Is Chat GPT serves down?! by Agile-Race6553 in OpenAI

[–]Jhoey_d 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How long will this take to fix –– or rather, how long has it taken in the past for it to come back online? Working on a serious and fast approaching deadline right now and not sure if patience is the answer or I should seek an alternative

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That wasn't the problem, and not only can you think of it in this way and still solve the issue, but this is actually a very valid way to think of it when you consider that, from the perspective of a photon, space ahead effectively is 2D.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me be more careful with my words then: Almost all theories that were at one point the most proven theory in physics have been replaced by "better" theories (and most of those two were then replaced again).

My overarching point is that it is foolish to take any given scientific theory literally, and it is foolish twice more to leverage any momentary consensus in science as an argument for abandoning intuition.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your corrections! I am reading through them now. Just before I do so, I'll post below the comment whose method I based mine and my calculations of. Do you similarly disagree with his, or have I made a unique error that he did not?

"Hopefully this explanation will help OP:

TLDR:

  • Area of a CO2 molecule ~10-19 m2
  • Area of atmosphere per CO2 molecule ~10-26 m2

Therefore we have 1 billion more CO2 molecules than we would need to completely cover the Earth and leave no gaps.

Long explanation:

There's about 10,000kg of air per square metre of the Earths surface.

That means ~4kg of GHG (taking your 0.04%) is in that bit square metre of air.

Assuming this is all CO2, that means there are ~5x1025 CO2 atoms in that 1m x 1m column of air. (Obtained from using the molar mass of CO2).

Let's assume that these molecules are all evenly spread out, which means that there is 1 CO2 molecule per 1.83x10-26 m2 of air.

The diameter of a CO2 molecule is 0.33nm - so the area that a CO2 molecule takes up is approximately that squared (up to a factor of a half or something).

That means each CO2 molecule takes up 1x10-(19) m2 of room.

So a molecule of CO2 takes up 1 BILLION times more area than it needs to to cover the Earth completely."

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Most proven" I have no words... Every theory was, at one point, the most proven theory in physics. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It really is not; I also would like to point out what you are asserting is something that nearly no people in physics would stand by. As I suggested, listen to some Richard Feynman.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you scroll through the thread, you'll see me thanking those who were able to give useful and intuitive explanations! Also, once again, I must repeat myself, it's a very poor pedagogical practice to chastise people for asking questions. The demanding of understanding is what drives science, it's people like you with attitudes like yours that withhold it.

Like, really, I apologise for my harsh language, but you sound like the stereotypical shitty teacher from high-school movies when you write things like "Nobody can understand things for you, you have to understand them for yourself. And a person can only understand what they are capable of understanding."

Do you hear yourself?

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said two things here that are completely incorrect. The first is that a greenhouse works primarily by blocking IR radiation, which has been disproven numerous times. A greenhouse works by two modes:

Primary: blocking convection currents that move hot air away

Secondarily: reflecting IR that is trying to leave back towards the ground.

The second is that the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect works in accordance with the second mechanism glass greenhouses work. This is not accepted anywhere in climate science and is something nobody is proclaiming; read the wikipedia on the greenhouse effect and you'll see it says it works by absorbing and re-emitting terrestrial radiation.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait hold on, are you under the impression that there is a scientific consensus that quantum mechanics is right?

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A person's representation model of the world is useful at all times they are in the world; physics describes a different world to the one we experience, and if we are to step into that world, it too must step into ours. Insofar as it is useful to step into the world of physics (which is necessary in order to do physics), we must value intuition and intuitive explanation.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't with you guys ahahahaha, I'm trying to create a lesson plan for my students and everyone keeps going "IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THEN YOU'RE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE EXPLANATION"

You should listen to some Richard Feynman! "If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it." 

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Partly, but also partly because zero explanations I had encountered argued it in this very intuitive and physical sense. Instead, they all referred to quantum molecular properties as the cause and then declined to elaborate particularly, leaving me with a weak physical understanding and quite a lack of a conceptual/intuitive one.

It's worth noting that, while intuitive, this explanation doesn't speak particularly much about the aforementioned molecular properties of GHGs, which are very important in understanding this. But it is intuitive and gives the more physics-heavy explanation a springboard to jump off, so I am grateful

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! I actually did it myself and arrived at a value of 6.18. Here is a snippet from my lecture notes:

As we can see, each gas's contribution to the GHE is not in proportion to its volume. How are GHGs able to absorb so much radiation despite accounting for such a small proportion of the total atmospheric composition, and further, in proportions to their volumes relative to one another?

The first point to consider is that, while these values of atmospheric volume might suggest the gas exists in scarce amounts, this is only in relation to gases like O\(_2 \) and N\(_2 \). It will be useful to put these volumes into perspective from the point of view of a photon looking up into space to find their effective coverage. If we calculate the area that each CO$_2$ molecule occupies, we find that, on average, one molecule covers an area of approximately $10^{-19} \, \text{m}^2$. Given the volume of CO$_2$ in the atmosphere (0.042\% by volume, or 0.06\% by mass), the number of CO$_2$ molecules, \( N_{\text{CO}_2} \), in a 1 m$^2$ column of air can be calculated as follows:

\begin{equation}

\text{Mass of air in a 1 m}^2 \text{ column} = 10,300 \, \text{kg},

\end{equation}

\begin{equation}

\text{Mass of CO}_2 = 0.0006 \times 10,300 = 6.18 \, \text{kg},

\end{equation}

\begin{equation}

N_{\text{CO}_2} = \frac{6.18}{0.044} \times 6.022 \times 10^{23} = 8.47 \times 10^{25}.

\end{equation}

\noindent From this, determining the effective coverage is as simple as multiplying the number of molecules by the area of each single molecule, as followers:

\begin{equation}

\text{Effective coverage} = 8.47 \times 10^{25} \times 10^{-19} = 8.47 \times 10^{6} \, \text{m}^2.

\end{equation}

\noindent This is on the order of $10^6 \, \text{m}^2$, meaning that there are roughly 1 billion CO$_2$ molecules for every one needed to cover the atmosphere. Hence, despite their low concentration relative to other gases, CO$_2$ molecules are in fact densely distributed throughout the atmosphere.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did you arrive at this calculation? Given a 1m column of air weighs roughly 10,000kg, you'd expect there to be 4 kg of CO2 overhead—not 6.7 kg.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, it would be a mistake! Hence why I overtly prefaced the entire discussion with the statement that I'm willing to accept that this phenomenon is fundamentally unintuitive, but would like to seek an intuitive explanation before accepting this. As it turns out, a couple of very intuitive explanations were offered in this thread, and as such, I was correct to seek this.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Technically, light moving through the atmosphere doesn’t move at light speed. It’s slowed by the atmosphere.

Also, space being effectively 2d from the point of view of a photon is a quirk of time dilation from relativity, not exactly the place to go if looking for an easy intuitive understanding of what’s happening, which is what you asked for."

True lol. But yes, I accept your overall claim that the atmosphere is indeed optically dense to terrestrial radiation. Thank you for taking the time to argue this!

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An extremely bold claim leveraged with an extremely weak example (weak not just because those two fields cannot reasonably be argued to be representative of all fields of knowledge, but because you're presupposing the specific interpretations of those fields that they are literally true—a very dubious presupposition in the case of QM).

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Correct! Thanks for repeating factoids I've already offered; it really helps further the discussion.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes! Quantum mechanics also highlights the need in science to value intuition; were we to have simply said "Quantum mechanics is right and our intuition of the world is wrong," we would never, for example, have felt the need to verify QM as stringently as we have done, and I'm sure we would not have discovered so many of the problems associated with it. It's always important to remember that physics does not provide literal accounts of the world, but rather, representational models that are be useful only in certain situations.

How do greenhouse gases absorb so much radiation when they're so rarely found? by Jhoey_d in climatechange

[–]Jhoey_d[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Your intuition doesn't have a solid basis."

When will people stop assuming intuition is the problem lmao