Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Why yes, you can plug that into the Stefan Boltzman equation...well maybe you can't...but luckily some of us can...the incoming radiation from the sun is actually 1370wm2......reduce that from a square foot, to a square inch...and that square inch will have a radiating temperature of 2473.8K...or 2200 C...or less than half the temperature of the surface of the sun...you seem to live on magic where you can magically increase temperatures just because you wish it so....

 

[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.

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.

A magnifying glass of any size would just create an image of the object. The ratio of the focal length to the lens diameter (f-stop) gives the image size and thus the energy density. There are physical limits to the f-stop.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

Here's one example in post #257

?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Do you agree with his claim that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

 

[jc456]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

Here's one example in post #257

?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Do you agree with his claim that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

it isn't his claim. let me know when you learn how to read. and again, I gave you the old socks post where it came from and you ignored it. so again, you're still in your rat hole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it.

Where did a university state that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

Maybe you didn't know how to read?

the link to the university was given and their statements.

The -18C radiating down was strictly SSDD's statement.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

Here's one example in post #257

?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Do you agree with his claim that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

it isn't his claim. let me know when you learn how to read.

That wasn't his claim in his own words in his own post? That's funny!

When you find those words in a university link, be sure to get back to me.

 

[jc456]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it.

Where did a university state that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

Maybe you didn't know how to read?

the link to the university was given and their statements.

The -18C radiating down was strictly SSDD's statement.

no, no it wasn't still in your hole I see.

 

[jc456]

no, he never claimed that.

He did, several times.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

Here's one example in post #257

?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Do you agree with his claim that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

it isn't his claim. let me know when you learn how to read.

That wasn't his claim in his own words in his own post? That's funny!

When you find those words in a university link, be sure to get back to me.

nope, not at all. not his claim at all. rat hole

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

No clue to which discussion you're referring, really. The imbalance, as best I can tell, was assessed at 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m², later revised to +0.60 ± 0.17 W/m². That would be the incoming radiation, minus the outgoing radiation, measured during a deep solar minimum (2005 - 2010). What's your problem with it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pointing out his error (lie?) is a rat hole?

What error

2 radiators at -18C warmed up something to 29C

Did it?

No, 2 radiators at -18C did not heat something up to 29C.

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K


Lets hear it genius...what does it say?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees.....see the 303K at the end...that is their radiating temperature according to that equation...303K is about 29 degrees....

So once again....explained to you in basic detail....if that isn't what it says...then by all means...lets here what you think it says...

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K


Lets hear it genius...what does it say?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees.....see the 303K at the end...that is their radiating temperature according to that equation...303K is about 29 degrees....

So once again....explained to you in basic detail....if that isn't what it says...then by all means...lets here what you think it says...

DERP.

 

[Wuwei]

No clue to which discussion you're referring, really. The imbalance, as best I can tell, was assessed at 0.58 ± 0.15 W/m², later revised to +0.60 ± 0.17 W/m². That would be the incoming radiation, minus the outgoing radiation, measured during a deep solar minimum (2005 - 2010). What's your problem with it?

OK. I probably was looking at something else. Your figures for imbalance look statistically significant.

 

[Olde Europe]

A magnifying glass of any size would just create an image of the object. The ratio of the focal length to the lens diameter (f-stop) gives the image size and thus the energy density. There are physical limits to the f-stop.

Point taken. Let's not get into the weeds, shall we? If I place the magnifying glass just a few meters from the sun, and concentrate the energy flux by a factor of four, or ten, the resulting temperature of the object in the focal point would still be hotter than the sun. So, Ian's "proof" makes no sense, just as the original thesis that an object here on earth, in a vacuum and thus insulated against convection, could be heated up to the temperature of the sun (radiation in equal to radiation out). That makes no sense - and I frankly admit that a few meters from the sun the magnifying glass would evaporate first, not to mention the human holding it.

 

[SSDD]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

Here's one example in post #257

?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Do you agree with his claim that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

Tell me toddster...are you really this stupid...or do you just like to appear stupid?

That the sun is radiating down at -18C is not my claim...it is the claim being made by climate science....how many times do you need to be told that....or if there is no amount of times that will be enough for you to grasp that very basic fact, just say so...

 

[SSDD]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

Here's one example in post #257

?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Do you agree with his claim that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

it isn't his claim. let me know when you learn how to read. and again, I gave you the old socks post where it came from and you ignored it. so again, you're still in your rat hole.

The abject stupidity is amazing...isn't it?

 

[SSDD]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it.

Where did a university state that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

Maybe you didn't know how to read?

the link to the university was given and their statements.

The -18C radiating down was strictly SSDD's statement.

Geez guy...is there any limit to how stupid you can be? How many times must this basic fact be explained to you... Once again...there is the graphic...see where it says that the radiation incoming from the sun...that's the black arrow pointing down is 239.7wm2? Their claim...not mine...and since you clearly can't work it out for yourself...radiation at 239.7wm2 works out to 255K or about -18 degrees...the same -18 degrees that they show radiating up from the surface of the earth.. It isn't possible to explain it in more simple terms...if you can't get that...then you are way less intelligent than I thought...and I have always thought that you were a borderline cretin....

 

[jc456]

The links provided from universities are the ones claiming it. And it hilarious to see the hoard defending it. SSDD didn't claim that it does he was exposing the fact that our ivory towers of science are full of shit and there are a whole lot of people swallowing it.

The links provided from universities are the ones claiming it.

None of the links said 2 radiators at -18C warmed up something to 29C

And it hilarious to see the hoard defending it.

I see a hoard pointing out SSDD's errors.

Another rat hole post

Pointing out his error (lie?) is a rat hole?

What error

2 radiators at -18C warmed up something to 29C

Yep, that's what the university claimed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

Here's one example in post #257

?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Do you agree with his claim that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

Tell me toddster...are you really this stupid...or do you just like to appear stupid?

That the sun is radiating down at -18C is not my claim...it is the claim being made by climate science....how many times do you need to be told that....or if there is no amount of times that will be enough for you to grasp that very basic fact, just say so...

That the sun is radiating down at -18C is not my claim...it is the claim being made by climate science

It should be easy for you to provide a "climate science source" that says the sun is radiating down at -18C.

....how many times do you need to be told that

I only need a single source that claims that. Besides you.

 

[jc456]

no, he never claimed that.

He did, several times.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

Here's one example in post #257

?...see the T at the beginning that stands for temperature....see the two 239.7 added together...that is one radiating up at -18 degrees and one radiating down at -18 degrees

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Do you agree with his claim that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

Tell me toddster...are you really this stupid...or do you just like to appear stupid?

That the sun is radiating down at -18C is not my claim...it is the claim being made by climate science....how many times do you need to be told that....or if there is no amount of times that will be enough for you to grasp that very basic fact, just say so...

That the sun is radiating down at -18C is not my claim...it is the claim being made by climate science

It should be easy for you to provide a "climate science source" that says the sun is radiating down at -18C.

....how many times do you need to be told that

I only need a single source that claims that. Besides you.

Rat hole, and no class

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

where? If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it. but hey, you remain stupid. BTW, the link to the university was given and their statements.

If you knew how to read he was using the universities statement to see who agreed with it.

Where did a university state that the Sun is radiating down at -18C?

Maybe you didn't know how to read?

the link to the university was given and their statements.

The -18C radiating down was strictly SSDD's statement.

Geez guy...is there any limit to how stupid you can be? How many times must this basic fact be explained to you... Once again...there is the graphic...see where it says that the radiation incoming from the sun...that's the black arrow pointing down is 239.7wm2? Their claim...not mine...and since you clearly can't work it out for yourself...radiation at 239.7wm2 works out to 255K or about -18 degrees...the same -18 degrees that they show radiating up from the surface of the earth.. It isn't possible to explain it in more simple terms...if you can't get that...then you are way less intelligent than I thought...and I have always thought that you were a borderline cretin....

Once again...there is the graphic...see where it says that the radiation incoming from the sun...that's the black arrow pointing down is 239.7wm2? Their claim...not mine...

You bet. Their claim.

...radiation at 239.7wm2 works out to 255K or about -18 degrees

Nope. They never claim that the Sun's incoming radiation means the Sun is radiating at -18C.
They do claim that for the Earth to radiate that much energy from the surface, with no atmosphere, would require an Earth surface temperature of -18C.

You understand the Earth's surface and the Sun's surface are different, right?