Arctic hits record low

I am afraid it is not that, Tommy. I am too tired to think... It is a need for an idol, a need to worship something or somebody, it is slavery and obedience indoctrinated from childhood... it is a different level of world perception...There is something criminal in it... I can tell you that heat cannot be trapped, contained, reflected back and I can tell why, if you don't know ... I would listen to you if I don't know, but there are people you cannot tell anything which may be beyond their narrow set of beliefs....

 

You may need to lookup what photosynthesis does. It breaks the carbon from CO2 and uses the carbon to make glucose. It releases the O2 back into the atmosphere. And the reason growers use CO2 generators is beyond me when all they have to do is open the freaking door...or open a vent. And CO2 only enhanses growth on certain plants. They also sell CO2 outfits for aquariums. They too are pretty much useless.

 

Heat cannot be trapped. Heat cannot be stored, contained or reflected back. This is a law. Understand? 100% of scientists cannot break the most fundamental, central law of nature. Understand?
This how the law is written: " Heat ALWAYS FLOWS from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process." 15 words. No less, no more. The most fundamental, central law of the universe.
Understand?
Any questions?
ALWAYS.
Understand?
Any questions?
FLOWS.
Understand?
Any questions?

 

Well duh!!!

 

Let me check your understanding please.
2 questions:
1. Is any scientist illiterate when he states that in any natural process
heat is trapped or
heat is stored or
heat is reflected back
or anything else except for
heat flows?
2. Is politicalcenter shoveling coal/wood/oil/gas into the SUN in the universe
or into his furnace on the earth?

 

I knew about the Photosynthesis process back in Middle school in the mid 1970's. But YOU kept saying Carbon itself several times in your comments,so your attempt to deflect failed. Notice that you stopped talking about CO2 and climate.......

You write,

"And the reason growers use CO2 generators is beyond me when all they have to do is open the freaking door...or open a vent."

Sigh, you apparently are not trying hard on this, since you didn't bother to look it up. Do you think Large scale greenhouse growers are too stupid to spend many thousands of dollars on CO2 generators, or is it they wanted CO2 in the greenhouse, to be in 1200-1500 ppm range?

You figure it out.

No, CO2 enhances plants to grow faster and bigger in varying degree on most plants,including crops that have been increasing in yield in recent years. I gave you a link to Cotton, similar results are found on many other plants, on the website.

Large aquariums and municipal pools use CO2 because it helps keep the water cleaner,control the PH level in it,it seems you think they are too stupid to spend a lot of money on it?

Here is a short PDF on the use of CO2 in pools.

 

Does this mean you withdraw your heat trapping statement?

Do you know the difference between IR and Heat?

 

Greenhouses also use water to store heat. Because heat goes from hot to cold the greenhouse heats the water during the day and the water heats the greenhouse at night. A thermos also stores heat. That is why you can have hot coffee several hours after brewing. I don't need to be patronized.

 

Ha ha ha...,

YOU originally stated that CO2 traps heat in the first place,which got strong replies from Me and Inquisitor, now you drop defending that nonsense, to bring up Water instead, which seems to indicate that you have no argument left to defend with.

Commercial Greenhouse don't bother with it,since it is not economical or practical. CO2 Generators is what they commonly use because they increase their profits due to more rapid, healthier growth on less water. Plants grow much better when the CO2 levels are in the 1200 ppm range, rather than the feeble 400 ppm in the outdoors you worry so much over.

Then you don't understand the difference between IR and Heat, since you ignored it.

 

No, you are factually incorrect. Calories, joules and btus are units of energy, not warming. Watts are units of power (i.e., energy per time), not energy. Lifting a weight from the street to the top of a building involves expenditure of energy but does not warm the weight. Any warming is due to inefficiency in the lifting mechanism, and shows up as increased temperature of the mechanism.

First understand that you were objectively wrong in your reply to the first.

 

Warming and cooling as well as all other processes in the universe are nothing else but transformation of energy. The basic equation for it, which you omitted to quote from my post, is dQ=dU+dA, where dA is your Lifting a weight from the street to the top of a building. In other words you have sweat Lifting a weight from the street to the top of a building. In other words if you don't receive calories from food you will produce no watts of lifting any weights. I am not a vivid poster, so you are welcome to ask any other questions before I may be gone to take care of other things in my life.

 

Heat is trapped inside the earths atmosphere. If it were not for the greenhouse effect the earth would be solid ice. So obviously radiation is coming into the system and being trapped...it is trapped in the form of infrared radiation...long wave...after it comes in as infrared radiation...short wave. This causes the earth to heat...period. You can deflect and spout bs...but that is what is happening. An increase in CO2 causes more infrared radiation to remain in the atmosphere and not reflected into space. No amount of pseudo science will change that fact. And green plants will always ...in sunlight...turn CO2 and water into glucose. And then turn the glucose into cellulose. It is simple biology 101. An increase in CO2 will not...and never will negate the need for water...never.

 

..........
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-11#post-1067236764

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-11#post-1067236772

 

Hilarious isn't he....., he puts himself in the corner with circular thinking.

He also make clear he has no idea what the difference between heat and IR is.

Will reply him tomorrow.

 

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-11#post-1067236695

 

No, that is false. I did not omit to quote that. It did not appear in any post I responded to.

What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?

First take care of your errors. Btus, calories and joules are units of energy, not warming. Watts are units of power, not warming. You are objectively incorrect. Warming is measured in degrees. I am objectively correct. I am not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

 

I gave you the equation.
I explained that warming is the process of receiving energy in form of heat from a hotter body by a colder body,
that energy/heat goes for a change in internal (molecular) condition of the latter plus mechanical work (in your case lifting) conducted by it.
http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/202-Temperature and Heat.pdf
I gave names.
http://www.rapidtables.com/calc/electric/Watt_to_Joule_Calculator.htm
http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/BTU_to_Joule.htm
http://mccraw.co.uk/powertap-meter-convert-watts-calories-burned/
"Temperature is a physical property that underlies the common notions of hot and cold. Something that feels hotter generally has a higher temperature, though temperature is not a direct measurement of heat."
https://www.thermalfluidscentral.org/encyclopedia/index.php/Temperature_(Thermodynamics)
Note, water may be losing heat (cooling) when it is turning into ice but its temperature remains the same.
You have ignored the equation, you have ignored explanations.
But you have been repeating your blind religious belief backed up by no equation, by no explanation and not only by no education, but no willingness to receive any education, which is a sure sign of a religious fanatic. The only difference is that so far you have stayed civil.

 

I don't know. Those are strong claims. It seems to me that there must be some scientists still confining themselves to falsifiable predictions proven by repeatable controlled experiments. I think, if you have that, you still have real science. It also seems like there are still plenty of people who want to know true things about the world; maybe because they want to invent something, or,.. hell maybe someone out there is still honestly curious about the way things really are. As for 2, I don't know, and I'm having a hard time getting myself to care at this point.

 

Heat is trapped inside the earths atmosphere. If it were not for the greenhouse effect the earth would be solid ice. So obviously radiation is coming into the system and being trapped...it is trapped in the form of infrared radiation...long wave...after it comes in as infrared radiation...short wave. This causes the earth to heat...period. You can deflect and spout bs...but that is what is happening. An increase in CO2 causes more infrared radiation to remain in the atmosphere and not reflected into space. No amount of pseudo science will change that fact. And green plants will always ...in sunlight...turn CO2 and water into glucose. And then turn the glucose into cellulose. It is simple biology 101. An increase in CO2 will not...and never will negate the need for watera

Are you saying a greenhouse doesn't work?

 

I have even stronger claim in regards to falsifiable predictions proven by repeatable controlled experiments, but I feel like rather letting you to take of yourself. No hard time. Take care, Max and best wishes to you.

 

Now you are embarrassing yourself since heat exist only at boundaries.

"Heat is trapped inside the earths atmosphere."

Here is a simple statement that maybe you will realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for heat to be trapped, from a book engineers,Physics use:

G. J. V. Wylen, Thermodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, 1960:

“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon."

You get it? It is TEMPORARY......., it can't be trapped!

"If it were not for the greenhouse effect the earth would be solid ice."

There is no greenhouse effect since the atmosphere is not a greenhouse at all, It is WATER that heated by the Sun, with existing atmosphere that make life possible. CO2 is a tiny player in the energy budget.The only reason why there are any large ice caps at all today, is because Antarctica is sitting right at the pole area, surrounded by a circular flow of cool ocean waters. It is dark for half the year. The North Pole is surrounded by land,thus reducing warm water inflow, it is also dark for half the year.

It is the main reason why the world is much COLDER than 50 Million years ago.The planet has been in an ice age for around 34 Million years now. When The warm water flow was reduced for the north polar region,it began to cool down, for the last 2.6 Million years,there has been a polar cap and Greenland has been covered with snow and Ice. The world cooled down some more.

"So obviously radiation is coming into the system and being trapped..."

This is why you look foolish since incoming solar radiation are in wave energy packets of Photons, NOT heat. Yet you keep saying heat is trapped. Which one you going stick with?

"it is trapped in the form of infrared radiation...long wave...after it comes in as infrared radiation...short wave."

Wow you are confused, since IR is a LONGER lower energy wave radiation, than Visible light is, which is the dominant incoming solar every wave from the sun,entering the ocean waters,which is where most of the energy of the system resides in. CO2 absorb ENERGY, Not heat.

So which is it Politicalcenter, IR is Long wave or short wave?

"This causes the earth to heat."

Not the way YOU write it,no it does NOT work that way. Heat is a temporary state between boundaries,which you ignorantly omit.

"You can deflect and spout bs...but that is what is happening."

It is you who speaks gibberish,since you suggested IR was both Long and Short wave,that you say heat is trapped,which is impossible by the Second Law of Thermodynamics,which states heat in its temporary state WILL move from a warmer place to a cooler place. Heat CAN"T sit around, it moves then vanish when equilibrium is reached.

It is clear you have no idea what the difference between IR and Heat are. You still haven't addressed it either when I pointed this out earlier.

"An increase in CO2 causes more infrared radiation to remain in the atmosphere and not reflected into space."

Ha ha ha,

Infrared radiation moves at the speed of light,it doesn't hang around for long in a CO2 molecule,quickly leaves again. Since CO2 is a trace gas with a tiny IR band,which is mostly OUTSIDE the main Terrestrial outgoing IR region from the planet. CO2 doesn't absorb much in the first place. Get nearly saturated,thus doesn't even absorb all the IR is could absorb anymore.

Here is a section written by an Atmospheric Physicist, to help you see just how little outgoing IR CO2 actually being absorbed:



"As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

LINK

"No amount of pseudo science will change that fact."

No amount of education will correct you from your CO2 delusions. I find this snippet from another book appropriate for you:

"D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000:

“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”

You confuse energy and heat a lot. CO2 absorbs and release IR ENERGY, not heat!

Why do you feel heat from an IR generating heater?

"And green plants will always ...in sunlight...turn CO2 and water into glucose. And then turn the glucose into cellulose."

Never disputed it,as I was the one who brought up the PHOTOSYNTHESIS process in the first place.

"It is simple biology 101. An increase in CO2 will not...and never will negate the need for watera.."

Never said it doesn't need water for growth,what I stated was using LESS water,due to elevated CO2 in the greenhouse, to convert sunlight into sugars. The process slowly becomes more efficient.

 

So, would it be fair to state the point you guys are trying to make this way:

IT'S ALL GONE EVERY SINGLE NIGHT AT EACH LOCATION REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH CO2 IS IN THE ATMOSPHERE!

?

 

Water Vapor is what keeps nights warmer.the tropical nights cools very little, due to high level of humidity. The desert air cools down much more, due to low humidity levels.

CO2 effect is virtually excluded in the Tropical regions, due to high levels of water vapor in the atmosphere.

 

Politicalcenter writes,

"An increase in CO2 causes more infrared radiation to remain in the atmosphere and not reflected into space."

Oh really?

Here is why CO2 can't cause global warming, selected excerpt"

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

bolding mine

READ THE WHOLE LINK

Clearly CO2 DOESN'T keep IR hanging around in the atmosphere.........