Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Crick]

You need to consider why you can't find research backing your contentions among peer reviewed journals. Everyone else here figured it out a long time ago.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You need to consider why you can't find research backing your contentions among peer reviewed journals. Everyone else here figured it out a long time ago.

Pal review and echo chamber logic... its been a problem for far to long.

 

[Crick]

And I suppose you think Trump is going to solve it. How many delusions can one person hold?

 

[Olde Europe]

OK...real slow...can you name any other absorber/emitter that you can add to a system which will increase the emissivity but will not result in a temperature drop other than the magic molecule CO2?

Now, that's very silly, but I sort of understand your quandary. With absorption of LW radiation from the surface acknowledged, you get higher temperatures in the bottom layers of the atmosphere. With rising temperatures there, you get higher radiation from the atmosphere, up as well as down. And that downward radiation heats the earth. So, with all that acknowledged, you got back radiation, and the basic building blocks of the Greenhouse Effect. Congratulations.

Aw, wait, that way lies disaster for the denialings, and that must not happen. And that's why we get your three-legged-hippo tap dance laced with insulting language with no purpose other than to avoid to acknowledge what your use of the word "emissivity" with necessity entails. For if you start to acknowledge real science (for a change), there are unavoidable logical consequences leading straight to what is acknowledged scientific fact-finding, such as - horrible as it is - back radiation, greenhouse effect, AGW.

__________________________________________

Yes, you need to grasp the basics. If you want to think about a physics process in one column of atmosphere with average values, that is useful. However if that physics process such as the ideal gas law fails to address something as important as solar input radiation, then it is not the basics and has little value in grasping basic average atmospheric properties. The ideal gas law alone doesn't address the solar input.

Let me sharpen that a bit, if I may.

Calculating the temperature on a planet using the IGL isn't just some numeric curve-fitting exercise. It establishes that pressure / density is the only determining factor of temperature (nothing else except constants shows up in the equation). That doesn't just imply, it states outright that there is no other influence. Introducing radiation after that fact to explain regional differences (not proportional to density) is to violate the previously stated reigning principle. That way a "theory" self-destructs.

When, in fact, the temperature at every point is the result of an energy balance, as is the overall average temperature. Pressure might have some impact on that balance (as in, for instance, GHGs under high pressure are more effective at heat trapping), but that doesn't change - in fact, reconfirms - that the temperature is the result of an energy balance, just as it has to be if the theoretical underpinnings are sound.

 

[SSDD]

OK...real slow...can you name any other absorber/emitter that you can add to a system which will increase the emissivity but will not result in a temperature drop other than the magic molecule CO2?

Now, that's very silly, but I sort of understand your quandary. With absorption of LW radiation from the surface acknowledged, you get higher temperatures in the bottom layers of the atmosphere. With rising temperatures there, you get higher radiation from the atmosphere, up as well as down. And that downward radiation heats the earth. So, with all that acknowledged, you got back radiation, and the basic building blocks of the Greenhouse Effect. Congratulations.

I have no quandary...and there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere? If the answer is yes, then the claim that it causes warming is dead in the water...if the answer is no, then you really don't have a clue....

Again...disassociate yourself from the glassy eyed cult and stop chanting their chants...who knows how long you have before their madness infects the rest of your life...or perhaps it already has...

And there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.which can predict the temperatures of none of the planets with atmospheres and can only predict the temperature here with an ad hoc fudge factor....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which respects the laws of physics, depends on no fictional back radiation, and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere but does not depend on the composition of the atmosphere beyond its total mass....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK...real slow...can you name any other absorber/emitter that you can add to a system which will increase the emissivity but will not result in a temperature drop other than the magic molecule CO2?

Now, that's very silly, but I sort of understand your quandary. With absorption of LW radiation from the surface acknowledged, you get higher temperatures in the bottom layers of the atmosphere. With rising temperatures there, you get higher radiation from the atmosphere, up as well as down. And that downward radiation heats the earth. So, with all that acknowledged, you got back radiation, and the basic building blocks of the Greenhouse Effect. Congratulations.

I have no quandary...and there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere? If the answer is yes, then the claim that it causes warming is dead in the water...if the answer is no, then you really don't have a clue....

Again...disassociate yourself from the glassy eyed cult and stop chanting their chants...who knows how long you have before their madness infects the rest of your life...or perhaps it already has...

And there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.which can predict the temperatures of none of the planets with atmospheres and can only predict the temperature here with an ad hoc fudge factor....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which respects the laws of physics, depends on no fictional back radiation, and accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere but does not depend on the composition of the atmosphere beyond its total mass....

I have no quandary...and there is no downward radiation

DERP!

 

[Olde Europe]

there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere?

Yep, because more absorption due to higher CO2-concentrations means more heat, that increases emissions, in fact, also downward longwave radiation (measured, quantified).

We already know you've well understood that.

You don't seem to get the fact that ignorer to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.

So, don't lie now: Does backradiation exist? For if it doesn't, you need to disavow your claim of higher emissivity. So?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. If a 200ppm increase in CO2 made temperature on Earth rise by 1C, what's the expected increase from 400ppm?

A. Denier!!
B. What a stupid question!
C. The lab research tells us....look a squirrel!

 

[jc456]

there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere?

Yep, because more absorption due to higher CO2-concentrations means more heat, that increases emissions, in fact, also downward longwave radiation (measured, quantified).

We already know you've well understood that.

You don't seem to get the fact that ignorer to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.

So, don't lie now: Does backradiation exist? For if it doesn't, you need to disavow your claim of higher emissivity. So?

no back radiation exists. It's why you can't show it or test it in a lab.

 

[jc456]

there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere?

Yep, because more absorption due to higher CO2-concentrations means more heat, that increases emissions, in fact, also downward longwave radiation (measured, quantified).

We already know you've well understood that.

You don't seem to get the fact that ignorer to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.

So, don't lie now: Does backradiation exist? For if it doesn't, you need to disavow your claim of higher emissivity. So?

Yep, because more absorption due to higher CO2-concentrations means more heat, that increases emissions, in fact, also downward longwave radiation (measured, quantified).

where is that heat?

 

[SSDD]

there is no downward radiation...Does, or does not the addition of CO2 raise the emissivity of the atmosphere?

Yep, because more absorption due to higher CO2-concentrations means more heat, that increases emissions, in fact, also downward longwave radiation (measured, quantified).

We already know you've well understood that.

You don't seem to get the fact that ignorer to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.

So, don't lie now: Does backradiation exist? For if it doesn't, you need to disavow your claim of higher emissivity. So?

Sorry guy...this is what happens when you believe glassy eyed cultists...who, by the way are easily fooled by instrumentation...backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an identical instrument next to the cooled one that is stripped of its cooling system and you won't measure any back radiation..

I could show you how to prove beyond any doubt that there is no back radiation to yourself for about $50 dollars, but I doubt that you would be interested in doing the experiment...can't question the chant...

 

[Crick]

Once again, everything Same Shit has is based on his claim that matter cannot or will not radiate towards warmer matter. His explanation as to how matter can tell the temperature of distant matter and control its own emissions, requiring the routine violation of special relativity, has yet to appear. Same Shit tells us it is probably just one of "those unknowables".

And, of course, all data showing Same Shit's claims to be insane nonsense are rejected as "lies".

How could we not be sold on this?

 

[Crick]

Radiation, or more correctly thermal radiation, is electromagnetic radiation emitted by a body by virtue of its temperature and at the expense of its internal energy. Thus thermal radiation is of the same nature as visible light, x rays, and radio waves, the difference between them being in their wavelengths and the source of generation. The eye is sensitive to electromagnetic radiation in the region from 0.39 to 0.78 ~tm; this is identified as the visible region of the spectrum. Radio waves have a wavelength of 1 x 10 3 to 2 x 101° ~tm, and x rays have wavelengths of 1 × 10 -5 to 2 x 10 -2 ktm, while the bulk of thermal radiation occurs in rays from approximately 0.1 to l00 ktm. All heated solids and liquids, as well as some gases, emit thermal radiation. The transfer of energy by conduction requires the presence of a material medium, while radiation does not. In fact, radiation transfer occurs most efficiently in a vacuum. On the macroscopic level, the calculation of thermal radiation is based on the StefanBoltzmann law, which relates the energy flux emitted by an ideal radiator (or blackbody) to the fourth power of the absolute temperature: eb = t~T 4 (1.8) Here ~ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, with a value of 5.669 × 10 -8 W/(m2.K4), or 1.714 x 10 -9 Btu/(h.ft 2" °R4). Engineering surfaces in general do not perform as ideal radiators, and for real surfaces the above law is modified to read e = et~T 4 (1.9) The term e is called the emissivity of the surface and has a value between 0 and 1. When two blackbodies exchange heat by radiation, the net heat exchange is then proportional to the difference in T 4. If the first body "sees" only body 2, then the net heat exchange from body 1 to body 2 is given by q = aAI(T~ - T~) (1.10) 1.4 CHAFFER ONE When, because of the geometric arrangement, only a fraction of the energy leaving body 1 is intercepted by body 2, q = ~A1F~_2(T 4 - T 4) (1.11) where FI_ 2 (usually called a shape factor or a view factor) is the fraction of energy leaving body 1 that is intercepted by body 2. If the bodies are not black, then the view factor F~_ 2 must be replaced by a new factor ~1- 2 which depends on the emissivity ~ of the surfaces involved as well as the geometric view. Finally, if the bodies are separated by gases or liquids that impede the radiation of heat through them, a formulation of the heat exchange process becomes more involved (see Chap. 7).

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...nline; filename=Handbook_of_Heat_Transfer.pdf

 

[Olde Europe]

Sorry [...]

Non-pertinent, non-responsive claptrap removed.

..backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument

Yeah, same shit, different day. There are cooled measurement systems and not-cooled ones. Without cooling, the measurement is more difficult because the IR radiation of the instrument itself has to be taken into account. Other than that, you're lacking the most basic understanding of radiation.

I could show you how to prove beyond any doubt [...]

You did demonstrate beyond any doubt you're just an eminently silly troll, and it didn't cost a single dime.

 

[SSDD]

Once again, everything Same Shit has is based on his claim that matter cannot or will not radiate towards warmer matter. His explanation as to how matter can tell the temperature of distant matter and control its own emissions, requiring the routine violation of special relativity, has yet to appear. Same Shit tells us it is probably just one of "those unknowables".

And, of course, all data showing Same Shit's claims to be insane nonsense are rejected as "lies".

How could we not be sold on this?

And still not the first measurement of back radiation at ambient temperature...belief in models over belief in observation...trait number one if you want to be a member in good standing of the glassy eyed chanting cult.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry [...]

Non-pertinent, non-responsive claptrap removed.

..backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument

Yeah, same shit, different day. There are cooled measurement systems and not-cooled ones. Without cooling, the measurement is more difficult because the IR radiation of the instrument itself has to be taken into account. Other than that, you're lacking the most basic understanding of radiation.

Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult...

Here you go smart boy...an actual observable experiment..first noted by a professor of physics at BYU..It is pretty conclusive proof that the claims of the glassy eyed cult of back radiation are just so much bullshit...

I have done the experiment myself and got ice in an ambient temperature of 44F

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker

During the day, the sun's rays are reflected onto the cooking vessel which becomes hot quickly. At night, heat from the vessel is radiated outward, towards empty space, which is very cold indeed (a "heat sink").

As a result, the cooking vessel now becomes a small refrigerator. We routinely achieve cooling of about 20º F (10º C) below ambient air temperature using this remarkably simple scheme.

In September 1999, we placed two funnels out in the evening, with double-bagged jars inside. One jar was on a block of wood and the other was suspended in the funnel using fishing line. The temperature that evening (in Provo, Utah) was 78º F. Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE. I invite others to try this, and please let me know if you get ice at 55 or even 60 degrees outside air temperature (minimum at night). A black PVC container may work even better than a black-painted jar, since PVC is a good infrared radiator - these matters are still being studied.

Now according to your cult, this enormous amount of backradiaton is coming in from the atmosphere 24/7/365...If that is true, how is it that the solar cooker becomes a refrigerator when pointed at open sky...how could it get so cold so as to form ice when the ambient temperatures are more than 10 degrees above freezing?...If there were back radiation as you claim, you certainly couldn't make ice at 10 degrees above freezing by focusing a parabolic reflector right at it... Now don't go out and try this yourself because it would surely test your faith if you are a thinking person...of course, maybe you aren't...maybe you are just a parrot who regurgitates what you are told to say and would assume that gaia gave you the ice as a present...

 

[Crick]

At night you will, of course, lose the 168 W/m^2 direct solar insolation. As far as shortwave goes, at night the oven is exchanging energy with a 2K vacuum. The 324 W/m^2 back radiation is coming from all directions above the horizon. The parabolic reflector has an input angle of a few degrees and is designed to be discriminatory. It is only receiving a tiny fraction of the back radiation striking the surface. Back radiation DOES drop slightly at night. And the term "24/7/365" is redundant. Seven days a week IS 365 days a year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry [...]

Non-pertinent, non-responsive claptrap removed.

..backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument

Yeah, same shit, different day. There are cooled measurement systems and not-cooled ones. Without cooling, the measurement is more difficult because the IR radiation of the instrument itself has to be taken into account. Other than that, you're lacking the most basic understanding of radiation.

Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult...

Here you go smart boy...an actual observable experiment..first noted by a professor of physics at BYU..It is pretty conclusive proof that the claims of the glassy eyed cult of back radiation are just so much bullshit...

I have done the experiment myself and got ice in an ambient temperature of 44F

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker

During the day, the sun's rays are reflected onto the cooking vessel which becomes hot quickly. At night, heat from the vessel is radiated outward, towards empty space, which is very cold indeed (a "heat sink").

As a result, the cooking vessel now becomes a small refrigerator. We routinely achieve cooling of about 20º F (10º C) below ambient air temperature using this remarkably simple scheme.

In September 1999, we placed two funnels out in the evening, with double-bagged jars inside. One jar was on a block of wood and the other was suspended in the funnel using fishing line. The temperature that evening (in Provo, Utah) was 78º F. Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE. I invite others to try this, and please let me know if you get ice at 55 or even 60 degrees outside air temperature (minimum at night). A black PVC container may work even better than a black-painted jar, since PVC is a good infrared radiator - these matters are still being studied.

Now according to your cult, this enormous amount of backradiaton is coming in from the atmosphere 24/7/365...If that is true, how is it that the solar cooker becomes a refrigerator when pointed at open sky...how could it get so cold so as to form ice when the ambient temperatures are more than 10 degrees above freezing?...If there were back radiation as you claim, you certainly couldn't make ice at 10 degrees above freezing by focusing a parabolic reflector right at it... Now don't go out and try this yourself because it would surely test your faith if you are a thinking person...of course, maybe you aren't...maybe you are just a parrot who regurgitates what you are told to say and would assume that gaia gave you the ice as a present...

Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE.

You should ask yourself, with such rapid radiation toward space, why doesn't everything on Earth cool that quickly at night? It's almost as though some mysterious mechanism in the atmosphere is keeping us warm.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sorry [...]

Non-pertinent, non-responsive claptrap removed.

..backradiation from the atmosphere has never been measured at ambient temperature...if you want to measure energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you must cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....and then, you aren't really measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface, you are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument

Yeah, same shit, different day. There are cooled measurement systems and not-cooled ones. Without cooling, the measurement is more difficult because the IR radiation of the instrument itself has to be taken into account. Other than that, you're lacking the most basic understanding of radiation.

Says the member in good standing of a glassy eyed chanting cult...

Here you go smart boy...an actual observable experiment..first noted by a professor of physics at BYU..It is pretty conclusive proof that the claims of the glassy eyed cult of back radiation are just so much bullshit...

I have done the experiment myself and got ice in an ambient temperature of 44F

How to Make and Use the Solar Funnel Cooker

During the day, the sun's rays are reflected onto the cooking vessel which becomes hot quickly. At night, heat from the vessel is radiated outward, towards empty space, which is very cold indeed (a "heat sink").

As a result, the cooking vessel now becomes a small refrigerator. We routinely achieve cooling of about 20º F (10º C) below ambient air temperature using this remarkably simple scheme.

In September 1999, we placed two funnels out in the evening, with double-bagged jars inside. One jar was on a block of wood and the other was suspended in the funnel using fishing line. The temperature that evening (in Provo, Utah) was 78º F. Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE. I invite others to try this, and please let me know if you get ice at 55 or even 60 degrees outside air temperature (minimum at night). A black PVC container may work even better than a black-painted jar, since PVC is a good infrared radiator - these matters are still being studied.

Now according to your cult, this enormous amount of backradiaton is coming in from the atmosphere 24/7/365...If that is true, how is it that the solar cooker becomes a refrigerator when pointed at open sky...how could it get so cold so as to form ice when the ambient temperatures are more than 10 degrees above freezing?...If there were back radiation as you claim, you certainly couldn't make ice at 10 degrees above freezing by focusing a parabolic reflector right at it... Now don't go out and try this yourself because it would surely test your faith if you are a thinking person...of course, maybe you aren't...maybe you are just a parrot who regurgitates what you are told to say and would assume that gaia gave you the ice as a present...

Using a Radio Shack indoor/outdoor thermometer, a BYU student (Colter Paulson) measured the temperature inside the funnel and outside in the open air. He found that the temperature of the air inside the funnel dropped quickly by about 15 degrees, as its heat was radiated upwards in the clear sky. That night, the minimum outdoor air temperature measured was 47.5 degrees - but the water in both jars had ICE.

You should ask yourself, with such rapid radiation toward space, why doesn't everything on Earth cool that quickly at night? It's almost as though some mysterious mechanism in the atmosphere is keeping us warm.

Water vapor?

 

[SSDD]

You yahoos get funnier all the time...direct energy exchange with space?...skip the atmosphere all together and exchange energy directly with space?...if that can happen, why do you suppose the IR radiating directly from the surface doesn't bypass the atmosphere and go directly to space? Do you even think about what you are saying before you say it?...do you ever think at all?