Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

1. You are wrong again bucky. My radiant heater has no fan, but it does have a reflector behind the coils. But that is just another distraction of yours.

Then your radiant heater is not warming the air...sorry guy, but it just isn't and reflecting it doesn't make it warm the air either.

2. You have again avoided the entire post that radiant heat from the sun and from the earth are in two different realms.

So are you now claiming that global warming is caused by short wave coming in from the sun?

The engineer is only interested in the visible light radiation which is not absorbed by earth gases. We are talking about radiation at earth ambient where GHGs do absorb IR.
3. Do you understand the difference, bucky?

You are a f'ing idiot...do you believe the IR coming from your radiant heater is visible light? Why would an engineer working specifically on radiant heat systems be interested in visible light?

IR does not warm the air...experiment proves i and millions of hours of commercial application prove it. Sorry that reality doesn't jibe with your faith. Reality rarely does mesh well with faith.

 

[SSDD]

Challenge them with what? Your religious fervor? Certainly not your knowledge of thermodynamics...you have proven over and over that you don't have any...want to tell me again how you have a pure radiant heater in your home with no fan and yours happens to be the only place in the known universe where radiant heat warms the air?

My gosh you didn't comprehend my post! I already said a heater glowing red does not significantly warm the air. Reread my previous post, #1475, more carefully for the difference between visible and micron radiation.

You get more stupid every time you speak...you think that because you can see the element glow that you are only dealing with visible light? Is there no limit to how stupid you can be?

We are talking about infrared radiation...IR does not warm the air no matter how badly you mangle the topic, you are not going to get to the point where IR warms the atmosphere...doesn't happen.

 

[Wuwei]

Then your radiant heater is not warming the air...sorry guy, but it just isn't and reflecting it doesn't make it warm the air either.

Right. It doesn't warm the air. Just the walls and me.

So are you now claiming that global warming is caused by short wave coming in from the sun?

Nope, you are way off base.
Red hot radiators (visible) really warm us when we get out of the shower don't they. They don't warm the air though. Their black body radiation curve doesn't have much 15 micron component compared to the rest of the EM of the radiator.
Radiators like the earth (invisible IR radiation) at an average of 59F don't warm us that much when we get out of the shower, do they. But their 15 micron band does get absorbed by the CO2 in the air doesn't it.

You are a f'ing idiot...do you believe the IR coming from your radiant heater is visible light? Why would an engineer working specifically on radiant heat systems be interested in visible light?

IR does not warm the air...experiment proves i and millions of hours of commercial application prove it. Sorry that reality doesn't jibe with your faith. Reality rarely does mesh well with faith.

You seem to be visibly upset again. That's because you didn't read my post carefully.

Well, my radiant heater is visible deep red. Isn't yours visible?
The engineer would be alarmed if an installed heater wasn't visible red wouldn't he. It would be broken.

And again as I said more than once, I agree that heaters that are so hot to be visible don't really directly warm the air - too little 15 micron component for CO2 absorption.

 

[Wuwei]

You get more stupid every time you speak...you think that because you can see the element glow that you are only dealing with visible light? Is there no limit to how stupid you can be?

You still don't understand what I said. Maybe it's because you are so angry that you see red (pun intended). When did I say hot glowing red was only visible. I didn't. I told you to look at the Maxwell Boltzmann curve. You probably didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't have flown off the handle.

We are talking about infrared radiation...IR does not warm the air no matter how badly you mangle the topic, you are not going to get to the point where IR warms the atmosphere...doesn't happen.

The shorter wavelengths of a red hot heater does not warm the air significantly.
The longer wavelengths from a room temperature surface are absorbed by CO2 quite significantly. Tyndall saw that in an experiment over a century ago. Where do you think that absorbed energy went?

When people respond with such anger and start making stuff up, it usually means they are lacking ideas for a response, or they are just trolling.

 

[SSDD]

Right. It doesn't warm the air. Just the walls and me.

And any other solid object in the room.

Red hot radiators (visible) really warm us when we get out of the shower don't they. They don't warm the air though. Their black body radiation curve doesn't have much 15 micron component compared to the rest of the EM of the radiator.
Radiators like the earth (invisible IR radiation) at an average of 59F don't warm us that much when we get out of the shower, do they. But their 15 micron band does get absorbed by the CO2 in the air doesn't it.['quote]

It doesn't matter what wavelength of IR it has...IR does not warm the air.

Well, my radiant heater is visible deep red. Isn't yours visible?
The engineer would be alarmed if an installed heater wasn't visible red wouldn't he. It would be broken.

And you believe that visible light is warming you? You are so far off base that you may never grasp the topic.

 

[Wuwei]

And any other solid object in the room.

Right.

 

[IanC]

I think SSDD said this, but he screwed up the quote function, again-

. And you believe that visible light is warming you? You are so far off base that you may never grasp the topic.

Is SSDD saying visible light doesn't warm your skin? Or is he saying that the wavelengths below the visible components of the IR heater are more efficient at warming your skin?

Who knows. He never explains his claims. When asked for clarification he just ignores the criticisms and changes the subject.

 

[Wuwei]

I think SSDD said this, but he screwed up the quote function, again-

. And you believe that visible light is warming you? You are so far off base that you may never grasp the topic.

Is SSDD saying visible light doesn't warm your skin? Or is he saying that the wavelengths below the visible components of the IR heater are more efficient at warming your skin?

Who knows. He never explains his claims. When asked for clarification he just ignores the criticisms and changes the subject.

Ah yes, he screws up in many ways. I think he knows what "red hot" means as far as the radiation spectrum, but was consciously trying to misinterpret what I said so that he could substitute something silly and pretend to chastise me for his mischievous little fabrication. That is a trick that a lot of trolls use.

 

[SSDD]

I think SSDD said this, but he screwed up the quote function, again-

. And you believe that visible light is warming you? You are so far off base that you may never grasp the topic.

Is SSDD saying visible light doesn't warm your skin? Or is he saying that the wavelengths below the visible components of the IR heater are more efficient at warming your skin?

Who knows. He never explains his claims. When asked for clarification he just ignores the criticisms and changes the subject.

The topic is IR...and IR does not, can not, and never will warm the air...

 

[IanC]

N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.

Without GHGs the only energy inputs would be from the Sun and conduction from the surface. The only energy output would be thermal diffusion back to the surface.

The atmosphere would store energy in daylight and reduce the temperature increase as the surface 'chases' equilibrium. At night it would give up stored energy and reduce surface cooling as it chases equilibrium in the opposite direction.

The only input is the Sun, the only output is the surface radiation and reflected sunshine.

The solar insolation could support a surface maximum of 340w of radiation if all the input reached the surface and was converted to outgoing IR. It doesn't, almost a third is reflected at some point.

So why does the Earth's surface maintain an average temperature of that radiates at almost 400w?

Do you think GHGs might have anything to do with it? Those who think the greenhouse effect has no ability to warm the Earth and atmosphere need to step up with an explanation for this discrepancy.

 

[SSDD]

N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

So why does the Earth's surface maintain an average temperature of that radiates at almost 400w?

gravito thermal effect...

Do you think GHGs might have anything to do with it? Those who think the greenhouse effect has no ability to warm the Earth and atmosphere need to step up with an explanation for this discrepancy.

IR can not warm the air so so called ghg's other than water vapor have nothing at all to do with it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

So why does the Earth's surface maintain an average temperature of that radiates at almost 400w?

gravito thermal effect...

Do you think GHGs might have anything to do with it? Those who think the greenhouse effect has no ability to warm the Earth and atmosphere need to step up with an explanation for this discrepancy.

IR can not warm the air so so called ghg's other than water vapor have nothing at all to do with it.

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

You're right, that's one way IR warms the atmosphere.

IR can not warm the air so so called ghg's other than water vapor have nothing at all to do with it.

You're right, IR absorbed by water vapor also warms the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

You're right, that's one way IR warms the atmosphere.

That is not IR warming the atmosphere...that is convection warming the atmosphere and convection is not the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

You're right, IR absorbed by water vapor also warms the atmosphere.

And the issue isn't water vapor either...the claim is that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming..it isn't. And water vapor provides warming because it actually retains the energy it absorbs...CO2 absorbs and either immediately emits the energy it absorbed, or loses that energy via collision which again, is conduction, not IR.

 

[IanC]

N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

A non-GHG atmosphere of O2 and N2 can only store and release energy via conduction at the surface/air boundary. There is no loss to space because it cannot convert stored energy into IR radiation, nor can it absorb surface emitted IR. There is only one pathway in and out.

 

[IanC]

So why does the Earth's surface maintain an average temperature of that radiates at almost 400w?

gravito thermal effect...

.

Loschmidt's gravito thermal effect says that there will be a temperature gradient that matches the gravity gradient.

Boltzmann, using the second law of thermodynamics said there should be no gradient.

The mathematics for both positions appear to be correct. The controversy lives on to this day.

That said, the gravito thermal effect has no power to explain why the surface is able to maintain a radiation output that is greater than the solar input.

Perhaps you would like to explain?[/QUOTE]

 

[IanC]

Do you think GHGs might have anything to do with it? Those who think the greenhouse effect has no ability to warm the Earth and atmosphere need to step up with an explanation for this discrepancy.

IR can not warm the air so so called ghg's other than water vapor have nothing at all to do with it.

This is yet another area were you make mutually exclusive claims.

You have no difficulty understanding how GHGs can convert stored energy into radiation, which will cool the atmosphere if it escapes to space.

One the other hand you say that GHGs that absorb radiation and convert it into stored energy do not warm the atmosphere.

Both directions are equally valid.

But both directions are not equal.

The amount of energy put into storage in the lower atmosphere is greater than the amount of energy taken out of storage in the higher atmosphere. The surface is much warmer and produces more radiation than the higher and cooler atmosphere where the energy escapes.

The difference between these two amounts is the energy that must take the surface/air conduction pathway out of the atmosphere.

This recycled energy is an addition input to the surface. The surface is receiving energy from the Sun plus energy from the atmosphere. That is why the surface can maintain a radiating level that is higher that what would be expected with just the Sun's input.

A couple of additional notes to head off arguments about perpetual motion, etc.

At equilibrium the Sun's input is matched by the Earth system output. While the surface may radiate at 400w, not all of it escapes.

The energy required to raise the temperature of the surface and atmosphere is not 'created' energy, it is borrowed energy that did not escape to space as the system moved towards equilibrium. If the Sun stopped shining the Earth would continue to radiate until this borrowed energy was paid back.

While energy inputs and outputs are equal, entropy has increased by transforming high quality solar insolation into low quality IR. This is where the impetus comes from to make the recycling mechanism operate.

 

[polarbear]

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

You're right, that's one way IR warms the atmosphere.

That is not IR warming the atmosphere...that is convection warming the atmosphere and convection is not the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

You're right, IR absorbed by water vapor also warms the atmosphere.

And the issue isn't water vapor either...the claim is that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming..it isn't. And water vapor provides warming because it actually retains the energy it absorbs...CO2 absorbs and either immediately emits the energy it absorbed, or loses that energy via collision which again, is conduction, not IR.

It`s futile to debate with somebody who adds the 2 temperatures of 2 masses and comes up with a higher temperature. He says he is not doing it because first he (StB) derives the energy from the temperature which he adds and then converts it back to temperature

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

You're right, that's one way IR warms the atmosphere.

That is not IR warming the atmosphere...that is convection warming the atmosphere and convection is not the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

You're right, IR absorbed by water vapor also warms the atmosphere.

And the issue isn't water vapor either...the claim is that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming..it isn't. And water vapor provides warming because it actually retains the energy it absorbs...CO2 absorbs and either immediately emits the energy it absorbed, or loses that energy via collision which again, is conduction, not IR.

It`s futile to debate with somebody who adds the 2 temperatures of 2 masses and comes up with a higher temperature. He says he is not doing it because first he (StB) derives the energy from the temperature which he adds and then converts it back to temperature

It`s futile to debate with somebody who adds the 2 temperatures of 2 masses and comes up with a higher temperature.

I agree, SSDD's ice cube "thought experiment" was ridiculous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

You're right, that's one way IR warms the atmosphere.

That is not IR warming the atmosphere...that is convection warming the atmosphere and convection is not the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

You're right, IR absorbed by water vapor also warms the atmosphere.

And the issue isn't water vapor either...the claim is that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming..it isn't. And water vapor provides warming because it actually retains the energy it absorbs...CO2 absorbs and either immediately emits the energy it absorbed, or loses that energy via collision which again, is conduction, not IR.

That is not IR warming the atmosphere...that is convection warming the atmosphere

Molecular collision is convection?

convection is not the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

I've never seen anyone claim it was.

And the issue isn't water vapor either..

If water vapor can absorb IR emitted by the surface, thereby warming the atmosphere, it certainly is an issue.

.the claim is that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is causing warming..

Does some IR that would otherwise instantly escape into space, instead get absorbed by CO2?
After CO2 absorbs that IR, is the CO2 warmer than before?
Does some CO2 transfer that added energy to O2 or N2 molecules?
Does such added energy equate to warmer O2 or N2?

And water vapor provides warming because it actually retains the energy it absorbs.

Does it ever emit IR?

..CO2 absorbs and either immediately emits the energy it absorbed, or loses that energy via collision which again, is conduction, not IR

Warming caused by the conversion of IR absorption into kinetic energy doesn't count as warming?
Even though the collision warmed the target gas?

 

[sedwin]

I identified where the graphics came from....But here are the links to the pages...You sure are a f'ing whining milquetoast baby, aren't you...Since you claim to be thoroughly versed in the "science" of climate change...I would have thought you could identify simple graphics...and not become a whining baby over the sources..

Here is a link to the page from the University of Washington...

ATM S 211 - Notes

For this graphic...

Here is the link for the graphic from Harvard...

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Here is the link to Penn State...

One-Layer Energy Balance Model | METEO 469: From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming D7

Now buzz off...maybe an adult will come around who actually wants to discuss this...

I'm not sure what you want to discuss and frankly who "warmers" are? You have identified a mechanism in Natural Science. Do you have a question or argument to make because that's what's lacking in this post.