, facing upstream. You have a sponge in your hand. The sponge represents CO2 at an atmospheric concentration of .0384%.
    The sponge analogy made me chuckle but I'll try to run with it...lol. Anything blocking the current will increase the pressure upstream which in your analogy represents heat and warming. A series of sponges running downstream towards the river mouth would do so even more.

    That would be like doubling the amount of CO2. Do you think the water droplets would end upstream then?
    Yes--most definitely. Actually it's better to think of them as piling up rather than returning upstream.

    At this juncture, I firmly believe that greenhouse gases do not increase or decrease mean temperatures, but simply reduce extreme temperatures. Look what happens when you apply the same heat energy to nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and water. (Using T = Q/cm; T = change in temperature; Q = heat; c = specific heat capacity; m = mass/mole)....
    This is the same faulty argument you used last time. The error is your looking at a change instead of a set amount of energy when you should be looking at the temperature at equilibrium. You argument goes directly to the amount of temperature range during the day--not the average temperatures over time.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: There Are Holes in the Greenhouse (Theory) 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Because we've been measuring it since the 19th century and continuously since the 1950s. We can also still sample bubbles of air trapped over a century ago which confirm much lower CO2 ratios of about 0.028%. The 0.0384% is part per unit volume as of sometime last year..
    So how much CO2 is there? Give me any figure you want and I'll show you another source with a different estimate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Gasses are pretty well mixed in the open atmosphere by a variety of processes.
    But CO2 is more dense and sinks and is absorbed by the oceans. In fact, when the earth started out, the atmosphere was mostly CO2. Where did it all go? There was no plant life yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Heat escape is actually greater during the day because of higher temperatures than at night..
    Yes, and those temperatures drop like a stone at sundown, so the net heat we measure is reduced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The sponge analogy made me chuckle but I'll try to run with it...lol. Anything blocking the current will increase the pressure upstream which in your analogy represents heat and warming. A series of sponges running downstream towards the river mouth would do so even more...
    LOL! I bet if you took a paddle and stuck it in the river, the pressure upstream would be so great, that the water (IR, heat, whatever) would just go around it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    " That would be like doubling the amount of CO2. Do you think the water droplets would end upstream then?"
    Yes--most definitely. Actually it's better to think of them as piling up rather than returning upstream....
    Sounds like you're not sure. Yes, most definitely the droplets will head up stream? Or, they will pile up? Let me check my physics book. Nope, can't find that phenomenon. Convection does not seem to have a piling up process, nor does it seem to have a cold to hot flowing process.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    "At this juncture, I firmly believe that greenhouse gases do not increase or decrease mean temperatures, but simply reduce extreme temperatures. Look what happens when you apply the same heat energy to nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and water. (Using T = Q/cm; T = change in temperature; Q = heat; c = specific heat capacity; m = mass/mole).... "
    This is the same faulty argument you used last time. The error is your looking at a change instead of a set amount of energy when you should be looking at the temperature at equilibrium. You argument goes directly to the amount of temperature range during the day--not the average temperatures over time.
    Sounds interesting. Show me your math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: There Are Holes in the Greenhouse (Theory) 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    But CO2 is more dense and sinks and is absorbed by the oceans. In fact, when the earth started out, the atmosphere was mostly CO2. Where did it all go? There was no plant life yet.
    Strawman argument. No one claims that the CO2 disappeared early on. It required the initiation of the carbonate cycle once life was established to remove the CO2 and trap it in carbonate rocks. This is well established and generally known.
    Yes, and those temperatures drop like a stone at sundown, so the net heat we measure is reduced.
    In deserts, yes, but not in the tropics where humidity is high, or anywhere with significant cloud cover.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    "Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[20][21]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...27s_atmosphere

    According to a first-year biology text, photosynthetic bacteria removed CO2 before there were plants and animals.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosy...f_chloroplasts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I see nothing controversial in that. What's your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I see nothing controversial in that. What's your point?
    Nothing controversial = no straw men.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •