Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[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?

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?

wasn't me, and you asked, I answered.

I asked him.

why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly?

Why do you need to answer a question to him?

If you want to answer the question to him, provide a source that answers my actual question.

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

The source would have to say, "the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law" or something equivalent.

 

[ReinyDays]

You posted this information once and claimed it's bogus ... and I agreed with you ...
You can post it as many times as you want and claim it's bogus ... and I will agree with you every time ...
You'll have to have those who claim this is correct explain to you why ... I'm guessing because they're speaking to children ... and children still believe in the Fairy Godmother ...

Consider what happens to temperature if we make this layer infinitely thin ... holding an infinitely small amount of mass ... an infinitely small amount of kinetic energy ... we have an infinitely small temperature ...

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...

I have no idea why you don't think the Fairy Godmother can't do this ... nor why you dismiss any model that relies on the Fairy Godmother ... I personally don't believe in the Fairy Godmother and neither do you ... can we please set aside any model that relies on her? ... the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...

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...

Strawman argument ... I said Eq. 7 was a misprint, or F = Fairy Godmother dust ... I said Eq. 8 is wrong, there's a difference between the two claims ... you don't know what a gradient is, and I'm not going to try and explain it to you ... math is hard ...

 

[SSDD]

the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...

10mph? Perhaps in a controlled environment the size of an aircraft hanger....out in the chaotic atmosphere, convection currents can move at speeds of 20 meters per second and more...

And you keep ignoring some demonstrable facts in order to maintain belief in a radiative greenhouse effect...

Number one....radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere

Number two...far infrared radiation does not, and can not warm the air.

It is interesting to me that all of you who believe that there is a radiative greenhouse effect have your own version and they rarely seem to conform to each other and almost never agree with climate science. Is it a sort of quasi religious polytheism where everyone gets his own to hold dear to his heart?

And every observation in the Newtonian universe does not support your radial nature of emission...in fact, none of them do or you could convince me with some actual observations of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the cooler object.

Perhaps that is how it works in all the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models since Newton was around...but not out hear in reality...saying that it is so does not make it so...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...

10mph? Perhaps in a controlled environment the size of an aircraft hanger....out in the chaotic atmosphere, convection currents can move at speeds of 20 meters per second and more...

And you keep ignoring some demonstrable facts in order to maintain belief in a radiative greenhouse effect...

Number one....radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere

Number two...far infrared radiation does not, and can not warm the air.

It is interesting to me that all of you who believe that there is a radiative greenhouse effect have your own version and they rarely seem to conform to each other and almost never agree with climate science. Is it a sort of quasi religious polytheism where everyone gets his own to hold dear to his heart?

And every observation in the Newtonian universe does not support your radial nature of emission...in fact, none of them do or you could convince me with some actual observations of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the cooler object.

Perhaps that is how it works in all the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models since Newton was around...but not out hear in reality...saying that it is so does not make it so...

It is interesting to me that all of you who believe that there is a radiative greenhouse effect have your own version and they rarely seem to conform to each other and almost never agree with climate science.

Irony is ironic.

 

[jc456]

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?

wasn't me, and you asked, I answered.

I asked him.

why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly?

Why do you need to answer a question to him?

If you want to answer the question to him, provide a source that answers my actual question.

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

The source would have to say, "the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law" or something equivalent.

I asked him.

I answered because it's a message board. you want to ask and not get any other answers Private Message him.

 

[jc456]

You posted this information once and claimed it's bogus ... and I agreed with you ...
You can post it as many times as you want and claim it's bogus ... and I will agree with you every time ...
You'll have to have those who claim this is correct explain to you why ... I'm guessing because they're speaking to children ... and children still believe in the Fairy Godmother ...

Consider what happens to temperature if we make this layer infinitely thin ... holding an infinitely small amount of mass ... an infinitely small amount of kinetic energy ... we have an infinitely small temperature ...

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...

I have no idea why you don't think the Fairy Godmother can't do this ... nor why you dismiss any model that relies on the Fairy Godmother ... I personally don't believe in the Fairy Godmother and neither do you ... can we please set aside any model that relies on her? ... the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...

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...

Strawman argument ... I said Eq. 7 was a misprint, or F = Fairy Godmother dust ... I said Eq. 8 is wrong, there's a difference between the two claims ... you don't know what a gradient is, and I'm not going to try and explain it to you ... math is hard ...

tough to get passed that if T=Tc, then the P becomes zero. hmmmmmmmm.

And that the second law

Clausius Statement of the Second Law. One of the earliest statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was made by R. Clausius in 1850. He stated the following. “It is impossible to construct a device which operates on a cycle and whose sole effect is the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a hotter body”.

 

[ReinyDays]

the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...

10mph? Perhaps in a controlled environment the size of an aircraft hanger....out in the chaotic atmosphere, convection currents can move at speeds of 20 meters per second and more...

Feel free to use 20 m/s ... how are you moving all this energy through the atmosphere? ... what temperature does the air need to be to convect 10^14 watts? ...

And you keep ignoring some demonstrable facts in order to maintain belief in a radiative greenhouse effect...

Number one....radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere

Number two...far infrared radiation does not, and can not warm the air.

You have not provided this demonstration ... what experiment can we perform that shows far IR cannot be absorbed by air molecules? ...

It is interesting to me that all of you who believe that there is a radiative greenhouse effect have your own version and they rarely seem to conform to each other and almost never agree with climate science. Is it a sort of quasi religious polytheism where everyone gets his own to hold dear to his heart?

And every observation in the Newtonian universe does not support your radial nature of emission...in fact, none of them do or you could convince me with some actual observations of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the cooler object.

Gravity is a force, and it is radial in nature ... I'm not clear on why you think outer space is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm also not clear why you think the top of the troposphere is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm fine with radiative energy moving from hot-to-cold ... why aren't you? ...

Perhaps that is how it works in all the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models since Newton was around...but not out hear in reality...saying that it is so does not make it so...

You have yet to post anything that would lead me to believe that you have any knowledge of any kind what-so-ever regarding Newton's mathematics ... as long as you keep your eyes closed, you will always be able to claim you don't see anything ... now I've asked a simple arithmetic question above, you should be able to answer ...

In scientific discourse ... it's not enough to say what is wrong, you must also say what is right ... I'm fine if you want to get rid of the greenhouse effect, but you need to tell us what's really happening and how this explains the effects we do observe and measure ... specifically why the temperature of the Earth's surface is 10ºC higher than what SB predicts ...

-----

I'm assuming the rest of us are on-board with the theory that explains the greenhouse effect ... outbound radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules and in part re-emitted down back to the Earth and increasing the temperature at the surface ... and this is quantified by the emissivity factor ...

 

[jc456]

the model I use has been explained to you multiple times, unfortunately you reject the radial nature of force in spite every observation in the Newtonian universe confirming this radial nature ... perhaps you should explain what your model is ... I'm desperately curious how you're managing 10^14 watts at 10 mph (that's the measured speed of convection) ...

10mph? Perhaps in a controlled environment the size of an aircraft hanger....out in the chaotic atmosphere, convection currents can move at speeds of 20 meters per second and more...

Feel free to use 20 m/s ... how are you moving all this energy through the atmosphere? ... what temperature does the air need to be to convect 10^14 watts? ...

And you keep ignoring some demonstrable facts in order to maintain belief in a radiative greenhouse effect...

Number one....radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy through the troposphere

Number two...far infrared radiation does not, and can not warm the air.

You have not provided this demonstration ... what experiment can we perform that shows far IR cannot be absorbed by air molecules? ...

It is interesting to me that all of you who believe that there is a radiative greenhouse effect have your own version and they rarely seem to conform to each other and almost never agree with climate science. Is it a sort of quasi religious polytheism where everyone gets his own to hold dear to his heart?

And every observation in the Newtonian universe does not support your radial nature of emission...in fact, none of them do or you could convince me with some actual observations of discrete wavelengths of energy moving spontaneously from a cooler object to a warmer object made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the cooler object.

Gravity is a force, and it is radial in nature ... I'm not clear on why you think outer space is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm also not clear why you think the top of the troposphere is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm fine with radiative energy moving from hot-to-cold ... why aren't you? ...

Perhaps that is how it works in all the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models since Newton was around...but not out hear in reality...saying that it is so does not make it so...

You have yet to post anything that would lead me to believe that you have any knowledge of any kind what-so-ever regarding Newton's mathematics ... as long as you keep your eyes closed, you will always be able to claim you don't see anything ... now I've asked a simple arithmetic question above, you should be able to answer ...

In scientific discourse ... it's not enough to say what is wrong, you must also say what is right ... I'm fine if you want to get rid of the greenhouse effect, but you need to tell us what's really happening and how this explains the effects we do observe and measure ... specifically why the temperature of the Earth's surface is 10ºC higher than what SB predicts ...

-----

I'm assuming the rest of us are on-board with the theory that explains the greenhouse effect ... outbound radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules and in part re-emitted down back to the Earth and increasing the temperature at the surface ... and this is quantified by the emissivity factor ...

what experiment can we perform that shows far IR cannot be absorbed by air molecules? ..

so you have an experiment of gas absorbing and emitting? wow

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

wasn't me, and you asked, I answered.

I asked him.

why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly?

Why do you need to answer a question to him?

If you want to answer the question to him, provide a source that answers my actual question.

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

The source would have to say, "the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law" or something equivalent.

I asked him.

I answered because it's a message board. you want to ask and not get any other answers Private Message him.

I answered because it's a message board.

And then you asked......

why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly?

DURR

 

[jc456]

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?

wasn't me, and you asked, I answered.

I asked him.

why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly?

Why do you need to answer a question to him?

If you want to answer the question to him, provide a source that answers my actual question.

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

The source would have to say, "the cooler atmosphere is prohibited from emitting back toward the warmer surface, because the 2nd Law" or something equivalent.

I asked him.

I answered because it's a message board. you want to ask and not get any other answers Private Message him.

I answered because it's a message board.

And then you asked......

why do you need to bring in SSDD to our exchange exactly?

DURR

because it was my post, not SSDD's D'OH!

 

[Wuwei]

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...

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.​

This is at least the third time you posted those types of diagrams, and the third time you misunderstood them. They are toy examples and "what-if" examples for students. That model is not used by the IPCC. It is way too simplistic.

I already showed you where you went wrong. You do not end up with any thing like two pots of water doubling in temperature. I showed you the missing math, but you must have forgotten.


.

 

[SSDD]

Feel free to use 20 m/s ... how are you moving all this energy through the atmosphere? ... what temperature does the air need to be to convect 10^14 watts? ...

As I have said..conduction and convection through the troposphere then radiation takes over in the upper atmosphere where molecules are to far apart to support conduction..

You have not provided this demonstration ... what experiment can we perform that shows far IR cannot be absorbed by air molecules? ...

Who said that far IR can't be absorbed by certain molecules in the air? I said that far IR does not warm the air...Since you are the one who believes in magic, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that absorption and emission equals warming...

And like I said..the infrared heating industry has about a million hours of experiment, design, testing, observation and commercial and residential installation that demonstrates that far IR does not warm the air...do you have anything at all that can demonstrate that absorption, and emission result in warming?

The energy that greenhouse gas molecules lose via collision with other molecules is known as conduction..and N2 and O2 molecules can certainly conduct energy...they don't absorb IR however..

Gravity is a force, and it is radial in nature ...

Great...if gravity were only radiation you would have something there...

I'm not clear on why you think outer space is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm also not clear why you think the top of the troposphere is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm fine with radiative energy moving from hot-to-cold ... why aren't you? ...

Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock puppet? He likes to fabricate arguments from his opponents and argue against them. Feel free to provide a quote from me where I ever suggested that I have a problem with energy moving from hot to cold...I'll wait..................waiting...................waiting......

You have yet to post anything that would lead me to believe that you have any knowledge of any kind what-so-ever regarding Newton's mathematics ... as long as you keep your eyes closed, you will always be able to claim you don't see anything ... now I've asked a simple arithmetic question above, you should be able to answer ...

Since I am not the one expressing a belief in magic, I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything...

In scientific discourse ... it's not enough to say what is wrong, you must also say what is right ... I'm fine if you want to get rid of the greenhouse effect, but you need to tell us what's really happening and how this explains the effects we do observe and measure ... specifically why the temperature of the Earth's surface is 10ºC higher than what SB predicts ...

Refer to Nikolov and Zeller...they have probably the best explanation of why the temperature of earth is what it is...in addition, their explanation works on every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..unlike the greenhouse effect which only predicts the temperature here..and then only with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor..

I'm assuming the rest of us are on-board with the theory that explains the greenhouse effect ... outbound radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules and in part re-emitted down back to the Earth and increasing the temperature at the surface ... and this is quantified by the emissivity factor ...

So you do believe in the fairy godmother, and unicorns, and all manner of magic..

You can prove your point by providing one measurement of a discrete wavelength of radiation emitted by CO2 being radiated back to the earth made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

Unfortunately, no such measurements exist...that sort of energy movement only exists within climate models...and the very models you acknowledged were bullshit are the basis for the belief you just expressed...interesting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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...

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.​

This is at least the third time you posted those types of diagrams, and the third time you misunderstood them. They are toy examples and "what-if" examples for students. That model is not used by the IPCC. It is way too simplistic.

I already showed you where you went wrong. You do not end up with any thing like two pots of water doubling in temperature. I showed you the missing math, but you must have forgotten.


.

Can any "Climate" scientist" please explain why it is that Neptune has atmospheric winds clocked at 1,300MPH or why Jupiter apparently radiates 2.3 times the energy it receives from the Sun? Has their CO2 been rising?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Feel free to use 20 m/s ... how are you moving all this energy through the atmosphere? ... what temperature does the air need to be to convect 10^14 watts? ...

As I have said..conduction and convection through the troposphere then radiation takes over in the upper atmosphere where molecules are to far apart to support conduction..

You have not provided this demonstration ... what experiment can we perform that shows far IR cannot be absorbed by air molecules? ...

Who said that far IR can't be absorbed by certain molecules in the air? I said that far IR does not warm the air...Since you are the one who believes in magic, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that absorption and emission equals warming...

And like I said..the infrared heating industry has about a million hours of experiment, design, testing, observation and commercial and residential installation that demonstrates that far IR does not warm the air...do you have anything at all that can demonstrate that absorption, and emission result in warming?

The energy that greenhouse gas molecules lose via collision with other molecules is known as conduction..and N2 and O2 molecules can certainly conduct energy...they don't absorb IR however..

Gravity is a force, and it is radial in nature ...

Great...if gravity were only radiation you would have something there...

I'm not clear on why you think outer space is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm also not clear why you think the top of the troposphere is warmer than the Earth's surface ... I'm fine with radiative energy moving from hot-to-cold ... why aren't you? ...

Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock puppet? He likes to fabricate arguments from his opponents and argue against them. Feel free to provide a quote from me where I ever suggested that I have a problem with energy moving from hot to cold...I'll wait..................waiting...................waiting......

You have yet to post anything that would lead me to believe that you have any knowledge of any kind what-so-ever regarding Newton's mathematics ... as long as you keep your eyes closed, you will always be able to claim you don't see anything ... now I've asked a simple arithmetic question above, you should be able to answer ...

Since I am not the one expressing a belief in magic, I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything...

In scientific discourse ... it's not enough to say what is wrong, you must also say what is right ... I'm fine if you want to get rid of the greenhouse effect, but you need to tell us what's really happening and how this explains the effects we do observe and measure ... specifically why the temperature of the Earth's surface is 10ºC higher than what SB predicts ...

Refer to Nikolov and Zeller...they have probably the best explanation of why the temperature of earth is what it is...in addition, their explanation works on every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..unlike the greenhouse effect which only predicts the temperature here..and then only with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor..

I'm assuming the rest of us are on-board with the theory that explains the greenhouse effect ... outbound radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules and in part re-emitted down back to the Earth and increasing the temperature at the surface ... and this is quantified by the emissivity factor ...

So you do believe in the fairy godmother, and unicorns, and all manner of magic..

You can prove your point by providing one measurement of a discrete wavelength of radiation emitted by CO2 being radiated back to the earth made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

Unfortunately, no such measurements exist...that sort of energy movement only exists within climate models...and the very models you acknowledged were bullshit are the basis for the belief you just expressed...interesting.

And like I said..the infrared heating industry has about a million hours of experiment, design, testing, observation and commercial and residential installation that demonstrates that far IR does not warm the air.

Always funny.

 

[Wuwei]

As I have said..conduction and convection through the troposphere then radiation takes over in the upper atmosphere where molecules are to far apart to support conduction..

The density of 15 micron CO2 radiation is 95 Watts per m³ just from the equipartition principle alone. That is plenty enough to allow energy movement by radiation in the lower atmosphere.

I said that far IR does not warm the air.

What happens to the roughly 400 W/m² emitted by the earth? It doesn't all go to outer space? You are forgetting you have to reckon with the conservation of energy law.

Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock puppet? He likes to fabricate arguments from his opponents and argue against them.

I don't fabricate. I have given you references and shown quotes from you where you disagreed with science. If you are referring to something specific, tell me about it.

Since I am not the one expressing a belief in magic, I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything...

Yes you are. You never explained why you think black body radiation magically disappears when near a warmer object. No scientist believes what you do.

Refer to Nikolov and Zeller...they have probably the best explanation of why the temperature of earth is what it is...in addition, their explanation works on every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..unlike the greenhouse effect which only predicts the temperature here..and then only with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor..

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
Nikolov and Zellar gave no explanation. All they did was curve fitting of temperature and atmosphere to a formula with these four fudge factors in their equation 12(b):
0.174222, 0.150275, 5.25043 10⁻¹⁵, 3.32375. That looks pretty fudgy.
They attempted to fit six data points of six planets or moons with four fudge factors. Their paper was published on false pretenses and was later withdrawn. Read their paper again. It shows a struggle to find find fudge factors with a plethora of guesses that don't work. That is not science.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

... Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock puppet? ...

This is going to have me giggling the rest of the day ... if I knew 5% about thermodynamics as he does I would count myself "reasonable knowledgeable" ... I thought Clausius converted to Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ali ... you know, practical thermodynamics ... thank you for the shout out on equipartition theory, I need to withdraw my earlier claim this effect was caused by the 2nd Law, I'll try not make that mistake again ...

SSDD ... You didn't answer my question, which is an answer in of itself ... you did the math in your head and realized how completely and utterly bogus you theories are ... especially after you remembered only half the atmosphere can be moving up, the other half has to be moving down ... did you see there where iron conducts energy 4,000 times faster than air? ... that bears repeating ... 4,000 times faster ... you have personal experience with heating iron, please don't pretend you don't ... "I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything" ... the definition of pseudo-science ...

CrusaderFrank ... I looked up Neptune on Wikipedia and that gives 6,000 mph at the equator ... re-read your citation because I'm pretty sure that 1,300 mph figure means something else ... just saying ...

 

[SSDD]

... Are you sure you aren't wuwei's sock puppet? ...

This is going to have me giggling the rest of the day ... if I knew 5% about thermodynamics as he does I would count myself "reasonable knowledgeable" ... I thought Clausius converted to Islam and changed his name to Muhammad Ali ... you know, practical thermodynamics ... thank you for the shout out on equipartition theory, I need to withdraw my earlier claim this effect was caused by the 2nd Law, I'll try not make that mistake again ...

SSDD ... You didn't answer my question, which is an answer in of itself ... you did the math in your head and realized how completely and utterly bogus you theories are ... especially after you remembered only half the atmosphere can be moving up, the other half has to be moving down ... did you see there where iron conducts energy 4,000 times faster than air? ... that bears repeating ... 4,000 times faster ... you have personal experience with heating iron, please don't pretend you don't ... "I have no responsibility to demonstrate anything" ... the definition of pseudo-science ...

CrusaderFrank ... I looked up Neptune on Wikipedia and that gives 6,000 mph at the equator ... re-read your citation because I'm pretty sure that 1,300 mph figure means something else ... just saying ...

Giggle away...that's what believers like to do. It seems to be a universal quality. And if you believe that energy is radiating from the cooler atmosphere to the surface and actually warming the surface, then 5% would be a number for you to shoot for. Not even the hard core warmers believe that one any more.

The better question would be how do you radiate that energy away from the surface of the earth with only about 0.05% of the atmosphere participating and only a very very VERY small percentage of that 0.05% ever actually radiating any energy away at all.

And your bar of iron is quite small compared to the entirety of the atmosphere. Then there is the inconvenient fact that the speed of conduction depends on the temperature and the nature of the material through which the conduction is happening. The atmosphere which is conducting and convecting which are the primary modes of energy movement through the troposphere is a great deal larger than your bar of iron, and the energy moving from the surface of the earth is considerably cooler than your red hot coals... It is the inability to actually understand that trivia like that is no more than a red herring that leads you guys to believe in the sort of magic that haas the surface of the earth being warmed by the cooler atmosphere..

 

[SSDD]

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model
Nikolov and Zellar gave no explanation. All they did was curve fitting of temperature and atmosphere to a formula with these four fudge factors in their equation 12(b):
0.174222, 0.150275, 5.25043 10⁻¹⁵, 3.32375. That looks pretty fudgy.
They attempted to fit six data points of six planets or moons with four fudge factors. Their paper was published on false pretenses and was later withdrawn. Read their paper again. It shows a struggle to find find fudge factors with a plethora of guesses that don't work. That is not science.

.

Yet another model...when will you guys wake up to the fact that models are not empirical evidence? Garbage in...garbage out...magic in....magic out..

 

[ReinyDays]

That's an interesting philosophy you have there ... maybe the confusion is you haven't stated the underlying principles that you're basing these ideas on ... is this just a personal thing or are you part of a larger group? ... anything published? ... there's nothing here that I can tell is part of any of the larger religions or philosophic schools, if that's a mistake then please enlighten me ... sounds like some of the New Age stuff that came out of Berserkley back in the 1970's to be honest ...

You're entitled to ignore how the state-of-matter affects conduction ... this is philosophy after all ... we can dispense with the details if there's a greater truth to be had ...

 

[jc456]

That's an interesting philosophy you have there ... maybe the confusion is you haven't stated the underlying principles that you're basing these ideas on ... is this just a personal thing or are you part of a larger group? ... anything published? ... there's nothing here that I can tell is part of any of the larger religions or philosophic schools, if that's a mistake then please enlighten me ... sounds like some of the New Age stuff that came out of Berserkley back in the 1970's to be honest ...

You're entitled to ignore how the state-of-matter affects conduction ... this is philosophy after all ... we can dispense with the details if there's a greater truth to be had ...

yeah, they call it observed.