Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

Equilibrium will be reached when both temperatures are the same.

I have to agree with IanC on this.

In Ian's "what-if physics" (I'm going to steal that) example (all radiation in, none out, as he maintains part time) I see an otherwise closed system into which you continuously pump energy, and that should heat up beyond all limits. At least, common sense would dictate that. In that scenario, the term "equilibrium" makes no sense. And no, in a "real physics" situation, equilibrium is reached when the emission from the object equals the absorbed radiative flux (subject to the inverse square law), and thus the object's equilibrium temperature is way below the sun's, practically and also theoretically. Thank physics for that, for otherwise we'd all be cooked.

Otherwise, I've by now reached the conclusion that Ian's example isn't as enlightening as it seemed initially (even if we could work out the contradictions), as it (as I think you suggested) doesn't really shed a light on the Greenhouse Effect.

I am happy to realize that on the "real" physics side Ian, you and I agree that back radiation is huge, even exceeds the sun's flux absorbed by the earth: 340.3 vs 240,3 W/m². That is the main reason why the earth is at an average temperature far higher than the -18°C it would reach without the GHE. Let the denialings gnaw on that.

I agree with everything you say.

But I have a problem with the idea of a system of all radiation in, none out. There is a classical optical reciprocity theorem that says that the path of a light beam from point A through the system to point B is the same that a beam would follow from from B to A.

If we want to drop that requirement, we would need to invent a one-way optical valve. I think this would be the EM version of Maxwell's Demon for particles which highly frowned upon.

 

[Olde Europe]

But I have a problem with the idea of a system of all radiation in, none out. There is a classical optical reciprocity theorem that says that the path of a light beam from point A through the system to point B is the same that a beam would follow from from B to A.

If we want to drop that requirement, we would need to invent a one-way optical valve. I think this would be the EM version of Maxwell's Demon for particles which highly frowned upon.

I agree with the practical impossibility of creating a "perfectly insulated" system that lets radiation in. Whether Maxwell's Demon would be a good analogy I don't know. Telling apart particles' velocity (and opening / closing a valve accordingly) may not be the same as some fictional material letting photons pass in one direction only. Here's a nice discussion dealing with a similar problem:

Now, if as you suggest, we have a fictional "perfectly reflecting" material, then the energy density will build without limit even with a finite energy source. But this would be true only if the coupling mechanism of the photons into the cavity is also "perfectly unidirectional". That is, the coupling mechanism will dump photons into the cavity, but allow none to "leak" out backwards. Alas, there's no such thing as a perfectly reflecting surface, nor is there anything like a perfectly unidirectional coupler. And, of course no material can sustain infinite energy densities.​

 

[SSDD]

We didn't really get into this you jack monkeys started hooting over my blasphemy of questioning the cult of AGW...

But in the graphic, the greenhouse effect is taking credit for the temperature gradients in the atmosphere..that is to say, that the greenhouse effect is being given credit for the fact that the closer to the surface you get, the warmer the atmosphere is and inversely the higher you go, the cooler the atmosphere is...this is evident because the diagrams depict that the radiation from the atmosphere is what causes the surface to warm...note back to the first graphic...with no atmosphere...the earth was radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees...

The problem with this claim is that the lapse rate, while it exists, has a cause that is entirely independent of the claimed greenhouse effect....The adiabatic lapse rate is accurately calculated without using any reference to radiation at all...

If the greenhouse effect induced its own additional lapse rate...which it would have to since climate science is claiming that radiation from the atmosphere is what causes the earth to be warmer than -18C...then the lapse rate should be higher than the adiabatic lapse rate which is calculated with no reference to radiation at all...it isn't...

The measured dry lapse rate is -10 degrees kelvin per kilometer...the measured wet lapse rate is -6.5 degrees kelvin per kilometer...

Look again at that sentence....THE MEASURED DRY LAPSE RATE IS -10K/km....THE MEASURED WET LAPSE RATE IS -6.5K/km....

Doesn't look like much does it? Doesn't look like the arrow through the heart of the radiative greenhouse effect...but it is...aside from all the errors early on...this one fact completely refutes the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...WHEN THE STRONGEST GREENHOUSE GAS (WATER VAPOR) IS PRESENT (WET LAPSE RATE) THE LAPSE RATE DECREASES!!!! WHICH LEADS TO COOLER SURFACE TEMPERATURES......NOT WARMER.

 

[Olde Europe]

Ah, I see, the lapse rate is another thing SSDD doesn't understand, and, inevitably, this misunderstanding is yet another "arrow through the heart of the radiative greenhouse effect". It patently has to be.

Reality is this: The wet adiabatic lapse rate is lower than the dry one since, as moist air rises upwards, it cools and eventually the water vapor condenses. Condensation releases energy and that's why, when moist air rises, the atmosphere higher up is warmer than it would be if dry air rises (no condensation).

There's another self-inflicted hole in SSDD's foot. What good are arrows, if not for that?

 

[SSDD]

Ah, I see, the lapse rate is another thing SSDD doesn't understand, and, inevitably, this misunderstanding is yet another "arrow through the heart of the radiative greenhouse effect". It patently has to be.

Reality is this: The wet adiabatic lapse rate is lower than the dry one since, as moist air rises upwards, it cools and eventually the water vapor condenses. Condensation releases energy and that's why, when moist air rises, the atmosphere higher up is warmer than it would be if dry air rises (no condensation).

There's another self-inflicted hole in SSDD's foot. What good are arrows, if not for that?

Sorry goober...the lapse rate is calculated entirely without reference to radiation...now you can invent some radiative reason....something good enough to fool yourself and those like you who are prone to believing in magic...but the fact is that the lapse rate is the result of the mass of the atmosphere and has nothing whatsoever to do with a fictional radiative greenhouse effect..

 

[Olde Europe]

Sorry goober...the lapse rate is calculated entirely without reference to radiation...now you can invent some radiative reason....something good enough to fool yourself and those like you who are prone to believing in magic...but the fact is that the lapse rate is the result of the mass of the atmosphere and has nothing whatsoever to do with a fictional radiative greenhouse effect.

Good weasel, not spectacular, but nice.

Note to those interested in facts:

The "adiabatic lapse rate" (wet or dry) describes temperature changes of blobs of warm air rising upwards due to decompression with altitude. The cooling because of decompression is partly compensated by condensation in the case of moist air rising. That describes an adiabatic process occurring due to an instability in the atmosphere.

Now, the "lapse rate" (temperature over height) of a stable atmosphere (next to no vertical movement) is something entirely different, and is somewhat changed due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

The two shall not be confused with each other - except, of course, in order to deceive gullible ignoramuses.

 

[SSDD]

An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...

In addition, repeatable experimental lab work has shown temperature gradients in columns of air...if you want to know why the temperature on earth is what it is, refer to the ideal atmosphere...and the ideal gas laws...it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws and slight adjustments for the incoming solar radiation are able to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..while the greenhouse effect can only produce an accurate temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

 

[Wuwei]

I agree with the practical impossibility of creating a "perfectly insulated" system that lets radiation in. Whether Maxwell's Demon would be a good analogy I don't know. Telling apart particles' velocity (and opening / closing a valve accordingly) may not be the same as some fictional material letting photons pass in one direction only. Here's a nice discussion dealing with a similar problem:

Now, if as you suggest, we have a fictional "perfectly reflecting" material, then the energy density will build without limit even with a finite energy source. But this would be true only if the coupling mechanism of the photons into the cavity is also "perfectly unidirectional". That is, the coupling mechanism will dump photons into the cavity, but allow none to "leak" out backwards. Alas, there's no such thing as a perfectly reflecting surface, nor is there anything like a perfectly unidirectional coupler. And, of course no material can sustain infinite energy densities.

I think the conclusion is that heating something hotter than the source (breaking the 2nd law) can only happen with what-if physics that stretches things too far.

 

[IanC]

Hi IanC
Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
"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."
"Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
Why do you think it`s necessary to do this addition?
The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.
It seems that everybody goes down that path, adding watts/m^2 because they think that they can use the sum after that to conveniently solve for temperature.
But that is a pitfall,not a valid shortcut. The only way to get the temperature is to use the StB equation with the 2 temperatures as it is written and then specify the time and the mass & specific heat while allowing for the changes of T1 and T2 during the specified time interval.

Sorry polarbear, I missed your post earlier.

There are various 'classes' of calculations when applying the S-B equations.

The simplest is one object radiating into void, where there is no returning radiation.

The next simplest is when one object is enclosed by another. The diffuse nature of radiation can be cancelled out at the boundary (assuming spherical shapes). Eg. object into environment and vice versa.

The third is much more complex. Two objects embedded in an environment which is typically ignored because it affects both objects equally. In this case the line-of-sight faces must take into consideration angle/distance of the radiation. Most of the radiation produced by the objects misses the other and escapes to the environment.

The Earth/Sun belongs in the third class, dominated by the inverse square law.

The surface/atmosphere is in the second class. No radiation is directly lost at the boundary. No inverse square loss.

SSDD'S graph shows a highly simplified scenario. First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal. Then they add a shell (already at equilibrium) and input and output are still equal but because radiation is released in all directions then the same amount escaping to space is also returned to the surface. The new surface temperature must be enough to provide the energy output plus the energy returned. If another shell were added then the surface radiation would double again and the temperature would rise.

Most people find it hard to believe that an input of 300w can raise the (insulated) surface to 600w or higher (to a maximum of the source) but the explanation is the energy not released to space as the system moves to equilibrium. Which of course would be emitted if the source was cut off.

There is a huge amount of energy stored in our atmosphere keeping its mass aloft via potential and kinetic energy. That is the source of the returning energy that makes the surface warm enough to live on. GHGs contribute to warming the atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface.

 

[IanC]

An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...

In addition, repeatable experimental lab work has shown temperature gradients in columns of air...if you want to know why the temperature on earth is what it is, refer to the ideal atmosphere...and the ideal gas laws...it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws and slight adjustments for the incoming solar radiation are able to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..while the greenhouse effect can only produce an accurate temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

Atmospheres are controlled by the amount of energy stored in the system (in the gravity field) and the energy inputs. We do not have the detailed information for other planets but we can make robust assumptions on the data we do have.

I agree with you that any atmosphere has a basic framework derived by the ideal gas laws. I disagree that composition makes no difference.

 

[IanC]

Does everyone know that there are two types of power sources?

The controlled nuclear explosion powers the Sun's surface by thermal transfer. The Sun's surface powers the Earth's surface by radiation, the Earth's surface warms the atmosphere by thermal transfer. At each stage along the path of energy flow the maximum temperature is the preceding step but is always lower because of losses (entropy).

You could go further and say the Moon is warmed by the IR from the Earth but the effect is negligible. The IR is subject to the inverse square law. An interesting factoid is that the IR is reasonable collimated by the time it reaches the Moon therefore you could magnify it.

 

[polarbear]

Hi IanC
Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
"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."
"Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
Why do you think it`s necessary to do this addition?
The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.
It seems that everybody goes down that path, adding watts/m^2 because they think that they can use the sum after that to conveniently solve for temperature.
But that is a pitfall,not a valid shortcut. The only way to get the temperature is to use the StB equation with the 2 temperatures as it is written and then specify the time and the mass & specific heat while allowing for the changes of T1 and T2 during the specified time interval.

Sorry polarbear, I missed your post earlier.

There are various 'classes' of calculations when applying the S-B equations.

The simplest is one object radiating into void, where there is no returning radiation.

The next simplest is when one object is enclosed by another. The diffuse nature of radiation can be cancelled out at the boundary (assuming spherical shapes). Eg. object into environment and vice versa.

The third is much more complex. Two objects embedded in an environment which is typically ignored because it affects both objects equally. In this case the line-of-sight faces must take into consideration angle/distance of the radiation. Most of the radiation produced by the objects misses the other and escapes to the environment.

The Earth/Sun belongs in the third class, dominated by the inverse square law.

The surface/atmosphere is in the second class. No radiation is directly lost at the boundary. No inverse square loss.

SSDD'S graph shows a highly simplified scenario. First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal. Then they add a shell (already at equilibrium) and input and output are still equal but because radiation is released in all directions then the same amount escaping to space is also returned to the surface. The new surface temperature must be enough to provide the energy output plus the energy returned. If another shell were added then the surface radiation would double again and the temperature would rise.

Most people find it hard to believe that an input of 300w can raise the (insulated) surface to 600w or higher (to a maximum of the source) but the explanation is the energy not released to space as the system moves to equilibrium. Which of course would be emitted if the source was cut off.

There is a huge amount of energy stored in our atmosphere keeping its mass aloft via potential and kinetic energy. That is the source of the returning energy that makes the surface warm enough to live on. GHGs contribute to warming the atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface.

No need to apologize. SSDD`s thread has been hijacked by a bunch of sycophants complementing each other. With "SSDD`s graph" I`m sure you meant to say the U of Washington`s graph which is of course absurd....and that`s why he probably decided to post it here as an OP.
You replied "First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal."...but that is not what they did. They used the atmosphere as 1 of the 3 factors to get the radiation reaching the ground to that 239.7 W/m^2 number. The other 2 were the disc to spherical m^2 surface conversion and a 0.7 factor which stands for as they say:"Then we need to multiply by the factor 0.70, which takes into account the fact that 30% of the incident solar radiation is reflected back to space by clouds, snow and ice,"
ATM S 211 - Notes
So at this point they did do it with an atmosphere that has clouds and not as you would have done it first without an atmosphere.
Now they are way below the temperature that you would have assigned to how warm a surface would be if there were no atmosphere.
Your (and my ) next step would be to get a fix on the radiative balance after we have added an atmosphere.
But they did not take these steps in the same order.In fact they repeated step 1 and used it again later on in their "explanation"
Click on the link to that page and scroll down to:
"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! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect."
See now how they contradicted the statement they made at the beginning, when they used an atmosphere to "explain" their 239.7 W/m^2 and 255 deg K...and then go on to say later that`s how cold it would be without an atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

You're a numbers guy and I'm a concept guy. I am not going to make excuses for the shoddy university work.

The basic concept is right. Input from the Sun must match the output from the Earth, whether it is directly from the surface, or a step further from an atmosphere.

The atmosphere will have an insulating effect with or without GHGs. That means the surface must be warmer.

The numbers they produced are obviously flawed, and to claim all atmospheric warming is due to GHGs is atrocious. But the basic mechanism is there. I should read the text that goes along with the graph but I couldn't be bothered.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hi IanC
Yesterday in your post 325 you said:
"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."
"Adding them together" as in a+b=c [W/m^2] is the mathematical equivalent of warming up the jug of milk in the icebox by adding more ice cubes...
Why do you think it`s necessary to do this addition?
The StB equation σ (T1^4 - T2^4) already accounts for the amount by which the ambient T2 lessens the heat loss via radiation of a body at T1 is lessened.
It seems that everybody goes down that path, adding watts/m^2 because they think that they can use the sum after that to conveniently solve for temperature.
But that is a pitfall,not a valid shortcut. The only way to get the temperature is to use the StB equation with the 2 temperatures as it is written and then specify the time and the mass & specific heat while allowing for the changes of T1 and T2 during the specified time interval.

Sorry polarbear, I missed your post earlier.

There are various 'classes' of calculations when applying the S-B equations.

The simplest is one object radiating into void, where there is no returning radiation.

The next simplest is when one object is enclosed by another. The diffuse nature of radiation can be cancelled out at the boundary (assuming spherical shapes). Eg. object into environment and vice versa.

The third is much more complex. Two objects embedded in an environment which is typically ignored because it affects both objects equally. In this case the line-of-sight faces must take into consideration angle/distance of the radiation. Most of the radiation produced by the objects misses the other and escapes to the environment.

The Earth/Sun belongs in the third class, dominated by the inverse square law.

The surface/atmosphere is in the second class. No radiation is directly lost at the boundary. No inverse square loss.

SSDD'S graph shows a highly simplified scenario. First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal. Then they add a shell (already at equilibrium) and input and output are still equal but because radiation is released in all directions then the same amount escaping to space is also returned to the surface. The new surface temperature must be enough to provide the energy output plus the energy returned. If another shell were added then the surface radiation would double again and the temperature would rise.

Most people find it hard to believe that an input of 300w can raise the (insulated) surface to 600w or higher (to a maximum of the source) but the explanation is the energy not released to space as the system moves to equilibrium. Which of course would be emitted if the source was cut off.

There is a huge amount of energy stored in our atmosphere keeping its mass aloft via potential and kinetic energy. That is the source of the returning energy that makes the surface warm enough to live on. GHGs contribute to warming the atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface.

No need to apologize. SSDD`s thread has been hijacked by a bunch of sycophants complementing each other. With "SSDD`s graph" I`m sure you meant to say the U of Washington`s graph which is of course absurd....and that`s why he probably decided to post it here as an OP.
You replied "First, how warm the surface would be with no atmosphere. Input and output are equal."...but that is not what they did. They used the atmosphere as 1 of the 3 factors to get the radiation reaching the ground to that 239.7 W/m^2 number. The other 2 were the disc to spherical m^2 surface conversion and a 0.7 factor which stands for as they say:"Then we need to multiply by the factor 0.70, which takes into account the fact that 30% of the incident solar radiation is reflected back to space by clouds, snow and ice,"
ATM S 211 - Notes
So at this point they did do it with an atmosphere that has clouds and not as you would have done it first without an atmosphere.
Now they are way below the temperature that you would have assigned to how warm a surface would be if there were no atmosphere.
Your (and my ) next step would be to get a fix on the radiative balance after we have added an atmosphere.
But they did not take these steps in the same order.In fact they repeated step 1 and used it again later on in their "explanation"
Click on the link to that page and scroll down to:
"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! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect."
See now how they contradicted the statement they made at the beginning, when they used an atmosphere to "explain" their 239.7 W/m^2 and 255 deg K...and then go on to say later that`s how cold it would be without an atmosphere.

Then we need to multiply by the factor 0.70, which takes into account the fact that 30% of the incident solar radiation is reflected back to space by clouds, snow and ice,"

If the Earth had no atmosphere, but the same albedo, how much radiation would be absorbed by the surface?

 

[SSDD]

An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...

In addition, repeatable experimental lab work has shown temperature gradients in columns of air...if you want to know why the temperature on earth is what it is, refer to the ideal atmosphere...and the ideal gas laws...it is no coincidence that the ideal gas laws and slight adjustments for the incoming solar radiation are able to accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere..while the greenhouse effect can only produce an accurate temperature here and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor...

Atmospheres are controlled by the amount of energy stored in the system (in the gravity field) and the energy inputs. We do not have the detailed information for other planets but we can make robust assumptions on the data we do have.

I agree with you that any atmosphere has a basic framework derived by the ideal gas laws. I disagree that composition makes no difference.

And yet, using nothing but the ideal gas law, we can derive a temperature that is damned close to the actual temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737 K

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288 K

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = 165 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = 134 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K

Now take the basic model for the greenhouse effect and try predicting even close to the actual temperatures of a few of the planets with atmospheres....The incoming solar radiation figures should be easy enough to find for the various planets...how close do you think the greenhouse model will get?

It is no coincidence that the ideal gas law predicts temperatures that are damned close to the actual temperatures of the various planets with atmospheres...no fictional greenhouse effect needed.

But it will be interesting to see what sort of predictions the greenhouse effect makes for the various planets..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've moved that text of yours over to the appropriate thread, since here's where that "the model is flawed" action originated, hoping you won't mind.

Don't mind. He cross-posted the same thing in 3 different threads.

I've made up my mind about SSDD, and he isn't debating, or rather, he's behaving as a parasite to debate, taking advantage of features of debate while contributing nothing but slander, smear, falsehoods, and pseudo-reasoning. That said, there is nothing left to do other than pointing out ignorance, or spurious reasoning, as the case may be, so as to have the record corrected.

Yes, I think there is no question that SSDD is just a troll. I know that I along with others have been guilty of feeding the troll. The problem is that he along with his admirers, are wallowing in invectives. The huge bulk of their intense rantings on the "stupidity" of those that don't agree with him may give the impression to others, less involved in the climate question, that he knows what he is talking about.

So, I think his intense ranting is not aimed at the more science savvy. His intended audience is his bootlicking minions and newcomers that may be on the fence about the climate issues.


.

So anyone who disagrees with the AGW pseudoscience is now a troll?

You cant defend the math and the ignorance of the graph so instead of learning you scream like a spoiled brat and throw a tantrum... That is AGW science at its best.

 

[Olde Europe]

I think the conclusion is that heating something hotter than the source (breaking the 2nd law) can only happen with what-if physics that stretches things too far.

Really? The cooler atmosphere via back radiation warming the warmer surface violates the 2nd? You know that leads straight towards "smart photons". Sure you misspoke, didn't you?

 

[Olde Europe]

An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...

<non-pertinent denialist propaganda erased>

This is just to note that SSDD still doesn't understand the adiabatic lapse rate - which supposedly runs an arrow through the heart of climate change - and the process it describes.

 

[SSDD]

An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process....cooling of blobs of air would, in fact, require an exchange of heat...

<non-pertinent denialist propaganda erased>

This is just to note that SSDD still doesn't understand the adiabatic lapse rate - which supposedly runs an arrow through the heart of climate change - and the process it describes.

Once again...if there were a radiative greenhouse effect as climate science describes...the adiabatic lapse rate would be higher...and the presence of water vapor, a very powerful, so called, greenhouse gas actually reduces the lapse rate..it does not increase as the greenhouse model would predict.....

And there is still the problem of the ideal gas law coming very close to the actual tempera rue of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor...there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

 

[Olde Europe]

Once again...if there were a radiative greenhouse effect as climate science describes...the adiabatic lapse rate would be higher.

<non-pertinent denialist propaganda erased>

This is just to note that SSDD still doesn't understand the adiabatic lapse rate - which supposedly runs an arrow through the heart of climate change - and the process it describes.