# What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?



## IanC (May 19, 2019)

I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed.  You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.

I then specifically searched for the IPCC version. Imagine my surprise when 'denier' sites were the major places of discussion. 

How weak is their case if they are effectively hiding it? For the record, I believe in the GHE in principle as a very important part of atmospheric radiative physics.  I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.

What is your reference site for the GHE? Or do you just know it?

I'll post up a few links later if no one cares to post theirs.


----------



## toobfreak (May 19, 2019)

The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached.  What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy.  It is at that point the system stops heating.


----------



## Likkmee (May 19, 2019)

The cow fart theory sounds good.
Ever been to India ?


----------



## Wuwei (May 19, 2019)

I found that a rich source of information on climate is given by the American Institute of Physics (AIP). It is more accessible and succinct than the IPCC. Here is one link titled Basic Radiation Calculations, but they show no mathematics.
Basic Radiation Calculations

The paragraph above the last says,
_Note: this Website does not cover developments from the 1980s forward in radiation models...._
​Look at the top of the page to see a link to the Table of Contents to other pages.

If you want more of the math for an idealized radiation aspect only, they refer to
Idealized greenhouse model - Wikipedia

However the model is a one layer atmosphere. They say,
_The simple one-level atmospheric model can be readily extended to a multiple-layer atmosphere. In this case the equations for the temperatures become a series of coupled equations._ ​
I have been working on the coupled equations and find that they are very easy to solve with simple assumptions for parameters, however it is a basis for making more complex computations. When I have time I will post what I got.

.


----------



## IanC (May 19, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached.  What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy.  It is at that point the system stops heating.



Where is the link to your source? Or is that just your personal interpretation of what the GHE is?

I'm not trying to harass you. I want to look at 'official' explanations. 

.


----------



## IanC (May 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I found that a rich source of information on climate is given by the American Institute of Physics (AIP). It is more accessible and succinct than the IPCC. Here is one link titled Basic Radiation Calculations, but they show no mathematics.
> Basic Radiation Calculations
> 
> The paragraph above the last says,
> ...



I too have a lot of faith in the radiative models to calculate energy transfer for a specific set of atmospheric constituents. I think the water feedback assumptions are wrong though.

That said, I am looking for an explanation of the GHE that is suitable for laymen. And which  hopefully doesn't include the phrase "97% of scientists agree".


----------



## IanC (May 19, 2019)

An old IPCC explanation but the link is now broken-

"
From http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

*Greenhouse effect *
Greenhouse gases effectively absorb infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the _natural greenhouse effect_.
Atmospheric radiation is strongly coupled to the temperature of the level at which it is emitted. In the troposphere the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.

An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing, an imbalance that can only be compensated for by an increase of the temperature of the surface-troposphere system. This is the enhanced greenhouse effect."

Reasonably accurate? Maybe. Reasonably understandable? To me yes, but...

GHGs that exist right now have a large effect. Predictions of the effect caused by an increase is much less straight forward.


----------



## Wuwei (May 19, 2019)

IanC said:


> An old IPCC explanation but the link is now broken-
> 
> From http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm
> .......



The last two paragraphs bother me. I would like an estimate of the altitude where the output radiation is in balance with the input. The pressure is dropping exponentially with altitude so the number of GHGs molecules radiating drops exponentially. The temperature in Kevin is relatively constant compared to the exponential change in altitude. So I would think the first sentence of the second paragraph would be 

_....Atmospheric radiation is strongly coupled to the *altitude* of the level at which it is emitted....._ 

The equipartition principle is always in effect so the radiation is proportional to the number of CO2 in excited states emitting their photons. That number follows the stronger density of CO2 function of altitude while temperature has a weaker linear function.

.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.


----------



## BlackFlag (May 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.


^ thinks a magic man in the clouds will return and make it go away


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

BlackFlag said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.
> ...


People who believe a radiative greenhouse effect driven by CO2 is driving the global climate believe in magic in the clouds.


----------



## BlackFlag (May 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I've noticed that ever since the melting arctic became a national security threat, there have been a dramatic drop in threads created laughing about how there's so much ice up there.  What a coincidence.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2019)

BlackFlag said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



what we don’t see from warmers are any threads talking about the fact that there is more ice up there now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...  not much room for imminent disaster sky is falling stories if one is honest about the history of arctic ice.


----------



## toobfreak (May 19, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached.  What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy.  It is at that point the system stops heating.
> ...



That's my definition as a trained physicist.  You don't find it "reasonably scientific?"  You did not ask for "official" explanations in your OP, in fact, the word "official" never even appears in your OP.  Anything about my definition you disagree with?


----------



## BlackFlag (May 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Oh yeah?  Would you have the U.S. ignore all the new shipping lanes formed from ice vanishing then?


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2019)

BlackFlag said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



No...I would have us use them as the open...and wouldn't it be great if everyone were well educated enough to know that their opening is a good thing and perfectly natural..and simply a movement back to the warm period that existed prior to the cold period which we are presently in the process of exiting...

Like I said...you seem to think that there has always been a great deal of ice up there...that could hardly be further from the truth.  Here is a gold standard temperature reconstruction of the temperatures in the arctic for the past 10,000 years.  It is, in fact, considerably cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.






Here is a graph from a relatively recent study of ice in the arctic for the past few thousand years, as you can see, the ice extent is greater now than at any time in the past few thousand years except for the little ice age cooling...and the earth is still in the process of warming out of that period...  There is no reason to think that the earth won't warm back to the temperatures prior to the little ice age which were considerably warmer than the present.


----------



## Wuwei (May 20, 2019)

Wow. It didn't take long for this thread to be hijacked from GHE explanations to arctic ice.


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



A 'trained physicist' wouldn't have called it a closed system.


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Wow. It didn't take long for this thread to be hijacked from GHE explanations to arctic ice.



I should have made it more clear. There is a dearth of decent explanations for the GHE.

I have my own understanding of it but I would be hard pressed to pass it along to a layman because the literature is so poor.

I was hoping someone else had stumbled onto a good site.


----------



## Wuwei (May 20, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. It didn't take long for this thread to be hijacked from GHE explanations to arctic ice.
> ...



OK. The AIP site is probably not good. Although it covers the science and avoids math, it is rather verbose. 

The first paragraph at the Wiki site might be close to what you are looking for. 
Idealized greenhouse model - Wikipedia

That paragraph is a bit simplistic and isn't as detailed as your defunct IPCC reference. Beyond the first paragraph the article goes into the thermodynamic math which is for the more technically inclined layman. 

.


----------



## SSDD (May 20, 2019)

What do you know...yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.  What a surprise.

The atmosphere, and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable...how about a hypothesis that deals in observables, and measurables rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...

Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?


----------



## toobfreak (May 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What do you know...yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.  What a surprise.
> 
> The atmosphere, and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable...how about a hypothesis that deals in observables, and measurables rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...
> 
> Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?




If a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation, then a starving person can gain weight by feeding off his own fat!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What do you know...yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.  What a surprise.
> 
> The atmosphere, and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable...how about a hypothesis that deals in observables, and measurables rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...
> 
> Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?



*rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...*

Who ever claimed that? Where?

*Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?*

Which physical law is it that says that a body stops radiating at equilibrium?
Yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What do you know...yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.  What a surprise.
> ...




I would be very interested in hearing a explanation from one of the local warmers detailing the mechanism by which the frequency of the earth's own radiation is bumped up to higher frequencies at every frequency as is required by Planck's law in order to cause an increase in temperature.


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2019)

Even though I'm hiding from it I observe in this thread what must be the result of the same old shit.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yep.  Neither would he, having called it a "closed system", have then gone on to describe the greenhouse effect as "more infrared energy is trapped than released".  Let's just say, that attempt at a definition is in serious need of thought, and a clean-up.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> Even though I'm hiding from it I observe in this thread what must be the result of the same old shit.



And every time you speak, we observe that you can't even begin to defend your position...or offer up any rational rebuttal to the positions in opposition to your own....same old shit.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The atmosphere, and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable...how about a hypothesis that deals in observables, and measurables rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...
> 
> Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?




Why does any atmosphere  (GHGs or not) make the surface temperature warmer on average? 

Surely even the most virulent GHE denier would agree that it does. But why? What is the mechanism? 

Once you figure that out then it is easy to see why greenhouse gases enhance the rise in average surface temperature. It is also easy to see why adding a new type of GHG would further enhance the effect but not as easy to see why adding more of an already present gas would also result in higher average surface temp.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> If a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation, then a starving person can gain weight by feeding off his own fat!




What an odd person you are for a 'trained physicist '.

Your analogy is actually pretty good. The atmosphere is like fat cells. Storing and releasing energy to smooth out times of excess surface energy (daylight) with times of no solar energy  ( nighttime).

Edit- I suppose I should be specific in my disagreement with your actual statement. A person does not gain weight by consuming the contents of fat cells, they lose weight. People could gain weight with the same amount of outside food consumption if they used their muscles less or were in a warmer environment that requires less energy for internal heat control.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> Why does any atmosphere  (GHGs or not) make the surface temperature warmer on average?



Autocompression...there is no radiative greenhouse effect.




IanC said:


> Once you figure that out then it is easy to see why greenhouse gases enhance the rise in average surface temperature. It is also easy to see why adding a new type of GHG would further enhance the effect but not as easy to see why adding more of an already present gas would also result in higher average surface temp.



The only so called greenhouse gas that has any effect on global temperatures at all is water vapor..

The fact remains that a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...and no matter how much you like to claim that it is merely slowing down the escape of energy, slower cooling does not equal warming...and according to climate science, the earth is in fact, warming..


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > If a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation, then a starving person can gain weight by feeding off his own fat!
> ...



CO2 has nothing to do with that "storing" and releasing of energy...That is entirely due to water vapor and the fact that convection is such a slow means of moving energy to the top of the troposphere...


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I would be very interested in hearing a explanation from one of the local warmers detailing the mechanism by which the frequency of the earth's own radiation is bumped up to higher frequencies at every frequency as is required by Planck's law in order to cause an increase in temperature.



That tortured paragraph misses the mark. It's the sun that increases the temperature of the earth. The back radiation moderates the increase. This was said many times. 


.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CO2 has nothing to do with that "storing" and releasing of energy...That is entirely due to water vapor and the fact that convection is such a slow means of moving energy to the top of the troposphere...




I know it is futile to ask you to explain yourself but there are others that read these threads as well. Excuse me if it seems like I am putting words into your mouth but I have to make guesses at what you mean because you never say.

I am assuming that you are saying that H2O as water vapour has no ability to warm the air by absorbing surface radiation that is then transferred to the other molecules by collision. 

Further I am assuming that you think the only storage is the energy required to evaporate the water, which then triggers convection by its low molecular weight, leading to release of that energy when the water vapour condenses at cooler upper altitudes.

Is that roughly it? Do you want to modify something?

Once we clarify your basic stance we can move on to other issues like whether convection is slower than radiation at wavelengths that the atmosphere is opaque to.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I would be very interested in hearing a explanation from one of the local warmers detailing the mechanism by which the frequency of the earth's own radiation is bumped up to higher frequencies at every frequency as is required by Planck's law in order to cause an increase in temperature.
> ...



So you are claiming that back radiation slows the warming of the earth?...you are saying that the earth would be warmer if not for so called greenhouse gasses?

  That is what the word moderation means in that context...

 Moderate: to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous.

Maybe if you tried to actually learn something rather than just making it all up as you go, your arguments....never mind...yo are what you are...


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > If a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation, then a starving person can gain weight by feeding off his own fat!
> ...




What an idiot you seem to be.  Do you have any formal education in the sciences?  If so, what is it and have you asked them for a refund?  The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect.  It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space.  The rest of your "fat cell diet theory" apparently went right over your head.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you are claiming that back radiation slows the warming of the earth?...you are saying that the earth would be warmer if not for so called greenhouse gasses?
> 
> That is what the word moderation means in that context...


No. It slows the cooling of the earth.


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

*"What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?"*

We see another libtard thread in the making under the veil of "science."  First we are asked what explanation we use.  Then when they are offered, they are attacked unless they lead to the one irreconcilable conclusion supporting Climate Change as a function of man.  Then we are attacked on our personal credentials by as person who gives nothing on his own.

This is just one more climate thread by a climate believer under the guise of science really intended only to sell climate change theory while attacking all and anything which does not agree with or support it. Nothing more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> *"What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?"*
> 
> We see another libtard thread in the making under the veil of "science."  First we are asked what explanation we use.  Then when they are offered, they are attacked unless they lead to the one irreconcilable conclusion supporting Climate Change as a function of man.  Then we are attacked on our personal credentials by as person who gives nothing on his own.
> 
> This is just one more climate thread by a climate believer under the guise of science really intended only to sell climate change theory while attacking all and anything which does not agree with or support it. Nothing more.



I don't think IanC is an "AGW believer", more of a skeptic.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.



More CO₂ makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation.  I am guessing, that is well understood.

With more energy retained within the system, temperatures rising, there's the secondary effect of more water vapor, making the system even more opaque, pushing temperatures even higher.  That also shouldn't be hard to understand.

As to "huge changes", that depends on what you find "huge".  

The difference between the last ice age and pre-industrial temperature averages is just 4°C to 6°C.  I would call that "huge".  Some estimates for future average temperatures, contingent on emissions scenarios, put the temperature rise close to +5°C.  I'd call that "huge".

Do you find any problem with any of the above?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.
> ...



*With more energy retained within the system, temperatures rising, there's the secondary effect of more water vapor, making the system even more opaque, pushing temperatures even higher. That also shouldn't be hard to understand.*

Would more clouds trap more IR or cause more sun light to reflect into space?
Not a simple, warming only factor.

*The difference between the last ice age and pre-industrial temperature averages is just 4°C to 6°C.  I would call that "huge".  *

All without a huge increase in CO2.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> What an idiot you seem to be. Do you have any formal education in the sciences? If so, what is it and have you asked them for a refund? The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space. The rest of your "fat cell diet theory" apparently went right over your head.



My fear is that you actually are a 'trained physicist '. That is a scary thought, especially if you are responsible for anything of importance.

While the atmosphere does reflect some sunlight and does absorb a small amount, the surface is where highly ordered high energy wavelength solar is converted into diffuse longwave radiation. A large increase of entropy even if the actual amount of energy going in and out are the same.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> More CO₂ makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation. I am guessing, that is well understood




There is a fixed amount of CO2 specific  surface radiation for a known temperature.  The average mean free path for 15 micron radiation is about 2 metres at STP.  Increasing the concentration of CO2 slightly decreases the mean free path but does not immediately change the available energy that CO2 can absorb.

Do you  know what mechanism actually causes the surface to warm?

I'll talk more after you explain your understanding.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> *"What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?"*
> 
> We see another libtard thread in the making under the veil of "science."  First we are asked what explanation we use.  Then when they are offered, they are attacked unless they lead to the one irreconcilable conclusion supporting Climate Change as a function of man.  Then we are attacked on our personal credentials by as person who gives nothing on his own.
> 
> This is just one more climate thread by a climate believer under the guise of science really intended only to sell climate change theory while attacking all and anything which does not agree with or support it. Nothing more.




I think you should go back and reread the OP.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 21, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.
> ...



From the Wikipedia link:

"In the terminology of glaciology, _ice age_ implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene. *The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next ice age, *which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles"

_bolding mine
_
What a bunch of nonsense since CO2 is not a molecular cage, and that any postulated warm forcing increase for CO2  is easily overcome by the even greater increase of energy OUTFLOW leaving the planet.

Here is a simple explanation that most people never seem to ponder over, since it makes clear CO2 doesn't promote actual warming at all, from The Inconvenient Skeptic:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space.  That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference.  It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984.  If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear.  The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.  The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

LINK

_red bolding mine_


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiot you seem to be. Do you have any formal education in the sciences? If so, what is it and have you asked them for a refund? The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space. The rest of your "fat cell diet theory" apparently went right over your head.
> ...


Have no doubt of that. 



> That is a scary thought, especially if you are responsible for anything of importance.


Afraid the boogie man is gonna getcha?



> While the atmosphere does reflect some sunlight and does absorb a small amount, the surface is where highly ordered high energy wavelength solar is converted into diffuse longwave radiation. A large increase of entropy even if the actual amount of energy going in and out are the same.


I'm still waiting for you tell us what science education YOU have.  Any?  Lessee:

*highly ordered high energy wavelength solar*:  What the hell is "highly ordered?"  You mean circularly polarized?  What?  You mean phased?  What is a high energy wavelength?  How does frequency relate to energy?  If there are any "higher energy" wavelengths, wouldn't they be the UV and SHORTER wavelengths rather than the lazy long IR wavelengths of heat?  Now you are talking like you got your degree from the back of a box of Corn Flakes.
*diffuse longwave radiation*:  Again, are there some longwave radiation that isn't diffuse?  And what makes it diffuse?  Isn't blue light more diffuse in the fact that it is scattered by water droplets while IR passes through largely unchecked?
*Entropy?*  WTF?
Dude, you are toast.  I'm generally pretty informal here but I question if you have even a HS diploma.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> Do you  know what mechanism actually causes the surface to warm?



Of course.


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you  know what mechanism actually causes the surface to warm?
> ...


But we're reliably informed by a trained physicist it is the atmosphere that is warmed by the sun.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> But we're reliably informed by a trained physicist it is the atmosphere that is warmed by the sun.



All told, that's even true, insofar as almost the entirety of the energy warming the atmosphere originates there.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> Increasing the concentration of CO2 slightly decreases the mean free path but does not immediately change the available energy that CO2 can absorb.



Of course not.  Increasing CO₂ increases backradiation from the near-surface atmosphere (that's the meaning of decreased "mean free path"), which means a higher surface temperature, which then increases surface radiation.  I really don't know why you insist on increasing complexity when, originally, you were looking for a layman explanation of GHE.


----------



## cnm (May 21, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> All told, that's even true, insofar as almost the entirety of the energy warming the atmosphere originates there.


But we are reliably informed by a trained physicist the atmosphere is the primary receptacle of the sun's energy.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you are claiming that back radiation slows the warming of the earth?...you are saying that the earth would be warmer if not for so called greenhouse gasses?
> ...



Climate science says that the earth has WARMED 1.5 degrees since 1820.  They use the word warmed...and no matter how you twist it, slower cooling does not equal warming...  The more you talk, the more weasel words you have to use in an attempt to rationalize your belief...weasel words are not necessary when discussing science...but weasel words come in very handy if you are trying to promote pseudoscience.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*no matter how you twist it, slower cooling does not equal warming...  *

Slower cooling does equal warming.....assuming the incoming energy is the same.
That's why people insulate their homes. Slower cooling makes our homes warmer in the winter.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> I'm still waiting for you tell us what science education YOU have. Any?




Why would you care about the education  I _claim _to have? I certainly ignore your claim to be a trained physicist.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> *highly ordered high energy wavelength solar*: What the hell is "highly ordered?" You mean circularly polarized? What? You mean phased? What is a high energy wavelength? How does frequency relate to energy? If there are any "higher energy" wavelengths, wouldn't they be the UV and SHORTER wavelengths rather than the lazy long IR wavelengths of heat? Now you are talking like you got your degree from the back of a box of Corn Flakes.
> *diffuse longwave radiation*: Again, are there some longwave radiation that isn't diffuse? And what makes it diffuse? Isn't blue light more diffuse in the fact that it is scattered by water droplets while IR passes through largely unchecked?
> *Entropy?* WTF?



Polarized? By what mechanism? By highly ordered I mean that it is collimated. The reason why you can focus sunlight with a magnifying glass.

High energy wavelength?  We can tell the temperature of a distant star by the proportions of the radiation reaching us. A hotter star has the capability of producing higher energy  photons than a cooler star. But the main clue is the amount produced at specific bands. Hot produces more radiation, at higher energy wavelengths on average. 

Diffuse longwave? For wavelengths directly escaping through the Atmospheric Window the radiation is somewhat ordered because the photons only travel in a direct line away from the surface. Radiation absorbed and emitted by GHGs is totally scattered in all directions. 

Entropy is a fairly difficult concept. If we are having problems coming to agreement on simple concepts it would be a waste of time to skip ahead several levels.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Increasing the concentration of CO2 slightly decreases the mean free path but does not immediately change the available energy that CO2 can absorb.
> ...




You should put more thought into this problem. 

The only thing that controls 'backradiation' is the temperature of the atmosphere producing it. The mean free path varies with the density, and affects all directions equally _a la_ the equapartition theorum.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yeah, you are just describing the same thing using other terms.  BTW, the term is "equipartition theorem".


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting for you tell us what science education YOU have. Any?
> ...



STILL won't answer a simple question.  That pretty much sums up what I expected.  Never mind I've talked physics a hundred times here in the past 2 years with Tards like you and everytime they ALWAYS do two things:

Deny you know anything without any basis for that belief.
Run from any kind of legitimate challenge.


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > *highly ordered high energy wavelength solar*: What the hell is "highly ordered?" You mean circularly polarized? What? You mean phased? What is a high energy wavelength? How does frequency relate to energy? If there are any "higher energy" wavelengths, wouldn't they be the UV and SHORTER wavelengths rather than the lazy long IR wavelengths of heat? Now you are talking like you got your degree from the back of a box of Corn Flakes.
> ...




I don't suppose you'd want to know that I almost went into being an astronomer in high school before switching to electrical engineering and electronic design but still teach it on the side before you embarrass yourself any further with your garbage terminology and Jethro Bodine handling of very basic physics concepts.

I mean, just who the hell do you think you're fooling with your quack terminology and lame bullshit in the first place?


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




I'm not running away from anything. I'm refusing to give personal information on a public message board. Post up some copies of your degrees and I may consider doing the same.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



Be specific. Which of my statements do you consider incorrect? Is it the terminology  uou disagree with, or the concept?

Will you defend your statements that seem ridiculous?


----------



## toobfreak (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







Right, right, right.  Another Tard Bullshitter.  I have a Masters in Physics and a Bachelors in Electronics.  I spent a good portion of my life designing global telecom and practically my entire life studying astronomy and particle physics.  But you can't give us any "personal" information.  Just the other week I challenged another Tard here who claimed to have had "many" businesses including still having a consulting business, so I challenged him to show us some official papers, ANY of the myriad papers that go hand in hand in owning a business, personal info redacted of course.  HE NEVER DID.  So just to prove my point that at least I was on the up and up, I produced copies of my two old state tax licenses, certificates of registration that are on hand, that ONLY the owner of a business would have, along with personally identifiable objects in the photo to prove these were not taken off the web or something.

*IN MY TWO FREEKING YEARS HERE* I've run into more bullshitters than in my entire life;  armchair experts in everything;  at least a half dozen yahoos here that all claimed this or that, but if there is one thing I can smell is a liar.  I know when someone KNOWS science and when they are just blowing smoke and you've already proven yourself a LIAR.

Your "science degree" comes from reading books and web articles and I have to go eat and rest now, but I'll be back later to see if you answer my other post.  If not, I just might take you apart piece by piece.  If there is one thing I know, it is optics, energy, solar processes, et al., and you've walked right into a trap on that one butthole.  When I come back, I'm gonna TAKE YOU APART.  I don't claim to be any sort of expert in weather, climate or atmospherics, but I know physics, I know optics, I know energy, and I know a great deal about the production of energy in a star, its aging, etc., and we're going to find out what you REALLY know.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




Looking forward to it.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Climate science says that the earth has WARMED 1.5 degrees since 1820. They use the word warmed...and no matter how you twist it, slower cooling does not equal warming.



That's right the earth has warmed. And yes slower cooling is not warming.

You are confusing the warming of the earth over the decades with the greenhouse action in the atmosphere over the microseconds.

Let me spell it out. The sun is pumping heat to the earth surface. The earth radiates that heat. If there were no GHG's the oceans would freeze because of the earth radiation.  GHG's limit the upward escape of radiation. The oceans don't freeze. The earth is warmer than it would be if there were no GHGs.  

I was purposefully a little sloppy in this explanation for succinctness.


.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space



The same guy who made this statement called me a 'tard.

And he wonders why people don't take him seriously.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Climate science says that the earth has WARMED 1.5 degrees since 1820. They use the word warmed...and no matter how you twist it, slower cooling does not equal warming.
> ...




We need better nomenclature to differentiate between 'direct warming' and 'causing conditions that lead to warming'.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

As with SSDD the hubris is running rampant.


.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Yes we do. It has caused no end to the confusion of those less educated in science.

.


----------



## Marion Morrison (May 21, 2019)

The one that involves God and not some intelligent Limey dude that's been indoctrinated by his country's education system. The theory of evolution is wrong!


----------



## Marion Morrison (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I know you have a doctorate, and-?


Why are you here? You do have your own forum and stuff. I'm not trying to be a dick, and actually I like ya, but you have been heavily indoctrinated with your UK edumacation.


----------



## sparky (May 21, 2019)

Maybe you folks should spent some time with nature
it's speaking volumes for those that hear

~S~


----------



## Marion Morrison (May 21, 2019)

sparky said:


> Maybe you folks should spent some time with nature
> it's speaking volumes for those that hear
> 
> ~S~



I'd love to, but I have to purchase several state licenses in order to do that. That's kind of against the laws of nature.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




Hahahahaha.  It's hard to drop the British educational accent once you pick it up.


----------



## Marion Morrison (May 21, 2019)

IanC said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





mmkk, utress

I don't doubt it is for ya.
Hey man, but what's up with that IPC tech though?


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Never mind I've talked physics a hundred times here in the past 2 years with Tards like you


Do you always talk about inputs to and outputs from closed systems?


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


#Me too


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space
> ...



Serious question, Ian: Why on earth don't you help him to clean up that statement?  That way we all might learn something about the issue, and arrive at something like a clearer depiction of what the GHE really is.  For, as of now, all we learned was about your ability to heap contempt on others.

Yes, it isn't the atmosphere that "converts" sunlight into IR radiation.  Simply put, it's the surface that absorbs sunlight, warms up, and emits IR radiation, which is then absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Serious question, Ian: Why on earth don't you help him to clean up that statement? That way we all might learn something about the issue, and arrive at something like a clearer depiction of what the GHE really is. For, as of now, all we learned was about your ability to heap contempt on others.




I have talked about the greenhouse effect dozens of times. I started this thread because climate science and the media have done a piss poor job of presenting the explanation of it. I am not really interested in private individuals' personal descriptions. Although that is actually quite interesting. 

I am sorry that you feel I am being contemptuous of others. Toobfreak was insulting to me so I showed the same amount of respect back to him.

Is there some specific  questions that you have about the GHE that you wanted to discuss?


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

It seems the problem here is that some people treat this forum and this thread as a game. The object is to win the game and save face. A lesser important objective to understand the science behind GW.


.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> I have talked about the greenhouse effect dozens of times. I started this thread because climate science and the media have done a piss poor job of presenting the explanation of it. I am not really interested in private individuals' personal descriptions. Although that is actually quite interesting.
> 
> I am sorry that you feel I am being contemptuous of others. Toobfreak was insulting to me so I showed the same amount of respect back to him.
> 
> Is there some specific  questions that you have about the GHE that you wanted to discuss?



ToobFREAK is a brawler; it's probably best ignore the bellowing.  On the other hand, there is something to learn from his misconception, in the way how errors, discovered and corrected, advance and expand our knowledge.  I'd say, given your interest in a valid, comprehensible layman's explanation of the GHE, there was a chance to advance your aim.  Reacting in kind to the Freak meant you missed that chance.  While politically on the pretty far right, at least the Freak isn't a brain-dead denialingdong guzzling at the denialingdong trough.  That's welcome, no?


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> That's right the earth has warmed. And yes slower cooling is not warming.
> 
> You are confusing the warming of the earth over the decades with the greenhouse action in the atmosphere over the microseconds.



I am not confusing anything...you on the other hand confuse and interpret everything...no amount of slower cooling will ever equal a temperature increase...and climate science says that the earth is warming due to the effects of CO2 and the effect that CO2 has, according to climate science is that it causes the earth to reabsorb its own radiation causing warming...

Your personal made up GH hypothesis is bullshit just as the mainstream GH hypothesis is bullshit...


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The nomenclature is fine...what you need is a new hypothesis...and don't you find it interesting that all of you have your own personal made up hypothesis while it is difficult to find any warmers or luke warmers who promote the actual mainstream GW hypothesis?


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



The only ones who are confused are warmers and luke warmers...so confused, in fact that you all simply make up your own version of the GH hypothesis and attempt to rationalize it with the same failed physics that the mainstream hypothesis promotes...


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> I'd say, given your interest in a valid, comprehensible layman's explanation of the GHE, there was a chance to advance your aim. Reacting in kind to the Freak meant you missed that chance. While politically on the pretty far right, at least the Freak isn't a brain-dead denialingdong guzzling at the denialingdong trough. That's welcome, no?




Sorry Pollyanna but few people here change their minds on anything. It takes energy to overcome the inertia of familiar thinking and the comfort of a worldview built up over decades.

Again, the purpose of this thread is to show the dearth of easily accessible sites that give a decent explanation of the GHE, that I could send a precocious 11 year old to discover the basics.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> I am not really interested in private individuals' personal descriptions.



Why not...since you have your own private personal GH hypothesis which bears very little resemblance to the mainstream GH hypothesis...In fact, about the only similarity is the belief that CO2 causes warming by some alchemical process whereby a body is warmed by its own radiation.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It seems the problem here is that some people treat this forum and this thread as a game. The object is to win the game and save face. A lesser important objective to understand the science behind GW.
> 
> 
> .



Projecting your own traits on others is hardly a rational argument...you are willing to weasel endlessly....


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say, given your interest in a valid, comprehensible layman's explanation of the GHE, there was a chance to advance your aim. Reacting in kind to the Freak meant you missed that chance. While politically on the pretty far right, at least the Freak isn't a brain-dead denialingdong guzzling at the denialingdong trough. That's welcome, no?
> ...




The explanation is fine..your issue is that the mainstream hypothesis really doesn't sound much like your own personal made up hypothesis...nor does it sound much like wuwei's, or the skid mark's either...All of you have a personal version that you made up from whole cloth and you all are attempting to use the same failed physics from the mainstream hypothesis which you all seem to reject to validate your personal GH hypothesis...


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

.


SSDD said:


> I am not confusing anything...


Yes you are. 


SSDD said:


> Your personal made up GH hypothesis is bullshit just as the mainstream GH hypothesis is bullshit...


I, along with Ian have not found a good IPCC reference concerning the physics of the GHE. The non-technical junior reference you cited is not adequate, do you know any other available reference. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It seems the problem here is that some people treat this forum and this thread as a game. The object is to win the game and save face. A lesser important objective to understand the science behind GW.
> ...



That is amusing and ironic. You are still playing the game. I'm looking at the real science of basic physics, not the alt-science. 

.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am not really interested in private individuals' personal descriptions.
> ...




Hahahahaha.  Post up a quote from me where I said that.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> your issue is that the mainstream hypothesis really doesn't sound much like your own personal made up hypothesis...nor does it sound much like wuwei's, or the skid mark's either


Could you direct us to a site that clearly explains what you think is the mainstream hypothesis?


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> .
> 
> 
> SSDD said:
> ...



The references are find and accurately describe the mainstream hypothesis...your issue with them is that they don't match your made up hypothesis...yet another example of how you just make it up as you go...in this case, you made up your own version of the greenhouse hypothesis...


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Do you believe that the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warmer temperatures?  Whatever the CO2 molecule is doing with the energy, the fact remains that the energy radiated from the surface of the earth...any belief that radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warming is a de facto belief that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own energy.


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > your issue is that the mainstream hypothesis really doesn't sound much like your own personal made up hypothesis...nor does it sound much like wuwei's, or the skid mark's either
> ...



Look it up yourself...you won't be happy with any of them though because your personal made up GH hypothesis is different from the mainstream hypothesis...

And it is absolutely hilarious that you wack jobs think the science is settled when you can't even seem to find a statement of the hypothesis that suits you...the irony literally drips...


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The references are find and accurately describe the mainstream hypothesis...your issue with them is that they don't match your made up hypothesis...yet another example of how you just make it up as you go...in this case, you made up your own version of the greenhouse hypothesis..


What references are you talking about? That is my question.

.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space
> ...




This from a guy whose made NO qualification of any of his statements and has made nearly a dozen nonsensical statements of juvenile proportions now disputes that you need an atmosphere in order to have a greenhouse effect.  Do you have any formal training in science at all?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> Sorry Pollyanna but few people here change their minds on anything. It takes energy to overcome the inertia of familiar thinking and the comfort of a worldview built up over decades.
> 
> Again, the purpose of this thread is to show the dearth of easily accessible sites that give a decent explanation of the GHE, that I could send a precocious 11 year old to discover the basics.



There's not much of a chance for that, given what emerges currently, but why not make this threat the place where to "send a precocious 11 year old to discover the basics"?

Or it's just going to be yet another brawl, after thousands of instances of the exact same brawl.  I'd say, that's largely your choice as the OP.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Never mind I've talked physics a hundred times here in the past 2 years with Tards like you
> ...


Show me where I ever used the words "inputs" or "outputs" in regards to a closed system, idiot.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Whatever the CO2 molecule is doing with the energy, the fact remains that the energy radiated from the surface of the earth...any belief that radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warming is a de facto belief that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own energy


 
Whatever SSDD. By your bizarroland version of physics, a blanket doesn't keep you warm.

You create buzzwords like 'spontaneous'. The surface spontaneously radiatrs because the Sun added energy and reduces entropy. The atmosphere spontaneously radiates because the surface added energy and reduced entropy. 

I am not going to go further.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




Odd that you don't think the atmosphere can absorb heat from the Sun yet you think it can be warmed by the Earth?  Is it really that hard to understand that as Sunlight filters down from the Sun that it strikes dust particles and other particulates which are heated by the Sun and water droplets which are both heated by the Sun as well as acting like tiny spherical lenses to refract sunlight?  Any wavelength which is transparent to a material like water passes through mostly, merely being changing in direction by an alteration of its speed of propagation through the medium as a function of its refractive index while the remaining energy acts to heat the substance.  Of course, water droplets are not pure, full of contaminants and solids from the Earth, but as the wavelength becomes increasingly less transparent to the material it becomes increasingly more converted into infrared energy.  The Sun puts out far more than just visible light.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Still looking forward to any detail as to what qualification you have at all to even discuss the subject much less be taken seriously as a person of any education?  I'm all ears.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Show me where I ever used the words "inputs" or "outputs" in regards to a closed system, idiot.





toobfreak said:


> The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any *closed system* where *more infrared energy is trapped* than *released* artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached.  What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy.  It is at that point the system stops heating.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Odd that you don't think the atmosphere can absorb heat from the Sun yet you think it can be warmed by the Earth?  Is it really that hard to understand that as Sunlight filters down from the Sun that it strikes dust particles and other particulates which are heated by the Sun and water droplets which are both heated by the Sun as well as acting like tiny spherical lenses to refract sunlight?  Any wavelength which is transparent to a material like water passes through mostly, merely being changing in direction by an alteration of its speed of propagation through the medium as a function of its refractive index while the remaining energy acts to heat the substance.  Of course, water droplets are not pure, full of contaminants and solids from the Earth, but as the wavelength becomes increasingly less transparent to the material it becomes increasingly more converted into infrared energy.  The Sun puts out far more than just visible light.



Simply put: The earth's atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight.  That's why we don't live in permanent darkness on the surface, and we can catch a sunburn, too.  The atmosphere is, however, largely opaque to the infrared radiation the earth's surface is emitting.

*Greenhouse effect*

Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect. Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.

Definition courtesy of IPCC AR4.

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.​


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



I quoted you saying that solar insolation is converted to IR by the atmosphere. In fact the vast majority of solar input is absorbed by the surface and transformed there.

Did you actually mean what you said? I made sure it was quoted in context. 

Unfortunately your supposed training has not taught you to think or write critically.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Odd that you don't think the atmosphere can absorb heat from the Sun yet you think it can be warmed by the Earth?  Is it really that hard to understand that as Sunlight filters down from the Sun that it strikes dust particles and other particulates which are heated by the Sun and water droplets which are both heated by the Sun as well as acting like tiny spherical lenses to refract sunlight?  Any wavelength which is transparent to a material like water passes through mostly, merely being changing in direction by an alteration of its speed of propagation through the medium as a function of its refractive index while the remaining energy acts to heat the substance.  Of course, water droplets are not pure, full of contaminants and solids from the Earth, but as the wavelength becomes increasingly less transparent to the material it becomes increasingly more converted into infrared energy.  The Sun puts out far more than just visible light.
> ...



Thanks. 

Perhaps I expect too much. The atmosphere has an emissivity that is different  for individual bands. I find it hard to simplify down to one height, one temperature.  

To me the reason the GHE works is because the surface warms up to send more radiation through the Atmospheric Window which directly escapes to space because the atmospheric emissivity is close to zero for those bands.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

The Enhanced GHE works by raising the emission height which means a lower temperature  which in turn means less radiation produced to escape.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> To me the reason the GHE works is because the surface warms up to send more radiation through the Atmospheric Window which directly escapes to space because the atmospheric emissivity is close to zero for those bands.



Not sure I understand what you are saying here.  Have you tried to say, "The reason why the GHE *does not result in runaway heating* is because the surface warms up to send more radiation through the Atmospheric Window."  Is that it?


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Odd that you don't think the atmosphere can absorb heat from the Sun yet you think it can be warmed by the Earth?




Here is a statement taken slightly out of context.

OE is correct that the atmosphere  absorbs little of the solar insolation but does absorb a considerable fraction of surface emitted IR.

Tubesucker is more wrong than right when he focuses more on exceptions like particulates than the actual constituents.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > *highly ordered high energy wavelength solar*: What the hell is "highly ordered?" You mean circularly polarized? What? You mean phased? What is a high energy wavelength? How does frequency relate to energy? If there are any "higher energy" wavelengths, wouldn't they be the UV and SHORTER wavelengths rather than the lazy long IR wavelengths of heat? Now you are talking like you got your degree from the back of a box of Corn Flakes.
> ...




Alright.  Let's take a look at what crap is being spewed by this shithead.  Another USMB shithead who questions and refutes everyone else's qualifications and education while in usual Tard fashion, refuses to give us the slightest detail of his own.  Yet somehow we are supposed to take him seriously?

Funny, anywhere else, you tell someone you are a CPA, chemist, doctor, etc., and people accept that on the face of it.  Only here do people talk at length about all manner of subject with no qualification as to their background or experience in the matter and those that do state some qualification get soundly dismissed!  So we have those that never state any qualifications at all and those that do in the second group being dismissed by the first!

Anywhere else, in talking about economics, a person stating they are an economist is listened to, in discussing education, a person stating they are a teacher is believed, in talking about automobiles, a person giving advice stating he works as a car mechanic is listened to.  I've found that people who refuse to discuss themselves do so because they operate from a vulnerable position they wish to hide, especially when they attack and criticize others for no reason then question THEIR qualification!  Here is this "IanC" ass whose been on this board for ten years yet this is the first time I've seen him post?  A man of few posts and even fewer likes comes on here making nonsensical statement after another while attacking others who are aboveboard.  

AS the famous Albert Osborn once said, THOSE WHO EXPOSE THEIR UNDEVELOPED NATURES WOULD OF COURSE NOT DO IT IF THEY KNEW THEY WERE DOING IT.   THE TRAGEDY OF IGNORANCE IS IGNORANCE OF IT.  And here we have IanC painting himself an ignorant fool by merely allowing himself to paint himself into a corner of his own doing.

Let's lumber through IanC's statements step by step:

_*By highly ordered I mean that it is collimated. The reason why you can focus sunlight with a magnifying glass.*_  In nearly a lifetime of study of light, optics, stars, etc., I've never heard sunlight referred to as being "collimated"  -------- until NOW.  "Highly ordered."  A totally vague description which could mean anything.  Is sunlight collimated?  No.  Anything collimated is understood to be put into alignment.  Sunlight leaves the solar surface radiating outward as a spherical wavefront.  The Sun is no more collimated than any other radiative body.  It arrives at the Earth sensibly parallel only because of the great distance it has traveled resulting in the fact that we are sampling so small a surface area of its spherical front that any given portion appears to us as planar.  A lens would focus sunlight in any regard being a converging (biconvex) lens, perhaps to a different focus unless the light was wholly diffuse, making IanC's claim that sunlight is "highly ordered," or collimated, nonsensical, or as they say on the street:  HORSESHIT.  No one with any real sense or understanding of light or optics would refer to sunlight in this way unless they were just trying to pass on sophisticated sounding jargon hoping to impress.  Try searching for the term: Collimated Sunlight and see what you get.  Conclusion:  BUSTED.
_*High energy wavelength?  We can tell the temperature of a distant star by the proportions of the radiation reaching us. A hotter star has the capability of producing higher energy  photons than a cooler star. But the main clue is the amount produced at specific bands. Hot produces more radiation, at higher energy wavelengths on average.*_  "High energy wavelength," a clumsy terminology.  High energy refers to short wavelengths, x-rays, gamma rays, etc.  Wavelength is normally referred to by it's length not by its energy, which here is totally open to asking what constitutes "high energy" in IanC's mind?  For all intents and purposes, I can only assume he was intending to refer to blue light and UV light, the SHORTER end of the Sun's primary spectrum. As for the bit about judging stellar temperature, it is not done by the "proportions of the radiation," producing higher energy," etc., it is done by simple spectral analysis of the star's color spectrum in what is referred to as its spectral and luminosity classification, according to Hertzsprung-Russel, along the main sequence typically known as OBAFGKM, with a type O star being the hottest and bluest.  This is a function of the star's apparent blackbody radiation.  The DEGREE of radiation (intrinsic brightness) we cannot know directly, a stars distance must be inferred by parallax or other means (t tauri stars etc.).  Not sure how any of this relates to our thread topic here, but once again, IanC shows himself to be rather cavalier in his jargon as if he were talking down to us trying to make it simple enough to understand when in reality it simply sounds like he has a far less than perfect understanding himself.  For what it's worth, the Sun is a yellow dwarf, a type G3 star if I remember right.  The reason why our eyes are keyed to be most sensitive to around 550 nm wavelength, the yellow-green, or put another way, the color of grass and most stuff growing around us.  Conclusion:  BUSTED.  IanC sounds like he is just trying to repeat stuff he barely understands himself.
*Diffuse longwave? For wavelengths directly escaping through the Atmospheric Window the radiation is somewhat ordered because the photons only travel in a direct line away from the surface. Radiation absorbed and emitted by GHGs is totally scattered in all directions. *Eeya.  I'll skip over the reference to "diffuse longwave" because again, it is so vague a term as to again sound like empty jargon.  I can only assume he was trying to say scattered IR light.    Generally, all IR is scattered.  "Atmospheric Window," another jargon phrase sounding like a "tech-speak" term hoping to impress presumed to be an attempt to refer to that percentage of energy re-radiated back out into space.  BTW, all light travels in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force (intense gravitational warping of the space it is in, going through some refractive medium like air, glass, etc).  It should be noted that even in warped time-space, light is still traveling in a straight line, relative to the space it is in.  As to radiation being "somewhat ordered" because photons only travel in a straight line away from the surface," again, HORSESHIT, radiation traveling in a straight line away from the Earth's surface means it is traveling in all directions outward spherically, the exact OPPOSITE of what he initially claimed, not unlike the GHG radiations going in all directions he refers to as scattered in his very next sentence!  And unless you can show me a study done where they measured Earth energy radiating into space from out in space by a probe to determine that it all radiate at a right angle to the Earth's surface (directly away and not at some random angles), I must call BULLSHIT to this claim as well.  Conclusion:  BUSTED.  More techno-jargon half-baked crap spoken by some clown who read a few articles or books on a subject and now thinks himself an expert.
_*Entropy is a fairly difficult concept. If we are having problems coming to agreement on simple concepts it would be a waste of time to skip ahead several levels.*_   Ahha.  I was studying entropy as a schoolboy.  Entropy of matter is a rather big question in cosmology in deciding the ultimate fate and timescale of the universe.  In the context of this discussion, it is assumed to mean the gradual decay of energy and/or order in an ordered system to a state of total DIS-order and total unpredictability (statistical or otherwise).  Was this the "fairly difficult concept" that was just too far over our heads to verbalize, son?
*Conclusions:*  If IanC knows anything at all about climate, atmospherics, gases, light, etc., it would seem to be that of an amateur on a grade school level. If you tell me you actually work in the field, it would not bode well for the general "science."  Mind you, I do not even claim to be an expert at all on climate, climate change, etc., though I have studied weather extensively along with the aforementioned general physics and optical science, but I'm no dummy, I have yet to read or hear any model of why we should think the Earth is coming to a disastrous end of irreconcilable changes due simply to a few years of industrial production in lieu of what the Earth routinely deals with that ever meets the common sense test, and anyone I've ever discussed the matter with or listened to, the more caught up they are in it the more they seem bent on just selling me an unprovable model which very imperfectly represents the Earth.

Climate is always changing, always has been, and every factor touted as being responsible by man has been present to a far greater degree before without us.  If the Earth warms a little, if some of the ice melts, if the oceans rise a few cm, they have before and they will do so again, with or without us.  What amazes me is how mankind has built all this stuff right along the water's edge with NO THOUGHT or planning or apparent consideration that shit goes up and down!  Now we are shitting ourselves because the sea has risen a few centimeters?  It's another century before mankind can dare call himself "green" and you cannot force it.  For now, if you want to cut production of agents to reduce GHG particulates, you need to slowly reduce human population, simple as that.  ITMT, the Earth will adjust as it always does, the question is, can mankind?


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

Wow that is the most verbose diatribe I have ever seen at USMB.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I meant to add this diagram before but got caught up in writing another post.  For all the asshats like cnm and IanC who have a problem understanding that our atmosphere CONVERTS solar energy to infrared, here is a diagram:





The atmosphere blocks a full 30% of the direct incoming solar flux with a full 18% of that ABSORBED.  HOW is it absorbed?  It can only be absorbed as heat energy (converted to IR), thereby raising the energy state of the ensuing matter (raising valence electron energy to a higher level).  All those who scoffed at this are hereby busted again as just more climatology asshats with no real understanding of physics.  BTW, if you want the source or more info to read on sunlight, greenhouse effect and related topics, you can do so here:

www.eng.uc.edu/~beaucag/Classes/SolarPowerForAfrica/BookPartsPVTechnical/Sunlight_01.pdf


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2019)

well a greenhouse is a house with glass.  it's effect is to cause plants to grow.  Plants grow all over the globe.  moisture and warmth with sun do quite a lot.  The arctic and antarctic don't work cause you can't get to soil, and instead you get the reverse, snow and ice. don't recall snow and ice in a greenhouse.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Wow that is the most verbose diatribe I have ever seen at USMB.




TRANSLATION:  You can't dispute the material so again, attack the messenger.  Probably more substance in my one post there than all 3,400 of yours.


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Wow. It didn't take long for this thread to be hijacked from GHE explanations to arctic ice.


how can you have arctic ice if you have a greenhouse effect? so when you go to a greenhouse with plants, there's ice in the building?  hmmmm show me where


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. It didn't take long for this thread to be hijacked from GHE explanations to arctic ice.
> ...


funny, cause no one can actually find a greenhouse effect cause there is actual ice on two ends of the globe.  how can you say greenhouse and ice in the same sentence other than making a  point?


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> I meant to add this diagram


Look up Trenberth Diagram. for a more complete picture that I think is "sanctioned" by the IPCC. However some of the deniers here scoff at Trenberth.



toobfreak said:


> ...raising valence electron energy to a higher level...



That is not part of the greenhouse effect. That happens with shorter wave energy, but cannot happen with thermal radiation from the earth. The valence states are unaffected. It's the vibration states of triatomic molecules that can absorb radiation given by the LWIR from the earth. It is that energy range that is important in the GHE. ( Molecules with more than 3 elements also have vibration modes.)

.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> The atmosphere blocks a full 30% of the direct incoming solar flux with a full 18% of that ABSORBED. HOW is it absorbed? It can only be absorbed as heat energy (converted to IR), thereby raising the energy state of the ensuing matter (raising valence electron energy to a higher level). All those who scoffed at this are hereby busted again as just more climatology asshats with no real understanding of physics.



It may surprise you to learn that, but everyone posting on here (as far as I can see them) knows that.

Those 18% compare to the 77% of sunlight warming the surface PLUS another roughly 100% of back radiation doing the same, how?

Which is why we say, sunlight *largely* warms the surface, which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario).  That doesn't mean the sun doesn't warm the atmosphere directly, just that it's a small part of the overall energy flux.

See:


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > I meant to add this diagram
> ...



It can be applied to ANY atom that absorbs energy, as shown here:

Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons

"The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the valence shell are valence electrons. Valence electrons are the highest energy electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive. While inner electrons (those not in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds. For this reason, elements with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way. The Periodic Table was designed with this feature in mind. Each element has a number of valence electrons equal to its group number on the Periodic Table."

===========================================================================
I knew about this from High School Chemistry class, around 1978.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > I meant to add this diagram
> ...


Simple enough model.  Unprovable.  Obviously a source for a lot of the internalized climatological jargon I see thrown around here.



toobfreak said:


> ...raising valence electron energy to a higher level...





> That is not part of the greenhouse effect. That happens with shorter wave energy, but cannot happen with thermal radiation from the earth. The valence states are unaffected. It's the vibration states of triatomic molecules that can absorb radiation given by the LWIR from the earth. It is that energy range that is important in the GHE. ( Molecules with more than 3 elements also have vibration modes.).



Be clear that I did not say that any electrons were risen to the next stable energy shell or forced to leave the atom.  Any material heated is absorbed energy in the form of greater vibrational energy in the electron cloud, triatomic or otherwise.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Wow that is the most verbose diatribe I have ever seen at USMB.
> ...





Wuwei said:


> Wow that is the most verbose diatribe I have ever seen at USMB.



What I meant by that is your unnecessary and lengthy references to the Hertzsprung Russell diagram and general relativity, etc. etc.


.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere blocks a full 30% of the direct incoming solar flux with a full 18% of that ABSORBED. HOW is it absorbed? It can only be absorbed as heat energy (converted to IR), thereby raising the energy state of the ensuing matter (raising valence electron energy to a higher level). All those who scoffed at this are hereby busted again as just more climatology asshats with no real understanding of physics.
> ...



"which radiates back to warm the surface more..."

This incorrect since that specific energy flow  first *LEFT* the surface to be absorbed again then radiated back down, thereby NO additional increase in warming happened. You can't create energy out of nothing.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere blocks a full 30% of the direct incoming solar flux with a full 18% of that ABSORBED. HOW is it absorbed? It can only be absorbed as heat energy (converted to IR), thereby raising the energy state of the ensuing matter (raising valence electron energy to a higher level). All those who scoffed at this are hereby busted again as just more climatology asshats with no real understanding of physics.
> ...




Then what is the problem?  I said the atmosphere converts solar energy to IR, I never said it converted ALL OF IT.  I was trying to make a very brief and very concise statement which fairly described the relationship between the Earth-Sun which constituted the overall general concept of greenhouse warming, which is what the OP seemed to be asking for, not write a doctoral on the subject.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Any material heated is absorbed energy in the form of greater vibrational energy in the electron cloud, triatomic or otherwise.


The vibration classically is more like a tuning fork. It is not the electron cloud that has the vibration. The nuclei are vibrating.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




You think that was lengthy?  I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy.  I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> You think that was lengthy? I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy. I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.


It was totally irrelevant and for this thread lengthy. 


.


----------



## Crixus (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed.  You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.
> 
> I then specifically searched for the IPCC version. Imagine my surprise when 'denier' sites were the major places of discussion.
> 
> ...




That it’s largely bullshit.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Any material heated is absorbed energy in the form of greater vibrational energy in the electron cloud, triatomic or otherwise.
> ...




True.  The atom as a whole is vibrating in the sense of a classical particle, the nucleus being the lion's share, but the immediate effect is that there are only so many ways an atom can store more energy.  Eventually it will cause electrons to rise to higher energy states or leave the atom altogether as they are really the only part of the atom moving capable of changing energy states.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > You think that was lengthy? I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy. I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.
> ...



Who wrote this, Toobfreak replied to?

*"High energy wavelength? We can tell the temperature of a distant star by the proportions of the radiation reaching us. A hotter star has the capability of producing higher energy photons than a cooler star. But the main clue is the amount produced at specific bands. Hot produces more radiation, at higher energy wavelengths on average."*

It was very relevant since H-R Diagram classification is connected to distance, wavelength and energy outflow of stars. 

You are stumbling all over the place now.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > You think that was lengthy? I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy. I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.
> ...



No it wasn't.  It makes for more thorough and interesting reading by fleshing out the topic.  And the topic was stellar temperature which the H-R charts.  I've written four textbooks on science BTW, have you written any?  Everything in my post was what I wanted to say, part to make a point, part to qualify my statements.  Many people here talk but I seem to be one of the few willing to actually qualify himself.  No one made you read it.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




IanC the OP wrote the part in bold.  Is it any wonder why my head is splitting open?


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Yeah, but raking them over the coals can be therapeutic too....., I do that with some of the warmists who regulary post embarrassing nonsense.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Then what is the problem?  I said the atmosphere converts solar energy to IR, I never said it converted ALL OF IT.  I was trying to make a very brief and very concise statement which fairly described the relationship between the Earth-Sun which constituted the overall general concept of greenhouse warming, which is what the OP seemed to be asking for, not write a doctoral on the subject.



The problem is manifold.  You misstated the GHE by raising the impression that all or most of the sun's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and converted by it into IR radiation.  That's not the case, and whatever portion of sunlight the atmosphere absorbs, it's not part of the GHE.  That was on top of describing it as a "closed system".

You are, with all due respect, not in a position to write a doctoral on the matter (none of us is).  So, why not make this a place of cooperative learning, as opposed to defecating in each others' shoes and claiming victory?

_____________________________________

Oh, and *SunsetTommy*, don't stop reading where you find it convenient, okay?

"which radiates back to warm the surface more * (compared to a non-GHG scenario)*."

This incorrect since that specific energy flow LEFT the surface to be absorbed then radiated back down, thereby NO additional increase in warming happened. You can't create energy out of nothing.​


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> True. The atom as a whole is vibrating in the sense of a classical particle, the nucleus being the lion's share, but the immediate effect is that there are only so many ways an atom can store more energy. Eventually it will cause electrons to rise to higher energy states or leave the atom altogether as they are really the only part of the atom moving capable of changing energy states.


The plethora of atomic energy levels is not relevant to the GHE. (Neither is stellar astronomy.) The point is that at earth temperatures the vibration mode is the only one that is excited in GH molecules by the BB radiation from the earth.

.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > To me the reason the GHE works is because the surface warms up to send more radiation through the Atmospheric Window which directly escapes to space because the atmospheric emissivity is close to zero for those bands.
> ...



Nope. But I did garble my message somewhat.

There are two parts to this CO2 global warming problem.

The original GHE that stored energy in the atmosphere and warmed it but was at equilibrium for longer periods like a year.

Now we are trying to figure out the Enhanced GHE caused by adding more GHGs to the atmosphere. What do you think happens? Seriously, what happens and in what order?

Adding 'some' more CO2 doesn't immediately affect the surface. The surface is still producing the same amount of CO2 reactive radiation. Does it warm the near surface atmosphere? Maybe by an undetectable amount. Instead of all the 15 micron radiation being absorbed to extinction in the first 10 metres it now only takes 9.99 metres. But the atmosphere is being mixed by convection. Remember, the surface


toobfreak said:


> Alright. Let's take a look at what crap is being spewed by this shithead. Another USMB shithead who questions and refutes everyone else's qualifications and education while in usual Tard fashion, refuses to give us the slightest detail of his own. Yet somehow we are supposed to take him seriously?




A variation on the logic fault 'appeal to authority'.

Thoughts and ideas stand on their own worth, not by the person speaking them.

I am not going to make any claims as to my edication because I am unwilling to prove it. Just that simple.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Then what is the problem?  I said the atmosphere converts solar energy to IR, I never said it converted ALL OF IT.  I was trying to make a very brief and very concise statement which fairly described the relationship between the Earth-Sun which constituted the overall general concept of greenhouse warming, which is what the OP seemed to be asking for, not write a doctoral on the subject.
> ...



Here is the ENTIRE sentence YOU wrote:

"Which is why we say, sunlight *largely* warms the surface, which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario)."

You clearly say this, "which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more..."

Stop playing word games fella, since you didn't say WHAT the comparison was in detail, so I ignored it.

My answer was correct which you didn't contest at all:

 "This incorrect since that specific energy flow LEFT the surface to be absorbed then radiated back down, thereby NO additional increase in warming happened. You can't create energy out of nothing."


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> You misstated the GHE by raising the impression that all or most of the sun's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere


Never said anything close to that.  Only an IDIOT would think or assume that the air absorbed all of the sun's energy!  How could you get a suntan then?  How would the surface warm?  Sunlight would be cold!   In fact, there would BE no sunlight!  Earth would be dark.  Ridiculous.




> You are, with all due respect, not in a position to write a doctoral on the matter


Again, WHERE DID I EVER EVEN SUGGEST THAT?  My background (as pertains here) is in general physics and material science, electricity, optics and electronics.  I've stated that repeatedly.  Far more than anyone else here has qualified.  I've repeatedly stated that I'm NOT an expert on climate or climatology.  Not even an enthusiast.  Bores the snot out of me.  My interest in climate is mainly historical and the only reason why I venture into these threads at all is because none of the climate change global warming theories, models or claims I ever see or read pass the Common Sense Test.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Stop playing word games fella, since you didn't say WHAT the comparison was in detail, so I ignored it.



Is there something about "compared to a non-GHG scenario" that is difficult to understand?  Really?


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> _*By highly ordered I mean that it is collimated. The reason why you can focus sunlight with a magnifying glass.*_ In nearly a lifetime of study of light, optics, stars, etc., I've never heard sunlight referred to as being "collimated" -------- until NOW. "Highly ordered." A totally vague description which could mean anything. Is sunlight collimated? No.




You dont like my descriptive words? Hahahahaha.  So what?

Solar insolation reaches the Earth in a highly ordered state, collimated.

That is why solar panels are 'aimed' at the Sun. That is why plant leafs 'follow' the Sun across the sky.

An interesting thought. Could you go up close to the Sun and magnify the light so that it was more intense than the surface? The answer is suprisingly simple.


Edit- TF said "Collimated Sunlight and see what you get. Conclusion: BUSTED." What it actually means is that my thoughts and words are my own.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> Now we are trying to figure out the Enhanced GHE caused by adding more GHGs to the atmosphere. What do you think happens? Seriously, what happens and in what order?
> 
> Adding 'some' more CO2 doesn't immediately affect the surface. The surface is still producing the same amount of CO2 reactive radiation. Does it warm the near surface atmosphere? Maybe by an undetectable amount. Instead of all the 15 micron radiation being absorbed to extinction in the first 10 metres it now only takes 9.99 metres. But the atmosphere is being mixed by convection.



What happens is, as you said, the reduction in the mean free path of photons.

Say, originally within 2 meters 50% of IR radiation is caught.

Add more CO₂ - reduce the mean free path to 1.95 meters.  That means that near surface atmosphere becomes proportionally hotter, and back radiation rises accordingly.

Yes, convection matters, but in both scenarios.  As more heat is transported upward by it, higher levels of the atmosphere also become warmer, also resulting in higher back radiation compared to the original scenario.

Remember also we're not adding a little bit of CO₂ but are on the way to a 50% increase compared to pre-industrial times.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Stop playing word games fella, since you didn't say WHAT the comparison was in detail, so I ignored it.
> ...



You can't be that stupid, since you provide ZERO information about what that non-GHG scenario is in the first place, which is WHY I ignored it.

I quote you:

" (compared to a non-GHG scenario)"  which is never explained at all in your entire post:

Here is all of the words of YOUR post:

"It may surprise you to learn that, but everyone posting on here (as far as I can see them) knows that.

Those 18% compare to the 77% of sunlight warming the surface PLUS another roughly 100% of back radiation doing the same, how?

Which is why we say, sunlight *largely* warms the surface, which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario). That doesn't mean the sun doesn't warm the atmosphere directly, just that it's a small part of the overall energy flux."

No detail on what that non-GHG scenario consist of is found.

This statement is wrong and YOU know it since you have yet to make a cogent reply to it.

"which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more..."


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Again, WHERE DID I EVER EVEN SUGGEST THAT?



"which is what the OP seemed to be asking for, not write a doctoral on the subject."  You then went on to claim you've determined that the climate models you see melt away under the scrutiny you apply to them.  That isn't just a "doctoral", that would be Nobel Prize-worthy.

Do you realize how often you are asking, "Where did I write / suggest that?"  Isn't that a hassle?  Why not check your verbiage before you unleash it, so that others have less of an opportunity to rub your nose in it?  Wouldn't that be smart?


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Moron,



IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > _*By highly ordered I mean that it is collimated. The reason why you can focus sunlight with a magnifying glass.*_ In nearly a lifetime of study of light, optics, stars, etc., I've never heard sunlight referred to as being "collimated" -------- until NOW. "Highly ordered." A totally vague description which could mean anything. Is sunlight collimated? No.
> ...


In science, clear formulation of language is of paramount importance therefore you are not a scientist.  You just don't pick descriptors out of the air.



> Solar insolation reaches the Earth in a highly ordered state, collimated.


Still horseshit unless you can link us to a credible scientific article that STATES THAT.  Sorry, you don't get tio make up shit.



> That is why solar panels are 'aimed' at the Sun. That is why plant leafs 'follow' the Sun across the sky.


WRONG, Commander Proton.  All that shows is that sunlight is DIRECTIONAL.  The efficiency of a solar photovoltaic cell drops off precipitously with the angle of incidence due to the substrate and surface reflection.  Similar for plants that by facing the Sun, they better capture the maximum energy due to cellular leaf construction by reducing incidence to zero.  BIG difference between directional light and "collimated" energy, son, you ought to go read a little on collimation.  Again, if you can show me one science article that refers to sunlight as collimated, I'd be impressed.  So far, all you've produced is a lot of talk out your ass.

delete nonsense


----------



## jc456 (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Again, WHERE DID I EVER EVEN SUGGEST THAT?
> ...


when you got nothing, to argue with, too fking funny.  Ian has no clue what he's asking for.  he thinks  gases warms the planet with radiation rather than conduction.  hmmmmmm.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Do you realize how often you are asking, "Where did I write / suggest that?"  Isn't that a hassle?



Soooooo................  in other words, OE, I NEVER SAID IT and you are putting words in people's mouths they never said because you don't read well and infer shit then put it on THEM to explain.  Otherwise you'd copy and link us to where I actually SAID any of the shit you keep trying to divert to.  It's a far bigger hassle to have someone argue against something you never even said, refuse to show where you ever said it, put the onus on YOU to prove you never said it, then say they can't be bothered to prove their own claims!  That is the words of an idiot.

If you can't stick to what people actually SAY and STATE, if you can't even provide proof to your own claims, then you're obviously in no position to debate anything here.  Go take a pill and lay down.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Which is why we say, sunlight largely warms the surface, which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario). That doesn't mean the sun doesn't warm the atmosphere directly, just that it's a small part of the overall energy flux."
> 
> No detail on what that non-GHG scenario consist of is found.
> 
> This statement is wrong and YOU know it since you have yet to make a cogent reply to it.



There is no cogent reply to your failure to understand to what was simple English - other than to point out your failure to understand.  A non-GHG scenario is, quite obviously, an earth without GreenHouse Gasses in the atmosphere.  I didn't think that was in any way problematic.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize how often you are asking, "Where did I write / suggest that?"  Isn't that a hassle?
> ...



Yeah, you went all haughty and implied you could write a "doctoral", and you could competently judge the validity of climate models, and now you are fiercely back-pedaling.  That's fine.  Have at it, Freak.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why we say, sunlight largely warms the surface, which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario). That doesn't mean the sun doesn't warm the atmosphere directly, just that it's a small part of the overall energy flux."
> ...



Sigh,

_I am aware of that_, what *YOU* can't figure out is that you repeatedly post ZERO details of the non-GHG scenario, you called it a SCENARIO after all...…………..., so where are the numbers?

You are still wrong anyway since the GHG part of your statement is absurd:

"Which is why we say, sunlight *largely* warms the surface, which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more..."

My reply is still correct:

"This is incorrect since that specific energy flow first *LEFT* the surface to be absorbed again then radiated back down, thereby NO additional increase in warming happened."

You can stop now since you have NEVER countered me at all.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> _*High energy wavelength? We can tell the temperature of a distant star by the proportions of the radiation reaching us. A hotter star has the capability of producing higher energy photons than a cooler star. But the main clue is the amount produced at specific bands. Hot produces more radiation, at higher energy wavelengths on average.*_ "High energy wavelength," a clumsy terminology. High energy refers to short wavelengths, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. Wavelength is normally referred to by it's length not by its energy, which here is totally open to asking what constitutes "high energy" in IanC's mind? For all intents and purposes, I can only assume he was intending to refer to blue light and UV light, the SHORTER end of the Sun's primary spectrum. As for the bit about judging stellar temperature, it is not done by the "proportions of the radiation," producing higher energy," etc., it is done by simple spectral analysis of the star's color spectrum in what is referred to as its spectral and luminosity classification, according to Hertzsprung-Russel




You don't like my terminology? So what.

I say many things here in words that are more likely to be understood. When it comes to EMR, high energy and short wavelength are opposite sides of the same coin. Perhaps you would rather me use wavenumbers instead of microns. Hahahahaha.






Here are the curves for three different temperatures. The range is very similar for all three. The amounts per wavelength vary considerably.

Why are you acting like my answers and explanations make no sense? Jealous because you can't do the same?


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Again, WHERE DID I EVER EVEN SUGGEST THAT?
> ...




Wow.  Total black and white disjunctive reasoning.  What has not intending to write a detailed dissertation on something, clearly never my initial intention have to do with finding climate theory failing to meet the common sense test as has been repeatedly shown here a hundred times?  In fact, only a month or two ago, I showed where a top study indicated the Earth has endured something like 1300X more GHG as all output since mankind industrialized!  Never mind.  Rhetorical question to an idiot.  I see now why these threads always fall down into pointless ad hominem bickering, it is because they get hijacked by idiots like you who invariably make it about the individual rather than the topic, all the while an OP and others who've made dozens of indefensible statements of technical inaccuracy as pointed out.  I refuse to be sucked into another pointless shit-throwing contest again when clearly, neither the OP, you or anyone else here has shown ANY evidence to convince me we need to go back into the Dark Ages to save the planet.  Good Lord, now they are claiming the sea will rise 6 feet.  Anything to sell that carbon crap nonsense.  Good night.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Yeah, you went all haughty and implied you could write a "doctoral",



You're an idiot.  To stupid to waste time on..  NO WHERE did I ever imply I could write a doctoral, especially considering I stated several times I'm not even an enthusiast much less expert in the field!    Only a drooling moron would infer from any of that I intended or could write a doctoral on a subject I don't even care about.   The entire climate thing is a fraud.  It was shown so years ago when all those emails were exposed in Europe showing where a bunch of climate mongers were all fudging the data to make it come out saying what they wanted.  And if an idiot like you is representative of their ilk, they will lose the battle.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> It can be applied to ANY atom that absorbs energy, as shown here:
> 
> Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons
> 
> "The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the valence shell are valence electrons. Valence electrons are the highest energy electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive. While inner electrons (those not in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds. For this reason, elements with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way. The Periodic Table was designed with this feature in mind. Each element has a number of valence electrons equal to its group number on the Periodic Table."


Yes, elementary but irrelevant. As I said several times already. Those higher energy transitions in atoms or molecules are not involved in the GHE. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> The entire climate thing is a fraud.


Entire climate thing? Are you thinking the physical basis of the GHE is fraudulent? If so, can you be more specific?

.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> *Diffuse longwave? For wavelengths directly escaping through the Atmospheric Window the radiation is somewhat ordered because the photons only travel in a direct line away from the surface. Radiation absorbed and emitted by GHGs is totally scattered in all directions. *Eeya. I'll skip over the reference to "diffuse longwave" because again, it is so vague a term as to again sound like empty jargon. I can only assume he was trying to say scattered IR light. Generally, all IR is scattered. "Atmospheric Window," another jargon phrase sounding like a "tech-speak" term hoping to impress presumed to be an attempt to refer to that percentage of energy re-radiated back out into space.








The atmospheric window is 8 microns to 14 microns. With the exception of the ozone notch all wavelengths escape directly from the surface, with no interaction to the atmosphere. 

The wavelengths that interact with GHGs come out of the atmosphere at higher (and colder) altitudes. The GHG wavelengths are absorbed and emitted  continuously during the migration upwards. That is why I called them diffuse, they are moving in all directions. 

Why do I have to explain all this simple stuff to you? You assured us that you were a trained physicist.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> Why do I have to explain all this simple stuff to you? You assured us that you were a trained physicist.



*I've only asked you to explain one thing* to me clown, SHOW ME A LINK to a scientific article that sites sunlight as collimated light.  You haven't.  As to the rest, you've not shown you are trained in anything but dog catcher, so I listen to nothing you say.  Any butt munch can produce a chart of wavy lines and the words "greenhouse effect."  OF COURSE there is a greenhouse effect you Idiot!  Without it, Earth would be as cold as the North Pole.  Wow.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > It can be applied to ANY atom that absorbs energy, as shown here:
> ...



You are making a fool of yourself since IN the link shows that ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it. It is clear you didn't read the link, it would have saved you here.



 

Here is one for Carbon:


Electrons always fill orbitals of lower energy first. 1_s_ is filled before 2_s,_ and 2_s_ before 2_p._
The Pauli Exclusion Principle states no two electrons within a particular atom can have identical quantum numbers. In function, this principle means that if two electrons occupy the same orbital, they must have opposite spin.
Hund's Rule states that when an electron joins an atom and has to choose between two or more orbitals of the same energy, the electron will prefer to enter an empty orbital rather than one already occupied. As more electrons are added to the atom, these electrons tend to half-fill orbitals of the same energy before pairing with existing electrons to fill orbitals.



 
Figure %: The ground state electron configuration of carbon, which has a total of six electrons. The configuration is determined by applying the rules of the Aufbau Principle. 

GHG all have Valence electrons in them, stop fighting the evidence!


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> You assured us that you were a trained physicist.



You know, it's funny.  I run an astronomy forum FULL of professionals, from retired cops to engineers, technicians, doctors to research scientists.  When the topic comes up what any one of us does for a living, no one ever questions their education or work.  It's self evident in talking to them!  People of good standing don't go around expecting others to be making up such stuff.

If you're sitting in a waiting room and you overhear someone talking about their Lexus and you happen to own one too, you might say:  "How do you like it?" or "Which model did you get?"  Not:  "Oh I think you're just making it up."

You're failure to understand physics is a BROAD discipline covering nearly the full gamut of scientific fields and that every physicist specializes in certain areas, especially the ONES I'VE LISTED, your utter refusal to state any education, background, work or training you have or have done, and the way it bothers you so much I told you mine, like you FREEKING RESENT IT, ENVY IT, like it was some high, unobtainable goal as if I claimed to be a billionaire, only goes to prove once again that *you're an utter sham.*

If you had any kind of real science degree and actually worked in a related science field where you KNEW what you were talking about with climatology, you wouldn't think anything of another person stating their background or field!  Especially if it might be along similar lines.

You said if I showed my diplomas you'd consider it-- -- -- -- Horseshit.  You have no diplomas to show and you never were considering it, otherwise you would have never thrown that condition in as a backdoor excuse to later use as a way of getting out of it.  You said you never reveal any personal info, well, saying you work in, say, forestry, isn't revealing any "personal" info;  such statements are merely a ruse at not saying anything about themselves that can be later attacked or criticized by people like you, much less have to be remembered later on so that you don't forget and contradict yourself.  Honest people don't need to worry about that because the truth is the truth and so you don't ever have to go back and remember a thing, not to mention I've discussed my background in at least a dozen threads I'd bet.  Go back and find a contradiction.

You're a LIAR, a SHAM and a FRAUD.  That is why you hide behind a veil of anonymity while attacking others who do not.  You are just one more ass-biscuit armchair nothing disgruntled wannabe that seems to gravitate to this forum claiming and promising the world while never actually delivering anything of substance.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> You are making a fool of yourself since IN the link shows that ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it.



It's pretty hard Tommy to be a normal elemental atom and NOT have a valence electron, isn't it?    Otherwise that would kinda make you into an ion or maybe an alpha particle, etc.  

I find it funny that all the climate believers, all they ever produce is diagrams from one of their pet climate studies which are in question to begin with, while all the climate deniers always present hard facts and documented science which the believers can never answer!


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it. It is clear you didn't read the link, it would have saved you here.  .... etc...
> GHG all have Valence electrons in them, stop fighting the evidence!.



This was my reply:
_Yes, elementary but irrelevant. As I said several times already. Those higher energy transitions in atoms or molecules are not involved in the GHE. _

I already said it is irrelevant to the GHE.  You don't have to keep posting elementary Quantum Mechanics 101.  There is no point in it. Read my reply again. 


.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > You are making a fool of yourself since IN the link shows that ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it.
> ...



My gosh, you are really creating a strawman.  Maybe you can tell me why you or tommy thinks the atomic energy levels and valance electrons are an important part of the GHE. Of course it is fundamental in the chemistry of molecules, but my topic was about the vibration modes of those molecules. We are one step beyond the atomic physics.

Ions? That doesn't happen with the micron level radiation from the earth. Yes yes, I know lightning creates ions, but you guys are off in a tangent.


.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Why do I have to explain all this simple stuff to you? You assured us that you were a trained physicist.
> ...



Why did you link to my post refuting your understanding of the Atmospheric Window,  when all you are doing is whinging about collimation again?

*Collimated light*
light whose rays are parallel, and therefore will spread minimally as it propagates

I think that is a reasonable description of sunlight arriving at the Earth. If you want to use a different word then you are free to do so.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> You're a LIAR, a SHAM and a FRAUD. That is why you hide behind a veil of anonymity while attacking others who do not. You are just one more ass-biscuit armchair nothing disgruntled wannabe that seems to gravitate to this forum claiming and promising the world while never actually delivering anything of substance.




A LIAR, a SHAM, and a FRAUD!

Hahahahaha.  And your proof is that I wont make any claims about my education or career before I retired.

I think you should visit a mental healthcare professional for assessment.


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...





toobfreak said:


> The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached. What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy. It is at that point the system stops heating.


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> To me the reason the GHE works is because the surface warms up to send more radiation through the Atmospheric Window which directly escapes to space because the atmospheric emissivity is close to zero for those bands.


I cannot make sense of that. Is it phrased correctly?


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > You misstated the GHE by raising the impression that all or most of the sun's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere
> ...


My interpretation of your statement is that you said exactly that. "the MECHANISM" and "It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation" is pretty unequivocal.



toobfreak said:


> What an idiot you seem to be. Do you have any formal education in the sciences? If so, what is it and have you asked them for a refund? The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space. The rest of your "fat cell diet theory" apparently went right over your head.


----------



## cnm (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Again, if you [IanC] can show me one science article that refers to sunlight as collimated, I'd be impressed. So far, all you've produced is a lot of talk out your ass.


I was taught in secondary school that sunlight is regarded as effectively parallel. Were you not? After all, parallel is what collimated means.

edit...Oh, done I see.


----------



## Wuwei (May 22, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> It's pretty hard Tommy to be a normal elemental atom and NOT have a valence electron, isn't it?  Otherwise that would kinda make you into an ion or maybe an alpha particle, etc.
> 
> I find it funny that all the climate believers, all they ever produce is diagrams from one of their pet climate studies which are in question to begin with, while all the climate deniers always present hard facts and documented science which the believers can never answer!



OK I will play your little game. A 15 micron photon has an energy of 0.0827 eV. However the energy in a covalent bond 20 to 100 times that. So the 15 micron CO2 emission can't possibly affect the covalent bond.

So now maybe you can tell me why you think valence is so important in the GWE.


.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it. It is clear you didn't read the link, it would have saved you here.  .... etc...
> ...


 
It IS relevant since CO2, DUE to the 16 Valence Electrons set up can absorb IR photons.

*"Bonding in Carbon Dioxide*
From the Lewis structure we can see that the carbon in CO2 must make 2 sigma bonds and it has no lone pairs. This atom will be 2sp hybridized with remaining 2px and 2py atomic orbitals."








The 16 valence electrons fill through the 2 pi bonding orbitals so there is a full double bond between carbon and each oxygen. 


from Wikipedia:

"Similar to an electron in an inner shell, *a valence electron has the ability to absorb or release energy in the form of a photon*. An energy gain can trigger an electron to move (jump) to an outer shell; this is known as atomic excitation. Or the electron can even break free from its associated atom's valence shell; this is ionization to form a positive ion. When an electron loses energy (thereby causing a photon to be emitted), then it can move to an inner shell which is not fully occupied."

_bolding and size increase mine_

IR is known as a PHOTON 

Animation from NCAR shows this simple vibrational process:





That's ONE Carbon atom in the middle and TWO Oxygen atoms on the outside.

Like I said before they are indeed involved.

You can stop ignoring the hard evidence.


----------



## IanC (May 22, 2019)

cnm said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > To me the reason the GHE works is because the surface warms up to send more radiation through the Atmospheric Window which directly escapes to space because the atmospheric emissivity is close to zero for those bands.
> ...




It has to be read in context. I disagreed with the statement on how the atmosphere warmed.

IR output is reduced when CO2 concentration is increased and the emission height moves upwards into a colder part of the atmosphere. 

The surface/atmosphere system stores the energy that did not escape, leading to a system wide temperature increase. 

Increased surface temperature produces more radiation that escapes through the AW and equilibrium is restored.

Remember,  every increase in any GHG will push the emission height higher into a colder region of the atmosphere.  This reduces IR output to space. It must be compensated for in IR bands that bypass the atmosphere and GHGs.

The other important thing to remember is that there is no 'new' energy being created. The energy is exactly the same amount that was not released to space.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Still waiting for you to show me ONE EXAMPLE of that term "collimated light" being used in science literature.  You don't just pull the word "collimated" out of thin air!  If you can't then it invalidates everything else you claim as well as being made up!

FRAUD!

CHARLATAN!

What makes your opinions on climate change anymore valid than a shoe salesman's?


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...




My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot.  Always has been.  Always will.  Just one more unqualified voice in the dark.  Your opinion means nothing.


----------



## toobfreak (May 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > It's pretty hard Tommy to be a normal elemental atom and NOT have a valence electron, isn't it?  Otherwise that would kinda make you into an ion or maybe an alpha particle, etc.
> ...




Never said it was.  Ask your OP.  He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories!  ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




Wow!!!!

You really are unhinged!

How often have you had Restraining Orders taken out on you?


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




So you have no documentation anywhere of the term "collimated light" ever being used by anyone anywhere and you just made it up.  I thought so.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



When I used to own a 25" F5 Obsession Telescope (Yes the Mirror was 25" across, 2"  thick) I had to use a Collimating Laser unit, similar to a 2" Ocular in size, to line up the Large and small mirrors together, it was a spread pattern light to account for the edges and large mirror tilt, this way the image would be sharp and in focus with minor off axis errors and cometary star images to a minimum.

Otherwise never see the phrase collimating light/laser anywhere.


----------



## cnm (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> It has to be read in context.


To me 'those bands' appeared to be assigned to the Atmospheric Window, leading to confusion. Thanks for your elucidation.


----------



## cnm (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.


Fair enough. I will take that assertion as seriously  as _The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space._


----------



## cnm (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> So you [ianC] have no documentation anywhere of the term "collimated light" ever being used by anyone anywhere and you just made it up. I thought so.


Dude. Just be thankful he didn't use 'uni-directional'. You'd never have got over that one.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever the CO2 molecule is doing with the energy, the fact remains that the energy radiated from the surface of the earth...any belief that radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warming is a de facto belief that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own energy
> ...



A blanket can't raise your temperature...and it doesn't do what it does by means of anything like a radiative greenhouse effect.

*Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

*


IanC said:


> You create buzzwords like 'spontaneous'. The surface spontaneously radiatrs because the Sun added energy and reduces entropy. The atmosphere spontaneously radiates because the surface added energy and reduced entropy.



Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...sorry if they throw a monkey wrench in your made up greenhouse hypothesis.



IanC said:


> I am not going to go further.



Of course not...you do this every time...talk and talk and talk but when it becomes clear that you aren't going to be able to support your beliefs with anything like the actual laws of physics, you walk away.  It is to be expected...a belief is a very hard thing to overcome...especially when you come to hold said belief in spite of reality.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> [
> 
> Simply put: The earth's atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight.  That's why we don't live in permanent darkness on the surface, and we can catch a sunburn, too.  The atmosphere is, however, largely opaque to the infrared radiation the earth's surface is emitting.



To part one, true...the atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight.

To part two, false...the atmosphere is largely transparent to infrared radiation as well.  95% of the atmosphere is composed of O2 and N2 which are effectively transparent to infrared radiation.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> The Enhanced GHE works by raising the emission height which means a lower temperature  which in turn means less radiation produced to escape.



Which might actually mean something if radiation were the primary, or even a significant means of transporting energy through the troposphere...it is neither..it is barely a bit player...energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by conduction and convection.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Look up Trenberth Diagram. for a more complete picture that I think is "sanctioned" by the IPCC. However some of the deniers here scoff at Trenberth.



The trenberth cartoon?  HAAHAHHHAHHA SNORT  HAAAHHAAHAAHAHAAHAH  NNSNORT  HHHA  AHAAAHAHHHAHAHHA

Anyone who takes the trenberth cartoon seriously is a top shelf idiot...


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.
> ...



Can you show us a physical law which predicts that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation?


----------



## gtopa1 (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed.  You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.
> 
> I then specifically searched for the IPCC version. Imagine my surprise when 'denier' sites were the major places of discussion.
> 
> ...



I go here.

Watts Up With That?

Solid site. 

Greg


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Congratulations you finally got the picture. So to speak.
That's right; it's the vibration, or bending mode that is involved in GHGs.


.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.
> 
> I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.



That doesn't matter anymore.  Sunsetommy finally understood what I was talking about. It's the vibration mode that is important in 15 micron absorption and emission. 

But his animation is wrong in one important aspect.  The CO2 that is excited by an incoming photon most likely will NOT emit a photon as the animation suggests. A collision with another gas molecule is much more likely to happen. In that way the capture of a photon by CO2 will transfer it's energy to linear kinetic energy of a different molecule and go to it's ground state without emission. The gain in the other molecule of course is random and manifests as local heat.

.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The trenberth cartoon? HAAHAHHHAHHA SNORT HAAAHHAAHAAHAHAAHAH NNSNORT HHHA AHAAAHAHHHAHAHHA
> 
> Anyone who takes the trenberth cartoon seriously is a top shelf idiot...



Yes, we know how you feel about that. You don't believe that CO2 in a vibration mode emits radiation isotropically. Your reason is because of a failure in black body radiation near a warmer object. Many people here don't believe that failure.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...*


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.
> ...



Oh my!

I NEVER once disputed that it vibrates in contact with specific IR, what *YOU* couldn't admit was that the MOLECULE was entirely built by those 16 Valence Electrons, in a configuration that made it possible for it to absorb those three IR bands that it vibrates in, heck I showed you the molecular formula. Stop with your obvious dishonest backtracking as you never refuted that the 16 Valence Electrons that make up the Molecule made it possible.

Of course the NCAR chart didn't cover every aspect, that is why I called it a simple animation chart. The point I made with it apparently STILL flies over your head. Here is what I wrote about that animation,

"Animation from NCAR shows this simple vibrational process:"

Snicker...….


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > The entire climate thing is a fraud.
> ...


sure, 99% of the CO2 absorbed IR is handed off on collisions resulting in a conduction.  If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So you knew the dentist Dave Kreige!  Agreed.  Collimation is the act of aligning or being aligned, it is not simply a "state" of radiating light like that of a light bulb.  By the OP's definitions then, if sunlight is collimated, so then is an ordinary light bulb, which is ridiculous.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.
> ...


so, if you agree that most all CO2 transfers its energy,  how is it possible for CO2 to radiate the absorbed IR back to the surface?  I'm still waiting on that explanation!


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

cnm said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.
> ...




Without the atmosphere, NO greenhouse effect takes place.  Really pretty easy to understand.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.
> ...




Actually, no.  If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation.  It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state.  Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




Not sure all of the context here as I've long since given up closely flowing this thread, but if I understand you right, when gas molecules in the atmosphere re-radiated their stored IR energy, some of that energy is directed downward at the Earth slightly warming it as well as taking in IR from the Earth and trapping it in by absorbing the IR and then re-radiating it back.

When using a telescope, especially a refractor with glass at the front subject to dewing, one common practice when temporarily not using it, is to aim the scope at a tree or a building.  The mild IR radiating from these objects as they cool is actually enough to help keep the glass above ambient and prevent the formation of dew on its surface.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Feel free to bring forward any quote from me, or any instance where I have altered or distorted any physical law in an attempt to make a point...

We both know no such quote or example will be forthcoming..


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



You are right that a CO2 molecule excited by a 15 micron photon is a part of the internal random thermal energy.

However, the prominent process is not to re-radiate while in that excited state because the relaxation time of the CO2 excited state was measured to be about 26 microSec and the mean collision rate at STP is around 2 nSec (I think. I'm too lazy to look it up again, but you can check that if you want.) That means the probability of collision is extremely high compared to the vibrational relaxation rate.

The upshot is that the probability of the process shown in sunsetommy's animation ranges from one in a few hundred thousand; to one in a trillion; depending on which blog you read.  There is a lot more to it than that, if there is any interest.

.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Actually, no.  If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation.  It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state.  Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely.



On that particular point, I believe you are mistaken  I defer to Dr. Wiliam Happer.  I am sure you are familiar with the man.  This from an email exchange regarding the transfer of energy in the atmosphere.  Dr. Happer's responses to the questions are in blue.


From: *William Happer* Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: David Burton
Dear David,

Some response are entered below in square brackets and upper case.  Thanks for your interest!

Will


*From:*David Burton
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
*To:* William Happer
*Subject:* Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY.  I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES.  I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES.  ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education






Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY.  IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S  WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE.  A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK.  I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE.  CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY.  WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.”  ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.  VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB.  YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



*If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur? *

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does spaceward IR from CO2 occur?


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


ask *William Happer*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



_Of course it does...it says that the output of the radiator is dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings..._

Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


wash, rinse, repeat, every fking thread from you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why don't you ask him?
Start with asking him if CO2 ever gets energy back from collisions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yes, I'll continue to point out SSDD's confusion.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why, I don't need the information.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


highlighting yours


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The Enhanced GHE works by raising the emission height which means a lower temperature  which in turn means less radiation produced to escape.
> ...



As per usual, I make a point and you say it is refuted by adding a non sequitur. 

How much energy does the Earth lose to space by conduction and convection? 0%

How much energy does the Earth lose to space by radiation? 100%

I am not saying comductiom and convection have no part in our system. But if I was to act like you then I would say that gravity was the dominant factor. And unlike you, I could built a strong case for it. You just run away.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Not sure how you can justify the collision rates of a gas as a fixed number when that would be entirely dependent on the pressure and temperature, which vary greatly with elevation.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Not sure how you can justify the collision rates of a gas as a fixed number when that would be entirely dependent on the pressure and temperature, which vary greatly with elevation.


STP means standard temperature and pressure, ie roughly what it is at sea level. Of course the exponential decrease in pressure with altitude changes things..

Edit:
This site gives a formula for the collision rate as a function of pressure and temperature. The model has some problems, but it gives an order of magnitude.

Look at equations 15, 16, and 17.
Mean free path & collision frequency - tec-science 


.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




And yet the mean free path for 15 micron radiation is two metres at the surface (STP).

You keep making nonsense inferences.  Just because N2 and O2 are transparent to IR that does not mean that the air is.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


the question is how much radiation is lost to space that isn't absorbed by CO2 and H2O?


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




See? You're just being stupid again. Radiation leaving an object travels in a straight line. It cannot hit the original emitter.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

gtopa1 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed.  You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.
> ...



Yup. I read that site just about every day because it stays current with climate news.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The trenberth cartoon? HAAHAHHHAHHA SNORT HAAAHHAAHAAHAHAAHAH NNSNORT HHHA AHAAAHAHHHAHAHHA
> ...




I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.


It's fun to tease him with it.

.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, no.  If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation.  It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state.  Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely.
> ...



All fine and good, I won't dispute any of that, my interests have never been in gases but rather solid materials in a laboratory setting, but it remains curious to me you people seem fixated on the exact properties and relationships of ONE atom, CO2 in relation to the atmosphere when CO2 is:

Not even the strongest or only GHG.
Only one of MANY items in the atmosphere which absorb sunlight as infrared energy.
I wonder why you ignore the actions of methane, water vapor, dust, aerosols, and other gases, etc., in the roles they all play in converting sunlight to IR energy and re-radiating it back into their environment?  Will you tell me because CO2 holds a unique place in that it uniquely matches some special resonant place in the mechanics of heat storage and transfer?

Further, it seems a distinction without a difference that having timed the EXACT time it takes for an atom to re-release an IR photon vs. an atomic collision (ie: kinetic transfer) of energy, the energy is still released, transferred, and in a random way.  Either way you cook it, all kinds of stuff up there is catching sunlight, trapping it as heat and then releasing it, some of which is locally transferred kinetically, some of it radiated.

Either way, the air is still collecting and storing energy from the Sun and I'm much more interested in the broad picture than purely just CO2, which is clearly just as fraction of the entire greenhouse process essential to life on Earth.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely




Hahahahaha. 

Hard to believe this steaming pile of crap was authored by a 'trained physicist '!!!!!


Hahahahaha


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely
> ...




That I spent many years working in a physics research lab is well documented. 


That you are only documented as a deflecting lying asshat who makes shit up and calls it "science" is also well documented.  You ever even go to college at all?  Why do you avoid answering?
Still looking forward to the first credible scientific paper or article you can produce which establishes the existence of sunlight as a "collimated" light source!


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> fixated on the exact properties and relationships of ONE atom, CO2 in relation to the atmosphere when CO2 is:
> 
> Not even the strongest or only GHG.
> Only one of MANY items in the atmosphere which absorb sunlight as infrared energy.




Again, hard to believe a 'trained physicist ' would make this statement.  How much solar insolation in the IR band does CO2 absorb? 0.0001 w/m2? 

And you complained that I used the word collimated after you rejected the previous term, highly-ordered?

Physics is like an onion, with layer after layer making smaller and smaller contributions.  You have to make a decision on how many factors are enough to give a reasonable answer. Ignoring the amount of sunlight absorbed by CO2 is more than reasonable, it would in fact be a meaningless complication.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> I wonder why you ignore the actions of methane, water vapor, dust, aerosols, and other gases, etc., in the roles they all play in converting sunlight to IR energy and re-radiating it back into their environment? Will you tell me because CO2 holds a unique place in that it uniquely matches some special resonant place in the mechanics of heat storage and transfer?


Right CO2 is not the only GHG, but it is, in a sense, a case study on how GHG's act. Once you understand CO2, then you can understand the others, and the similarities and differences.



toobfreak said:


> Further, it seems a distinction without a difference that having timed the EXACT time it takes for an atom to re-release an IR photon vs. an atomic collision (ie: kinetic transfer) of energy, the energy is still released, transferred, and in a random way. Either way you cook it, all kinds of stuff up there is catching sunlight, trapping it as heat and then releasing it, some of which is locally transferred kinetically, some of it radiated.
> 
> Either way, the air is still collecting and storing energy from the Sun and I'm much more interested in the broad picture than purely just CO2, which is clearly just as fraction of the entire greenhouse process essential to life on Earth.


I thought you were interested in the physics of the GHE, but now it seems you aren't. The broad picture cannot be handled without some of the underlying basics. 

.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> That I spent many years working in a physics research lab is well documented



Where is the documentation for your education or job history? It certainly isnt here.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

May I make a suggestion that this thread get off the definition of "collimated". It's too bad it's turning into a battleground of egos.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why you ignore the actions of methane, water vapor, dust, aerosols, and other gases, etc., in the roles they all play in converting sunlight to IR energy and re-radiating it back into their environment? Will you tell me because CO2 holds a unique place in that it uniquely matches some special resonant place in the mechanics of heat storage and transfer?
> ...



We have another blowhard on our hands. Tubesucker may be mentally unstable but at least he isnt full blown retarded like jc. Or is he? 

.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Physics is like an onion, with layer after layer making smaller and smaller contributions.


Another great insight from someone with only a high school education who makes up technobabble!  Where is that collimated sunlight, fraud?



> You have to make a decision on how many factors are enough to give a reasonable answer. Ignoring the amount of sunlight absorbed by CO2 is more than reasonable, it would in fact be a meaningless complication.


Funny.  When others give reasonable answers and close approximations, they are nitwits.  When he gives approximations, he calls it "good science."  With Sunlight generating between 1000 and 1300 watts/meter square and CO2 only absorbing 1/10,000th watt, you'd wonder how it effects climate change at all!


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> May I make a suggestion that this thread get off the definition of "collimated". It's too bad it's turning into a battleground of egos.




Never!!!!!!!

Actually I am the only person who gave a partial definition of the word collimated. It fits.

And I dont have a big ego. Im just condescending


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> We have another blowhard on our hands. Tubesucker may be mentally unstable but at least he isnt full blown retarded like jc. Or is he?


I am not going to make any judgments until the smoke settles. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> And I dont have a big ego. Im just condescending


LOL. An interesting self analysis. I try not to be condescending but I often fail. 

.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Funny. When others give reasonable answers and close approximations, they are nitwits. When he gives approximations, he calls it "good science." With Sunlight generating between 1000 and 1300 watts/meter square and CO2 only absorbing 1/10,000th watt, you'd wonder how it effects climate change at all!




As a 'trained physicist ' with an interest in astronomy you should be familiar with blackbody radiation.

The green band of the Sun's spectrum puts out 10^5 more power than the 15 micron band. The average solar insolation reaching the Earth is 340w, 100w is reflected. 240w divided by 10^5 is an amount that can be safely ignored.

If you disagree, explain why.

Edit- it should actually be the amount of visible green light that gets divided by 10^5, a much smaller amount. But CO2 has other absorbance bands. Is this extra complexity necessary? I dont think so. Either amount is insignificant.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Funny. When others give reasonable answers and close approximations, they are nitwits. When he gives approximations, he calls it "good science." With Sunlight generating between 1000 and 1300 watts/meter square and CO2 only absorbing 1/10,000th watt, you'd wonder how it effects climate change at all!
> ...



Funny, one source claims:  6.33×107 W/m2
Part 2: Solar Energy Reaching The Earth’s Surface  | ITACA

Another source says:  the average is 6.11 kWhr/m^2 per day.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-ener...nd-per-square-meter-per-minute-solar-constant

This source claims:  1,000 W/m2
The Sun's Energy

YOU CLAIM:  The average solar insolation reaching the Earth is 340w, 100w is reflected.
So you just claimed that a full 30% of all sunlight is reflected back into space when I've already shown that figure is closer to 3%





Then you have the audacity to suggest this only leaves 240 watts across the entire face of the Earth?  You are an incredible accident of fraud and bumbling inexactness, while jumping on the SLIGHTEST inaccuracies of others!

AND STILL, WITHOUT A SHRED of credible independent supporting research to back up a single thing you say!  Too funny!


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

I gotta ask you, Ian The Science Guy, you keep trying to discredit me even though I'm the only one here whose offered any info on my background and even been willing to prove it, yet you say so much that is so wrong or at least easily gotten from some common climate change article that I wonder:  we used to have another troll from Russia who thought he was Mr. Science always telling us the great inventions of the USSR until one day I finally decided to test him on his knowledge.  He ran like a scolded dog, so I will make the same offer to you.  If you know so much about science, the Sun, light, physics, et al., certainly you can solve a high school level math problem?

Here it is.  Tell us what the solution to this is?

And please, if anyone else knows the answer, keep it to yourself until IanC answers first:



 

It's a simple enough problem.

Answer this, and at least you'll have a little bit of credibility.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Funny, one source claims:  6.33×107 W/m2
> Part 2: Solar Energy Reaching The Earth’s Surface  | ITACA



Oh my...

At the *surface of the Sun* the intensity of the solar radiation is about 6.33×10^7 W/m^2​


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



The amount of energy from the sun that hits the earth has many contexts.

Is it normal incidence at the top of the atmosphere (noon at equator)?
Normal incidence at earth surface?
Is it the total radiation on one side of the earth with the cosine reduction at latitudes off normal?
Is it the full day average. Divided by two because of the dark side?
Is it full radiation or radiation per square meter?
Etc.

These all give different figures. You will have to check the context from your sources.


.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


still waiting on that back radiation evidence from a gas that transfers 99.9999% of its energy in  collisions  yep.  I'd say, you be looking into mirrors.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...




Are you sure that you want keep humiliating yourself?


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, one source claims:  6.33×107 W/m2
> ...




Good catch.  I was looking for articles that simply gave a simple estimate of the POWER hitting the Earth near the equator per sq meter on a clear day.  Not some long winded analysis.  Still, I find it interesting when they finally gave their estimate CLEAR at the bottom (something like 5.78 kw hours per day per sq meter (still differeing from another site above), they too claimed that the atmosphere absorbed 30% of the incoming solar energy which clearly IT DOES NOT.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Only humiliation here is looking you in the mirror.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



THAT WAS MY POINT, Wu.  Every place I read, they give a different set of parameters and units.  To my mind, I was simply looking for a common sense figure, which to me suggests a standard reference, around noon, around the equator, 0° incidence, at the surface, average albedo, on a clear day.  I've seen figures varying between 1000 and 1300 watts per square meter.  That seems empirically reasonable.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



Your trying to teach a person about the atmosphere and the fact that energy in the troposphere is primarily through conduction and convection.  CO2 collides 30,000 times with other molecules in our atmosphere during the time a photon resides in a CO2 molecule, making emission nearly impossible.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


CO2 very rarely re-emits near surface due to the mass of the atmosphere and collision energy transfer at ground level.

At altitude the mass is such that LWIR CAN EASILY ESCAPE as N2 and water vapor are non existent and collisions are rare above cloud boundary where re-nucleation of water vapor releases its energy, due to the decreased mass of the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



*CO2 very rarely re-emits near surface due to the mass of the atmosphere and collision energy transfer at ground level. *

The mass of the atmosphere restricts the emission of CO2 near the surface?
Tell me more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > May I make a suggestion that this thread get off the definition of "collimated". It's too bad it's turning into a battleground of egos.
> ...



*Actually I am the only person who gave a partial definition of the word collimated. It fits.*​





Part 2: Solar Energy Reaching The Earth’s Surface  | ITACA







Seems to fit toobefreak's source as well.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



Ok then Mr 'trained physicist '.

Roughly 1360 w/m2 of solar radiation reaches the Earth orbit distance. The amount intercepted by the Earth would be equal to a disk with the same diameter as the Earth. The Earths surface has four times the area as that disk. 1360 divided by four is 340w/m2.

The Earth has an albedo of 0.3. That means it reflects 30 percent of the solar radiation back into space. That drops the solar insolation to 240w/m2. If you are complaining that I subtracted all of the albedo at once rather than cumulatively through the different layers, then I plead quilty. Tell you what. You can have the whole 340w outside the atmosphere figure to calculate tha amount of solar produced CO2  IR reaching the Earth. It is still insignificant. 

Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating, it's where you loose your argument, you attempt to stabilize it which isn't what's happening.  anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



*the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating,*

Would that make the number more than 340w/m2 or less than 340w/m2?

*anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this*

Irony is ironic.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2 very rarely re-emits near surface due to the mass of the atmosphere and collision energy transfer at ground level.
> 
> At altitude the mass is such that LWIR CAN EASILY ESCAPE as N2 and water vapor are non existent and collisions are rare above cloud boundary where re-nucleation of water vapor releases its energy, due to the decreased mass of the atmosphere.




Thanks Todd. I missed this astoundingly stupid post by BillyBoob.

It doesnt even meet the level of coherence to be considered wrong. It is just nonsense made with sciencey words


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


The Spherical Shape of the Earth

"Because the Earth is a sphere, the surface gets much more intense sunlight, hence heat, at the equator than at the poles. On the equinox, the Sun passes directly overhead at noon on the equator and a square centimeter of ground receives about 1 calorie of heat energy (see solar constant). On the same day, at 60°N, the latitude of Anchorage, Alaska, or Oslo, Norway, or St. Petersburg, Russia, the Sun rises no higher than 30° above the horizon at noon and heats a given parcel of ground with only a half the intensity as at the equator. At the poles, the Sun appears to sit on the horizon for periods upwards of 24 hours, and its rays skim horizontally over the surface."

You tell me, it's your crazy equation made up as if the earth was a disk fully exposed to the sun flat side?  hahahahaha, you crack me up dude.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Answer Todd's question. Does a spinning spheroid collect more incoming solar radiation than a flat disk pointed at the Sun.

If you answer is anything but 'they are equal' then explain.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> As per usual, I make a point and you say it is refuted by adding a non sequitur.
> 
> How much energy does the Earth lose to space by conduction and convection? 0%



How much of the claimed radiative greenhouse effect takes place above the troposphere? 

You seem to think that just because almost all energy is transported to the top of the troposphere via conduction and convection, that somehow it can't radiate out once an altitude is reached in which molecules are so far apart that energy movement via conduction is no longer efficient.



IanC said:


> How much energy does the Earth lose to space by radiation? 100%



How much radiation happens above the troposphere is irrelevant to the workings of the claimed greenhouse effect...



IanC said:


> I am not saying comductiom and convection have no part in our system. But if I was to act like you then I would say that gravity was the dominant factor. And unlike you, I could built a strong case for it. You just run away.



You don't build a strong case for your beliefs...in fact, you can produce no empirical evidence at all to support them.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



Picking fly specks out of pepper again?  Which physical law predicts that if you redirect an objects radiation back to it that it can be warmed?


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.
> ...



You believe it wholeheartedly because it is the basis for your religion...


----------



## Olde Europe (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.



Care to explain what it is you dislike about Trenberth's energy budget diagram?  TIA.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You seem to think that just because almost all energy is transported to the top of the troposphere via conduction and convection, that somehow it can't radiate out once an altitude is reached in which molecules are so far apart that energy movement via conduction is no longer efficient



GHGs lose radiation to space once they are high enough that an emitted photon is not just reabsorbed by another molecule of the same GHG.

The amount of radiation produced by a GHG that can escape is predicated on the temperature of the emission height. 

The amount of radiation that a GHG absorbs from the surface is predicated by the temperature of the surface. 

The amount of radiation available to be stored in the atmosphere is absorbed radiation less emitted radiation.

Because the surface is warmer than the emission height there will always be surplus radiation available to be returned to the surface.

I have explained this to you dozens of times. And asked you at what point in this line of logic do you disagree. 

I have given you hints even. Like solid and liquid phases of water are not under the same radiation constraints as water vapour. Yet you refuse to step up and describe the pathways energy takes on its way out to space


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




All objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. If they are in proximity then the net movement of energy will always be from warm to cool but both objects continue to radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. 

While you can calculate how much radiation is flowing in opposite directions,  you cannot calculate an effect without considering the net flow. Two objects at the same temperature don't stop radiating, there is just no net movement to make a change. And two objects at 100C make a lot more radiation than two at 10C. Even though in both cases thete is no net flow.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.
> ...




I dont feel like going over it yet again.

As so often happens, there is actually an article on energy budgets over at WUWT. You should check it out.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You believe it wholeheartedly because it is the basis for your religion...


I have absolutely no idea how realistic it is.

.


----------



## cnm (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> By the OP's definitions then, if sunlight is collimated, so then is an ordinary light bulb, which is ridiculous.


No, light from a light bulb is not considered parallel. Ffs, this is secondary school physics.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> I dont feel like going over it yet again.
> 
> As so often happens, there is actually an article on energy budgets over at WUWT. You should check it out.



That's okay.  I found your thread (2011), and your understanding sure has improved since, because back then you didn't understand what the GHE is, and misrepresented its magnitude.

You'd have to pay me ever to go to WUWT again.  That's time I'll never get back, with nothing of any value in return.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> GHGs lose radiation to space once they are high enough that an emitted photon is not just reabsorbed by another molecule of the same GHG.



So called GHG's almost never get to emit a photon...they lose the energy they absorbed energy via collision in damned near every instance...



IanC said:


> The amount of radiation produced by a GHG that can escape is predicated on the temperature of the emission height.



So says the model..in reality, GHG's produce almost no radiation because the vast bulk of energy is transported via conduction..not radiation.



IanC said:


> The amount of radiation that a GHG absorbs from the surface is predicated by the temperature of the surface.



Irrelevant since in nine hundred 999,999,999 times out of a billion they lose the energy they absorb via a collision...



IanC said:


> The amount of radiation available to be stored in the atmosphere is absorbed radiation less emitted radiation.



That has nothing to do with the mode in which the energy is transported through the troposphere where the claimed greenhouse effect happens...energy is being conducted and convected through he troposphere with radiation being barely a bit player..



IanC said:


> Because the surface is warmer than the emission height there will always be surplus radiation available to be returned to the surface.



No radiation is returned to the surface except in rare instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface.



IanC said:


> I have explained this to you dozens of times. And asked you at what point in this line of logic do you disagree.



Every single point because radiation is not the main mode of energy transport through the troposphere...radiation hardly plays a part in moving energy to the top of the troposphere.



IanC said:


> I have given you hints even.



I don't need your hints because they are as wrong as the terribly flawed physics you believe a radiative greenhouse effect works in a troposphere completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.


----------



## cnm (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> STP means standard temperature and pressure, ie roughly what it is at sea level.


I find it hard to believe a trained physicist has not encountered the term STP before.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> All objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. If they are in proximity then the net movement of energy will always be from warm to cool but both objects continue to radiate according to their temperature and emissivity.



All perfect black bodies in perfect vacuums radiate according to their temperature and emissivity...all other objects radiate according to their area, their temperature, their emissivity and the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings...  Your belief that the surroundings a radiator finds itself in have no bearing on how it radiates is a terrible flaw in your line of thinking...


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2 collides 30,000 times with other molecules in our atmosphere during the time a photon resides in a CO2 molecule, making emission nearly impossible.



How many times have we heard that CO2 is such a small portion of air it can't have much of an effect on climate. I decided to do a calculation of the density of 15 micron radiation of CO2 in a cubic meter of air at room temperature and pressure.

Number of air molecules per m^3 = *2.53 10^25*  (Use Avogadro's number)

CO2 density:* 400 ppm*

Number of CO2 molecules per m^3 @ 400ppm =  *1.01 10^22*

Number in excitation state *1.01 10^22 x 2/9 = 0.244 10^22*
(From Equipartition Principle)

Relaxation time for CO2 vibration *6 microSec*.

There will be *0.244 10^22* molecules emitting 15 micron radiation every *6 microSec*

Probability of CO2 emission from excited state (with no collision) =  *1 / 30,000
*
No. of photons per sec from CO2 = number x probability /* 6.0 10^-6*
= *0.244 10^22* / ( *30,000* x *6.0 10^-6* ) = *1.35 10^22* emissions / sec

Energy of 15 micron photon = *1.3 10^-20* J

Joules per second of  all 15 micron photons =   *1.35 10^22 x 1.3* *10^-20* J/s = *1.75 x 10^2* W

Conclusion:
So even though there are only 400 ppm of CO2 the energy radiation density is *175 Watts* (J/s) radiating within a cubic meter.
Does that sound large? Not compared to the total energy of air at STP *156,000 J*
( = number of air molecules times their average kinetic energy.)
(Someone might want to double check the calculations,)


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> All fine and good, I won't dispute any of that, my interests have never been in gases but rather solid materials in a laboratory setting, but it remains curious to me you people seem fixated on the exact properties and relationships of ONE atom, CO2 in relation to the atmosphere when CO2 is:
> 
> Not even the strongest or only GHG.
> Only one of MANY items in the atmosphere which absorb sunlight as infrared energy.




My point is that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...it simply is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.  CO2 has no effect on the temperature and no other so called greenhouse gas does either except for water vapor.


----------



## cnm (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> but it remains curious to me you people seem fixated on the exact properties and relationships of ONE atom, CO2 in relation to the atmosphere when CO2 is:


Even from a trained physicist this sort of shit makes my head hurt.

_'ONE atom, CO2'_. Ffs.

When added to_ 'closed systems'_ and_ 'STP'_ and _'atmosphere as the greenhouse MECHANISM'_ I start to wonder as to the training physicists receive.


----------



## cnm (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> That I spent many years working in a physics research lab is well documented.


Why then so many basic howlers and ignorance?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 23, 2019)

cnm said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > STP means standard temperature and pressure, ie roughly what it is at sea level.
> ...



That may or may not be the case.

What happened I find far worse, since reading "the mean collision rate at STP", and questioning that rate, without ever considering that STP might be a salient term in the description would betray catastrophic difficulties following English language descriptions.  Like, also, giving the radiation intensity on the sun's surface as the radiation impacting earth.  Or, describing earth as a closed system.  Whatever, he seems to be posting mostly while tired and emotional, and he doesn't change for the better in that state.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?



Really?  Give me a list of all the applied physics and astronomy text books from the 1970s (or anytime for that matter) that go into that crap about CO2.  I'll wait.  Then tell me you know it all off the top of your fucking head from 40 years ago?  I have a house full of such books.  Not in any of them.  Just like I'm still waiting on your answer to any textbook that describes sunlight as collimated or well ordered, the answer to my math problem, or what if any education you have.  You see, I went to school back before people were obsessed with all this CO2 scare climate change garbage, and my work was in material science of optoelectronics, semiconductors and electricity for about the 40th time, not atmospherics or earth science, no one gave a rat shit how long CO2 hung onto something or how it gave it up unless they actually WORKED IN THAT FIELD, much less knew it off the top of their head as you pretend to do, so you continuously astound me that you think I give a rat's shit about CO2?  The more the merrier I say!

Meantime, all you've shown is that you have read a few articles on climate science, greenhouse warming and such.  Or maybe this garbage is all you talk about day and night?  If so, then why do you worry about which greenhouse model others use?  And if ANY of them are valid, then why are there so many of them and why are they still models?  I've asked you one simple math problem that you can't even solve and EVADE.  Shall I ask you harder math problems?  Questions about optics, light, image processing, digital, analog, solar magnetohydrodynamics, particle physics, propagation of gravity waves in spiral galaxies, quantum chromodynamics, telecommunications, quark confinement theories, how to eliminated the need for RIAA equalization, acoustics or a hundred other things?

At best, you're a *ONE PUMP CHUMP,* so sorry asshole, you've provided NO credible scientific documentation to support _anything_ you've said other than the albedo thing which is pretty common knowledge and basic.  You're pathetic.  Now we know why you hide behind made up technobabble jargon and ad hominem attacks at other people to deflect from yourself.  Tell us how many technologies you've created or added to?  Any?  Tell us how you've aided in the national defense?  Ever?  Tell us the journals, publications, papers and books you've written?  One?  Tell us about any personal inventions you've developed?  Huh? What?  I CAN'T FUCKING HEAR YOU, you pathetic little creep.

You pathetic lying faggot coward, you haven't ONE CREDIBLE FUCKING THING you have shown here or can show for any real contribution you've made to the world in your whole life I bet, and you sit there in the safety behind your sweaty little smartphone tapping away about your pseudo-fake garbage science of how the world is going to end in 12 years if we all don't give up our cars and fossil fuels?    What a pathetic joke you are!  The Sun in the "green channel" does blah blah blah for so long at this level to an atom of CO2. . . . .  Jackass, "green channel?"  Real scientists talk about the E Fraunhofer line.  Tell us Ace, do you even know what frequency IR light vibrates at with a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters?  What about a 10Å x-ray, what frequency would that be?  Can you convert Hex base 16 to denary?  What can you tell us about the physics of an AGN emitter?  A GTO thyristor?  What is the advantage of a non-polarized polypropylene capacitor in the signal path at VB over a styrene or tantalum?  Huh, smartshit?

Tell us all about it, Ian.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

For God's sake guys! Chill out.


----------



## cnm (May 23, 2019)

Now that's what I call a quality rant. Easily worth an 'atom' of CO2.


----------



## cnm (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> For God's sake guys! Chill out.


Are we not entertained?


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

cnm said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > For God's sake guys! Chill out.
> ...



I believe in internalizing frustration and let it come out harmlessly as an ulcer. 

.


----------



## toobfreak (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> My point is that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...it simply is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.  CO2 has no effect on the temperature and no other so called greenhouse gas does either except for water vapor.



THANK YOU.  Finally, one person that actually says something both intelligent and substantive!  POINT WELL TAKEN.  NOW I see your interest in the photonic reradition of CO2, a weak GHG at best, vs. kinetic transfer between other gas atoms.  Sniff.  Sniff.  It passes the Common Sense Test.  And since gas has such a poor thermal conductive coupling to solids like water and land, it's hard to understand how any man-made carbon effect could be responsible for a mean rise in the temperature of the Earth if I understand you correctly!  

If that is the case, then any changes we see in ice melting, weather, etc., must be coming from OUTSIDE, because more energy is being put into the Earth from the Sun itself.  

But, IF THAT IS SO, then, the entire Man-Made Climate Change thing must be a CROCK OF SHIT.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I believe in internalizing frustration and let it come out harmlessly as an ulcer.
> 
> .



Here's hoping I won't add to that frustration by declaring my objection to your coping mechanism - at least, I am not prepared to adopt it, as of yet.

But then, I am starting to appreciate your sense of humor - I guess.  Perhaps that helps.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> If that is the case, then any changes we see in ice melting, weather, etc., must be coming from OUTSIDE, because more energy is being put into the Earth from the Sun itself.
> 
> But, IF THAT IS SO, then, the entire Man-Made Climate Change thing must be a CROCK OF SHIT.



Make that the "Chinese Hoax".  That's the technical term for "climate change" in the age of Trumpish imbecility.

And yeah, it absolutely must - MUST - be the sun, if you accept the evidence for a changing climate (rising temperatures, ice melt etc.), and you're still going full denialingdong as to the human contribution.  It patently MUST be the sun.  Funny, though, our satellites measuring solar insolation cannot find any increase commensurate to the changing climate. 

But wait, maybe the sensors are ... Chinese!


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> THANK YOU. Finally, one person that actually says something both intelligent and substantive! POINT WELL TAKEN. NOW I see your interest in the photonic reradition of CO2, a weak GHG at best, vs. kinetic transfer between other gas atoms. Sniff. Sniff. It passes the Common Sense Test. And since gas has such a poor thermal conductive coupling to solids like water and land, it's hard to understand how any man-made carbon effect could be responsible for a mean rise in the temperature of the Earth if I understand you correctly!
> 
> If that is the case, then any changes we see in ice melting, weather, etc., must be coming from OUTSIDE, because more energy is being put into the Earth from the Sun itself.
> 
> But, IF THAT IS SO, then, the entire Man-Made Climate Change thing must be a CROCK OF SHIT



It seems you agree with SSDD. Do you also agree with SSDD on the physical reasons why he rejects the GHE. He has an amazing alt-science.

For example he thinks black body radiation fails in the direction of colder objects. Two objects can't both simultaneously radiate toward each other. Ever. Only the warmer object can radiate toward the colder. That is his basis for rejecting back radiation. Alt-science.

USMB has forbidden us to go around and around with arguments on alt-science. So if you are interested in pursuing that you can go to this site.

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

This all I have to say about it in this thread.


.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> For example he thinks black body radiation fails in the direction of colder *[warmer?]* objects.



I think you messed up the punch line.

On another note, perhaps GHE isn't a concept that lends itself to simplification to such a degree as to be understood by an 11 year old, while also satisfactory to scientific bean counters.  So, this thread tries to square the circle (when it's not engaged in peeing contests).


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > For example he thinks black body radiation fails in the direction of colder *[warmer?]* objects.
> ...



Arrrg! you're right. I used colder when I meant warmer. Now I inadvertently made him look worse than he actually is. 

.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I dont feel like going over it yet again.
> ...



Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. Wirebender (SSDDs previous incarnation) was just as good at hijacking threads 8 years ago as he is now.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So called GHG's almost never get to emit a photon...they lose the energy they absorbed energy via collision in damned near every instance...



Every excited state that is thwarted by molecular collision is matched by an excited state caused by collision.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?
> ...




Wow! Why are you so upset about not knowing about albedo or blackbody radiation?  No one actually believed your bullshit about being college educated.


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wow! Why are you so upset about not knowing about albedo or blackbody radiation?  No one actually believed your bullshit about being college educated.



Proof once again this clod doesn't even read at a grade school level.  The ONE THING I agreed with was the basic common knowledge of albedo and blackbody radiation, which I've not only known about since early grade school, but for which there is no debate!  These are simple,undisputed, basic aspects of science.  What is more interesting is the focus not on proving whatever science may be here to prove any of the horseshit claims of the ultimate destination of climate change, but the repeated juvenile attacks on me personally trying to "discredit" me simply because of my actual background in scientific development, yet, if any of the other parties DON'T have any actual science background, WHAT POSSIBLE MERIT DO THEY HAVE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS?  WHY THE FEAR?  IanC is a schmuck that proves nothing, answers nothing, evades every topic, hides behind a cloak, yet is so concerned about ME.

I smell the fear.

If he thought I really were some barely high school educated baboon, he would be ignoring me, oddly, he doesn't even call for any proof I have of my work in science and physics.  I was a practical engineer for many years, a problem solver, and there is indeed a deep problem here, why the Climate-believers try to destroy those that disagree with them rather than simply offer up any clear proof, ANY proof, or hard science.

Indeed, all I've seen here is unsupported THEORIES, hackneyed science wrapped in a bubble.  by a bunch of glib-talking, unqualified people.  The only people here who have shown me a smattering of real credible science knowledge are wuwei, SSDD and I guess sunsettommy.  I get that maybe wuwei might actually WORK in a related science field.  I deal with professionals in science all the time, people all around the country and planet on another forum I run and NONE of them are shy about qualifying themselves or what they know and do.  NONE of them act such such petty children as here, slinging insults and doubts about whether the other person is even being honest about their background.  If fact, some of us even exchange phone numbers and addresses and are real friends I trust.  But not here.

Like I said before, you walk into a medical convention and say you are a doctor, no one questions you.  You walk into a bar and announce you are a doctor and people might not believe you.  This is a bar.

I honestly haven't seen ONE PERSON here who can even solve for X.  Is there ANYONE here who can tell me the value of X?  The question is now ON THE TABLE.





BTW, the above solution only proves you have a high school education.  This is BASIC ALGEBRA, friends, not rocket science.  I'll wait for the answers.

I have a nose for the truth, and something stinks to high heaven here.  Nothing presented here in any of the "models" for climate change pass the Sniff Test. And neither does Ian.  If "climate science" were anything credible beyond mere theories and unprovable models, we wouldn't be having this debate here.

The Sun shines in "collimated" sunlight.   Man, this dude just takes the cake.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. Wirebender (SSDDs previous incarnation) was just as good at hijacking threads 8 years ago as he is now.



You're welcome.

It should be noted, though, that no one poster can hijack a thread.  Not unless aided and abetted by those who would obsessive-compulsively devote their attention to the troll.  Or even acknowledge his existence. ... and there's always at least one who couldn't resist if their life depended on it.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My point is that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...it simply is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.  CO2 has no effect on the temperature and no other so called greenhouse gas does either except for water vapor.
> ...



I prefer the term steaming pile of excrement, but crock of shit works just as well.  It is all bullshit based on models which are based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of how energy moves through the troposphere.  The only evidence they can post up to support their hypothesis is the claimed "consensus" of climate scientists as if how many people believe a thing somehow makes it true.

By the way...the pause in temperature increase is about 2 decades old now, and if you look at studies of the sun in the latter 20th century when "warming" was all the rage, you will find that the output of the sun was at its highest point in 2 centuries...since then the sun as begun to go quite and the pause continued and now, the oceans are beginning to cool..  It is, has been, and always will be the sun.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



More sceince you are behind the times on...ulcers are not caused by stress..or frustration.  A fact I pointed out to my gastroenterologist decades before science caught up...mark yet another instance where the "consensus" was dead wrong..


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > If that is the case, then any changes we see in ice melting, weather, etc., must be coming from OUTSIDE, because more energy is being put into the Earth from the Sun itself.
> ...



That "evidence" is only evidence that the climate changes...if temperatures had never risen before, and ice had never melted before, you might be on to something...since those things and more have happened over and over in the climate, all you are doing is assigning a new, and unproven cause to events that have been happening since the earth first formed.  In so far as ice goes, there is more ice now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  Interesting how you warmers manage to remain ignorant of that fact and speak of ice melting as if it were something new and frightening...it is laughable, especially in the context history as there is more ice now than there has been foremost of the past 10 mellinia.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You will go blind if you persist in mental masturbation to that degree.  The only person you make look bad is yourself with your admission that you believe in models over observable, measurable reality.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Sorry guy...you made that unsubstantiated claim when I first got here...as memory serves, the management of the board investigated and told you that there was no evidence that I and wire bender were the same person...guess you have a model that says I was here before and it says that I was so you choose to believe the model over the evidence.

I did take your advice and looked up some of the threads he was part of and it seems that even though he had different ideas than me, he confounded you at every turn as well...he also wanted actual observed evidence that you couldn't  produce.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So called GHG's almost never get to emit a photon...they lose the energy they absorbed energy via collision in damned near every instance...
> ...



Only if the numbers of excited molecules equals the number of unexcited molecules.  CO2 and other so called GHG's are mere trace gasses.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ..ulcers are not caused by stress..


Thank heavens for that. Now I can look at this thread and not worry about ulcers.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You will go blind if you persist in mental masturbation to that degree.


Science has shown you will not go blind. However authoritative sources say you will grow hair on your hands. 

.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> How many times have we heard that CO2 is such a small portion of air it can't have much of an effect on climate.



Yep.  That ranks right up there with "Humans are so small (compared to earth), they can't possibly have an impact on climate."

Otherwise I haven't checked your calculations.  But then, it would be surprising if we found very hot CO₂, and also very cold N₂ or O₂ (non-GHGs) - at the same time.  So, common sense dictates that collisions are the main avenue for energy transfer in an atmosphere warmed up by IR radiation.  Correct?


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



That trace gas emits *1.35 10^22* 15 micron photons per second in a cubic meter.
Even though there are only 400 ppm of CO2 the energy radiation density is *175 Watts *of 15 micron EM radiating within a cubic meter.

.

.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > How many times have we heard that CO2 is such a small portion of air it can't have much of an effect on climate.
> ...



Correct. Collisions are 30,000 times more probable. I was surprised the radiation energy was so high. It's based on the fact that there are a huge number of molecules in a cubic meter. So, as you imply a trace in one context (numbers) can be large in another context - radiant energy.


.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


>


I know the answer!!! Choose me! Choose me! I can tell you without looking it up. 

Here is one for you prove e^ix = cos x + i sin x
No fair looking it up.

.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



And I thought you dislike pissing contests.

The "solution" is, of course, x^-1/3.  There's nothing to "solve" there.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> And I thought you dislike pissing contests.


Yeah, I guess I'm being sucked into the spirit of things here. It's too bad this thread is disintegrating beyond repair.
.


Olde Europe said:


> The "solution" is, of course, x^-1/3. There's nothing to "solve" there.


I think he is looking for a descriptive sentence, like the inverse of the cube root of X. But as you say there is actually nothing to solve.

If he made a further statement such as x = 9, then there would be something to solve. Namely, simultaneous non-linear equations, albeit rather trivial. 


.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Yeah, I guess I'm being sucked into the spirit of things here. It's too bad this thread is disintegrating beyond repair.



So, let's try to get it back on track.  Here's what I found to be a good explanation of the GHE (as provided earlier):

*Greenhouse effect*

1. Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds.

2. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.

3. Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height.

4. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.

5. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.

Definition courtesy of IPCC AR4.

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.​
I've divided it up into five sections and added enumeration, so as to facilitate reference to the respective portions of the text.  What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


make me


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I guess I'm being sucked into the spirit of things here. It's too bad this thread is disintegrating beyond repair.
> ...


all bullshit


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


no, the fact that the CO2 molecules collide with N molecules is why.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> So, let's try to get it back on track. Here's what I found to be a good explanation of the GHE (as provided earlier):


I agree, let's get back on track. I was on the verge of leaving this forum.

There will be objections raised; what about feedback; what about clouds blocking some of the sun, etc. but I think it's very worthwhile to separate out the understanding of just the GHG part of the whole system as a beginning, as you are suggesting.

The list might be prefaced by a sort of preamble - item zero (or renumbering)
0. The major source of energy warming the earth is the short wave radiation from the sun which penetrates the atmosphere and strikes the surface.



Olde Europe said:


> 2. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.



This could be reworded by replacing "to all sides" with the phrase "in all directions" (The scientific jargon is "isotropically")

Items 3 and 4 jump to the output radiation balance and skip how the energy makes it's way upwards. This is controversial in this thread because of those who say radiation has no part in the upward movement.

In my post #159 I'm beginning an exploration of just what part radiation plays. In the atmosphere the mean distance radiation can travel is larger in the up direction because of the exponential decrease in density. It has a shorter mean distance downward for the same reason. This leads to an overall upward flux. But let's leave that for now.

Your step 5 is of course the crux of the energy balance coupling back to the surface energy absorption.

There is more I can say, but I will leave it at that for now.


.


----------



## cnm (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?


3) What is the coupling/relationship of IR radiation with temperature?
4) What has the given temperature of the earth to do with anything, it is left hanging like an irrelevant factoid.
5) How does an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere lead to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature?


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?
> ...



I agree; those are important points at some level. I think part of this whole exercise is what is the target audience. High school level? General college level? Basic college physics level. My interest is involved in the down and dirty math, but I think that's beyond the scope of this forum.

My problem is that as IanC said in his OP there is a dearth of information. I tried looking at the general level of the OP, but it's buried in references that are impossible to get unless you pay $10 to $30 for a reprint of one paper that may not be what you thought it was. The IPCC only lightly summarizes the theory behind GHG's in what I could find.


.


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


if the real information was available, it would show what a scam all of this is!!


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



What is it?  Tell us.


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



Wrong.  There are actually valid TWO solutions for X.


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I think he is looking for a descriptive sentence, like the inverse of the cube root of X.



Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "solve" when maybe "solution" to my question might have been better.  I was looking for anyone to show me how X could be reworked into different forms to match up with other terms in an equation and like I suspected, you were the one that actually got one of them right.  Congratulations, Wu, you are the first person in almost two years here to successfully give another form that X could be written in to say the same thing.



 

I choose this because fractional exponents and radicals in general are often a weak spot for many people.


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



Wait, JC, are you telling me that no one here has even access to the actual, real information in this field much less actually WORKS in the field to know first hand?  Is that why I found a similar thread about the same debate from two years ago here debating the same thing still unresolved?  While I agree there are certain trends and changes in our climate, there have ALWAYS been trends and changes, and while I agree that carbon pollution certain has an effect, there are a number of incongruities with other facts, history, the fact that warming has not tracked along with predictions, not the least of which is to mention NO ONE KNOWS the future for how man will be polluting 20 years from now, 50 years from now, yet we keep predicting how ice will melt and oceans will rise in the distant future as if all of this were settled constants.

Historically, science has a rather poor track record in predictions and expectations;  more great scientists, inventions and theories have been laughed at, later to be found true and vise versa.  Climate Change has to be among the most inexact and flaky "sciences" out there on par with psychology almost, partly because we have so little to base it on, no other planets to study, no other past events, and the one we are on now is constantly evolving and changing in form and change only really began to be noticed after 1975, a rather short sampling period!  Yet we are prepared to make draconian and wholesale actions based on it.  IMO, it would be a miracle if climate predictions for 80 years in the future actually turn out to be true; if history is any teacher, then things will likely turn out rather different, maybe not nearly as bad, perhaps worse, unfortunately, I won't be around to find out.

I like big pictures.  "Climate Science" deals in too short a time periods to suit me.  One thing fairly certain though is that sometime in the future, we are going to see another Ice Age as has been the pattern throughout the Quaternary over 2.5 million years since the PETM brought in the Cenozoic Era------ maybe our efforts today will weaken its impact or delay it------  indeed, we may rue the day we complained about rising temperatures!





Man DEPENDS on fossil fuels.  Carbon is an inseparable and inescapable part of life.  Perhaps this is why we don't find other technological societies in space, they destroy themselves or nature destroys them, either way, man is not going to willingly live in the Dark Ages again to save the planet, whatever effects man causes, the Earth will clearly heal from us once we evolve technologically over perhaps the next century to move beyond the need for carbon pollution.  ITMT, the best solution is to trend population back downward closer to 1960 levels so that there are simply less polluters on the planet.  But I suspect man isn't wise enough to do any of the above and Earth itself will make the decision for us in the coming years and find a way of scaling back human society itself through plague, disease, drought, flooding, food shortage, war, weather, space impactor, something, to rebalance man in accord with his planet.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Make you? I am still shocked that you used the word spheroid in a sentence. You don't have the brain power to understand the connotations of the question. An answer is simply out of the realm of possibilities.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I guess I'm being sucked into the spirit of things here. It's too bad this thread is disintegrating beyond repair.
> ...



Although we have seen that definition before, it is really useful to break it up into pieces.

I personally have a big problem with #4. At the very least, IR from the surface should be divided into two groups. The bands which have little affinity for the GHGs (emissivity =0), and the bands that are absorbed to extinction by the atmosphere  (emissivity =1).


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




You know what I like about you Ian?  You argue science the way all Leftards argue politics----  with an utter intransigence, smug certainty and utter contempt for those whom disagree with you.  Why, I'm surprised you haven't brought Trump into the conversation!   I wonder how many climate-believers here are left-leaning vs, right leaning.  If there is a correlation found, that politics influences views on "climate science," that would kind of invalidate the certainty of it all, don't you think?  At the very least it would suggest congitive bias might be a factor in BOTH sides.

But I'll give you this:  at least you finally got something right-- -- -- -- the Earth is NOT a sphere.  It is a rather an oblate spheroid.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2019)

If some of you don't mind. I think I might ask a moderator to move this to a clean debate zone. It's still being cluttered with alt-science and pissing contests. Or maybe those of us that want to stick strictly to the aspects of the GHE could start anew in the CDZ. However the last time that was done it was moved back to the Environment forum because it disintegrated there too, but I'm finished here.  


.


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> If some of you don't mind. I think I might ask a moderator to move this to a clean debate zone. It's still being cluttered with alt-science and pissing contests. Or maybe those of us that want to stick strictly to the aspects of the GHE could start anew in the CDZ. However the last time that was done it was moved back to the Environment forum because it disintegrated there too, but I'm finished here.
> .




Alt-science and pissing contests----  is that the new catch phrase for "differences of opinions?"

Is that the only way the climate-believing people can win an argument or resolve disputed matters, to isolate themselves in a vacuum with only like-minded people where they shut out (read: silence) different points of view?

Oddly enough, YOU seem to be the alternate science here and all the pissing contests were started by the OP!!  

The rest of us have merely tried to endure his constant attacks.

"Alt-Science," is that what you call the climatological chart above?


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I don't have to be a scientist to know that CO2 does nothing to temperature, if it actually did what the warmers contend, then I wouldn't have experienced the temperature patterns of this spring.  The time sunlight actually increases in the Northern hemisphere, and yet temperatures did not go up.  CO2 is up and temperatures didn't go up.  So, until someone can explain to me how on a bright sunny day in April with the Sun fully up in a clear sky, the temperature was below 20 degrees F when normal temp was expected to be 60 degrees, I believe absolutely no one about AGW.  Fk, I thought CO2 was magic and kept the surface warm from its magic LWIR back radiation? Oh, and it took until last week to get two days even close to normal temps for May.  Observance is what I use.  so, until someone actually observes what they talk about, it's garbage.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> You know what I like about you Ian? You argue science the way all Leftards argue politics---- with an utter intransigence, smug certainty and utter contempt for those whom disagree with you. Why, I'm surprised you haven't brought Trump into the conversation! I wonder how many climate-believers here are left-leaning vs, right leaning. If there is a correlation found, that politics influences views on "climate science," that would kind of invalidate the certainty of it all, don't you think? At the very least it would suggest congitive bias might be a factor in BOTH sides.




I must admit that you amuse me when you go into an impotent frothing rant like a guard dog behing a fence. I have no idea _why _you have taken such a dislike to me but I really don't care.

I am a climate skeptic. I don't believe in large feedbacks or predictions of doom. I think the IPCC is biased and hypocritical. I think the temperature records are skewed by improper manipulation. The list is practically endless.

And what do I get for all the hard work of bringing evidence forward against the 'consensus '? Not much. The warmists know that staying out of the fight is the best way to not lose. Did the skeptic and denier sides of the message board show any support? Tepid at best.

But when I excoriate deniers for rejecting the GHE then everybody is interested. They never fail to respond. I get the chance to refute them in more and more ways. I get to discard semi-mistakes and refine my position. Boring but familiar. Like rewatching a favourite TV series.

I think you may have the wrong idea about my executive function.  Lefties consider me conservative.  Righties think I'm liberal. Perhaps Im just a devil's advocate.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> If some of you don't mind. I think I might ask a moderator to move this to a clean debate zone. It's still being cluttered with alt-science and pissing contests. Or maybe those of us that want to stick strictly to the aspects of the GHE could start anew in the CDZ. However the last time that was done it was moved back to the Environment forum because it disintegrated there too, but I'm finished here.
> 
> 
> .




It will be you and the crickets. If you don't like the unwashed and uncouth then perhaps this message board is not the right place for you.

SSDD rocks. Never change


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Careful, JC, you are throwing this entire thread for a loop.  The OP ASKED US WHAT GREENHOUSE MODEL EFFECTS WE USE, expecting only the ones which support man-made climate warming.  He never asked you for any theories which do not FULLY SUPPORT man as the cause of everything.

I live in the mid-Atlantic and like you, ALL of April and May up until NOW (Memorial weekend?) has been COLDER THAN SHIT.  (sorry if shit is more an emotional vernacular than a scientific one) with most days in the 50s and 60s only rarely reaching the 70s and barely ever the 80s until now.

But it has been real good for grass mowing.

I can actually understand the cool weather though, colder in some areas, warmer and wetter in others;  there is a physical process that affects most systems called hysteresis which is why August is usually the warmest month north, but I get your point, if all this ppm of CO2 (I guess we ignore all the other GH agents like methane, aerosols, water vapor, etc.) was really doing its job, you'd think it would be warmer rather than colder (in most cases around here in the Ohio Valley its been about 10° below normal for at least since March), rather than just warmer toward the Ferrel and Polar cells at high latitudes.

I'm rather enjoying climate change:  milder winters AND summers!


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Careful, JC, you are throwing this entire thread for a loop. The OP ASKED US WHAT GREENHOUSE MODEL EFFECTS WE USE, expecting only the ones which support man-made climate warming. He never asked you for any theories which do not FULLY SUPPORT man as the cause of everything



So you deny the obvious presence of the Greenhouse Effect? 

I have more than a few quibbles about what happens when you increase the level of existing GHGs.

But to deny the entire effect is absurd.

Without Ghgs all of the surface radiation would leave at the spped of light. Even if all the solar radiation reached the surface and was absorbed, then the system would radiate at 340w. A lot less than the nearly 400w now.


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Careful, JC, you are throwing this entire thread for a loop. The OP ASKED US WHAT GREENHOUSE MODEL EFFECTS WE USE, expecting only the ones which support man-made climate warming. He never asked you for any theories which do not FULLY SUPPORT man as the cause of everything
> ...


show me a greenhouse that has ice in it. Let's forget that variable right?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?
> ...



3) Look up Stefan–Boltzmann law.

4) Just denoting the temperature difference courtesy of the GHE.

5) Higher CO₂ concentration means that photons escape to space at lower pressure (fewer CO₂ molecules between emitting molecule and space), and that means higher up.  With more radiation trapped at the lower atmosphere, less radiation warms up the upper level.  So, energy escapes at higher levels, at lower temperatures.


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> I have no idea _why _you have taken such a dislike to me


Then you must be dumber than a fence post.



> I am a climate skeptic. I don't believe in large feedbacks or predictions of doom. I think the IPCC is biased and hypocritical. I think the temperature records are skewed by improper manipulation. The list is practically endless.
> And what do I get for all the hard work of bringing evidence forward against the 'consensus '? Not much. The warmists know that staying out of the fight is the best way to not lose. Did the skeptic and denier sides of the message board show any support? Tepid at best.
> But when I excoriate deniers for rejecting the GHE then everybody is interested. They never fail to respond. I get the chance to refute them in more and more ways. I get to discard semi-mistakes and refine my position. Boring but familiar. Like rewatching a favourite TV series.
> I think you may have the wrong idea about my executive function.  Lefties consider me conservative.  Righties think I'm liberal. Perhaps Im just a devil's advocate.



Good.  Finally some discussion I can actually respect and relate to.  I know nothing of your past efforts, I usually don't get involved in climate threads because as I've said, it doesn't even interest me.  I mainly came here to talk politics to save my own astronomy forum the ardors of my occasional political rants.  But I wish you'd write better explaining labels such as "GHE" to us non-initiates on the climate battle;  I guess it refers to the Green House Effect?  Not that I can't understand anything that's been debated here, I'm just used to things I can put my hands on rather than how this or that wavelength sunlight might impinge on a CO2 atom somewhere in the troposphere and what, where and when it does something with it.

The Greenhouse effect is a given.  We wouldn't be here without it.  The atmosphere's ability to raise the surface of the planet about 50°F above what it would be otherwise is key to life as we know it.  What's at question obviously is how, why and to what degree we may be affecting it.  Again, the question is NOT IF we are affecting it---- ---- OF COURSE we are affecting the planet.  Man is Big Time.  But the planet also naturally produces much more than we do, so the question is are we adding just enough to push ourselves over some threshold?  And again, even if we are, the Earth has clearly demonstrated an ability to bounce back from FAR worse than anything we'll ever throw at it.

One of the things I do now is write.  I've written four textbooks on various science topics since the late 80s from professional to consumer.  People have told me many times that I have a knack for taking difficult, complex subjects and expressing them in easy-to-relate-to ways.  I often do that by reducing a complexity down to its most salient elements.  I used to get paid very well by an employer to find solutions to problems in a very direct and immediate way, as their downtime cost them $10,000 a minute.  They were a Defense subcontractor.  So I tend to take the shortest line between two points and be rather direct and blunt.  If you have that in you, perhaps if you take your views on GHE and expatiate them in more metaphorical ways as I often do that have broader interest and relatable appeal to more people, you might get more people to listen and understand.  I've won more than a few grants and at least sold one public observatory/planetarium construction project in the region to their county's Dept. of Parks & Recreation that way.

I'm neither a skeptic nor a believer.  I'm simply skeptical of everything until convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt by hard facts and solid science that is irrefutable that I can lay my hands actually on (passes the Common Sense Test).  If anyone here has that, I'm all ears.  

BTW, if you are actually interested in astronomy, you might enjoy a Jupiter photo just sent me by one of the people I mentor on my group.  It was taken with an 11" Catadioptric:

A Personal View Of Jupiter


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> If some of you don't mind. I think I might ask a moderator to move this to a clean debate zone. It's still being cluttered with alt-science and pissing contests. Or maybe those of us that want to stick strictly to the aspects of the GHE could start anew in the CDZ. However the last time that was done it was moved back to the Environment forum because it disintegrated there too, but I'm finished here.
> 
> 
> .



Yep, I understand but hope you'll reverse that decision.  CDZ doesn't help excluding alt-science.  Not that I'd venture to tell you what to do, but shoving the worst feces-peddlers out of sight does help.


----------



## justoffal (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed.  You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.
> 
> I then specifically searched for the IPCC version. Imagine my surprise when 'denier' sites were the major places of discussion.
> 
> ...



Here's the rub.... This is where the Gaia worshipers  go wrong every time.  No field of science stands alone all by itself especially in our ecosystem.  CO2 concentrations are affected by many different sources and sinks.  Ask any oceanographer and he will tell you that the water temperature is directly related to how much CO2 can remain dissolved in the seawater at any given time.

Since the oceans cover 2/3 of the Earth's surface they are a far more significant source and far more significant sink of CO2 than any other single source or sink. 1/10 degree temperature increase in the average sea water temperature globally would release hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. What is causing the oceans to heat up? No one is really quite sure of that However astronomers who study the sun, and vulcanologists who study tectonic movements of the Earth together with its volcanic systems both on land and on the sea... each have contributions to make to that particular mystery.

AGW Climatologists are the only ones that shut the door on all the other branches of science insisting that only their input matters when it comes to the very complex analysis of the CO2 cycle in our ecosystem.

Jo


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Careful, JC, you are throwing this entire thread for a loop. The OP ASKED US WHAT GREENHOUSE MODEL EFFECTS WE USE, expecting only the ones which support man-made climate warming. He never asked you for any theories which do not FULLY SUPPORT man as the cause of everything
> ...



I'll ignore this since you obviously haven't read post 318 yet.


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



Bad show, JC.  A greenhouse in a garden is a lot different from the Earth.  The sunlight hits the Earth over a wide range of incidence from head on to barely above the horizon.  The greenhouse effect is real, and it raises some parts of the Earth to hotter than hell and other parts still cold enough that they still have ice, but ALL places are warmer than they would be otherwise.  History shows us what the Earth is like without the comfort of GHGs, just look back to the Snowball Earth or the Huronian Ice Age.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Then you must be dumber than a fence post.



I went back and reread the first pages of this thread. 

Nothing I said would have triggered the intense dislike that you have shown. At least not in a normal person.

I said that I could not find reasonable descriptions of the GHE by a simple google search. Adding IPCC to the seach term brought up broken links and directions to blogs like Tallbloke and Climate Audit. I thought I made it clear that I was looking for searchable articles describing GHE.

When you added your personal interpretation I reiterated what I was looking for. When you asked what was wrong with your version, I told you.

Since then you have been bragging about yourself and insulting me. While I am not blameless in this bitching, I am certainly more the victim of slander than you are.

Post the supposed insult that sent you into the tirade against me.


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


That’s where I separate! It’s not greenhouse like, and why  my analogy


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Then you must be dumber than a fence post.
> ...



Maybe I overestimated you Ian.  Apparently you didn't read the one thing you should have.  You couldn't get past your own ego and the fence post.  I don't "brag" about myself, have only stated a very few simple facts merely to qualify my opinions a little bit.  Believe me, if I were bragging about myself, you'd know it.  You have no idea who I am or the things I've actually done.  Try reading my WHOLE post next time.


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

jc456 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



But it IS greenhouse like.  I say that both as a scientist and a gardener.  The panes of glass work to contain the heat from the warming effects of the Sun much as the GH gases do with the Earth.  The only question here is the output from man sufficiently modifying the atmosphere to cause eventual long term and catastrophic changes in Earth's climate?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> I think the IPCC is biased and hypocritical. I think the temperature records are skewed by improper manipulation. The list is practically endless.



Ah, I remember what I found most annoying about you.  Regurgitating that mendacious propaganda crap is shameful.



IanC said:


> Lefties consider me conservative.  Righties think I'm liberal. Perhaps Im just a devil's advocate.



Naw, you just hang out with the denialingdong goofs at WUWT way too much.  Otherwise you're quite okay.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> don't "brag" about myself, have only stated a very few simple facts merely to qualify my opinions a little bit. Believe me, if I were bragging about myself, you'd know it. You have no idea who I am or the things I've actually done




More bragging.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> You couldn't get past your own ego and the fence post.



I went back and reread just to make sure. You are the asshat. Actually I was beginning to let it go but seeing it again pisses me off more now than the first time.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Ah, I remember what I found most annoying about you. Regurgitating that mendacious propaganda crap is shameful




Hahahahaha.  I read both sides of an issue and decide which makes more sense.  You go in with a preconceived conclusion and judge the veracity of evidence not by its own worth but by whether it supports your position.

Not unusual for the human condition but a very poor way to judge science.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> You are the asshat. Actually I was beginning to let it go but seeing it again pisses me off more now than the first time.



You do know that you are helping the attention-seeking braggart to derail your thread, right?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, I remember what I found most annoying about you. Regurgitating that mendacious propaganda crap is shameful
> ...



All the charges of illicit manipulation fell apart under scrutiny, Ian.  Regurgitating these slanderous charges is shameful.  That remains so even while you try to hide behind the "read both sides" BS.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You are the asshat. Actually I was beginning to let it go but seeing it again pisses me off more now than the first time.
> ...



He thought he was being magnanimous by dialing down his insults but increasing his condescension. 

He's a blowhard in the style of polarbear. Fuck 'im.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Did you want to discuss this OE?


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...




Pick a specific incidence, then I'll  pick another in the category and we'll discuss them at the same time.

If that goes well we could choose another pair.

And pretty soon youll become a skeptic! Hahahahaha


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

justoffal said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed.  You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.
> ...




Sorry. The question is about the greenhouse effect. Written down and hopefully presented on an education website. Got one?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I personally have a big problem with #4. At the very least, IR from the surface should be divided into two groups. The bands which have little affinity for the GHGs (emissivity =0), and the bands that are absorbed to extinction by the atmosphere  (emissivity =1).
> ...



I am not at all clear what you mean, or how two bands would increase the layperson's understanding of the GHE.  How about you re-work the text?

4. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.

Remember, too, that IR radiation escaping through the Atmospheric Window does not contribute to the GHE, and thus doesn't belong into the definition.


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Man, Jo, that was a pretty cogent analysis of the broader picture of why many doubt the believers they would like see answered!  Too bad you only got slammed by a guy who first ASKED for your opinion, claims to be a skeptic as well while slamming other skeptics and arguing for common GHT, but then, what can you really expect from an idiot who ridicules a person 40 times just for making a passing 2-word qualification of himself entering a debate then turns around and amazingly says he can't imagine for the life of himself why you don't like him?  Then when you start to change your mind about him and compliment him and start liking the guy and offer the hand of friendship and well-intended advice thinking you're going to start having normal dialog with the guy, calls you an asshat, a bragger and condescending instead.  Pretty bizarre.

Tis the norm for USMB.

IanC has real mental and emotional issues like a lot of people here, probably an Aspergers type high functioning Autistic and probably has never actually worked a day of his life in anything remotely related to climate, Earth Science or the like, which might explain his bizarre frenetic attitudes and behavior.


----------



## justoffal (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Read it again....it is just such an explanation.
True it only deals with one of the elements
CO2....

Aside from that 98% of radiative atmospheric heat retention is done by water vapor....the other 2% by methane, Nox, Sox, co2  and a dozen or so other minor gases.

So yeah you're correct to have doubts about CO2.

Don't be fooled by the grade school appearance of the site. It is one of the best explanations on the net.

What Is the Greenhouse Effect? | NASA Climate Kids

Here's another one that is as scholarly as it needs to be.

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

Note that most of them are also infected with AGW propaganda.

Jo


----------



## justoffal (May 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...



Meh .... I just mention some of the things that should be obvious to a child....
They choose not to see it.... Oh well.

Jo


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> I am not at all clear what you mean, or how two bands would increase the layperson's understanding of the GHE. How about you re-work the text?
> 
> 4. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.
> 
> Remember, too, that IR radiation escaping through the Atmospheric Window does not contribute to the GHE, and thus doesn't belong into the definition




Increasing GHGs actually decreases IR radiation escape in the bands they interact with, by increasing the emission height. That really would lead to runaway warming if there was nothing to replace the output.

The freely escaping radiation at the surface does exactly that. Stop a watt of GHG IR and the system will store that energy untill the surface warms enough to push an extra watt of energy through the Atmospheric Window. Equilibrium is restored but the surface and atmosphere have warmed. This is not 'new' energy.  It is energy that wasnt given to space.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

justoffal said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I didnt say your comments were wrong (or right). I said they were off topic.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Read it again....it is just such an explanation.
> True it only deals with one of the elements
> CO2....




There were no links in your original comment.

If you think the ones that you have now added are up to snuff then we have different standards.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Increasing GHGs actually decreases IR radiation escape in the bands they interact with, by increasing the emission height. That really would lead to runaway warming if there was nothing to replace the output.



That's most likely wrong.  I'd say, with a warmer ground, a steeper energy gradient, more photons traveling, conduction and convection doing their part, the energy transfer rate adjusts back upward to the previous equilibrium - so as to match solar input.  With, say (grabbing figures out of thin air), the emission level 500 meters higher, temperature half a degree Celsius lower, and the emission "surface" proportionally bigger, the same output to space might be achieved.

Of course, we're talking about a 1°C rise in surface temperature on average.  I doubt the IR emission band is changed so much that a significantly higher portion escapes through the AW, and I have seen no one arguing that (which may not mean that much, admittedly).

Again, this appears to me to be a sideshow, perhaps your hobby horse.  How does the detailed physics of heat transfer facilitate the layperson's understanding of the GHE?


----------



## toobfreak (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Read it again....it is just such an explanation.
> ...



Did I blink?  You've made 999 claims in this thread and I've YET to see you link any of it to any sort of credible, independent (not committed to proving GWT) source!



 SNIFF  SNIFF.  P.U.

Something smells afoul on the farm again.


----------



## justoffal (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Increasing GHGs actually decreases IR radiation escape in the bands they interact with, by increasing the emission height. That really would lead to runaway warming if there was nothing to replace the output.
> ...



Correct... The climate is actually more resilient than the AGW isolationsts think.

Jo


----------



## justoffal (May 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Read it again....it is just such an explanation.
> ...



There's not much snuff to sniff in that category. I mean you can find papers that use all of the differential math and complex Cartesian integrals just to say that the sky is blue if that makes you feel more official about it.   Not sure why that's necessary. If I were to prove the earth Earth is flat with twenty pages of progressive linear equations all it would really do is look impressive.....it certainly wouldn't be true.

Jo


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> That's most likely wrong. I'd say, with a warmer ground, a steeper energy gradient, more photons traveling, conduction and convection doing their part, the energy transfer rate adjusts back upward to the previous equilibrium - so as to match solar input. With, say (grabbing figures out of thin air), the emission level 500 meters higher, temperature half a degree Celsius lower, and the emission "surface" proportionally bigger, the same output to space might be achieved.



Interesting. Do you feel like explaining more? Or would that be putting you on the spot?

How does the surface warm up? Where does the energy come from? Until the surface actually warms there is nothing extra there. Or is there?

The extra surface area 1/2 a kilometre up is a pretty small amount. The dry lapse rate is what...about 6.5C/kilometre? The radiation rate is kT^4. Im thinking the increase in area is insufficient to cancel out the loss of radiation.

What would be the predictions for my explanation?  (I cant make them for yours yet). With an increase of CO2, the notch in escaping radiation at 15 microns should deepen ( and widen, but we haven't discussed that yet). The surface should warm, pushing more radiation through the AW.

Do you think there has been  measurements over the same area, under the same conditions, but 15 or 30 years apart so that there was time for CO2 to increase and temps to move towards equilibrium?

Hahahahaha. Youre saying 'here comes the trap'.

Anyways, fill in some of the gaps for your explanation and we'll talk some more.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 25, 2019)

IanC said:


> The extra surface area 1/2 a kilometre up is a pretty small amount. The dry lapse rate is what...about 6.5C/kilometre? The radiation rate is kT^4. Im thinking the increase in area is insufficient to cancel out the loss of radiation.



You appear to have missed my "grabbing figures out of thin air".  Is the adiabatic lapse rate still valid at the outer reaches of the atmosphere?  Moreover, methinks you are thinking "big loss of radiation" when that loss is actually pretty small, in the order of 0.18% (something like 0.6 out of 340W/m²).  Moreover, there are, due to our FF burning, also more CO₂ molecules at the outer "border" of the atmosphere emitting photons into space in an atmosphere so thin, collisions are far less likely than at surface level.

Again, this appears to me to be a sideshow, perhaps your hobby horse. How does the detailed physics of heat transfer facilitate the layperson's understanding of the GHE? 


Oh, and Ian, since I've seen that ad nauseam from the denialingdong crowd: Yes, my understanding of physics - while above average - is limited.  That fact is not an argument against climate science, or the GHE.


----------



## jc456 (May 25, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


Man doesn’t exist on 2/3’s of the planet. The oceans rule as do the poles. Then there is the rain forests. The planet doesn’t need us, but we need it!


----------



## toobfreak (May 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Man doesn’t exist on 2/3’s of the planet.



Worse than that, JC, man is like only 1/10,000th of the Earth's biomass!  Man is irrelevant.  There is more fungus on the planet by weight than there is people.  Plants make up like 80% of the biomass and bacteria come in a distant second.  Even at that, there used to be far more plants until man started cutting all the trees down.

Mankind is like disease, a parasite like athlete's foot on the Earth.  Man is a consumer of everything, natural resources, minerals, even himself.  He gives back only pollution and waste to the Earth.  Perhaps global warming is nature's fever from its only animal not living in harmony with its environment aimed at doing away with us like a bad head cold.


----------



## IanC (May 25, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The extra surface area 1/2 a kilometre up is a pretty small amount. The dry lapse rate is what...about 6.5C/kilometre? The radiation rate is kT^4. Im thinking the increase in area is insufficient to cancel out the loss of radiation.
> ...




look...all I was doing was making an attempt to clarify your reasoning. it is easy to make declaritive statements but much harder to defend them when questioned.

I think you have a fuzzy concept in your head about how the GHE works but I doubt that it can hold up to the most simple of criticisms. ie.like the ratio of increase of surface area to the decrease of radiation.

again...sorry I didnt mean to put you on the spot. I thought you were interested in this stuff.


----------



## basquebromance (May 26, 2019)




----------



## IanC (May 26, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> Moreover, there are, due to our FF burning, also more CO₂ molecules at the outer "border" of the atmosphere emitting photons into space in an atmosphere so thin, collisions are far less likely than at surface leve




This is exactly the type of declaritive statement I was talking about.

The emission height is defined by the amount of CO2 present (n molecules per cm^3). increasing the ppm CO2 will push theemmision height up into thinner air but the amount of CO2 wwill remain the same (per cm^3). in thinner,colder air there will be less energy available to produce radiation.

You thought more radiation would be produced.


----------



## SSDD (May 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> My problem is that as IanC said in his OP there is a dearth of information. I tried looking at the general level of the OP, but it's buried in references that are impossible to get unless you pay $10 to $30 for a reprint of one paper that may not be what you thought it was. The IPCC only lightly summarizes the theory behind GHG's in what I could find.
> 
> 
> .



That would be because there is no actual observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and if you pay for a reprint, you will just get more models and be no closer to anything real than you are now.  When you get down to the "dirty math" you will find that there is nothing there...smoke and mirrors...models and metaphors....shuck and jive...bob and weave..but nothing whatsoever that even looks like actual observed, measured evidence for a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science..

And by the way...the IPCC gets as close to a precise explanation of the GHG hypothesis as is possible..get any closer and you can see the curtain moving as a result of the mechanizations of the man behind the curtain...or if you prefer some different imagery...you won't be able to ignore the pimples and warts on the emperor's naked ass.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2019)

cnm said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?
> ...



Sorry. I seemed to have missed a set of on topic and reasonable comments.

#5. I am not sure what you mean. The amount of radiation produced by GHGs has been reduced because there is less available energy to produce it . _j=ea_T^4.

#3. There is more than one way to interpret this statement. Which temperature? IR is poor at directly warming things but it is still pretty good at reducing the cooling rate. The measured amount of IR coming back to the surface is more than the amount of sunshine! 

Anyways, the way I see it, is the Greenhouse Effect is driven by the proportion of surface radiation that directly escapes vs the surface radiation that is captured and stored in the atmosphere. 

The amount of radiation coming in from the sun must equal the amount leaving the earth, otherwise warming/cooling will occur.

Outgoing terrestrial radiation comes from 1. direct escape from the surface and 2. emission from the atmosphere by GHGs.

Add more CO2 and the atmosphere emits less radiation.  The energy not escaping to space accumulates and is stored in the atmosphere/ surface. This will be expressed as an increase of temperature and the surface will produce more radiation, of which some fraction will escape directly and restore equilibrium. 

This is a basic form of thermodynamics but there are added complexities that should be stated. Namely the emissivity of individual bands and the presence of a temperature gradient that affects production of radiation. 

The IPCC references one average emission height and links it to the lapse rate. I think the surface escaping bands with an emissivity of zero should not be lumped together with atmosphere escaping bands with an emissivity of unity. How dissimilar do things have to be to avoid taking their average?


----------



## mamooth (May 31, 2019)

Ignoring the badly behaved blowhard troll, I'll try to talk about the actual topic. Kudos to Ian for his saintly behavior here. 

The best site I've seen for discussing atmospheric physics is The Science of Doom. It kind of lays things out like a textbook. Logical structure and it goes into a great deal of depth in each chapter.  

Roadmap


----------

