Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, no evidence behind Stefan-Boltzmann. DURR

post the piece that shows energy flowing from cool to hot. I've been waiting. you fail every day.

View attachment 284593

Plug in your variables. This formula will show you the power radiated by the cool object.

hey dude, I stated many times, I don't have any qualms with that equation. none. The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

Net is zero. Why do you disagree?

P= zero. yep!! no power.

Yup, net=0

 

[jc456]

post the piece that shows energy flowing from cool to hot. I've been waiting. you fail every day.

View attachment 284593

Plug in your variables. This formula will show you the power radiated by the cool object.

hey dude, I stated many times, I don't have any qualms with that equation. none. The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

Net is zero. Why do you disagree?

P= zero. yep!! no power.

Yup, net=0

yup- nada.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 284593

Plug in your variables. This formula will show you the power radiated by the cool object.

hey dude, I stated many times, I don't have any qualms with that equation. none. The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

Net is zero. Why do you disagree?

P= zero. yep!! no power.

Yup, net=0

yup- nada.

Yup, incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation.

 

[jc456]

hey dude, I stated many times, I don't have any qualms with that equation. none. The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

Net is zero. Why do you disagree?

P= zero. yep!! no power.

Yup, net=0

yup- nada.

Yup, incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation.

zero, I know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The one we disagree on is the one were t can equal tc and zero is the answer.

Net is zero. Why do you disagree?

P= zero. yep!! no power.

Yup, net=0

yup- nada.

Yup, incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation.

zero, I know.

Yup, SSDD is wrong.

 

[jc456]

P= zero. yep!! no power.

Yup, net=0

yup- nada.

Yup, incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation.

zero, I know.

Yup, SSDD is wrong.

how so?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, net=0

yup- nada.

Yup, incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation.

zero, I know.

Yup, SSDD is wrong.

how so?

He thinks emitting stops at equilibrium.

 

[jc456]

yup- nada.

Yup, incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation.

zero, I know.

Yup, SSDD is wrong.

how so?

He thinks emitting stops at equilibrium.

it doesn't? how does it do it if it's zero?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, incoming radiation equals outgoing radiation.

zero, I know.

Yup, SSDD is wrong.

how so?

He thinks emitting stops at equilibrium.

it doesn't? how does it do it if it's zero?

it doesn't?

If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, you'd realize what a stupid question that was.

how does it do it if it's zero?

The same way it emits when net isn't zero.

 

[jc456]

zero, I know.

Yup, SSDD is wrong.

how so?

He thinks emitting stops at equilibrium.

it doesn't? how does it do it if it's zero?

it doesn't?

If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, you'd realize what a stupid question that was.

how does it do it if it's zero?

The same way it emits when net isn't zero.

zero is zero. hmmmmm you're confused, I gotcha.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, SSDD is wrong.

how so?

He thinks emitting stops at equilibrium.

it doesn't? how does it do it if it's zero?

it doesn't?

If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, you'd realize what a stupid question that was.

how does it do it if it's zero?

The same way it emits when net isn't zero.

zero is zero. hmmmmm you're confused, I gotcha.

No, your ignorance doesn't confuse me at all.

 

[jc456]

how so?

He thinks emitting stops at equilibrium.

it doesn't? how does it do it if it's zero?

it doesn't?

If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, you'd realize what a stupid question that was.

how does it do it if it's zero?

The same way it emits when net isn't zero.

zero is zero. hmmmmm you're confused, I gotcha.

No, your ignorance doesn't confuse me at all.

but zero power sure does.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He thinks emitting stops at equilibrium.

it doesn't? how does it do it if it's zero?

it doesn't?

If you understood Stefan-Boltzmann, you'd realize what a stupid question that was.

how does it do it if it's zero?

The same way it emits when net isn't zero.

zero is zero. hmmmmm you're confused, I gotcha.

No, your ignorance doesn't confuse me at all.

but zero power sure does.

No, your ignorance about net power doesn't confuse me at all.

 

[SSDD]

Lucky thing we're applying SB to the surface of the Earth ... you've been told this a dozen times ... we use NS in the atmosphere ...

No....climate science is using the SB law to calculate the radiation from the atmosphere as well......

Here...from Columbia University......Highlighted at step 8


The greenhouse effect.
As described in the notes to lecture 1, when we apply this equation to Earth the calculated temperature we obtain is much lower than the observed temperature. As explained in the notes this is because the Earth's atmosphere contains gases that absorb the longwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. Let us now examine what this atmospheric absorption implies.

Figure 2: A plant with an atmosphere containing a single layer of IR absorbing matter.

Consider Figure 2 above. It shows the planet's surface still receiving a solar flux of (1-A) S (accept for reflection, expressed in the albedo A, the solar flux is hardly affected by the presence of the atmosphere because only small segments of the shortwave spectrum are absorbed by its constituents). The planet warms up and emits a flux of longwave (IR) radiation that we will denote by the letter G. In the atmosphere there are gases that absorb longwave radiation. We will consider for a moment that these gases are all arranged in a layer of some thickness above the surface and spread equally over the entire planet. We will also assume that all the longwave radiation is absorbed in that layer. As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter H. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts. Thus overall the layer emits a total flux of 2H W m-2. Using these considerations we can find if the addition of longwave radiation absorbing gases to the atmosphere changes the equilibrium surface temperature.

In this new situation the outer surface of the absorbing layer becomes the outer surface of the planet, and as described in section 1 above, it must come to radiative balance with the radiation absorbed by the planet. Thus, in radiative balance and following equation (5) above, we have:

(6) H = (1-A) S / 4

where the division by 4 represents the ratio between the effective planetary area for absorption of solar radiation and the planetary area emitting longwave radiation (Figure 1 above).

At the surface, the energy balance is:

(7) G = (1-A) S / 4 + F

This is because all the incoming shortwave radiation, not reflected back to space, is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Substituting for H from equation (6) we get:

(8) G = 2 (1-A) S / 4

The addition of one IR absorbing layer has thus changed the balance of energy at the ground. It now must balance twice as much radiation than before! We can now use the Stefan-Boltzman law to find out the new equilibrium temperature (the one affected by the greenhouse effect) and get:

(9) sTg4 = 2 (1-A) S / 4

Which implies that in the presence of one effective layer of an atmospheric absorbent the temperature ( Tg) is larger than the equivalent temperature ( Te) by a factor of 21/4 (the fourth root of 2 or approximately 1.2).

When this calculation is repeated adding another layer, the temperature at the equilibrium temperature at the ground increases even more. With N layers, equation 9 becomes:

(10) σTg4 = (1+N) (1-A) S / 4

and TG becomes (1+N)1/4 times larger than Te.



As you can see, according to climate science, the so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere represent a second absorption layer and according to them, there is now TWICE as much radiation as before...imagine...simple absorption and emission doubles the amount of energy present...That is the nature of the greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince, and as you can see, the SB law is used to calculate the amount of energy radiating from this new absorbing layer in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium temperature...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lucky thing we're applying SB to the surface of the Earth ... you've been told this a dozen times ... we use NS in the atmosphere ...

No....climate science is using the SB law to calculate the radiation from the atmosphere as well......

Here...from Columbia University......Highlighted at step 8


The greenhouse effect.
As described in the notes to lecture 1, when we apply this equation to Earth the calculated temperature we obtain is much lower than the observed temperature. As explained in the notes this is because the Earth's atmosphere contains gases that absorb the longwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. Let us now examine what this atmospheric absorption implies.

Figure 2: A plant with an atmosphere containing a single layer of IR absorbing matter.

Consider Figure 2 above. It shows the planet's surface still receiving a solar flux of (1-A) S (accept for reflection, expressed in the albedo A, the solar flux is hardly affected by the presence of the atmosphere because only small segments of the shortwave spectrum are absorbed by its constituents). The planet warms up and emits a flux of longwave (IR) radiation that we will denote by the letter G. In the atmosphere there are gases that absorb longwave radiation. We will consider for a moment that these gases are all arranged in a layer of some thickness above the surface and spread equally over the entire planet. We will also assume that all the longwave radiation is absorbed in that layer. As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter H. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts. Thus overall the layer emits a total flux of 2H W m-2. Using these considerations we can find if the addition of longwave radiation absorbing gases to the atmosphere changes the equilibrium surface temperature.

In this new situation the outer surface of the absorbing layer becomes the outer surface of the planet, and as described in section 1 above, it must come to radiative balance with the radiation absorbed by the planet. Thus, in radiative balance and following equation (5) above, we have:

(6) H = (1-A) S / 4

where the division by 4 represents the ratio between the effective planetary area for absorption of solar radiation and the planetary area emitting longwave radiation (Figure 1 above).

At the surface, the energy balance is:

(7) G = (1-A) S / 4 + F

This is because all the incoming shortwave radiation, not reflected back to space, is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Substituting for H from equation (6) we get:

(8) G = 2 (1-A) S / 4

The addition of one IR absorbing layer has thus changed the balance of energy at the ground. It now must balance twice as much radiation than before! We can now use the Stefan-Boltzman law to find out the new equilibrium temperature (the one affected by the greenhouse effect) and get:

(9) sTg4 = 2 (1-A) S / 4

Which implies that in the presence of one effective layer of an atmospheric absorbent the temperature ( Tg) is larger than the equivalent temperature ( Te) by a factor of 21/4 (the fourth root of 2 or approximately 1.2).

When this calculation is repeated adding another layer, the temperature at the equilibrium temperature at the ground increases even more. With N layers, equation 9 becomes:

(10) σTg4 = (1+N) (1-A) S / 4

and TG becomes (1+N)1/4 times larger than Te.



As you can see, according to climate science, the so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere represent a second absorption layer and according to them, there is now TWICE as much radiation as before...imagine...simple absorption and emission doubles the amount of energy present...That is the nature of the greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince, and as you can see, the SB law is used to calculate the amount of energy radiating from this new absorbing layer in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium temperature...

As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter H. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts.

Do you have any sources that say the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface?

 

[ReinyDays]

No....climate science is using the SB law to calculate the radiation from the atmosphere as well......

Here...from Columbia University......Highlighted at step 8

[snip]

As you can see, according to climate science, the so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere represent a second absorption layer and according to them, there is now TWICE as much radiation as before...imagine...simple absorption and emission doubles the amount of energy present...That is the nature of the greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince, and as you can see, the SB law is used to calculate the amount of energy radiating from this new absorbing layer in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium temperature...

I'm sure Columbia University is a fine liberal arts school ... their business and law schools are world famous ... unfortunately, they don't offer any classes on climatology, only a non-credit lecture series that's open to all students ... and this blerb you've presented seems to be a part of the lecture series, it is certainly written to the high school level ...

The blerb describes how a gardener's greenhouse works ... as this is very accessible to the typical high school student ... something many of them have been in and experienced the warmer temperatures first hand ... the university isn't on the hook for issuing credits, so this is fine ... but the notion of different IR layers in the atmosphere is ridiculous, unless you mean the entire atmosphere, one layer ... one emissivity value ...

That is some artistic math, for liberals ... eq. 7 must be a misprint, F isn't defined anywhere ... the high schoolers' eyes have already glazed over, no one's bother to fix that ... Eq. 10 did wind up being SB greybody, set e = 1/(1+N) set N to infinity ... [smile] ... and integrate ... but no sense making the kids wet their pants ...

I've expressed my disdain of "climate science" ... I fully understand the foolish things they say ... but I've tried to explain blackbody radiation to high school kids as well, so I understand some liberties need to be taken ... I don't know if I would offer bogus math, but none of them was paying me either ... my mistake I guess ...

Eq. 8 is wrong ... where the numeral "2" is should be a gradient ... [shrugs shoulders] ... that's why God invented third year calculus ...

 

[SSDD]

I'm sure Columbia University is a fine liberal arts school ... their business and law schools are world famous ... unfortunately, they don't offer any classes on climatology, only a non-credit lecture series that's open to all students ... and this blerb you've presented seems to be a part of the lecture series, it is certainly written to the high school level

Not even high school level and that pretty much sums up the state of climate sceince...

And do you ever actually research anything at all?

Mission - The Earth Institute - Columbia University
Atmospheric Science | Earth and Environmental Sciences

Denial of the state of climate science hardly changes the fact...

The blerb describes how a gardener's greenhouse works ... as this is very accessible to the typical high school student ... something many of them have been in and experienced the warmer temperatures first hand ... the university isn't on the hook for issuing credits, so this is fine ... but the notion of different IR layers in the atmosphere is ridiculous, unless you mean the entire atmosphere, one layer ... one emissivity value ...

And no..it does not describe how a garden greenhouse works...a garden greenhouse works by blocking convection of energy radiated from the floor...there is no "second absorptive layer" which "doubles" the amount of energy being radiated from the floor...

And yes it is ridiculous, but alas, that is the state of climate science...

That is some artistic math, for liberals ... eq. 7 must be a misprint, F isn't defined anywhere ... the high schoolers' eyes have already glazed over, no one's bother to fix that ... Eq. 10 did wind up being SB greybody, set e = 1/(1+N) set N to infinity ... [smile] ... and integrate ... but no sense making the kids wet their pants ...

Again...that is the state of climate science...interesting that you are unaware of this.

from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Note the equation at the bottom..the claim is that if you have a radiator emitting X W/m2 and add another radiator emitting X W/m2, you end up with a radiator emitting 2XW/m2. So if you have a pot of water at 100C and add another pot of water at 100C, you end up with a larger pot of water at 200C.

Here is one from Pen State

There are any number of graphics more or less just like this one which is just like the one from Columbia university...they all show the same thing and use the same equations...they all apply the SB equation to the atmosphere and claim that absorption and emission of IR by the atmosphere doubles the amount of energy present.

I've expressed my disdain of "climate science" ... I fully understand the foolish things they say ... but I've tried to explain blackbody radiation to high school kids as well, so I understand some liberties need to be taken ... I don't know if I would offer bogus math, but none of them was paying me either ... my mistake I guess ...

Maybe so, but you do defend the radiative greenhouse effect and you see the model of it and how it is derived... Like I said...there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

Eq. 8 is wrong ... where the numeral "2" is should be a gradient ... [shrugs shoulders] ... that's why God invented third year calculus ...

And yet, every atmospheric physics department associated with climatology teaches the same thing...the equation is not a misprint, or an error....it is part and parcel of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...and the basis for the AGW hypothesis...

 

[jc456]

Lucky thing we're applying SB to the surface of the Earth ... you've been told this a dozen times ... we use NS in the atmosphere ...

No....climate science is using the SB law to calculate the radiation from the atmosphere as well......

Here...from Columbia University......Highlighted at step 8


The greenhouse effect.
As described in the notes to lecture 1, when we apply this equation to Earth the calculated temperature we obtain is much lower than the observed temperature. As explained in the notes this is because the Earth's atmosphere contains gases that absorb the longwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. Let us now examine what this atmospheric absorption implies.

Figure 2: A plant with an atmosphere containing a single layer of IR absorbing matter.

Consider Figure 2 above. It shows the planet's surface still receiving a solar flux of (1-A) S (accept for reflection, expressed in the albedo A, the solar flux is hardly affected by the presence of the atmosphere because only small segments of the shortwave spectrum are absorbed by its constituents). The planet warms up and emits a flux of longwave (IR) radiation that we will denote by the letter G. In the atmosphere there are gases that absorb longwave radiation. We will consider for a moment that these gases are all arranged in a layer of some thickness above the surface and spread equally over the entire planet. We will also assume that all the longwave radiation is absorbed in that layer. As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter H. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts. Thus overall the layer emits a total flux of 2H W m-2. Using these considerations we can find if the addition of longwave radiation absorbing gases to the atmosphere changes the equilibrium surface temperature.

In this new situation the outer surface of the absorbing layer becomes the outer surface of the planet, and as described in section 1 above, it must come to radiative balance with the radiation absorbed by the planet. Thus, in radiative balance and following equation (5) above, we have:

(6) H = (1-A) S / 4

where the division by 4 represents the ratio between the effective planetary area for absorption of solar radiation and the planetary area emitting longwave radiation (Figure 1 above).

At the surface, the energy balance is:

(7) G = (1-A) S / 4 + F

This is because all the incoming shortwave radiation, not reflected back to space, is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Substituting for H from equation (6) we get:

(8) G = 2 (1-A) S / 4

The addition of one IR absorbing layer has thus changed the balance of energy at the ground. It now must balance twice as much radiation than before! We can now use the Stefan-Boltzman law to find out the new equilibrium temperature (the one affected by the greenhouse effect) and get:

(9) sTg4 = 2 (1-A) S / 4

Which implies that in the presence of one effective layer of an atmospheric absorbent the temperature ( Tg) is larger than the equivalent temperature ( Te) by a factor of 21/4 (the fourth root of 2 or approximately 1.2).

When this calculation is repeated adding another layer, the temperature at the equilibrium temperature at the ground increases even more. With N layers, equation 9 becomes:

(10) σTg4 = (1+N) (1-A) S / 4

and TG becomes (1+N)1/4 times larger than Te.



As you can see, according to climate science, the so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere represent a second absorption layer and according to them, there is now TWICE as much radiation as before...imagine...simple absorption and emission doubles the amount of energy present...That is the nature of the greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince, and as you can see, the SB law is used to calculate the amount of energy radiating from this new absorbing layer in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium temperature...

As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter H. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts.

Do you have any sources that say the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface?

Sure, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Guys name was Clausius I believe.

The Clausius Statement: It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and produces no other effect than the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body. It is remarkable that the two above statements of the Second Law are in fact equivalent

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lucky thing we're applying SB to the surface of the Earth ... you've been told this a dozen times ... we use NS in the atmosphere ...

No....climate science is using the SB law to calculate the radiation from the atmosphere as well......

Here...from Columbia University......Highlighted at step 8


The greenhouse effect.
As described in the notes to lecture 1, when we apply this equation to Earth the calculated temperature we obtain is much lower than the observed temperature. As explained in the notes this is because the Earth's atmosphere contains gases that absorb the longwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. Let us now examine what this atmospheric absorption implies.

Figure 2: A plant with an atmosphere containing a single layer of IR absorbing matter.

Consider Figure 2 above. It shows the planet's surface still receiving a solar flux of (1-A) S (accept for reflection, expressed in the albedo A, the solar flux is hardly affected by the presence of the atmosphere because only small segments of the shortwave spectrum are absorbed by its constituents). The planet warms up and emits a flux of longwave (IR) radiation that we will denote by the letter G. In the atmosphere there are gases that absorb longwave radiation. We will consider for a moment that these gases are all arranged in a layer of some thickness above the surface and spread equally over the entire planet. We will also assume that all the longwave radiation is absorbed in that layer. As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter H. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts. Thus overall the layer emits a total flux of 2H W m-2. Using these considerations we can find if the addition of longwave radiation absorbing gases to the atmosphere changes the equilibrium surface temperature.

In this new situation the outer surface of the absorbing layer becomes the outer surface of the planet, and as described in section 1 above, it must come to radiative balance with the radiation absorbed by the planet. Thus, in radiative balance and following equation (5) above, we have:

(6) H = (1-A) S / 4

where the division by 4 represents the ratio between the effective planetary area for absorption of solar radiation and the planetary area emitting longwave radiation (Figure 1 above).

At the surface, the energy balance is:

(7) G = (1-A) S / 4 + F

This is because all the incoming shortwave radiation, not reflected back to space, is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Substituting for H from equation (6) we get:

(8) G = 2 (1-A) S / 4

The addition of one IR absorbing layer has thus changed the balance of energy at the ground. It now must balance twice as much radiation than before! We can now use the Stefan-Boltzman law to find out the new equilibrium temperature (the one affected by the greenhouse effect) and get:

(9) sTg4 = 2 (1-A) S / 4

Which implies that in the presence of one effective layer of an atmospheric absorbent the temperature ( Tg) is larger than the equivalent temperature ( Te) by a factor of 21/4 (the fourth root of 2 or approximately 1.2).

When this calculation is repeated adding another layer, the temperature at the equilibrium temperature at the ground increases even more. With N layers, equation 9 becomes:

(10) σTg4 = (1+N) (1-A) S / 4

and TG becomes (1+N)1/4 times larger than Te.



As you can see, according to climate science, the so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere represent a second absorption layer and according to them, there is now TWICE as much radiation as before...imagine...simple absorption and emission doubles the amount of energy present...That is the nature of the greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince, and as you can see, the SB law is used to calculate the amount of energy radiating from this new absorbing layer in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium temperature...

As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter H. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts.

Do you have any sources that say the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface?

Sure, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Guys name was Clausius I believe.

The Clausius Statement: It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and produces no other effect than the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body. It is remarkable that the two above statements of the Second Law are in fact equivalent

Sure, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

SSDD posted a source that disagreed with the 2nd Law?

 

[jc456]

Lucky thing we're applying SB to the surface of the Earth ... you've been told this a dozen times ... we use NS in the atmosphere ...

No....climate science is using the SB law to calculate the radiation from the atmosphere as well......

Here...from Columbia University......Highlighted at step 8


The greenhouse effect.
As described in the notes to lecture 1, when we apply this equation to Earth the calculated temperature we obtain is much lower than the observed temperature. As explained in the notes this is because the Earth's atmosphere contains gases that absorb the longwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. Let us now examine what this atmospheric absorption implies.

Figure 2: A plant with an atmosphere containing a single layer of IR absorbing matter.

Consider Figure 2 above. It shows the planet's surface still receiving a solar flux of (1-A) S (accept for reflection, expressed in the albedo A, the solar flux is hardly affected by the presence of the atmosphere because only small segments of the shortwave spectrum are absorbed by its constituents). The planet warms up and emits a flux of longwave (IR) radiation that we will denote by the letter G. In the atmosphere there are gases that absorb longwave radiation. We will consider for a moment that these gases are all arranged in a layer of some thickness above the surface and spread equally over the entire planet. We will also assume that all the longwave radiation is absorbed in that layer. As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter H. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts. Thus overall the layer emits a total flux of 2H W m-2. Using these considerations we can find if the addition of longwave radiation absorbing gases to the atmosphere changes the equilibrium surface temperature.

In this new situation the outer surface of the absorbing layer becomes the outer surface of the planet, and as described in section 1 above, it must come to radiative balance with the radiation absorbed by the planet. Thus, in radiative balance and following equation (5) above, we have:

(6) H = (1-A) S / 4

where the division by 4 represents the ratio between the effective planetary area for absorption of solar radiation and the planetary area emitting longwave radiation (Figure 1 above).

At the surface, the energy balance is:

(7) G = (1-A) S / 4 + F

This is because all the incoming shortwave radiation, not reflected back to space, is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Substituting for H from equation (6) we get:

(8) G = 2 (1-A) S / 4

The addition of one IR absorbing layer has thus changed the balance of energy at the ground. It now must balance twice as much radiation than before! We can now use the Stefan-Boltzman law to find out the new equilibrium temperature (the one affected by the greenhouse effect) and get:

(9) sTg4 = 2 (1-A) S / 4

Which implies that in the presence of one effective layer of an atmospheric absorbent the temperature ( Tg) is larger than the equivalent temperature ( Te) by a factor of 21/4 (the fourth root of 2 or approximately 1.2).

When this calculation is repeated adding another layer, the temperature at the equilibrium temperature at the ground increases even more. With N layers, equation 9 becomes:

(10) σTg4 = (1+N) (1-A) S / 4

and TG becomes (1+N)1/4 times larger than Te.



As you can see, according to climate science, the so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere represent a second absorption layer and according to them, there is now TWICE as much radiation as before...imagine...simple absorption and emission doubles the amount of energy present...That is the nature of the greenhouse effect as described by climate sceince, and as you can see, the SB law is used to calculate the amount of energy radiating from this new absorbing layer in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium temperature...

As it absorbs the longwave radiation the layer also warms up and by radiative laws also emits longwave radiation. We will denote this flux by the letter H. Because the layer is elevated from the surface, it emits radiation through both its upper and lower surface in equal amounts.

Do you have any sources that say the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface?

Sure, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Guys name was Clausius I believe.

The Clausius Statement: It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and produces no other effect than the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body. It is remarkable that the two above statements of the Second Law are in fact equivalent

Sure, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

SSDD posted a source that disagreed with the 2nd Law?

wasn't me, and you asked, I answered. why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly? are you obsessed with him? can't get him out of your head?