1 1
brenthutch

The world goes Green

Recommended Posts

200+ years ago, Fourier noticed that no amount of layers of glass made the surface warmer than what the sun can make it alone.

Oh sure, you can block convection and prevent the gas from cooling, but the max temp NEVER exceeded what the sun provided.

Actually these experiments were done in the 1780s, and they're still true today.

Now repeat after me: "The cart pushes the horse".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Oh sure, you can block convection and prevent the gas from cooling, but the max temp NEVER exceeded what the sun provided.

The sun doesn't provide a temperature, it provides a heat flux.

You're really rambling nonsense, and you haven't even replied to many of my points. I've got better things to do, have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you think this heat flux gets recycled by the glass. More glass, more heat flux. lol

Why do scientific experiments or observations when we can just assume the law of conservation of heat flow (not ENERGY, i.e. reality) is a thing?

In fantasy land, equilibrium is not even possible! The colder object must return energy back to the hot object making it warmer.

Let's just apply a little bit of reason...

http://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/

The scientific consensus is that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are very HOT at the bases of their atmospheres for internal heat reasons. That's because they barely have any GHGs. But if a planet had GHGs, then THAT must be why it's hot. Gimme a break.

Can't you see the ride you're being taken on?

All you're doing is facilitating the monetization of atmospheric gases. Can you charge someone to emit gases? No? Someone can. You made them rich.

After CO2, will come other gases. Enjoy your slavery. Just wait till Universe Change becomes an issue. Pay up, boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zoe Phin said:

I'm just a stupid stay-at-home mom with a degree from an Ivy League that manages over $100 million dollars, employs 23 people, and has taken 7 semesters of physics and astronomy courses (while earning her degrees). Why would I know anything about science?

 

Do you have any questions?

It would appear to be "Physics for poets" and "Rocks and stars".

Some of us are real scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

The scientific consensus is that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are very HOT at the bases of their atmospheres for internal heat reasons. That's because they barely have any GHGs. But if a planet had GHGs, then THAT must be why it's hot. Gimme a break.

Um, what??

Uranus and Neptune are blue/green mainly because of methane, a potent GHG. 84 times more potent than CO2 actually. They're frickin BLUE and you say they barely have GHGs?

Their internal heat source is still a matter of debate, but it's probably gravitational compression, friction or both: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin–Helmholtz_mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kallend said:

It would appear to be "Physics for poets" and "Rocks and stars".

Some of us are real scientists.

Her "manages over $100 million dollars " is also pretty similar to how bus drivers "drive a $300,000 vehicle".

Her "analysis" of why Venus is hot is mainly about counting pixels on a photo rather than actual calculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh they have a little GHGs and they're not hot due to them? lol. There's too little for any scientists to think they make it warm.

And Jupiter and Saturn?

"gravitational compression" 

I would dispute that. High Geothemally induced Temperature will cause compression. It doesn't work vice versa. Pressure can only cause a one time heat up.

You see what you're doing? You're coming up with ad hoc excuses for other planets, and ignoring them for Earth. That's because you want GHGs to be the cause. You desire it. You are just fooling yourself.

Planet temperature = Geothermal + Solar. It's as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"why Venus is hot is mainly about counting pixels on a photo rather than actual calculations."

You mean I'm zooming in to an observation in a peer-reviewed journal article diagram hosted at NASA.

What's your next argument? The magic of greenhouse gases just so happens to deliver what geothermal does? Ah yes, of course.

http://phzoe.com/2019/12/24/hot-plate-heat-lamp-and-gases-in-between/

Common sense goes out the window when you need to virtue signal that you too are "saving the earth" (tm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

Oh they have a little GHGs and they're not hot due to them? lol. There's too little for any scientists to think they make it warm.

They have enough to make them BLUE. Neptune is 17 times as massive as the earth so that's actually a lot of methane.

But they're also too far from the sun.

5 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

I would dispute that. High Geothemally induced Temperature will cause compression. It doesn't work vice versa. Pressure can only cause a one time heat up.

Jupiter was indeed a lot bigger in the past, and is currently shrinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

What's your next argument? The magic of greenhouse gases just so happens to deliver what geothermal does? Ah yes, of course.

I didn't make those arguments, stop making them up. You're making them up because you're losing badly.

11 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

That's because you want GHGs to be the cause. You desire it. You are just fooling yourself.

No I don't. Again, stop making things up. This is really sad, you're arguing against an imaginary argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

And as I've shown

No, you haven't shown. Neither have you shown any knowledge of the basics of heat transfer.

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

Since there is no political gain from lying about Neptune, scientists can be honest

Of course, scientists only go into science for political gain. Instead of going into something like, POLITICS. </sarcasm>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think Jupiter is hot due to gravity compressing the atmosphere?

So why is there still an atmosphere?

Because atmospheric pressure runs in the opposite direction of gravitational pressure.

And what controls atmo pressure? Temperature. And what controls that? Internal heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

olof,

Here's how heat transfer works:

radiative.jpg

Here's how climate fools insist heat transfer works:

climate-thermo2.jpg

 

"Neither have you shown any knowledge of the basics of heat transfer."

What you're saying is:

"Zoe, you simply don't understand how the cart pushes the horse. I read that carts push horses, and until you restate that back to me, I will presume you are ignorant when you tell me that horses pull carts."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Here's how climate fools insist heat transfer works:

Again, making up stuff in a desperate attempt to win the argument. It's not going to work, stop making things up.

11 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

So you think Jupiter is hot due to gravity compressing the atmosphere?

So why is there still an atmosphere?

Because atmospheric pressure runs in the opposite direction of gravitational pressure.

And what controls atmo pressure? Temperature. And what controls that? Internal heat.

You do know things take a long time in astronomy, right? (and by the way it's not going to remove Jupiter's atmosphere - it will just stop generating heat when it stops, and start cooling down)

And yes, the full equation is P*V = n*R*T for an ideal gas, you might think knowing that is impressive but it's really not. It's taught to high school students - you haven't shown any knowledge beyond that.

6 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

What you're saying is:

 

What I'm saying is what I'm saying. Stop making things up because you can't argue against my actual points.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olof,

The ideal gas equation shows how temperature plus gases create atmospheric pressure. 

To find out how fast the atmosphere will fall without surface temperature and its pressure, you need to use Newton's equations. lol

I'm not making anything up. You believe the sun-warmed surface can get warmer than the sun alone allows by blocking passage of radiation to space. That diagram is a perfect illustration of it.

Why are you walking away from it? It's embarassing you? So stop believing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zoe Phin said:

That's all just rhetoric. Zero evidence. Zero science. There's no such thing as conservation of heat flow.

I said conservation of ENERGY. ENERGY not heat flow.  Link for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Quote

I just showed data that debunks the rhetoric, and you ignore it.

No, you showed data that proves that there is less longwave radiation leaving the Earth these days.  You have proven the basics of AGW.

Quote

Cute, but you ran out of gas as you were driving 75 mph.

Excellent attempt to change the subject!  But it fails.  A reduction in braking does indeed increase acceleration in the example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

You believe the sun-warmed surface can get warmer than the sun alone allows by blocking passage of radiation to space.

The sun doesn't "allow" anything. And yes, you're making this up because it's not what I believe.

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

Why are you walking away from it? It's embarassing you? So stop believing it.

Because I've got better things to do than argue against someone who needs to put words in my mouth because they don't know basic heat transfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

olof,

Just one last question. Imagine there's a hamburger patty in a pan. The stove is set to 350F. There's also a heat lamp above set to 100F. There's some water vapor and CO2 in between patty and heat lamp.

The top of patty is currently 150F. What caused that temperature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

I'm not making anything up. You believe the sun-warmed surface can get warmer than the sun alone allows by blocking passage of radiation to space.

No, he doesn't, and that's not what is happening.

If you block 100% of the radiation going to space via an actively cooled collector (so that its surface temperature is 3K, same as deep space) the temperature won't change one bit compared to radiating to free space.  The radiator doesn't care.

But that doesn't happen in the real world.  In the real world, the absorber warms up from all that radiation, and it re-radiates it back to the surface.  Then the NEW radiation INCREASES the radiation incoming.  More radiation = more warming.

Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zoe Phin said:

olof,

Just one last question. Imagine there's a hamburger patty in a pan. The stove is set to 350F. There's also a heat lamp above set to 100F. There's some water vapor and CO2 in between patty and heat lamp.

The top of patty is currently 150F. What caused that temperature?

That is a great question!

Let's see if you can answer a similar one.

Case 1: Stove is set to 350F, heat lamp is on above it.  Cook for 5 minutes.

Case 2: Stove is set to 350F, heat lamp is off.  Cook for 5 minutes.

Which case will end up with a hotter patty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

olof,

Just one last question. Imagine there's a hamburger patty in a pan. The stove is set to 350F. There's also a heat lamp above set to 100F. There's some water vapor and CO2 in between patty and heat lamp.

The top of patty is currently 150F. What caused that temperature?

You're simplifying this analogy for yourself, not for me, because you can't really do any heat transfer calculations.

How big is the stove? How big is the patty? What's the power output of the stove? What's the mass and specific heat capacity of the patty? What's the emissivity of the patty?

Look, it's been fun but you're really way out of your depth here. I suggest you stick to other things, and if I want to discuss this, I really prefer someone who at least knows the basics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1