Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Earth can easily reach 120 deg F? Actually, it can't, easily reach 120 deg F, you could say it can easily reach 63 deg F, but 120 def F. is not so easily reached.Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that? That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.
The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.
From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles
Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.
I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.
I'd guess as much of the earth as reaches -35F reaches 120F
I think I'd be guessing right.
- Kalahari Desert
- Karoo Desert
- Namib Desert
- Moçâmedes Desert
- Danakil Desert
- Guban Desert
- Grand Bara Desert
- Ogaden Desert
- Chalbi Desert
- Nyiri Desert
- Lompoul Desert
- Sahara Desert
and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?
Well, yes. Many experiments have been done to quantify the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other atmospheric gases. If you head over to the HITRAN database and go to the documentation, it lists 77 sources just for CO2, and around a thousand sources for all atmospheric gases.
HITRAN
And that's why you look so utterly delusional for claiming no experiments have been done.
Hitran hit n run...not an experiment controlling for CO2
Do you agree with your partner here that 120F is an exceedingly difficult temperature to find on this planet? That was the original contention I was addressing.
The whole matter is just a fucking distraction from the current local question: can any denier explain the energy balance at ToA?
Or we could actually go back to the real thread topic and ask if anyone has actually come up with a real confession of someone involved in falsifying temperature data. Any takers?
The Earth can easily reach 120 deg F? Actually, it can't, easily reach 120 deg F, you could say it can easily reach 63 deg F, but 120 def F. is not so easily reached.Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that? That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.
The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.
From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles
Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.
I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.
I'd guess as much of the earth as reaches -35F reaches 120F
and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?
Well, yes. Many experiments have been done to quantify the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other atmospheric gases. If you head over to the HITRAN database and go to the documentation, it lists 77 sources just for CO2, and around a thousand sources for all atmospheric gases.
HITRAN
And that's why you look so utterly delusional for claiming no experiments have been done.
Hitran hit n run...not an experiment controlling for CO2
HITRAN is nothing more than a complex modeling program which needs exact measurements and understanding of the complex system to work. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE SYSTEM ENOUGH TO MODEL THEM CORRECTLY. This is why every single model they use today cant predict shit! In just 36 hours every single model fails and most fail before they hit 12 hours.
The alarmist drone morons in this thread couldn't tie their dam shoes whit this record.
HITRAN is a computer PROGRAM you fucking moron.. That program requires a massive database of real data which is managed by inputs done by its staff which determine its outputs...and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?
Well, yes. Many experiments have been done to quantify the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other atmospheric gases. If you head over to the HITRAN database and go to the documentation, it lists 77 sources just for CO2, and around a thousand sources for all atmospheric gases.
HITRAN
And that's why you look so utterly delusional for claiming no experiments have been done.
Hitran hit n run...not an experiment controlling for CO2
HITRAN is nothing more than a complex modeling program which needs exact measurements and understanding of the complex system to work. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE SYSTEM ENOUGH TO MODEL THEM CORRECTLY. This is why every single model they use today cant predict shit! In just 36 hours every single model fails and most fail before they hit 12 hours.
The alarmist drone morons in this thread couldn't tie their dam shoes whit this record.
Yo, Mr atmospheric physicist. HITRAN is not a fucking model. It's a goddamn database. Do you not know the difference?
HITRAN - HITRAN (an acronym for High Resolution Transmission) is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in gaseous media including the atmosphere, laboratory cells, etc. The original version was compiled by the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (1960s). HITRAN is maintained and developed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge MA, USA.
HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum.[citation needed] The current version contains 47 molecular species along with their most significant isotopologues. These data are archived as a multitude of high-resolution line transitions, each containing many spectral parameters required for high-resolution simulations. In addition there are about 50 molecular species collected as cross-section data. These latter include anthropogenic constituents in the atmosphere such as the chlorofluorocarbons.
No, it's you who are trying to distract from the simple fact that long wave IR can't do what you are claiming.. Period.
No, it's you who are trying to distract from the simple fact that long wave IR can't do what you are claiming.. Period.
These are facts that are NOT disputed by the scientific community, whether they are warmers or deniers.
1. The earth is absorbing around 163 W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391 W/sq meter
You guys have several choices:
1. I don't agree with those scientific facts.
2. I don't care what the facts are. I believe my gut.
3. Make a digression or some other distraction.
4. Make a lot of personal insults.
5. Come up with a reasonable answer.
No, it's you who are trying to distract from the simple fact that long wave IR can't do what you are claiming.. Period.
These are facts that are NOT disputed by the scientific community, whether they are warmers or deniers.
1. The earth is absorbing around 163 W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391 W/sq meter
You guys have several choices:
1. I don't agree with those scientific facts.
2. I don't care what the facts are. I believe my gut.
3. Make a digression or some other distraction.
4. Make a lot of personal insults.
5. Come up with a reasonable answer.
You should whine to westwall. He is the one who brought up the huge range.Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer
You, elektra and westwall are distracted from the basic question:
The question you must answer for yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave (visible and UV) from the sun.
That has nothing to do with AGW. It is a basic science question that you don't understand. But you keep diverting it to AGW which is irrelevant.
Probably should go read to see what this fuss is really about..
You lost track of my point. Look back at post #781.how can that be? you can't measure CO2 in a lab? Is that what you're saying? Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state? That really doesn't seem that hard or is it? If it is, how can you make that statement. so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere? And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%? Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim. I'm just saying.
The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams.
You will see that the amount of CO2 is about 1 quarter the amount of H2O vapor in the atmosphere right now. If you double it, as you say, the CO2 would then be half the mass of H2O. That is not trivial. You have to understand that H2O is also a trace element in the atmosphere when you compare it to the trace element CO2.
You said "double" and also said .04% to .06%. That isn't doubling.
You lost track of my point. Look back at post #781.how can that be? you can't measure CO2 in a lab? Is that what you're saying? Who cares what the atmosphere consists of, the claim is specifically CO2. So, show us how CO2 reacts the way you state? That really doesn't seem that hard or is it? If it is, how can you make that statement. so CO2 is what, 0.04 % of the atmosphere? And when you double the amount it is what 0.06%? Come on man, you have to do better than that to make such a claim. I'm just saying.
The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×10^18 grams.
The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×10^18 grams.
You will see that the amount of CO2 is about 1 quarter the amount of H2O vapor in the atmosphere right now. If you double it, as you say, the CO2 would then be half the mass of H2O. That is not trivial. You have to understand that H2O is also a trace element in the atmosphere when you compare it to the trace element CO2.
You said "double" and also said .04% to .06%. That isn't doubling.
I've heard this premise from you before -- and I'm skeptical that it gives CO2 any abnormal powers because of it's WEIGHT. What really matters is heat Capacity --- independent of mass.
I was trying to find the numbers --- but ran across this SPECTACULAR fractured science GW propaganda from NASA/NOAA on the web that might give you a chuckle.. And thought you might need the laugh to remind yourself that chemical properties aren't always about mass..
Poor children of America. No chance to ever learn ACTUAL science from bozos with authoritarian sounding job titles.. .
Mamooth got it right above. Here is my similar explanation.How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure. UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocen to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.
The theory does not fail. Yes, the short wave radiation from the sun warms the ocean and the long wave IR cannot penetrate it. (The long wave IR can't penetrate much of anything else on the earth.)
But remember that, night and day, the surface of the ocean and earth is loosing around 400 Watts per square meter of thermal IR radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law). That radiation is leaving from within the top few microns of the surface.
The greenhouse gasses, (including water vapor for the most part), are continually backscattering a large percentage of that loss as IR right back to that same thin top surface. Otherwise the surface of the ocean would quickly freeze everywhere.
The net result is that the thin surface is not loosing as much heat through IR as it would otherwise. That is why the ocean can retain the short wave radiation heat that the sun provides.
Try to remember that scientists do not (or should not) claim that IR backscatter actually warms anything. What backscatter does is to prevent a lot of heat from escaping from the already warm earth. (Warmed by short wave radiation.)
Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans. Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.
Here Crick... from one of your own trusted sites..WIKI
HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum.[citation needed] The current version contains 47 molecular species along with their most significant isotopologues. These data are archived as a multitude of high-resolution line transitions, each containing many spectral parameters required for high-resolution simulations. In addition there are about 50 molecular species collected as cross-section data. These latter include anthropogenic constituents in the atmosphere such as the chlorofluorocarbons.
