Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

You said this

There is no back radiation...water vapor keeps it warm by actually absorbing and retaining energy..a trick that CO2 can't do...that is why it is warmer at night in humid begins than it is in dry regions...nothing whatsoever to do with imaginary back radiation.

So, let's see a reference that supports that contention.

Mainstream scientists - all of them - are going to be really upset that you've destroyed the entire idea of a greenhouse effect. I can't wait to see their reaction.

I suppose the climate pseudoscience community will be devastated...and then be replaced by a climate science community that is actually interested in science rather than a political agenda...

 

[Crick]

And when do you foresee that happening? When the EPA's budget is cut?

While we're waiting, how about a link to something reputable supporting your contention regarding water vapor versus back radiation?

 

[polarbear]

And when do you foresee that happening? When the EPA's budget is cut?

While we're waiting, how about a link to something reputable supporting your contention regarding water vapor versus back radiation?

Here is what you could do while we are waiting...:
Fry some eggs on your cook stove and see if they fry faster if you crank up the house furnace thermostat instead of the stove. For added measure use your fire extinguisher to double the CO2 in the kitchen air. The added back radiation should allow you to cook the top of the eggs "over easy" without having to turn them over.
Make a video and post it on youtube. It will go viral with all the clicks you get from democrats.

 

[Wuwei]

So we can also conclude that you are unable to read what a person writes and understand what is being said?...When did I ever say that water vapor is the complete explanation for the earth's temperature?

And it is a good thing that back radiation is not needed as there is no such thing....

The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect being responsible for the temperature of a convective atmosphere is stupidity of the highest order...you glassy eyed chanting cultists are heading right over the AGW cliff...actual science will sooner or later step in and hand climate science the slap down it so richly deserves..

You are lying, Troll.

 

[Billy_Bob]

With rising temperatures there, you get higher radiation from the atmosphere, up as well as down. And that downward radiation heats the earth.

Quantify your assumption.

This requires knowledge of that heat/energy transfer, emitter, receiver, and wavelength. AGW warmers skip this step.

For instance; CO2 emits at 16um or greater wavelength. The oceans will not absorb it beyond 10um, thus the skin evaporates causing cooling of the ocean, not warming. The effect of your back-radiation is net negative.

 

[Billy_Bob]

...really shouldn't call people who actually understand the scientific consensus "warmers"...

Let's face it, folks that understand the consensus don't matter and we don't want to go there. What we want is to understand the science --namely observations and not mere beliefs.

Please share any evidence that shows---

1. the hard numbers proving how much the the temp of the biosphere's gone up since say, 50 years ago,
2. that it's the kind of rise has never happened before in recorded history w/o causing so much harm that we want to spend $trillions to stop it,
3. what the proof is that it's people that caused it.
4. and show what we could possibly hope to accomplish by spending $trillions to stop it.

--and if I'm able to reproduce the numbers independently, then I'll join you.. Meanwhile, let's agree that there been no independently reproducible evidence presented here.
.

Over 70% of papers supporting AGW can not be reproduced with information given from the writers. This is the slip shod science that AGW is based on.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?

I'm aware there is water vapor yes. does it touch the surface?

Yes, Frank, it touches the surface.

Being a greenhouse gas, it is the source of a large portion of the atmosphere's backradiation. Why do you believe otherwise?

There is no back radiation...water vapor keeps it warm by actually absorbing and retaining energy..a trick that CO2 can't do...that is why it is warmer at night in humid begins than it is in dry regions...nothing whatsoever to do with imaginary back radiation.

Another good observable evidence is heat in the desert where humidity is very low. During the day it gets very hot, very quickly as there is less atmospheric mass to absorb energy from the sun. At night as there is no humidity and less mass it cools rapidly (3-5 times faster) due to the same reason. Increasing CO2 will only increase the heat release as seen in experiments done in the lab.

Simple observation shows the lack of power CO2 has above 300ppm.

 

[polarbear]

And when do you foresee that happening? When the EPA's budget is cut?

While we're waiting, how about a link to something reputable supporting your contention regarding water vapor versus back radiation?

No you won`t have to wait for a heavy rain fall to see how that works till the EPA`s fat gets trimmed.
> 0.3 inches rain per hour dumps > 67 983 lbs of water per acre.
That water has been evaporated somewhere out in the ocean where storms brew.

It takes 972 btus to evaporate just 1 lb H2O and that`s also the amount of heat you get back later when it condenses.
For the time being, that water (67983 lbs per acre) and it`s heat content (66 079 476 btu) is stored in the atmosphere until it condenses. When it finally does condense and result in a 0.3 inch per hour rain fall it releases the equivalent of 4786.5 watts/m^2.
So here it is: the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?

 

[SSDD]

So we can also conclude that you are unable to read what a person writes and understand what is being said?...When did I ever say that water vapor is the complete explanation for the earth's temperature?

And it is a good thing that back radiation is not needed as there is no such thing....

The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect being responsible for the temperature of a convective atmosphere is stupidity of the highest order...you glassy eyed chanting cultists are heading right over the AGW cliff...actual science will sooner or later step in and hand climate science the slap down it so richly deserves..

You are lying, Troll.

In the end, we will all see that you glassy eyed chanting cultists are the liars....actual science will win out over political expediency in the end

 

[SSDD]

Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?

I'm aware there is water vapor yes. does it touch the surface?

Yes, Frank, it touches the surface.

Being a greenhouse gas, it is the source of a large portion of the atmosphere's backradiation. Why do you believe otherwise?

There is no back radiation...water vapor keeps it warm by actually absorbing and retaining energy..a trick that CO2 can't do...that is why it is warmer at night in humid begins than it is in dry regions...nothing whatsoever to do with imaginary back radiation.

Another good observable evidence is heat in the desert where humidity is very low. During the day it gets very hot, very quickly as there is less atmospheric mass to absorb energy from the sun. At night as there is no humidity and less mass it cools rapidly (3-5 times faster) due to the same reason. Increasing CO2 will only increase the heat release as seen in experiments done in the lab.

Simple observation shows the lack of power CO2 has above 300ppm.

It never stops amazing me that they apparently believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which increases the emissivity will cause warming...pure magic...CO2, the only substance in the universe which increases the emissivity of a system and causes warming at the same time.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you aware that water vapor is a green house gas?

I'm aware there is water vapor yes. does it touch the surface?

Yes, Frank, it touches the surface.

Being a greenhouse gas, it is the source of a large portion of the atmosphere's backradiation. Why do you believe otherwise?

There is no back radiation...water vapor keeps it warm by actually absorbing and retaining energy..a trick that CO2 can't do...that is why it is warmer at night in humid begins than it is in dry regions...nothing whatsoever to do with imaginary back radiation.

Another good observable evidence is heat in the desert where humidity is very low. During the day it gets very hot, very quickly as there is less atmospheric mass to absorb energy from the sun. At night as there is no humidity and less mass it cools rapidly (3-5 times faster) due to the same reason. Increasing CO2 will only increase the heat release as seen in experiments done in the lab.

Simple observation shows the lack of power CO2 has above 300ppm.

It never stops amazing me that they apparently believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which increases the emissivity will cause warming...pure magic...CO2, the only substance in the universe which increases the emissivity of a system and causes warming at the same time.

CO2 requires a secondary molecule that will absorb and warm up. They thought they had this with water. But it didn't play well with CO2 and has been observed as a negative forcing.

Now they cant understand why and refuse to acknowledge the science that shows it wrong and why..

 

[Crick]

Show us the fucking research that finds these points Billy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show us the fucking research that finds these points Billy.

It's related to "covailent (sic) bonds repelling cooler photons".

 

[Crick]

Hmm...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Two peas in a pod.. that haven't a clue..

Do either of you know why a capacitor works? What the quantum level mechanics are behind its function?

When you figure it out, let me know..

 

[Crick]

The quantum level mechanics behind the function of a capacitor? HAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa, what a marOON.

Were you perhaps thinking of something a little more like an STM?

 

[Crick]

CO2 requires a secondary molecule that will absorb and warm up. They thought they had this with water. But it didn't play well with CO2 and has been observed as a negative forcing.

Show us some support for this nonsense you coward. If you can't, think about giving up your practice of posting absurd unsupportable bullshit on your apparent belief that the world is filled with people stupider than you are.

 

[mamooth]

Here is what you could do while we are waiting...:
Fry some eggs on your cook stove and see if they fry faster if you crank up the house furnace thermostat instead of the stove. For added measure use your fire extinguisher to double the CO2 in the kitchen air. The added back radiation should allow you to cook the top of the eggs "over easy" without having to turn them over.

No, it shouldn't.

Someone who isn't scientifically incompetent would simply point out that the tiny, tiny increase in backradion is overwhelmed a million-fold by the heat of the stove, hence it has no effect on the experiment.

That's why you suck so badly at science. You don't understand of scale or numbers, and you have no engineering or experimental common sense.

Make a video and post it on youtube. It will go viral with all the clicks you get from democrats.

And you'll only accept political propaganda as science, so that also causes you to always suck at the science.

 

[mamooth]

So here it is: the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?

Less.

Was there any point to that?

 

[SSDD]

So here it is: the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?

Less.

Was there any point to that?

Zero is certainly less...