So we're just ignoring that heat flow is time dependent? Cool....I'll let my electric company know that I'm pulling insulation from the walls and to keep my billing the same.
Climate change agenda is being driven by hysteria, not facts
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
So we're just ignoring that heat flow is time dependent? Cool....I'll let my electric company know that I'm pulling insulation from the walls and to keep my billing the same.
I'm not on the "denialist camp". Where did you get that idea. There is very good evidence that the Northern Hemisphere is in a warming phase. Much less sure about the Southern Hemisphere. But I'm quite sure it has little or nothing to do with changes in CO2 concentration. Your confusing two entirely different issues. One is warming the other is the cause. CO2 has virtually no correlation with the paleo temperature record, and The present day data fits much better if you treat Temperature as the independent variable and CO2 as the dependent variable. With better resolution in the Temperature and CO2 concentration data, its became clear that Temperature leads CO2 concentration change. You have to rule rising CO2 concentration out as a cause of rising temperature unless that discrepancy can be shown to be incorrect. It hasn't been shown to be incorrect, but the adherents to Hansen's hypothesis are just ignoring that "inconvenient truth."
Last edited:
It doesn't mean your a bad person, to use a Trumpism, if you don't understand this stuff. Most people don't. Life will will still go on for you. And you'll still be able to heat your house . Just don't forget to pay your utility bills.
Oh, I understand Dunning-Kruger just fine.
Your getting a little confused. Just repeat what I wrote and try not to put words in my mouth.
I was just responding to what you wrote originally: "I need less energy to warm up the interior of an automobile up to some temp. if the wavelength of that energy changes from reflection and can't make it out of the transparent surfaces."
Which is incorrect. You need the same amount of energy to raise the temperature in your car to the same temperature with the window up or down. But in one case you need more total energy because you are losing energy to the exterior at the same time. The greenhouse effect does not alter heat capacities it simple captures incoming energy, transforms it to longer wavelengths and slows the rate at which energy input is lost. But the amount of heat needed to raise your cars interior by a specified number of degrees is not affected by the presence of the greenhouse effect. But you can certainly get it much hotter if you make use of the greenhouse effect. But still , same amount of energy for the same amount of heating.
By the way, it isn't reflection that transforms the wavelength and frequency of the visible light entering through your car windows. Its absorption of visible light via electronic transitions within the molecules making up the interior of your car, followed by vibrational relaxation back down to the ground vibrational states of those same molecules that causes emission of infrared. So visible light in and infrared out by this mechanism. Same thing happens with black pavement on a summer day. And of course if your windows happen to be up they will be opaque to the emitted infrared and the car's interior will heat up even more.
You need the same amount of energy to heat your home in the winter and the summer. It's just that you need more energy in the winter, because it's colder outside.
A car gets the same gas mileage at all speeds. It's just that it gets worse gas mileage at higher rpm's.
[end sarcasm]
@piezoe , we generally tend to agree. But it sounds like you're playing word games. Never have I had a physics problem framed in the manner which you are attempting to do.
There is no standard way to frame a system such as in this discussion. The system is framed by the wording. The system, in this case, is first framed as 'closed;' then framed as 'open;' (or in the opposite order) and the two results are compared.
A car isn't predefined in physics as a vehicle with the windows in the up position. Nor is a physics problem involving a car predefined as a closed system.
I post this for readers you may have confused, and not for you; because I truly believe you know better, and are merely trying to save face.
A car gets the same gas mileage at all speeds. It's just that it gets worse gas mileage at higher rpm's.
[end sarcasm]
@piezoe , we generally tend to agree. But it sounds like you're playing word games. Never have I had a physics problem framed in the manner which you are attempting to do.
There is no standard way to frame a system such as in this discussion. The system is framed by the wording. The system, in this case, is first framed as 'closed;' then framed as 'open;' (or in the opposite order) and the two results are compared.
A car isn't predefined in physics as a vehicle with the windows in the up position. Nor is a physics problem involving a car predefined as a closed system.
I post this for readers you may have confused, and not for you; because I truly believe you know better, and are merely trying to save face.
You're playing semantics, It's fairly obvious we're talking energy input here (how else am I getting energy into a cabin?). If you want to talk in the definitive sense of the word, yes the energy required to raise the temperature of mass w/the same heat capacity is the same.
When you heat a pot of water, the energy requirement to heat that mass inside a freezer or outside a freezer by a degree is the same, the energy input into the system is a whole 'nother value.
This is not an adiabatic system, you need more energy input to raise the temperature of bodies which are radiating to the surroundings. So to raise your cabin by a degree, yes the energy requirement is the same, but no, one system requires more energy gain than another since one system is more efficient at keeping energy in it.
Every body reflects, short of black bodies, but you're right, this is energy absorption and re-radiation for the most part.
Last edited:
I tend to agree with the majority of scientists on this one, the present hundred years of rapid warming is not being caused by "cosmic rays". Another hypothesis bites the dust (though I think that one is nearly impossible to test).
For a guy who's come out to defend a rightie bogeyman, Soros, it's amusing to see you shading Gore.You got Al Gore in the Cockpit. What could go wrong.
Al Gore is an experienced politician, but not someone whose technical scientific knowledge I would put my trust in. Soros is a brilliant philosopher/investor with formal training in economics, experience in Banking, and deep experience in Financial markets and life but not someone I would trust to make decisions requiring specialized scientific knowledge. Whereas Gore has no problem wading into science, Soros has no problem leaving science to scientists.