Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

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...

?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...


They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers.
Inside your own damn picture. See the box?
Solar radiation + Infrared radiation from the atmosphere.

Radiation going up from the surface is a negative.

now if you can't grasp that I am sorry

Your idiocy is sorry. We all grasp that.

They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18? wow.

Now, the other piece of that is how the temperature of like inputs can cause heat? Still waiting on that demo.

 

[Wuwei]

Save your further thoughts...you outed yourself when you admitted that you had no idea where the numbers were even coming from...you don't have a clue and it is a bit late to pretend that you do now...

You are right I had no clue that someone would be so stupid to misinterpret the equation like that. But my post #273 shows what the number means. Try Googling: how cold would earth be without greenhouse effect

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...


They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers.
Inside your own damn picture. See the box?
Solar radiation + Infrared radiation from the atmosphere.

Radiation going up from the surface is a negative.

now if you can't grasp that I am sorry

Your idiocy is sorry. We all grasp that.

They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18? wow.

Now, the other piece of that is how the temperature of like inputs can cause heat? Still waiting on that demo.

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18?

That's SSDD's idiotic claim. Not mine. Not the university's.

 

[jc456]

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...

?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...


They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers.
Inside your own damn picture. See the box?
Solar radiation + Infrared radiation from the atmosphere.

Radiation going up from the surface is a negative.

now if you can't grasp that I am sorry

Your idiocy is sorry. We all grasp that.

They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18? wow.

Now, the other piece of that is how the temperature of like inputs can cause heat? Still waiting on that demo.

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18?

That's SSDD's idiotic claim. Not mine. Not the university's.

well actually it was old rocks. I posted his post. why did you ignore that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...


They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers.
Inside your own damn picture. See the box?
Solar radiation + Infrared radiation from the atmosphere.

Radiation going up from the surface is a negative.

now if you can't grasp that I am sorry

Your idiocy is sorry. We all grasp that.

They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18? wow.

Now, the other piece of that is how the temperature of like inputs can cause heat? Still waiting on that demo.

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18?

That's SSDD's idiotic claim. Not mine. Not the university's.

well actually it was old rocks. I posted his post. why did you ignore that?

Old Rocks did not claim the Sun was -18C.

 

[jc456]

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...

?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...


They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers.
Inside your own damn picture. See the box?
Solar radiation + Infrared radiation from the atmosphere.

Radiation going up from the surface is a negative.

now if you can't grasp that I am sorry

Your idiocy is sorry. We all grasp that.

They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18? wow.

Now, the other piece of that is how the temperature of like inputs can cause heat? Still waiting on that demo.

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18?

That's SSDD's idiotic claim. Not mine. Not the university's.

well actually it was old rocks. I posted his post. why did you ignore that?

Old Rocks did not claim the Sun was -18C.

what did he claim then?

 

[Olde Europe]

Some, seemingly, can't read. The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:

Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2. We thus calculate T = 303 K.​

 

[jc456]

Some, seemingly, can't read. The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:

Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2. We thus calculate T = 303 K.​

you mean runaway temperatures? excuse me while I laugh..

 

[IanC]

The quality of the Sun's radiation is such that it could heat the Earth to 5000C if perfectly insulated. Likewise, the atmosphere could heat the Earth to the temperature of the atmosphere but not beyond.

The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.

Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.

 

[jc456]

The quality of the Sun's radiation is such that it could heat the Earth to 5000C if perfectly insulated. Likewise, the atmosphere could heat the Earth to the temperature of the atmosphere but not beyond.

The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.

Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.

so there you go, nicely put, the atmosphere could heat the Earth to the temperature of the atmosphere but not beyond...so how is it the surface gets hotter than the atmosphere as was in that equation? I supposed I should first ask, you agree the sun does not heat the atmosphere right?

 

[Olde Europe]

Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.

Why is the use of Celsius misleading? The latter part, I think, is nonsense, since energy stored away would suggest not-equilibrium (just as energy stored away in the deep oceans is indicating the earth's energy budget is not in equilibrium, even if the surface temperatures don't budge much).

 

[Wuwei]

The simplified S-B Law cannot be used to calculate the temperature of the incoming radiation without accounting for the areas radiating and receiving, and the angles.

The angles and areas are already implicitly included by adjusting the incoming radiation from the sun to be a day/nite east/west average.

Using temps in Celsius is misleading, as is ignoring the amount of energy stored to approach equilibrium.

I agree. Characterizing climate as a surface temperature gives an idea of "ecological comfort", but it misses latent longer term problems such as ocean temperature. However tracking total energy input and output is not all that viable.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...


They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers.
Inside your own damn picture. See the box?
Solar radiation + Infrared radiation from the atmosphere.

Radiation going up from the surface is a negative.

now if you can't grasp that I am sorry

Your idiocy is sorry. We all grasp that.

They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18? wow.

Now, the other piece of that is how the temperature of like inputs can cause heat? Still waiting on that demo.

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18?

That's SSDD's idiotic claim. Not mine. Not the university's.

well actually it was old rocks. I posted his post. why did you ignore that?

Old Rocks did not claim the Sun was -18C.

what did he claim then?

Search the thread if you think it matters.

 

[jc456]

They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18? wow.

Now, the other piece of that is how the temperature of like inputs can cause heat? Still waiting on that demo.

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18?

That's SSDD's idiotic claim. Not mine. Not the university's.

well actually it was old rocks. I posted his post. why did you ignore that?

Old Rocks did not claim the Sun was -18C.

what did he claim then?

Search the thread if you think it matters.

seems it matters to you you keep disputing the facts presented.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

so you're agreeing with them that the radiation from the sun is -18?

That's SSDD's idiotic claim. Not mine. Not the university's.

well actually it was old rocks. I posted his post. why did you ignore that?

Old Rocks did not claim the Sun was -18C.

what did he claim then?

Search the thread if you think it matters.

seems it matters to you you keep disputing the facts presented.

Nope. Just pointing out SSDD's confusion.
If you think something Old Rocks claimed makes SSDD look like less of an idiot, feel free to show me.

 

[Olde Europe]

Characterizing climate as a surface temperature gives an idea of "ecological comfort", but it misses latent longer term problems such as ocean temperature. However tracking total energy input and output is not all that viable.

Really, Wuwei? Energy coming in versus energy going out (to space) gives us all we need to know, including energy "stored". In the longer term, it doesn't really matter where the energy accumulates at one time or another; if the system is out of balance, disaster will ensue. I cannot find the "ecological comfort", whichever way I look at it.

 

[SSDD]

239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.

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.

And yet, that is precisely what the university of washington did....again...you don't have a clue...the more you talk the less you seem to know...

 

[SSDD]

???? 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).

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.

But you are right that, as simple as it is, idiots can misinterpret it and call everyone else idiots who understand the science better.

says the guy who doesn't even know how to plug numbers into the SB equations...says the guy who at first said that it was a simple but accurate representation of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect...says the guy who doesn't have a f'ing clue...

 

[SSDD]

Save your further thoughts...you outed yourself when you admitted that you had no idea where the numbers were even coming from...you don't have a clue and it is a bit late to pretend that you do now...

You are right I had no clue that someone would be so stupid to misinterpret the equation like that. But my post #273 shows what the number means. Try Googling: how cold would earth be without greenhouse effect

I didn't misinterpret anything....sorry that you can't read such a simple equation...sorry that you don't have a clue...

As to your post 273...again, I suppose you clearly missed the fact that if you go to any of the "respected universities" they all label those graphs as simple models of the greenhouse effect...they aren't making bullshit claims like you..they are apparently proud of their belief in magic...

 

[SSDD]

Some, seemingly, can't read. The interpretation of the graph is right there in the text, but still:

Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2. We thus calculate T = 303 K.​

Yeah...and it sounds real "science" doesn't it...except that when you use the Stefan Boltzman equation to determine the radiative output of two radiators...you subtract the respective wattages...you don't add them...use your brain for just a second...and here is an experiment you can do for yourself to perhaps....just maybe...see reality...

Grab yourself a cup of cold water....take its temperature...now grab yourself a cup of water of the same temperature...both are radiating at some wm2 that equates to their temperature...now pour them into a single container...and take the temperature again...dollars to donuts, the temperature is going to be somewhere between the two original temperatures...it certainly won't be higher than either glass of water....that's because you have to subtract...not add...the use of addition in that equation was a blatantly incorrect application of the SB Law...but hey..it sounds sciency so you believe it...and even if you go and do the water experiment, and see that the temperature is less than the warmer of the two...you will still believe what you are told to believe...because you are a useful idiot...such people are necessary if you want to promote pseudoscience...