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

@chrisa.4937 That makes some sense but what is the relationship between density and expansion when the medium is nearly a vacuum or when the absorptive molecules are 1 in 2500 parts and temperature expansion is exponential for those molecules while the linear distance is only 2 dimensions in a 3-dimensional exponential expansion.
1
@chrisa.4937 We are discussing tiny differences and you would have to agree the surface area of any elevation in the upper atmosphere is greater than the surface.
1
@chrisa.4937 Your statement before isn't entirely true.
1
@chrisa.4937 How wide is the beam (in degrees)? ....Let's not forget this is a beam of diminishing possibilities per quantum science.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply x, y and z are the cartesian coordinates for an expanding gas, three positions are changing not two like a two-dimensional object such as a line.
1
@chrisa.4937 Independent molecules can't overlap each other. The hotter the gas the greater the space between it's molecules if the pressure stays the same. Remember the wave is traveling at light speed so any motion in an expanding gas is not a factor, only the distance between the molecules and in this case it's 1 in 2400 molecules.
1
@chrisa.4937 If you think about it as a cone of expansion that is what I'm talking about not equal expansion on three-axis equally. One other misconception I think most people have is the illusion that CO2 is like a cloud that "traps" heat between the surface and space when it is densest at the surface and thins with altitude as all gases do.
1
@chrisa.4937 Unless it's expanding horizontally which it will as the thermal column rises.
1
@chrisa.4937 Is the surface area of the stratosphere not greater than the surface of the earth at sea level?
1
@chrisa.4937 The further up you go the more horizontal expansion there is. Also from what I see you are treating this whole dynamic as a static model there is thermal expansion and mixing always moving the more energetic particles away from each other by increasing pressure. By adding more gas of any type, pressure increases.
1
@chrisa.4937 Barometric pressure is always changing moving air from high-pressure areas (hot) to low (cooler). It's both expanding because of pressure. Explain parcels because I'm thinking in terms of particles and they cannot "overlap" only the space between them can increase or decrease.
1
@chrisa.4937 Take a balloon and heat the air in it, it expands in all directions and if it is considerably warmer than the surrounding air it will rise because the density is less than the surrounding air. A volume of air will expand in all three dimensions when heated if its pressure remains the same and if not then the pressure will increase in all directions. If a parcel is an exact volume that contains a specific number of particles then when those particles are heated the pressure goes up (if contained in the same volume) or the volume (number of particles) goes down. You can see this more radically in a transition from water to vapor (obviously the vapor takes up much more space but it's less dense (further apart). You can't say they only expanded vertically.
1
@chrisa.4937 2nd reply a thought occurred to me that earth's atmosphere expands to cool if it did not the pressure would be a positive enforcement for the heat, and the temperature near the surface would be much higher. Heat like water takes the path of least resistance so if it cannot expand it will increase in pressure. This is what drives the winds.
1
@chrisa.4937 You are just wrong about that. Are you assuming the wave of a photon is not finite. If you have a finite number of particles and you spread them apart further and further the chances of a collision are less and less. Also, consider in an isobaric situation the additional energy is offset by the expansion, the temperature stays the same as long as the gas can expand at the same connected rate. This is why the atmosphere is not isobaric, it expands but it also pressurizes. Gravity allows both with limits.
1
@chrisa.4937 I'm talking about the width and its interaction with particles that are very small and have a lot of space between them. We know of photons that have been traveling for billions of years undisturbed. Gravity can and does facilitate potential energy all the time like putting a book on a shelf or pressure from a rising temperature. You are describing contestants in a system that isn't constant. The pressure and temperatures are not constants in the atmosphere, it's dynamic.
1
@chrisa.4937 All the weather on the planet can be seen in pressure changes. The eye of a hurricane is low pressure , droughts are seen by stable high pressure. To claim the pressure never changes is not realistic. No one is saying gravity can create energy just like my gas tank doesn't make gasoline. When hot expanding gas comes up against gravity its kinetic energy is replaced by potential energy because the mass of air rising will become kinetic again when it falls (no energy is created) this is called a sink and its energy came from rising air (thermals). It all balances because of the law of conservation.
1
@chrisa.4937 Chris with all due respect just looking at the averages does not mean the processes should be ignored or assumed. I warned you at the beginning looking at averages does not describe dynamic forces. On the other point, no energy cannot be created or destroyed and nothing we are discussing says it can. Energy from the sun heats the surface the surface conducts, radiates and convects energy. Here is a simple experiment I performed take two CO2 bottles (big ones).Fill one with nitrogen and one with CO2 at 900 psi each (roughly 64 atmospheres) leave them in the sun for a few hours make sure their temperatures are the same. Then measure the time it takes for each of them to assume room temperature. What is your prediction?
1
@chrisa.4937 I would agree but by how much time and do you think the ability of the CO2 to absorb and emit radiation is a greater factor than molecular mass?
1
@chrisa.4937 Not true the steel will absorb the short wave radiation and IR then just like the planet's surface will emit IR back on both sides (in and out) the processes are all working at the same time. Like I said before where there is a path energy moves from higher levels to lower levels.
1
@chrisa.4937 I wanted you to understand all the transformations of heat energy involved in the experiment. In the nitrogen bottle, the IR will pass through the nitrogen and be absorbed or reflected by the other side of the bottle (inside)while the CO2 will merely interact with the IR absorbed reflected and emitted. The only reason the CO2 bottle will cool slower is the total molecular mass is slightly greater. You realize that the bulk of the heat capacity is the steel. In conducting the experiment I couldn't measure the difference because it was so slight. Both bottles returned to room temperature at the same time (as far as I could measure).
1
@chrisa.4937 No mystery the heat energy is kinetic and the more mass in motion the more energy. Remember temperature is kinetic, molecular mass in motion. So when you have a 100lb steel bottle and inside a few maybe ounces of gas the main potential is in the bottle. What it tells us about the real world is the bulk, 99% of the atmosphere, contains 99% of the energy that must be shed to balance the gains in the day with the losses at night in the atmosphere. The surface is also a vast reservoir that needs to shed its gains too.
1
@chrisa.4937 I just wanted to cover the bases, there are a lot of people who are educated and really don't understand what they are talking about. My approach is a firm foundation, Einstein once said to understand a thing is to be able to explain it in simple terms but no simpler.
1
@chrisa.4937 I think I see the error that you are not considering. While Beers Law is used to calculate the absorbance you are not figuring the warming atmosphere into the equation. The non-ghgs are absorbing and sharing the heat energy higher and higher in the atmosphere.
1
I think science should prove the premise before the "solution". The problem is there is no money to be made if there is no crisis. If the premise that increasing a trace gas CO2 drives global temperatures up and a minuscule part of that is contributed by mankind is incorrect then ....there is no crisis period. The MMGW theory totally depends on this one function and ignores any other feedback mechanism.
1
Hear me now history, gravity is a function of matter in motion including angular velocity and molecular velocity vs expansion (which is not energy because energy cannot be created), momentum that has been unaccounted for so far. Sabine is right calling all the anomalies Dark Matter and Dark energy is just modifications for what they don't know about gravity and original momentum.
1
The reason people are so invested in false theories is they are blind to critical thinking on it and have been convinced by their investment and held in check by research money. It is disgusting.
1
Here are some numbers Sabine CO2 is at approximately 410 ppm while water vapor (a much more powerful ghg) varies from 20,000 to 60, 000 ppm. There must be a temperature feedback for water vapor and therefore the tiny man caused contribution to the .04% of the atmosphere that is CO2 is completely muted. It's all a scam follow the money and control.
1
GHGs at night cool the earth by providing a conduit for convective heat to be changed to radiative heat, but no one is talking about that.
1
Consider the RATE of time, there must be a minimum 0 and a maximum X . Anything less than X is dilated time and everything in the universe is "experiencing" dilation based on motion through space or space through it (gravity). A theoretical clock void of motion and gravity will run at X. An objective report from every clock against the X clock tells us the amount of dilation that clock is "experiencing" a collective report across the universe would describe the shape of Spacetime at any given perspective to X.
1
I think you are over simplifying, the bulk of the temperature energy in the atmosphere is in non-ghgs. This happens through convection. We need ghgs to cool the planet also because non-ghgs cannot radiate and thus shed heat energy. So high energy light warms the surface and IR is emmited absorbed and emmited in ghgs but if you have ever held your hand above a fire you can understand convection and convection interacts with non ghgs as well thus increasing atmospheric temperature. GHG's cool the planet by absorbing energy from non-ghgs and then converting the energy to IR and emitting it to the vacuum of space.
1
Hindsight agrees therefore the illusion of another path was not valid except to ponder what if. Life is a carnival ride of mechanical outcomes the only interesting thing is our inability to perceive the next reaction, perhaps our ignorance makes life interesting, indeed ignorance is bliss.
1
@chrisa.4937 The other thread is not working here is my 4th reply3 "
1
@chrisa.4937 5th reply to the other thread 3rd try
1
I think we are seeing a rise in critical thinking by people without a firm basic education. Look at the state of education, who would have dreamed that gender studies would be a thing and questioning MMGW would be a sin. Maybe because the state of education is indoctrination and not critical thinking people reject science dogma because they were never taught how to understand it and oppose the peer pressure to go along to get along. I'd rather live in a society where theories can be questioned than one where everyone slavishly believes things they don't understand.
1
With climate change, the assumption is the cause and effect. I do not assume CO2 causes global warming because it has always followed global warming. Global warming causes more atmospheric CO2. The second assumption is scope, while water vapor a much more powerful GHG can swing 40,000 ppm in short periods we are falsely concentrating on 4ppm CO2 per year increase. CO2 has a slight positive reinforcement but in no way does it drive global temperature trends. One other area no one talks about is the cooling effect from GHGs to the same degree they help transfer energy to the earth during the day, they also convert mainly convective heat from non-GHGs to radiation shed at night. With all due respect, you might want to check your cognitive bias on this aspect of climate change. This was another good video!
1
I love your mind! Keep telling the truth.
1
I don’t understand her collectivist perspective. Globalism governments etc are slow ineffective, too expensive and incompetent.
1
Most the hyped "new discoveries" are scams. Junk science raises the hopes of gullible simpleton investors so there is a lot of motivation to sell lies. You can debunk almost all these by going back to basic physics and using a little common sense. The biggest one I can think of is 0.04 percent of the atmosphere controls the temperature while ignoring the other GHG swings between 4 and 6% AND discounting the feedback's for both of them.
1
If we could compare clocks from every point in space we could see the actual perturbations of space.
1
There can be no objectivity from people who benefit from fear mongering.
1
Damn right!
1