My reply:
@Malcolm Hornsby
[[A Question. How confident are you all that the Stefan Boltzmann constant is a suitable measure of W/m2 for an atmosphere?]]
So many people never 'get' that gases in Earth's atmosphere don't emit Planck black body radiation, thus aren't subject to the S-B Law. Planck radiation is only emitted by solids and liquids with surfaces, which explains the units of W/m^2. If gases did it, the units would be W/m^3. Yes, if gases are subjected to high temperatures and pressure that strip electrons from molecules, it becomes a dense plasma like on the Sun, and it does emit Planck radiation.
"The dominant source of black body radiation are transient oscillating dipoles induced by thermal vibrations within the material.
"If we treat a solid as a cloud of electrons intermingled with a cloud of nuclei, then any thermally induced vibrations will cause small local changes in the average electron and nucleus density, and this will result in a small local electric dipole. As these dipoles change with time they emit the electromagnetic radiation that we see as black body radiation.
"This applies to any system dense enough to support these sorts of charge density oscillations. Under normal conditions this means a solid or a liquid, but a plasma will behave in the same way if it can be made dense enough. This is hard to do in the laboratory but the Sun manages it :-)
"However a gas cannot sustain oscillations of this form because the gas molecules spend most of their time distant from each other. To a first approximation gases do not emit black body radiation. You only see radiation from rotational, vibrational and electronic transitions, and these produce discrete lines. Gas molecules do interact when they collide, so if you increase the number of collisions by making the gas denser and hotter it will start to produce more black body radiation and eventually transition to radiation dominated by the black body spectrum." -
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222092/blackbody-or-characteristic-emission-of-radiation
Learn real thermal physics and how it defeats every IPCC lie. The IPCC lie machine turns thermal physics upside-down, inside-out, and ass-backwards to turn cooling processes into warming ones.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
https://principia-scientific.com/how-air-pressure-the-water-cycle-affect-our-climate/
**I posted this reply, only to find out that my main historyscoper gmail account was blocked but not my AOl account, but it was marked hold for moderation. They then suppressed this reply, which is the last straw as they continue to publicizing the ravings of crackpot Herb Rose and block the truth about him, proving they have no respect for scientific truth but are a crackpot rag not worth following. They never supported my program to teach New Real Climate Science, preferring this crackpot. Therefore I'm banning it, and hope everybody does. - TLW
My reply:
Ordinarily I skip posts by this Herb Rose crackpot, but this time it was at the top so I inadvertently read it.
[[Both
the thermometer and the barometer are wrong. The barometer say the
weight of the air per unit of area in a warm air mass is greater than
the weight per unit area in a cold denser air mass. How can fewer
molecules weigh more?]]
It's not just the number of molecules per unit area, it's their kinetic energy.
[[Cool
temperatures cause air pressure to drop. When gas molecules cool, they
move more slowly. Decreased velocity results in fewer collisions between
molecules and air pressure decreases. Air density plays a role in the
correlation between temperature and pressure because warmer air is less
dense than cool air, allowing molecules to have more space to collide
with greater force. In cooler air, the molecules are closer together.
The proximity results in collisions with less force and lower air
pressure.]] -
https://sciencing.com/temperature-affect-barometric-pressure-5013070.html
[[The
assertion that because the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere do not absorb
visible or infrared radiation they are not absorbing radiated energy
from the sun violates the law of thermodynamics which says that all
objects absorb radiated energy.]]
Jeesh! Only Planck black bodies
absorb all radiated energy, and gases aren't included, only solid or
liquid objects with surfaces that can emit so many watts per square
meter like Planck's Black Body Law says. Most gases at atmospheric
temperatures don't absorb any radiated energy, only polar gases and only
at specific wavelengths.
"To a first approximation gases do not
emit black body radiation. You only see radiation from rotational,
vibrational and electronic transitions, and these produce discrete
lines. Gas molecules do interact when they collide, so if you increase
the number of collisions by making the gas denser and hotter it will
start to produce more black body radiation and eventually transition to
radiation dominated by the black body spectrum." -
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222092/blackbody-or-characteristic-emission-of-radiation
As
to UV light, yes, CO2 can absorb it at certain wavelengths, and does,
in the stratosphere, providing a shield for solar flares. The
stratosphere is above the bottom layer of the atmosphere, the
troposphere, 6 mi. high. The rest of the UV light makes it to the
ground after passing through all that atmosphere, although dust and
smoke can block it. -
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/UVB/uvb_radiation3.php
"How much UV light reaches the earth's surface?
Most
of the natural UV light people encounter comes from the sun. However,
only about 10 percent of sunlight is UV, and only about one-third of
this penetrates the atmosphere to reach the ground, according to the
National Toxicology Program (NTP)." -
https://www.livescience.com/50326-what-is-ultraviolet-light.html
These are well-known facts, easy to Google. So, Rose is not as smart as a 5th grader?
No
need for Rose to Google. He already knew it all by the 4th grade. I'm
just as sure he'll never study or master real atmospheric physics, while
I'm gaining more students every day for my cool free Climate Science
101 course, which straightens out the mess of IPCC lies and gives a
crystal clear understanding of pure sweet thermal physics. Start
studying now and join my new generation that will eat the world: To test
how right I am, trying messaging your favorite IPCC climate science
with my criticism of their lies and watch them block you because you're
threatening their income.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
https://principia-scientific.com/how-air-pressure-the-water-cycle-affect-our-climate/
**I posted this reply, only to find out that my main historyscoper gmail account was blocked but not my AOl account, but it was marked hold for moderation. They then suppressed this reply, which is the last straw as they continue to publicizing the ravings of crackpot Herb Rose and block the truth about him, proving they have no respect for scientific truth but are a crackpot rag not worth following. They never supported my program to teach New Real Climate Science, preferring this crackpot. Therefore I'm banning it, and hope everybody does. - TLW
My reply:
Ordinarily I skip posts by this Herb Rose crackpot, but this time it was at the top so I inadvertently read it.
[[Both the thermometer and the barometer are wrong. The barometer say the weight of the air per unit of area in a warm air mass is greater than the weight per unit area in a cold denser air mass. How can fewer molecules weigh more?]]
It's not just the number of molecules per unit area, it's their kinetic energy.
[[Cool temperatures cause air pressure to drop. When gas molecules cool, they move more slowly. Decreased velocity results in fewer collisions between molecules and air pressure decreases. Air density plays a role in the correlation between temperature and pressure because warmer air is less dense than cool air, allowing molecules to have more space to collide with greater force. In cooler air, the molecules are closer together. The proximity results in collisions with less force and lower air pressure.]] - https://sciencing.com/temperature-affect-barometric-pressure-5013070.html
[[The assertion that because the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere do not absorb visible or infrared radiation they are not absorbing radiated energy from the sun violates the law of thermodynamics which says that all objects absorb radiated energy.]]
Jeesh! Only Planck black bodies absorb all radiated energy, and gases aren't included, only solid or liquid objects with surfaces that can emit so many watts per square meter like Planck's Black Body Law says. Most gases at atmospheric temperatures don't absorb any radiated energy, only polar gases and only at specific wavelengths.
"To a first approximation gases do not emit black body radiation. You only see radiation from rotational, vibrational and electronic transitions, and these produce discrete lines. Gas molecules do interact when they collide, so if you increase the number of collisions by making the gas denser and hotter it will start to produce more black body radiation and eventually transition to radiation dominated by the black body spectrum." - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222092/blackbody-or-characteristic-emission-of-radiation
As to UV light, yes, CO2 can absorb it at certain wavelengths, and does, in the stratosphere, providing a shield for solar flares. The stratosphere is above the bottom layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere, 6 mi. high. The rest of the UV light makes it to the ground after passing through all that atmosphere, although dust and smoke can block it. - https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/UVB/uvb_radiation3.php
"How much UV light reaches the earth's surface?
Most of the natural UV light people encounter comes from the sun. However, only about 10 percent of sunlight is UV, and only about one-third of this penetrates the atmosphere to reach the ground, according to the National Toxicology Program (NTP)." - https://www.livescience.com/50326-what-is-ultraviolet-light.html
These are well-known facts, easy to Google. So, Rose is not as smart as a 5th grader?
No need for Rose to Google. He already knew it all by the 4th grade. I'm just as sure he'll never study or master real atmospheric physics, while I'm gaining more students every day for my cool free Climate Science 101 course, which straightens out the mess of IPCC lies and gives a crystal clear understanding of pure sweet thermal physics. Start studying now and join my new generation that will eat the world: To test how right I am, trying messaging your favorite IPCC climate science with my criticism of their lies and watch them block you because you're threatening their income.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescience101.html
It's too bad the current brouhaha about CO2 is so narrowly focused. So what if a higher concentration in the atmosphere raises global average temps? If higher temps were accompanied by increased atmospheric moisture, it would even out around the world and turn it into a paradise planet, greening the deserts so that the teeming billions could be fed. Cold temperatures are inimical to life, not a goal of life.
Too bad, it might take a lot more CO2 than you think to really change the global weather, but not because it has any control over Earth's surface temperatures. In fact atmospheric CO2 can't melt an ice cube with its 15 micron main radiation wavelength that has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice (-78.5C).
Why do they call CO2 greenhouse gas? Because plants breathe it, and they pump it into greenhouses to help them grow and thrive. Polar regions and deserts look good in postcards, but who wants to live there. Meanwhile global pop. is zooming, so obviously the real answer is to pump more CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere to turn the Earth into a greenhouse, turning deserts both hot and cold into lush green crop-growing regions like 35 million years ago when the avg. global temp was 88F and the CO2 level was 1K parts per million (vs. 415 PPM today). So what if we lose some desert polar regions and even some yummy coastline, the adjustments will be inconvenient but temporary, but I prefer shirt-sleeve weather to Frosty the Snowman. How many arctic animals can't adapt to a warmer climate? What animal needs to live in ice and snow and wouldn't like a vacation to Tahiti? They can lose the fat, hair or feathers.
The real question is can we make and keep the global CO2/H20 levels high enough, and for how long? Sooner or later mass global starvation will become unstoppable if world pop. keeps climbing, and this is the way to forestall it, if we act soon enough. Don't give me them Malthusian objections, give me some CO2/H20 solutions. I like a paradise Earth in the possibility window.
So, while the world is debating the horrors, extent or lack thereof of global warming caused by CO2, let's engineer the CO2/H20 solution to making the Earth a warm temperate planet from pole to pole with no deserts or ice wastelands, allowing vastly more food to be grown and turning poor nations rich. I DON'T mean a planet with wild swings between super-hot summers and super-cold winters, but one that is warmer than now everywhere, but moister and greener, with a giant network of plant life helping to avoid extremes. Since CO2 and water vapor are the keys, and the paltry amounts in the atmosphere need to be increased as soon as possible to turn deserts green and get the warming process off to a good start, but the new levels have to be maintained permanently, I'm looking to remote Antarctica (which is really a sea) as the most promising source for unlimited CO2 and water vapor generation, given that noxious emissions (sulfur dioxide, etc.) can be controlled.
This blog is for posting news on the world climate situation, scientific and political, along with my own articles. I'm sure it will start out with hardly any interest or followers, but I'm hoping that it will attract the smartest people eventually and in the end I hope for a global consensus that if it can be done it must be done.
So what is the Antarctic Volcanoes Project? My working idea is that an international effort to reactivate as many volcanoes in Antarctica as possible in an ideal location for distributing the CO2/H20 will produce the best and most cost-effective results. Sorry, one-worlders, it won't give you a license to override and control any country's economy, but if your country is suffering from lack of food you will be too busy expanding farming to care. Hence until I think of or hear about a better way to increase world CO2/H20 levels, this is my pet project. If you are a scientist, please climb aboard my AVP Express and let's make it happen.
It Would Be Funny If It Were's So Sad
It would be funny it weren't so sad, but when the scientists say "greenhouse gas" they are using a malaprop. It should be greenhouse GLASS, because that's why a greenhouse stays warm, by glass walls stopping convection of air and trapping heat. Yes, CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, but not for heating purposes, only to help plants BREATHE. So the whole sucker's game of "greenhouse gas" must truly be for the purpose of stopping more vegetation from growing and feeding the teeming billions. Is that their true goal? Another blip on the horizon is the promise of melting permafrost releasing gigantic amounts of CO2 from the Arctic not Antarctic sector. Let's hope we at least get some more good CO2 that way.
Jan. 14, 2011. Good article on CO2 levels and global temps 30-40 million years ago
Aug. 31, 2011. Giant pipe and balloon to pump water into the sky in climate experiment
May 31, 2013. Scientists find that higher CO2 levels green arid regions
Mar. 30, 2015. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels causing boom in vegetation
Aug. 2015. 'Unprecedented' volcanic eruption released enough water vapor to heat Earth: report
Aug. 15, 2017. Scientists find 91 new volcanoes miles beneath Antarctica's thick ice sheet
How Much CO2 Do Volcanoes Emit?
Will a major volcanic eruption fix climate change? - James Matkin
Part of the heat is coming from beneath our feet
Did any volcanoes erupt in 2020?
T.L. Winslow (TLW, the Historyscoper (tm)
.jpg)
