James Wood reply to AOC
(media.gab.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (74)
sorted by:
Yeah. It's about as real as the "flat earth" crisis. Anyone who really thinks that the minuscule amount of CO2 is causing significant warming needs to shove his ass down an erupting volcano.
Look up in the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases, there's an appended, subordinate chart called the Chart of Gas (energy-per-mole) Constants.
Addition of CO2 to atmospheric Air, causes it to hold less energy per mole, not more.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
This is THE main chart of energy per mole in the Physical Sciences' gas laws; it's appended to what's today oft-referred to as ''the main gas law''
because of this chart's attachment to it,
as a subordinate PART of it. The equation for the law can be re-written to derive like five total gas laws, but the Ideal Gas Law
is the law scientific organizations decided to attach the charts to.
See line 3 on ''Individual Gas Constants.'' That's standard class Air.
See line 12? That's CO2.
Note that total energy-per mole (average) is lower than that for Air.
If you have standard Air mix, that you know the ratios of and it fits the calibration/sensing industries' standard for Earth Air mix at mean sea level, etc
and you open a port on one side of the top of the container,
so pressure can escape, (so Air can escape as CO2's trickled in)
and through another port you slowly enrich it with CO2, when it's all over with and your typical 99.9% of that volume's now filled with CO2 cause you let the heavier CO2 gently sink to the bottom and push the Atmospheric Air out of that open hole you placed in the top,
that volume of space filled now with CO2, retains LESS energy per mole,
than when you first started and it was all, Atmospheric air.
That's just a fact, fren. The individual gas (energy) constants on lines 3 and 12,
are what you plug into the math equations when you're sorting out your
mass/energy ratios for volumes of gases.
What the temperature's gonna wind up being, what the pressure's gonna wind up being, what volume it'll fill.
Stefan-Boltzmann, also isn't one of the gas laws.
It's defined as being a single-mode law, meaning there can be no conduction, there can be hence no convection either, since both are created by presence of gases. ''Single-mode heating/cooling'' means,
energy coming in is completely radiated in, energy coming out is completely radiated back out.
There's no help from the other two modes of cooling, conduction and convection. These two modes of cooling can't exist without a gas envelope, an atmosphere.
Hence the oft-seen phrase ''Stefan-Boltzmann is known as a single-mode law.''
Indeed there's an entire Chart of some values called ''The Stefan-Boltzmann Temperatures of Planets'' and it also includes a few planets' larger, rocky moons.
The Stefan-Boltzmann temperatures of the planets/moons involved, having any significant atmosphere,
are not, because - they can't be,
the same as the actual, official, measured temperature for that body.
Specifically because
the presence of an atmosphere is required to create multi-mode cooling.
Gas law also has processes to account for hydrostatics.
Hydrostatics is quantifying the changes that happen to the values of the other two,
between
volume, pressure, & temperature - when one of them changes.
The hydrostatic equation, the values that lead up to it - these functions can't exist if there's no atmosphere, and single-mode heating/cooling
is the energy gain/loss mode: because ( to state the obvious, ) if there's no atmosphere, there can't be a temperature
for a gas volume that doesn't exist,
and there can't be a pressure or volume either for a gas atmosphere that doesn't exist.
This is why for all the planets with significant enough atmosphere to calculate for, the official temperature,
will never be the Stefan-Boltzmann temperature for that planet.
Awesome. Thanks for that table! I also note that water vapor is 1.93, which is more than double that of CO2. So more CO2 really has a cooling effect, whereas it is more water vapor that actually has a potential heating effect, which is why it feels warmer when it is overcast. Correct?
The truth of the matter is that water is the global phase-change refrigerant, and is the driver of all these storms.
It is true that water holds more energy.
However, there's something about this calculating heating or cooling.
This is all farce.
There is no such thing as any cold, light blocking component,
of any cold, light blocking, oxygen enriched, Nitrogen atmospheric bath,
that makes the cold Nitrogen bath a heater.
No cold, light blocking, oxygen-enriched
Nitrogen atmospheric bath,
is a heater.
Ever.
The atmosphere is a cold, light blocking, Nitrogen bath,
laced with cold, light blocking Oxygen,
and with cold, light blocking Green House Gases, the main one of which is the globe's cold, light blocking, phase-change refrigerant, water.
The green house gases do not warm this planet. Any. Ever.
If god came into your room in that beam of light thing, and awakened you and told you ''signtsie fellurs dun two have sed them cold nitrogen baths, is done come heaters frum fire sin, so it's real!''
He's drunk. And he doesn't know wtF he's saying.
No cold Nitrogen bath is ever a heater. No cold light blocking oxygen added to it makes it a heater, No cold light blocking green house gas refrigerants make it a heater.
The Atmosphere is a cold, light blocking, oxygen enriched, Nitrogen bath.
Full stop. No Negotiations, no maybe sometimes when it's dark outside,
no maybe on Thursdays,
no maybe when the Chairman jiggles the Yuan a little, so Hunter can pick up that sexy little property down by the Harbor at a steep discount.
No cold, light blocking component, of any cold, light blocking Nitrogen bath, has made that cold, light blocking bath, to have done come a heater from fire sin.
Cold, light blocking components, of cold, light blocking baths, can not heat the objects, they make less light get to, and go into.
Making less light go into a rock, through immersing it in a cold, light blocking bath, can not ever make instruments on the rock detect and depict, more light being in the rock, to come back out, every time the cold light blocking bath, makes less go into it, because of how less goes into it.
Every last symbol of every last syllable of every last sentence, of every last statement,
about ''Cold Nitrogen baths are heaters now because you used some fire, and made fire sin'' is a transparently ridiculous lie.
It's just that simple
PeaceCrew the methods you have been exposed to and had explained to you as able to be used to calculate temperatures of objects immersed in cold Nitrogen baths, are wrong.
And have ZERO to do with any temperature
of any light warmed object,
immersed in any cold, light blocking, oxygen enriched,
greenhouse gas-refrigerants laced,
Nitrogen bath.
Stefan Boltzmann is NEVER used, e v e r.
NOT
ONCE
in actually calculating the temperature of any object
immersed in any cold bath.
NEVER.
This cannot be stressed enough to you.
Stefan-Boltzmann is NOT one of the GAS laws.
Temperatures of things immersed in cold gas baths, calculated using Stefan-Boltzmann, will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS derive an erroneous value.
The method Stefan Boltzmann uses, does NOT work, on gases.
Gases are the compressible fluids
phase of matter.
It's why they have their OWN LAWS and Stefan-Boltzmann
isn't
one of them. EVER.
PeaceCrew Soz for the mean seeming hardline rhetoric it's part of being rhetorically oriented when talking about highly charged subjects, like the complete overthrow of all educational standards, teaching children that cold Nitrogen baths have become heaters because they used fire.