Comments by "" (@1965ace) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. I've been telling the fusion groupies this for years.
    13
  2. Don't you think it's more logical to equate thinner ozone layers in the North and South Poles to the angle of incidence to the ozone creating sunlight? To me it seems all the climate observations are always "supporting" hysteria and more research money, regulations and government control.
    9
  3.  @NE0MAS  We have fission reactors producing net power so I'm not sure about the unrealistic expectations of fission power.
    4
  4. I'm a fan of the sexy black dresses!
    3
  5. What is thought? Is it objective, does it matter? Is perception and imagination, although incongruent with fate comedy, tragedy, or something else? Is what the cat thinks a self-fulfilling satisfying delusion lacking a "higher " truth or reality on a "lower" level? Maybe the "big picture" is just stories that are objectively right on a "lower-level".
    2
  6.  @chrisa.4937  Thank you for at least understanding what is going on but let's compare apples to apples the convective (atmospheric) transfer of energy during the day is slowed by the same process (convection to radiation). In other words since the vast bulk of heat energy in the atmosphere is in Nitrogen and Oxygen (non ghgs) thermal mixing and convection. Even though ghgs can gain and lose heat almost instantly, the energy has to be there to begin with (the bulk in O2 and N), which is a slower process as you have pointed out. The only reason we don't go from high temperatures to low, like turning off a light bulb, is because heat energy is also contained in non-ghgs. I would like to continue this discussion with you because I find far too many people aren't intelligent enough, don't care or, aren't interested.
    2
  7.  @chrisa.4937  Temperature gradient has a lot to do with pressure gradient independent of ghgs so I have to disagree. I think there is confusion about the nature of the time it takes for radiation and convection to occur. I submit cooling takes longer for convection than radiation, I know this is oversimplifying because both are taking place in both types of gases. Like a light switch radiation gives up it's energy instantly and at light speed. Imagine a cloud in the day it's dispursing the visible light and if the source was instantly blocked the cloud would go instantly dark. It doesn't have the capacity to delay the light. On the other hand convection is dependent on molecules "colliding" exchanging kinetic energy from higher states to lower states. In other words interaction also dependent on location is what slows transfer. With radiation, the "interaction" happens at light speed and over great distances.
    2
  8.  @chrisa.4937  In the atmosphere, a hot area is usually high pressure but depending on mixing has room to expand, it's in flux so yes nothing is so simple but my point is because of gravity the higher you go the lower pressure and temperature. You can increase temperature with pressure or pressure with temperature. As for the rest of my last statement about timing ....?
    2
  9.  @chrisa.4937  That's fine and we must include the scalar negative enforcements including temperature itself. I am enjoying this conversation with someone who is as intelligent, well versed, and objective as yourself!
    2
  10. You do know the main greenhouse gas is water vapor and it's 4 times more interactive with Infrared and it swings from 20,000 to 60,000 ppm? Isn't it a little silly to be panicking about 400 ppm? You do know CO2 has been as high as 2,000 ppm just before ice ages so how can you see a causal relationship? You do know CO2 increase is a result of temperature increase? With all due respect, I don't think you have been a critical thinker on this one.
    2
  11.  @chrisa.4937  The problem is one of scale, the primary GHG is H2O at 4 times the potentcy and at 125 times (50,000ppm) the quantity on average the H2O effect is (4 X 125) is 500 times the contributor that is 50,000% greater the effect than CO2. Just the 20,000 ppm swing is 200 times greater than the total CO2 atmospheric content. I think you are making an assumption by attributing all Temperature increase directly to CO2 instead look at it as CO2 increase always follows temperature increase that is evident in the proxy ice calculations. In science you can't determine if two trends follow each other one is the cause and the other is the effect without additional evidence. I believe logically (warmer temperatures spur the carbon cycle) and historically (CO2 follows temperature because of the 400-800 year lag) the cause is temperature and the effect is the carbon cycle. I'm going to go back to physics and logic on the other thread. We have to establish what we really know before making assumptions.
    2
  12. I like your honest approach to science. What are your thoughts on GHG's at night? I think they work in reverse absorbing heat by convection and shedding it as IR into space. You are also very beautiful.
    2
  13. Just like the hype around faster than light speed. Someone will find experimental "evidence" and stir up others then actual critical thinking takes place and we don't hear about it again. I think some people don't understand the basics of physics. Always challenge, that is the true measure of science.
    1
  14. You lost me at sexy black dress!
    1
  15. The reality is (a common saying in my trade) it is what it is, and no further explanation is needed. The truth of a matter does not need to be justified, only observable and repeatable.
    1
  16. Neil Degrass Tyson is a paid shill who only tows the line for his masters. They bring him out as an "expert" for their infomercials.
    1
  17. A computer cannot theorize imagination. A computer can recall and process data with much better efficiency.
    1
  18. While money for science research is limited, it must be spent on worthy research not wasted on rabbit holes. Like how String Theory comes up with another new dimension to address problems with the theory every time it runs into a new roadblock, it doesn't mean that the eleventh dimension actually exists it just means it has to, to justify the legitimacy of theory as it exists now. I personally would like to see more money spent on the study of Relativity especially the unification of General and Special Relativity, I have some ideas.
    1
  19. You bend spacetime every time you accelerate or you could ride the wave at the edge of the universe (redshift). We already use warp drive when we use gravitational fields to slingshot objects I would guess we could use a black hole to possibly travel superluminally. If you did travel outside of our spacetime boundary what relationship would you have upon reinsertion?
    1
  20. This is not a mass problem it's a General Relativity problem. They are assuming it's the mass factor in GR but we don't know enough about GR to rule out other "undefined " factor(s) (modified gravity). With the outliers, I believe SR has a relationship to GR and the two are opposite sides of the same coin.
    1
  21. My favorite book is about this same phenomena , The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin. We have a major problem with academia.
    1
  22. You've come a long way, I recommend "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin.
    1
  23. Schrodinger's Alien
    1
  24. Let me recommend my favorite book "Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin. Great video Sabine!
    1
  25. Shame on you Sabine we have been in a relatively cool period in history (not recent history ). Just leave out the big picture and you can believe whatever you want. This is not science.
    1
  26. Science currently is in a state of diminishing practical returns. It's funding is granted based on fantasies and educated (indoctrinated) idiots. Future breakthroughs will come from visionaries not yes men and women.
    1
  27. "prevents our planet from giving off heat" no in fact at night through convection CO2 and mainly H2O help cool the planet though converting convective heat in non-GHG gases into radiation that is the only way earth can lose heat into the vacuum of space.
    1
  28. ​ @chrisa.4937  Let's really discuss the basic physics of daytime heat energy transfer. So I'll stipulate that IR directly from the sun is mitigated by GHGs. In addition let's agree earth is radiating surface heat into space both day and night. So now we can concentrate on the mechanism of heat transfer to and from the lower atmosphere. As far as average global temperature is concerned that is completely dependent on the rate of energy transfer in each cycle (there is no static retention of heat only rate of gain and rate of loss). To understand it on the smallest level will disabuse one from making cause and effect assumptions on a bigger scale. So our source is higher energy radiation (light) that hits earth's surface. This is then (excluding photosynthesis and other chemical reactions) is converted to increasing kinetic molecular activity (temperature) on the surface. Warming surface temperatures are losing heat to conduction, subsurface earth and water, convection (kinetic activity in the atmosphere next to the surface and progressing vertically) and radiation (long wave infrared light). Here is a model I use to give one a subjective understanding. Picture a camp fire on a cold night. Standing not too close we can feel the radiation warm our skin absent most the convection that will increase by getting closer. Now at the same distance feel the heat directly above the fire. The reason it feels much hotter is the convective transfer is rising. The higher we go the more of that convective heat is absorbed by cooler surrounding air. If you don't have any major issues at this point we can continue to the next step.
    1
  29.  @chrisa.4937  The reason for understanding each process is to have a complete cause and effect ground we can agree on. So a warming surface is radiating and convecting as our starting point here. To understand GHG's absorption and emission of IR will give us another part of the picture. Absorbtion and emission are equal for any given substance. So let's say a CO2 molecule is at an energy state lower than the surrounding radiation, this puts in a state of Absorption to receive energy equal to the surrounding radiation. That will increase it's temperature (kinetic molecular energy). It is now in a state of equilibrium with the surrounding level of radiation, and doesn't absorb more radiation. Since temperature is the average molecular kinetic energy of a system and CO2 cannot absorb more radiation than source emits, to continue warming the atmosphere the energy has to flow to a lower state such as a nitrogen or oxygen molecule and that happens during a convection event when the CO2 molecule bumps into a cooler nitrogen molecule. The nitrogen warms and the CO2 cools to a close state of temperature equilibrium (increasing entropy). Now the CO2 molecule is again at a lower energy state and may be able to absorb radiation again. (I said may because light can only be absorbed and emitted in specific levels ). So to increase atmospheric temperature the bulk of kinetic molecular energy has to increase, aka nitrogen and oxygen warming from surface convection and radiation that is absorbed and convected to those gases. I want to go on but I really want to be on the same page for the physics of what is happening. Remember Einstein once penned " to (really) know a thing is to be able to explain it in simple terms but no simpler".
    1
  30.  @chrisa.4937  So far so good and the emission is also correct when the molecule drops from an excited energy state to a ground state. What I meant about equilibrium (bad choice of words) was it cannot continue to absorb IR without emitting IR at that point it's not a net increase. The main point at this time to be made is the bulk temperature increase in the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen through convection from the surface and GHGs absorbing IR. You got ahead of me but your absolutely right the process works in reverse also depending on energy levels (high to low). At night GHG's work to convert heat into radiation that eventually is radiated into space.
    1
  31.  @chrisa.4937  Yes I agree the process is always in flux. The only question is the rate of transfer then?
    1
  32.  @chrisa.4937  Relax Chris I'm not trying to trick you I just meant the rate of heat transfer, so if the net rate was faster during the day than the night we would have an increasing average but then again if that continued the average global temperature would increase at a linear rate.
    1
  33.  @chrisa.4937  " "b) if the heat transfer rate between ground and space is of any importance" Of course it is vital because the surface absorbs the short wave energy and is the source for IR and convection in the atmosphere.
    1
  34.  @chrisa.4937  3rd try "
    1
  35.  @chrisa.4937  To a , remember absorption and emission are equal my response is being hacked
    1
  36.  @chrisa.4937  altering the ghg concentration does not change the average temp
    1
  37. ​ @chrisa.4937  We are talking about IR light can you explain how you think light is slowed down? Here is a thought experiment, if all sources of IR are stopped how long do you think the ghgs would radiate IR? Like a dark room with a fog, the fog would stop illuminating the moment the light was turned off with no delay no matter how thick the fog was.
    1
  38.  @chrisa.4937  a and b are happening at light speed like a chamber of mirrors and the atmosphere is only a few miles thick so again what is the actual delay time? Scale is important. c seems like a valid point however is a double-edged sword more gases converting convection to radiation speeds the process from the heat mass.
    1
  39. ​ @chrisa.4937  You are making the mistake of treating all the heat energy converting to radiation "at the surface" but you are correct in that there is interference with that part of the loss to space. The convective process seems to be underestimated in terms of scale of the total heat gain and loss during a time period. Even though Mars has a 98% CO2 atmosphere the average temperature is -81F and to illustrate my point day and night temperature difference is about 170 degrees F. If Mars had non-ghgs to store heat in by convective transfer the difference in day and night temperatures would be much closer.
    1
  40.  @chrisa.4937  Fair enough I wasn't directly comparing Mars just saying the bulk of the energy is in CO2 which gains and loses heat much more rapidly through radiation than non-ghgs through convection only.
    1
  41.  @chrisa.4937  I'm not absolutely sure but I think it's the length of the bonds. shape of the structure and the frequency of the light. If you look at the absorption /emission spectral chart, not all IR wavelengths are optimal. This is why water vapor is a broader and more powerful ghg.
    1
  42.  @chrisa.4937  Thanks, I'll look at it tomorrow and get back to you.
    1
  43.  @chrisa.4937  The first problem I see is they are dealing with averages. I do like talking in terms of W/m2 and averages but this doesn't describe the processes or dissect the incoming phase vs the outgoing phase of the energy. This is also based on calculations not actual tested measurements. I suspect this is why the climate models are so far off over the decades, missing factors based on incomplete or erroneous knowledge. I don't think they took into consideration that more CO2 creates more conversion from convective heat to radiation thus increasing CO2 offsets any greenhouse effect with cooling efficiency by some unconsidered factor. What say you?
    1
  44.  @chrisa.4937  Once again the problem with attributing the delay of heat back into space only to the radiative process is the error. What calculations can you present to show the delay of the convective process? Where is this seriously taken into consideration? As far as a connection from heating the surface to losing heat at the surface goes of course the gain of surface heat has to go back into space at night rising as convection converting into radiation also directly radiating and eventually going back into space. Energy is always flowing away from high concentrations to low. Don't get stuck in circular logic.
    1
  45.  @chrisa.4937  That is only used to describe ghgs , the bulk of heat energy and convection is in the 990,000 ppm that are not ghgs to be clear even non-ghgs radiate and absorb radiation. Anything emits and absorbs spectral lines of radiation. It would be interesting to see the spectral emissions from the dark side of the earth.
    1
  46.  @chrisa.4937  I didn't see anything about convection in the Schwarzchild equation. My understanding is the equation is specifically dealing with radiation through an interactive medium. What complicates this is the temperature of the medium. I didn't see anything relating to time either, maybe you're referring to wavelength? But that has to do with c.
    1
  47.  @chrisa.4937  You are trying to make it too complicated by relying on articles and formulas that aren't relevant to make your point. Let's look at what we really know about the basics and concepts. IR is nothing more than light as far as scattering penetration and absorption and luminescence in the radiative only construct to understand the time as it takes for the radiative process (we will consider the convective transfer separate). We can build an experimental cloud in a dark box made of mirrors with a light bulb. No matter how thick the cloud or how reflective the mirrors are is once the source (light bulb) is turned off the box goes dark in microseconds. The convective part is important but has to be separate and considered in totality. Remember CO2 is 1/2400th of the atmosphere by volume. Please remain open-minded and help me find flaws in my process.
    1
  48.  @chrisa.4937  2nd reply the second part of what the world would look like without ghs is there would be no cooling a warm atmosphere. If we follow the trapped heat model of the atmosphere and remove all the ghgs infrared would still be absorbed and emitted on the surface as well as the shortwave radiation we already have and any surface to atmospheric convection would be trapped with no mechanism to be turned back into radiation.
    1
  49.  @chrisa.4937  I didn't include infrared because removing the ghgs would allow direct absorption and emission. Like on the moon with no atmosphere where the temperature swing is 540F between the lit side and the dark side. With no ghgs the high temperature is 260F or 400K.
    1
  50.  @chrisa.4937  2nd again reply we know the ghg water vapor is 4 times more powerful and it swings from 20,000 ppm to 60,000 ppm, global Temperature must be the primary factor and thus is self-regulating unless we find out ghgs are not as important as you think. If we are to assume CO2 will increase temperature wouldn't we factor the negative enforcement of water vapor?
    1