Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

But enough about you.

 

[SSDD]

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.

So you admit that you are incapable of plugging a number into the SB equation which you have claimed to know so much about and determine a radiating temperature..thought so....

As to the source...the graphics I provided, came from the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard...and they all showed the same thing....and I already provided a source...the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington...

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth

239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

So what's your next lie?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

So you admit that you are incapable of plugging a number into the SB equation which you have claimed to know so much about and determine a radiating temperature..thought so....

As to the source...the graphics I provided, came from the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard...and they all showed the same thing....and I already provided a source...the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington...

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth

239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

So what's your next lie?

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

 

[SSDD]

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.

So you admit that you are incapable of plugging a number into the SB equation which you have claimed to know so much about and determine a radiating temperature..thought so....

As to the source...the graphics I provided, came from the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard...and they all showed the same thing....and I already provided a source...the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington...

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth

239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

So what's your next lie?

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

I just did you moron...are the atmospheric sciences departments of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard not climate science sources? If the atmospheric science departments of respected universities who are teaching the topic aren't sources...what exactly is?....exactly how deep is your denial?

 

[Crick]

How deep is your inability to comprehend a diagram like that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

So you admit that you are incapable of plugging a number into the SB equation which you have claimed to know so much about and determine a radiating temperature..thought so....

As to the source...the graphics I provided, came from the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard...and they all showed the same thing....and I already provided a source...the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington...

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth

239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

So what's your next lie?

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

I just did you moron...are the atmospheric sciences departments of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard not climate science sources? If the atmospheric science departments of respected universities who are teaching the topic aren't sources...what exactly is?....exactly how deep is your denial?

are the atmospheric sciences departments of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard not climate science sources?

They are all good sources. None of them said the Sun is radiating down at -18C.
None said the Sun is radiating 239.7 W/m2.

exactly how deep is your denial?

I would never deny your failure to prove your claims.

 

[IanC]

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.

Hahahaha. The irony is delightful. You are saying that a cool object can make a warm object warmer!

Have you actually given this any thought?

 

[Olde Europe]

Hahahaha. The irony is delightful. You are saying that a cool object can make a warm object warmer!

Have you actually given this any thought?

Heavens, why is that so difficult?

Every object radiates. Radiation is energy transfer. If that radiation coming from one object hits another object, and is being absorbed, the energy is transformed in warmth. That remains true even though the net energy transfer might run into the other direction.

That's fairly straightforward, and still, none of the denialists I have seen understands it. Hence they don't understand back radiation, hence they don't understand the greenhouse effect, hence they're at a loss explaining why the moon (no atmosphere, no GHG) is significantly colder than the earth.

But I see them snickering a lot - however inadvertently - at the countless demonstrations of their own ignorance. Tell me you don't count amongst this lot.

 

[SSDD]

How deep is your inability to comprehend a diagram like that?

I understand it perfectly...and ran my understanding by a MSc in applied mathematics...and was right in my understanding of what the graphics were stating...you, on the other hand don't have a clue...you couldn't even identify the graphics as basic models of the greenhouse effect...

 

[SSDD]

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.

Hahahaha. The irony is delightful. You are saying that a cool object can make a warm object warmer!

Have you actually given this any thought?

Well that's precisely what the graphic model of the greenhouse effect that this whole thing is about is stating....

 

[SSDD]

[

That's fairly straightforward, and still, none of the denialists I have seen understands it.

It isn't that we don't understand what you are saying...its that we know it is bullshit...you on the other hand have swallowed it hook line and sinker..

 

[SSDD]

That's fairly straightforward, and still, none of the denialists I have seen understands it.

We understand what you are saying perfectly...we also recognize bullshit when we see it.

But I see them snickering a lot - however inadvertently - at the countless demonstrations of their own ignorance. Tell me you don't count amongst this lot.

Yes...we snicker a lot because you guys and your ignorance are just too funny...like your lecture above to ian about how you can point a magnifying glass at something and raise its temperature higher than the surface of the sun...hell you even told him that he could plug it into the SB equation...which was true...but alas, you don't know how so rather than speak from a position of knowledge, you spoke from a position of faith...and were dead wrong...According to the SB law, the most you could raise the temperature of anything with your magnifying glass would be 2200 degrees...less than half the temperature of the sun....

 

[SSDD]

are the atmospheric sciences departments of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard not climate science sources?

They are all good sources. None of them said the Sun is radiating down at -18C.
None said the Sun is radiating 239.7 W/m2.

I will never understand how you think being stupid is cute.... See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting...which I suppose is the whole point of your stupidity...it does say that the radiation from the sun that is striking the surface of the earth and being absorbed at 239.7wm2...which when run through the SB equation equals 255k...or -18 degrees... so deny on garth...and be just as stupid as you can....since apparently you aren't capable of much else...

 

[Crick]

Dear Shit (Same Shit Different Day is just too long),

Your rant only works if we assume your utter nonsense regarding radiation and CO2. You might want to back up and see if you can convince someone here (Billy Bob, the "Physicist" seems a good candidate) that cold matter cannot radiate to warmer matter and/or that CO2 has no warming effect or that it even has a cooling effect, in the atmosphere. Once you've established those points, you'll make much more headway convincing everyone here that the Earth is actually a snowball that we simply cannot see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

are the atmospheric sciences departments of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard not climate science sources?

They are all good sources. None of them said the Sun is radiating down at -18C.
None said the Sun is radiating 239.7 W/m2.

I will never understand how you think being stupid is cute.... See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting...which I suppose is the whole point of your stupidity...it does say that the radiation from the sun that is striking the surface of the earth and being absorbed at 239.7wm2...which when run through the SB equation equals 255k...or -18 degrees... so deny on garth...and be just as stupid as you can....since apparently you aren't capable of much else...

See the black arrow?...while it says nothing about the radiation the sun itself is emitting.

When you said the Sun was radiating 239.7W/m2, you were wrong. Got it. Moron.

...it does say that the radiation from the sun that is striking the surface of the earth and being absorbed at 239.7wm2...

Radiation that reaches the surface is different than that radiated by the Sun, as you first claimed. Got it. Moron.

which when run through the SB equation equals 255k...or -18 degrees...

Yes, the Earth's surface, not the Sun. Got it. Moron.

You've come a long way in this post. Congrats.

Next step, if the surface is -18C with only the Sun's radiation, is it possible that hitting the surface with additional radiation will raise the surface temperature above -18C?

Think carefully. Maybe you can ask the person who pulled your head out of your ass and finally explained your previous errors on this thread?

Be sure to get back to me.

 

[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.

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?

nope, they claim the incoming radiation from the sun is 239.7 wm2. Period. next. You even agreed with your first response! you a goofy fella who loves rat holes.

 

[jc456]

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.

So you admit that you are incapable of plugging a number into the SB equation which you have claimed to know so much about and determine a radiating temperature..thought so....

As to the source...the graphics I provided, came from the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington, penn state, and harvard...and they all showed the same thing....and I already provided a source...the atmospheric sciences department of the university of washington...

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth

239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

So what's your next lie?

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

why? he is showing you the ridiculous teachings of those climate sourced Universities. So, you want more details provide the correct values the universities missed on their graphs.

 

[jc456]

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

But enough about you.

do you know what this image represents?

So curious, do you believe the baffles make the object their cooling hotter?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

But enough about you.

do you know what this image represents?

So curious, do you believe the baffles make the object their cooling hotter?

Why, should they?

 

[jc456]

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

But enough about you.

do you know what this image represents?

So curious, do you believe the baffles make the object their cooling hotter?

Why, should they?

they're radiating right?