Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

To me it seems it's clear these are "just" weather and imagery satellites. However, NASA does indeed have plans to deploy these nifty CubeSats for all kinds of observatory aims, including infrared measurements. However, I cannot get any access to NASA's Earth Science Technology Office, or ESTO, which is supposed to develop and deploy these critters. Can you? Earth science technology may just have taken a hit in the U.S. of Trumpistan.

This is what I got.
This site can’t be reached
esto.nasa.gov took too long to respond.

I know the WH took off climate change references from whitehouse.gov.
But for NASA to take things off is very scary.
It is the modern equivalent of book burning and scientific censorship. Very scary.

 

[Olde Europe]

This is what I got.
This site can’t be reached
esto.nasa.gov took too long to respond.

I know the WH took off climate change references from whitehouse.gov.
But for NASA to take things off is very scary.
It is the modern equivalent of book burning and scientific censorship. Very scary.

​

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. They may just be in the process of revamping their website. Up to now I couldn't find any protestations about a (another) case of censorship. On the other hand, I wouldn't put it beyond the Trumpletons to purge more than just the WH website, sparking more "And Poof, it was gone..." celebrations. Let's look into it tomorrow.

Here's more on the Argo fleet to measure the earth's energy imbalance, with this helpful comment:

Earth's energy imbalance is thus the single most crucial measure of the status of Earth's climate and it defines expectations for future climate change.​

Happy to seem my contention supported by Mr. James "Goddard" Hansen himself.

And it would appear this fleet is either already in orbit, or is scheduled to be launched soon:

Four CubeSats in Three Launches

Scheduled to launch this month, RAVAN, the Radiometer Assessment using Vertically Aligned Nanotubes, is a CubeSat that will demonstrate new technology for detecting slight changes in Earth's energy budget at the top of the atmosphere - essential measurements for understanding greenhouse gas effects on climate. RAVAN is led by Bill Swartz at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland.

In spring 2017, two CubeSats are scheduled to launch to the International Space Station for a detailed look at clouds. Data from the satellites will help improve scientists' ability to study and understand clouds and their role in climate and weather.

IceCube, developed by Dong Wu at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, will use a new, miniature, high-frequency microwave radiometer to measure cloud ice. HARP, the Hyper-Angular Rainbow Polarimeter, developed by Vanderlei Martins at the University of Maryland Baltimore County in Baltimore, will measure airborne particles and the distribution of cloud droplet sizes with a new method that looks at a target from multiple perspectives.​

All three reasonably appear to be connected to the earth's energy budget, either by way of measuring IR radiation or albedo, cloud cover, etc. All the while we're still waiting for SSDD to come to grips with the equation with which he's been struggling.

 

[expat_panama]

This site can’t be reached
esto.nasa.gov took too long to respond.

I know the WH took off climate change references from whitehouse.gov.
But for NASA to take things off is very scary.
It is the modern equivalent of book burning and scientific censorship. Very scary.

Y'all can take the tinfoil off your heads, my isp got it w/ no prob at all:

 

[Olde Europe]

Y'all can take the tinfoil off your heads, my isp got it w/ no prob at all:

Apparently, the site could no longer be accessed via the old link because it switched from http to https. Thanks!

 

[IanC]

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...

As I said before, the graphs are a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation as an approximation of the GHE. What I was referring to as a stupid misinterpretation is you coming up with a computation of the temperature of -18C that would be the temperature of the earth if there were no GHG. You thought it of paramount importance when it actually has nothing to do with the GHE.

.

And when you start with a basic model that doesn't describe anything approaching reality...you can't make it complicated enough to make it true...the model of the GHE is flawed at its very foundation...no amount of complication can make that correct...when you have two radiators, using the SB Law, you don't add their output together to find a combined radiating temperature..you subtract them so that you can predict the actual radiating temperature of the two radiators which will ALWAYS be somewhere between the temperature of either...NEVER greater than the temperature of either...

And that -18 is the radiating temperature of 239.7wm2....the first graphic...the one with two arrows...a black one pointing down...a blue one pointing up is the climate science model of the earth with no atmosphere....and it says incoming solar and outgoing IR give you a radiating temperature of -18...then in the next graphic..the one with red arrows, they add in radiation from the atmosphere...and then they ADD the radiation leaving the surface of the earth to the radiation from the atmosphere and end up with a temperature 48 degrees higher than either...that is not a description of reality....and no amount of complication can ever make it reality.. That graphic describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect and it is completely wrong...if you have a radiator radiating at 20 degrees and a radiator radiating at 10 degrees their radiating temperature together will be somewhere between 20 degrees and 10 degrees...never any number higher than either...no matter what the radiators are...it is not possible to end up with a radiating temperature higher than either...

I have often wondered whether you actually believe the tripe that you spew, or if just like to play Devil's advocate for nonsensical ideas.

The Sun radiates at a known quantity and quality, but the intensity varies according to the inverse square law (1/d^2). A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in. A simple experiment would show this. Take a large magnifying glass and concentrate sunlight on a small object. Obviously the object couldn't get hotter than the Sun because that would mean it would be sending back more radiation than it received, heating the Sun! Sunlight always carries the characteristics of its source, no matter the intensity.

Therefore any surface temperature of the Earth is possible up to a maximum of the Sun's temperature, depending on the amount of insulation.

At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources. While the atmosphere/surface can be described at least somewhat adequately by the S-B equations, the Sun/surface relationship is dominated by the inverse law. You cannot pretend that the Sun is -18C just because the energy being received is attenuated by distance.

 

[polarbear]

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.​

As you were reading what is "right there in the text" you missed the boat.
Right at the start the author of this page got the 1370 W/m^2 solar radiation down to 239.7 because he spread it out over the entire surface of the sphere:
Solar radiation incident on the Earth's disk (1370 Watts per square meter) --comparable to energy incident a flat, horizontal surface when the sun is directly overhead on a clear day.
We need to multiply the incoming solar energy by the factor 1/4--the
ratio of the area of the earth's disk (pi R2) to the Earth's surface area (4 pi R2)-- You can think of this as spreading out the incident solar radiation uniformly over the earth's surface (the night side of the earth as well as the day side) 1370 / 4 = 342.5 watts per square meter.
And after that he reduced it even more to the final number, 239.7 W/m^2 with a .7 albedo .
Next thing this idiot does is using the StB equation to backtrack this to an "effective" temperature of -18 C. Then realizing his "effective" temperature idiocy he noticed that he was quite a few Watts short of playing with a full deck of cards. No matter he makes up that monumental shortfall using the earth atmosphere like some sort of slush fund:
This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold!
At this point he failed his own reality check:
In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F).
And then makes the brilliant deduction the 33 deg K he could not account for must be on deposit under "greenhouse gas effect"
This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.
If that`s an indication how dumbed down it got at universities that are supposed to teach science then I no longer wonder why they turn out nothing but zombies.

Don't forget...that they state clearly that they are using the Stefan Boltzman equation...and they ADD the two radiation outputs together...when the SB Law clearly states that when you have two radiators, you subtract the two....and then calculate the radiating temperature based on the difference between the two...not the sum of the two....The SB law when you have two radiators looks like this.....

..you don't add.

When the fundamental model is this wacked out...you can't make it complicated enough to bring it back to reality...and no power on earth will make that thermodynamic impossibility of two radiators emitting at 239.7 wm2 (which isn't reality itself) to combine to result in a radiating temperature of 303K or 29 degrees...

Exactly! The StB law for radiative heat transfer rates from warmer to colder clearly states that it is proportional to the difference of the 4th power of the 2 temperatures.
But they are doing this: (H and C denoting the 2 temperatures and "they" stands for the idiots)
H Watts/m^2 + C Watts/m^2 = σ ( H T^4 + C T^4) = H+C Watts/m^2
Then they solve for a T(combined) by taking the 4th root of H+C Watts/m^2
Which yields the absurd situation where the resulting temperature is the sum of 2 temperatures that were derived from the H number and C number of Watts/m^2.
Example: T(C)= 10 Celsius ==> 363.7 Watts/m^2 and T(H)= 15 Celsius ===> 390.1 Watts/m^2
Adding the Watts/m^2 they get 753.71 Watts/m^2 which solves for 66.5 deg Celsius.
So adding the watts/m^2 and then solving for T is totally ridiculous.
But you can get the temperature of an absorber to a higher temperature by the addition of the watts/m^2 i if you concentrate the total number of watts/m^2 on a smaller surface.
Like this:

Or like that:

 

[jc456]

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.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here. You've been informed and continue to slap the truth aside. It's ok. Your rat hole is yours to occupy.

 

[Wuwei]

Y'all can take the tinfoil off your heads, my isp got it w/ no prob at all:

https did the trick. Thanx, tinfoil was making my head sweaty.
I think I have a right to be paranoid these days.

 

[Olde Europe]

A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in.

At the same distance as is the earth from the sun, an object perpendicular to the sun's radiation - in a vacuum, hence perfectly insulated against convection - would receive 1370W/m^2. Radiating out that same amount of energy would, according to Stefan-Boltzmann, equate to a temperature of about 121°C.

If, on top of that, you also isolate that system against all outgoing radiation ("perfectly insulated"), it's an otherwise perfectly closed system to which you continuously add energy. This means that this object's temperature would, if you wait long enough, reach billions and then trillions of degrees - assuming for the sake of the argument that there's an "object" capable of withstanding such temperatures.

So, no matter how I look at the above, it doesn't seem right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here. You've been informed and continue to slap the truth aside. It's ok. Your rat hole is yours to occupy.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here.

Simply pointing out SSDD's idiocy.

 

[IanC]

A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in.

At the same distance as is the earth from the sun, an object perpendicular to the sun's radiation - in a vacuum, hence perfectly insulated against convection - would receive 1370W/m^2. Radiating out that same amount of energy would, according to Stefan-Boltzmann, equate to a temperature of about 121°C.

If, on top of that, you also isolate that system against all outgoing radiation ("perfectly insulated"), it's an otherwise perfectly closed system to which you continuously add energy. This means that this object's temperature would, if you wait long enough, reach billions and then trillions of degrees - assuming for the sake of the argument that there's an "object" capable of withstanding such temperatures.

So, no matter how I look at the above, it doesn't seem right.

No. As my magnifying glass example pointed out, the object can only increase in temperature until it matches the Sun's temp. Otherwise it would be heating the Sun not the other way around.

 

[jc456]

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.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here. You've been informed and continue to slap the truth aside. It's ok. Your rat hole is yours to occupy.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here.

Simply pointing out SSDD's idiocy.

why? it wasn't him with the explanation.

 

[Olde Europe]

No. As my magnifying glass example pointed out, the object can only increase in temperature until it matches the Sun's temp. Otherwise it would be heating the Sun not the other way around.

Sadly, your "proof" also makes no sense. The temperature in the object in the focus of the magnifying glass is a function of incoming flux and the ratio of concentration. Imagine an earth-size magnifying glass squeezing the sun's flux into a square inch. You can plug the resulting flux into Stefan-Boltzmann, and do the calculation yourself. I guarantee the resulting temperature is higher than the sun's surface. Moreover, every bit of radiation absorbed by the sun, even the earth's light, transfers energy and thus "warms" the sun, just a tiny bit.

Every normal physical object radiates, and in all directions, and not just "upwards". In the example, the whole flux received by the earth concentrated on that small, square-inch object would constitute a far bigger energy flux than the tiny slice of energy radiated from that object into the direction of the sun. Think about it, Ian, you'll figure it out.

 

[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...

As I said before, the graphs are a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation as an approximation of the GHE. What I was referring to as a stupid misinterpretation is you coming up with a computation of the temperature of -18C that would be the temperature of the earth if there were no GHG. You thought it of paramount importance when it actually has nothing to do with the GHE.

.

And when you start with a basic model that doesn't describe anything approaching reality...you can't make it complicated enough to make it true...the model of the GHE is flawed at its very foundation...no amount of complication can make that correct...when you have two radiators, using the SB Law, you don't add their output together to find a combined radiating temperature..you subtract them so that you can predict the actual radiating temperature of the two radiators which will ALWAYS be somewhere between the temperature of either...NEVER greater than the temperature of either...

And that -18 is the radiating temperature of 239.7wm2....the first graphic...the one with two arrows...a black one pointing down...a blue one pointing up is the climate science model of the earth with no atmosphere....and it says incoming solar and outgoing IR give you a radiating temperature of -18...then in the next graphic..the one with red arrows, they add in radiation from the atmosphere...and then they ADD the radiation leaving the surface of the earth to the radiation from the atmosphere and end up with a temperature 48 degrees higher than either...that is not a description of reality....and no amount of complication can ever make it reality.. That graphic describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect and it is completely wrong...if you have a radiator radiating at 20 degrees and a radiator radiating at 10 degrees their radiating temperature together will be somewhere between 20 degrees and 10 degrees...never any number higher than either...no matter what the radiators are...it is not possible to end up with a radiating temperature higher than either...

I have often wondered whether you actually believe the tripe that you spew, or if just like to play Devil's advocate for nonsensical ideas.

The Sun radiates at a known quantity and quality, but the intensity varies according to the inverse square law (1/d^2). A perfectly insulated object sharing a line of sight with the Sun would warm up to the temperature of the Sun at which point the radiation out would match the radiation in. A simple experiment would show this. Take a large magnifying glass and concentrate sunlight on a small object. Obviously the object couldn't get hotter than the Sun because that would mean it would be sending back more radiation than it received, heating the Sun! Sunlight always carries the characteristics of its source, no matter the intensity.

Therefore any surface temperature of the Earth is possible up to a maximum of the Sun's temperature, depending on the amount of insulation.

At present the Earth's surface receives radiation from both the Sun and the atmosphere. These two quantities are added together because they are separate sources. While the atmosphere/surface can be described at least somewhat adequately by the S-B equations, the Sun/surface relationship is dominated by the inverse law. You cannot pretend that the Sun is -18C just because the energy being received is attenuated by distance.

Deliberately obtuse...not very bright...or simply trying to complicate to the point that the original point is lost? Which is it...the discussion is about the simple models describing the greenhouse effect...go back and look at them if you have something pertinent to say..and if you can get through the smoke screen that goes on for pages after the warmers realized they were wrong..feel free to look at my posts...and the graphic....and by all means, if you think I missed something or got something wrong ON THE GRAPHICS..then point it out...

 

[SSDD]

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.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here. You've been informed and continue to slap the truth aside. It's ok. Your rat hole is yours to occupy.

It is all he has...his statements bear no resemblance to the point...

 

[Wuwei]

Y'all can take the tinfoil off your heads, my isp got it w/ no prob at all:

Apparently, the site could no longer be accessed via the old link because it switched from http to https. Thanks!

Interesting discussion of aerosols and GHG's, but there wasn't anything in the way of error bars in the data. I guess the imbalance energy they gave at the site are what Trenberth has at the bottom of his diagram. I knew subtraction of all those large uncertain numbers could not get something that small with any meaning.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here. You've been informed and continue to slap the truth aside. It's ok. Your rat hole is yours to occupy.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here.

Simply pointing out SSDD's idiocy.

why? it wasn't him with the explanation.

He explained that the incoming radiation from the Sun....

"that -18 is the radiating temperature of 239.7wm2"

means that radiator (the Sun) has a temperature of -18c .
He also claimed that doubling that incoming radiation can't heat something above -18C

 

[jc456]

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.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here. You've been informed and continue to slap the truth aside. It's ok. Your rat hole is yours to occupy.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here.

Simply pointing out SSDD's idiocy.

why? it wasn't him with the explanation.

He explained that the incoming radiation from the Sun....

"that -18 is the radiating temperature of 239.7wm2"

means that radiator (the Sun) has a temperature of -18c .
He also claimed that doubling that incoming radiation can't heat something above -18C

no, he never claimed that.

 

[Wuwei]

No. As my magnifying glass example pointed out, the object can only increase in temperature until it matches the Sun's temp. Otherwise it would be heating the Sun not the other way around.

That's right. I think it is Liouville’s theorem in optics that proves that there are constraints on energy bundles.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here. You've been informed and continue to slap the truth aside. It's ok. Your rat hole is yours to occupy.

It seems you continue to misrepresent what was posted in here.

Simply pointing out SSDD's idiocy.

why? it wasn't him with the explanation.

He explained that the incoming radiation from the Sun....

"that -18 is the radiating temperature of 239.7wm2"

means that radiator (the Sun) has a temperature of -18c .
He also claimed that doubling that incoming radiation can't heat something above -18C

no, he never claimed that.

He did, several times.