Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Wuwei]

The facts are what they are and you refuse to see them as they do not fit into your belief structure. Its amazing how narrow minded you folks are. Enjoy your circle jerk. Only accepting a biased point of view that fits your own point of view is what put climate science in the place it is today, the trash!

My belief structure is physics. Yours is a troll structure.

.

 

[IanC]

BWhaaaaaaaaaaaa

You idiots have missed the forest due to the trees....

Each molecule in the atmosphere has its own emissions band(s). As collisions move energy in the troposphere they will all emit in their own bands relative to their temperatures.

I am in awe that such a simple concept is beyond the reach of a whole bunch of people who claim to be scientists. You people are so fixated on CO2 that you miss what is going on right in front of you that lays waste to the CO2 fantasy.

What bands do O2 and N2 emit in? How much of the total outgoing radiation are they responsible for?

Are you saying that O2 and N2 don't emit energy?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

I ask you straight forward questions and you refuse to answer with specifics. Then you get mad when I infer your position from the few cryptic clues that you do write.

Things emit according to their temperature and emissivity. What is the emissivity of gaseous oxygen and nitrogen for the infrared capable of being generated by terrestrial temperatures?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

Why yes they do and in regions CO2 also emits. In order to define how much you need to know the parts per million of our atmosphere to see how it relates to other gases.

View attachment 264574

I really dont know why I bother but....

Nitrous oxide is not atmospheric nitrogen. Ozone is not atmospheric oxygen. Why do you think they are? There are pages of links describing N2 and O2 as unreactive with infrared. Where is your information that claims the opposite?

 

[SSDD]

BWhaaaaaaaaaaaa

You idiots have missed the forest due to the trees....

Each molecule in the atmosphere has its own emissions band(s). As collisions move energy in the troposphere they will all emit in their own bands relative to their temperatures.

I am in awe that such a simple concept is beyond the reach of a whole bunch of people who claim to be scientists. You people are so fixated on CO2 that you miss what is going on right in front of you that lays waste to the CO2 fantasy.

What bands do O2 and N2 emit in? How much of the total outgoing radiation are they responsible for?

Are you saying that O2 and N2 don't emit energy?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

I ask you straight forward questions and you refuse to answer with specifics. Then you get mad when I infer your position from the few cryptic clues that you do write.

Things emit according to their temperature and emissivity. What is the emissivity of gaseous oxygen and nitrogen for the infrared capable of being generated by terrestrial temperatures?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

Why yes they do and in regions CO2 also emits. In order to define how much you need to know the parts per million of our atmosphere to see how it relates to other gases.

View attachment 264574

I really dont know why I bother but....

Nitrous oxide is not atmospheric nitrogen. Ozone is not atmospheric oxygen. Why do you think they are? There are pages of links describing N2 and O2 as unreactive with infrared. Where is your information that claims the opposite?[/QUOTDo you believe the only way energy exits the atmosphere is in the form of IR?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What bands do O2 and N2 emit in? How much of the total outgoing radiation are they responsible for?

Are you saying that O2 and N2 don't emit energy?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

I ask you straight forward questions and you refuse to answer with specifics. Then you get mad when I infer your position from the few cryptic clues that you do write.

Things emit according to their temperature and emissivity. What is the emissivity of gaseous oxygen and nitrogen for the infrared capable of being generated by terrestrial temperatures?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

Why yes they do and in regions CO2 also emits. In order to define how much you need to know the parts per million of our atmosphere to see how it relates to other gases.

View attachment 264574

I really dont know why I bother but....

Nitrous oxide is not atmospheric nitrogen. Ozone is not atmospheric oxygen. Why do you think they are? There are pages of links describing N2 and O2 as unreactive with infrared. Where is your information that claims the opposite?

Do you believe the only way energy exits the atmosphere is in the form of IR?

LOL...

First they beat you over the head about every molecule radiating above 0K and now they deny that it can radiate.... I guess its what is convenient for them at the time....

 

[IanC]

Are you saying that O2 and N2 don't emit energy?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

I ask you straight forward questions and you refuse to answer with specifics. Then you get mad when I infer your position from the few cryptic clues that you do write.

Things emit according to their temperature and emissivity. What is the emissivity of gaseous oxygen and nitrogen for the infrared capable of being generated by terrestrial temperatures?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

Why yes they do and in regions CO2 also emits. In order to define how much you need to know the parts per million of our atmosphere to see how it relates to other gases.

View attachment 264574

I really dont know why I bother but....

Nitrous oxide is not atmospheric nitrogen. Ozone is not atmospheric oxygen. Why do you think they are? There are pages of links describing N2 and O2 as unreactive with infrared. Where is your information that claims the opposite?

Do you believe the only way energy exits the atmosphere is in the form of IR?

LOL...

First they beat you over the head about every molecule radiating above 0K and now they deny that it can radiate.... I guess its what is convenient for them at the time....

Thanks for fixing SSDDs quote.

Solar shortwave can be reflected out of the atmosphere. IR emission is the only other way to lose energy to space. That leaves lots of other stored atmospheric energy returning to the surface by various pathways.

BillyBoob- you do understand that emissivity is an interegral condition of producing radiation, Right? solid or liquid nitrogen would have emissivity in the IR bands, the gaseous form does not.

I thought you were another of these self proclaimed physicists? Shouldnt you know this stuff?

 

[IanC]

Are you saying that O2 and N2 don't emit energy?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

I ask you straight forward questions and you refuse to answer with specifics. Then you get mad when I infer your position from the few cryptic clues that you do write.

Things emit according to their temperature and emissivity. What is the emissivity of gaseous oxygen and nitrogen for the infrared capable of being generated by terrestrial temperatures?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

Why yes they do and in regions CO2 also emits. In order to define how much you need to know the parts per million of our atmosphere to see how it relates to other gases.

View attachment 264574

I really dont know why I bother but....

Nitrous oxide is not atmospheric nitrogen. Ozone is not atmospheric oxygen. Why do you think they are? There are pages of links describing N2 and O2 as unreactive with infrared. Where is your information that claims the opposite?

Do you believe the only way energy exits the atmosphere is in the form of IR?

LOL...

First they beat you over the head about every molecule radiating above 0K and now they deny that it can radiate.... I guess its what is convenient for them at the time....

You do realize that a molecule does not have a temperature? Right?

 

[IanC]

I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.

Any comments before I go on?

 

[IanC]

First thing to notice is that there is an extra 100w going up from the surface. Why?

Thermals and the water cycle have been added to form a total, rather than just radiation energy.

 

[IanC]

Is it a 'perpetual motion machine'?

Of course not!

But what powers the cycle and where did the energy come from to raise the temperature? Any ideas?

 

[SSDD]

I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.

Any comments before I go on?

Just one... BBBBBWWWHHHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAASNORBBBBWWHAAAAAHAAAAHAAA

Full on magic fairy dust....I knew it would eventually come to this...

 

[IanC]

I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.

Any comments before I go on?

Just one... BBBBBWWWHHHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAASNORBBBBWWHAAAAAHAAAAHAAA

Full on magic fairy dust....I knew it would eventually come to this...

Really? I set the ball up on a tee for you and that's the best you can do?

I left for a while because the debate stagnated and became unbearably dull. If that is how you want to 'win', then go for it.

 

[Oddball]

All you need to know....

 

[toobfreak]

I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.

Any comments before I go on?

Yeah. You're a science fraud and an idiot. I came back here after weeks away curious to see if any of you geniuses have solved the world's climate problems yet and in 10 seconds I find this CRAP? You LIKE this diagram, IanC? All it requires is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy

Law of conservation of energy

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

It's the most basic tenet of the physical universe, a law that cannot either be violated nor changed for the laws of our universe to work, required by your GHT in order for your climate models to work.

I don't know what's worse, that you are given a voice here as "Professor Climate" or that others keep responding to your rubbish thereby legitimatizing it. Your chart contains one HUGE GLARING OBVIOUS FLAW among others: the claim that the GHE does not alter the output when that is EXACTLY where it steals all its energy from! Idiot!

 

[Wuwei]

Your chart contains one HUGE GLARING OBVIOUS FLAW among others: the claim that the GHE does not alter the output when that is EXACTLY where it steals all its energy from! Idiot!

I would agree that the wording to the right of the figure is poorly written and ambiguous. It's unfortunate that IanC didn't cite where the image came from.

IanC should have given the link. I found it at a blog:
The Tragic Tautology of the Greenhouse Gas Effect

...all outward longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is equal to, and in balance with, all the absorbed sunlight...​

I believe the phrase "... yet does not alter the input and output of energy" written at the left of the diagram is referring to the above quotation. To understand what the author is saying, you have to read the blog, but it's not worth it, really

The author denies the greenhouse effect and is using reducto ad absurdium in his diagram.

I really don't think IanC believes the diagram. I think he was egging SSDD on. But I think SSDD thought IanC was referring to Trenberths diagram which SSDD abhors and ridicules.

It seems misunderstanding abounds here.

.

 

[toobfreak]

...all outward longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is equal to, and in balance with, all the absorbed sunlight...

Well Wu, that is certainly true. It HAS to be obviously, as the output from the system will be exactly a function of the inward pressure from the Sun times the coefficient or factor of whatever the GHE is at that time (the balance), since the Sun is the source, the Earth is the load, and the atmosphere and all its related parts act as a buffering zone storage battery or energy capacitor (the "circuit") effecting the quality and latency of the storage.

And of course, there is no perpetual motion, as this once again implies the creation of energy more so than put into the system which again violates the Conservation Law. All one need do is turn off the Sun for 8 minutes and 41 seconds to prove the flaw in that idea.

The author denies the greenhouse effect and is using reducto ad absurdium in his diagram.

It's a common diagram, I've seen it before, I like it in that it gives a simple and easily and immediately understandable picture of the basic concepts generally accepted, but I would redraw parts of it somewhat different. How the author can deny the GHE (I'll take your word for it), is hard to understand though when it is not up for debate. No one can deny the GHE, it is an undeniable common physical process essential to the planet, what can be debated is how or to what degree it is operating or WILL operate, which is made all the harder to pin down since the Earth itself, a major part of the equation is neither fully understood and is always changing itself.

But then, last week here, I got into an argument with someone here who INSISTED that the Moon is artificial, a hollow metal ball placed at just the right orbit in space by God to cue man in to the secrets of the universe.

And could not be dissuaded.

This makes arguing with people over the internet beyond a certain point about as useful as banging your head against the wall.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I quite like this diagram. It emphasizes the recycling nature of the GHE.

Any comments before I go on?

This model fails as it precludes a "Tropospheric Hot Spot" which empirical evidence shows is not present. While some of the 452 is moved up and down by convection this number is grossly exaggerated and the functions of the atmosphere misstated.

This to, just like Trenbreth's cartoon, is incorrect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

I ask you straight forward questions and you refuse to answer with specifics. Then you get mad when I infer your position from the few cryptic clues that you do write.

Things emit according to their temperature and emissivity. What is the emissivity of gaseous oxygen and nitrogen for the infrared capable of being generated by terrestrial temperatures?

Are you saying they do? What wavelengths and how much?

Why yes they do and in regions CO2 also emits. In order to define how much you need to know the parts per million of our atmosphere to see how it relates to other gases.

View attachment 264574

I really dont know why I bother but....

Nitrous oxide is not atmospheric nitrogen. Ozone is not atmospheric oxygen. Why do you think they are? There are pages of links describing N2 and O2 as unreactive with infrared. Where is your information that claims the opposite?

Do you believe the only way energy exits the atmosphere is in the form of IR?

LOL...

First they beat you over the head about every molecule radiating above 0K and now they deny that it can radiate.... I guess its what is convenient for them at the time....

You do realize that a molecule does not have a temperature? Right?

WRONG!

All matter has a temperature. Now were into fairy land things changing basic physics and turning it upside down...

 

[Crick]

Wake up. The statement was that a single molecule does not have a temperature. That is perfectly correct.

 

[Wuwei]

What is the temperature of a molecule going 713.6 meters / second?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is the temperature of a molecule going 713.6 meters / second?

How many smart photons did it absorb?