Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.
Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!
Bzzzz...239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.
The surface receives 239.7 W/m2 from the Sun and 239.7 W/m2 from the atmosphere (back radiation).
Those 2 inputs result in the surface temperature of about 29C.
Now that I've pointed out your confused understanding, explain how those pesky photons from the Sun travel through the hotter corona.
Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.
That's just a very minor part, as it's a shorthand for saying that "a body at a temperature of -18°C emits 239.7 W/m^2". That doesn't even begin to describe SSDD's error interpreting this "simple equation".
Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.
Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!
Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..
Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.
That's just a very minor part, as it's a shorthand for saying that "a body at a temperature of -18°C emits 239.7 W/m^2". That doesn't even begin to describe SSDD's error interpreting this "simple equation".
Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!
Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..
Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say
No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.
Bzzzz...239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.
F'ing moron...are you unaware that you can run that 239.7 through the SB equation and find out what the radiating temperature is for something that is radiating at that wm2?....clearly not...an object radiating at 239.7wm2 has a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you people are proving your ignorance beyond any shadow of a doubt...
The surface receives 239.7 W/m2 from the Sun and 239.7 W/m2 from the atmosphere (back radiation).
Those 2 inputs result in the surface temperature of about 29C.
Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees...and certainly not a temperature of 48 degrees warmer than either..
Now that I've pointed out your confused understanding, explain how those pesky photons from the Sun travel through the hotter corona.
All you have pointed out is that you don't have a clue and can't read even the simplest of equations and had no idea that the wm2 output of a radiator equals a radiating temperature....
Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!
Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..
Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say
No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.
I haven't mis interpreted anything...but if you believe I have, by all means tell me what you think it says...
Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees
The Sun is radiating down. The Sun is not -18 degrees.
Two inputs of 239.7 W/m2 each can certainly result in a temperature of more than -18C.
On further thought, that outgoing radiation is long wave and is the same value as the energy of the incoming shortwave radiation. So the calculated -18C is the temperature the earth would be if there were no atmosphere at all. In short, equilibrium requires that the input from the sun is balanced by the output of the earth since it is a situation of radiation only.Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.
As though you don't know the difference between a positive number and a negative number.
Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees
The Sun is radiating down. The Sun is not -18 degrees.
Of course it isn't...but that's not what climate science says...we are talking about their model...not mine...clearly you had no idea what their model said...you just believed...well, now you know what it says...or maybe you still don't...either way I have described exactly what the equations in question are saying..
Two inputs of 239.7 W/m2 each can certainly result in a temperature of more than -18C.
Sorry, but they can't...you think you can pour a bucket of water at 40 degrees in a container of water...and another bucket of water at 40 degrees into the same container and raise the temperature above 40 degrees?...you must because that is what you are claiming when you claim that two inputs of the same temperature can somehow combine to make the temperature higher.
Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!
Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..
Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say
No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.
I haven't mis interpreted anything...but if you believe I have, by all means tell me what you think it says...
Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.
On further thought, that outgoing radiation is long wave and is the same value as the energy of the incoming shortwave radiation. So the calculated -18C is the temperature the earth would be if there were no atmosphere at all. In short, equilibrium requires that the input from the sun is balanced by the output of the earth since it is a situation of radiation only.Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.
As though you don't know the difference between a positive number and a negative number.
That is only a curiosity and has nothing to do with today's climate.
great post polarbear!So all these engineers who design electronics have it all wrong when they add more fins to a power transistor heat sink, because they radiate back at each other.
Without fan cooling these radiative heat sinks can get it down to as low as 0.3 deg C per watt
Scroll down to page 7 on this pdf, thats where the math & data is for radiative heat transfer for a TO3 style heat sink:
https://www.comsol.co.in/paper/download/83831/eppes_presentation.pdf
Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!
Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..
Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say
No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.
I haven't mis interpreted anything...but if you believe I have, by all means tell me what you think it says...
Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.
You really are behind the curve here aren't you...in fact, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even see the curve from here...OK...very slowly and perhaps at a 4th grade level this time... see the pretty blue arrow?...it represents upward radiation at 239.7wm2...that means it is radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees....see the equation down at the bottom..see where it says 239.7? the pretty blue arrow is representing that 239.7...now, see the pretty red arrow pointing down..that represents the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere....also at 239.7 degrees also a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....now look again at the equation at the bottom of the graphic...see the second 239.7 that is added to the first 239.7?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...see the 6.85 x 10^-8?...that is an operation involving the SB equation which converts the radiation into a temperature....see the 303K at the end of the equation...that means that they are saying that those to radiation emissions at 239.7wm2 have combined to produce a temperature of about 29 degrees...that is 48 degrees warmer than either of the emitting temperatures....now if you can't grasp that I am sorry...I can't make it any simpler than that...
???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.
The graph is an oversimplified back-of-the-envelope calculation for undergraduates. It assumes a constant temperature atmosphere and a constant density. But it is a cute trick to give an order of magnitude result.???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.
I admit I havent read the article that goes with the graph. the graph makes little sense out of context but it appears to be more related to Willis's shell problem than the Earth. it goes from a simple energy in, energy out example to a example where the new added atmosphere is at equilibrium but the surface is not. all changes in surface or atmospheric temperatures are powered by solar input that is not released to space but instead is retained by the system (the amount that would continue to radiate to space if solar input stopped).
