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 isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating, it's where you loose your argument, you attempt to stabilize it which isn't what's happening. anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this.Funny. When others give reasonable answers and close approximations, they are nitwits. When he gives approximations, he calls it "good science." With Sunlight generating between 1000 and 1300 watts/meter square and CO2 only absorbing 1/10,000th watt, you'd wonder how it effects climate change at all!
As a 'trained physicist ' with an interest in astronomy you should be familiar with blackbody radiation.
The green band of the Sun's spectrum puts out 10^5 more power than the 15 micron band. The average solar insolation reaching the Earth is 340w, 100w is reflected. 240w divided by 10^5 is an amount that can be safely ignored.
If you disagree, explain why.
Edit- it should actually be the amount of visible green light that gets divided by 10^5, a much smaller amount. But CO2 has other absorbance bands. Is this extra complexity necessary? I dont think so. Either amount is insignificant.
Funny, one source claims: 6.33×107 W/m2
Part 2: Solar Energy Reaching The Earth’s Surface | ITACA
Another source says: the average is 6.11 kWhr/m^2 per day.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-ener...nd-per-square-meter-per-minute-solar-constant
This source claims: 1,000 W/m2
The Sun's Energy
YOU CLAIM: The average solar insolation reaching the Earth is 340w, 100w is reflected.
So you just claimed that a full 30% of all sunlight is reflected back into space when I've already shown that figure is closer to 3%
View attachment 262108
Then you have the audacity to suggest this only leaves 240 watts across the entire face of the Earth? You are an incredible accident of fraud and bumbling inexactness, while jumping on the SLIGHTEST inaccuracies of others!
AND STILL, WITHOUT A SHRED of credible independent supporting research to back up a single thing you say! Too funny!
Are you sure that you want keep humiliating yourself?
Only humiliation here is looking you in the mirror.
Ok then Mr 'trained physicist '.
Roughly 1360 w/m2 of solar radiation reaches the Earth orbit distance. The amount intercepted by the Earth would be equal to a disk with the same diameter as the Earth. The Earths surface has four times the area as that disk. 1360 divided by four is 340w/m2.
The Earth has an albedo of 0.3. That means it reflects 30 percent of the solar radiation back into space. That drops the solar insolation to 240w/m2. If you are complaining that I subtracted all of the albedo at once rather than cumulatively through the different layers, then I plead quilty. Tell you what. You can have the whole 340w outside the atmosphere figure to calculate tha amount of solar produced CO2 IR reaching the Earth. It is still insignificant.
Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?
the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating, it's where you loose your argument, you attempt to stabilize it which isn't what's happening. anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this.As a 'trained physicist ' with an interest in astronomy you should be familiar with blackbody radiation.
The green band of the Sun's spectrum puts out 10^5 more power than the 15 micron band. The average solar insolation reaching the Earth is 340w, 100w is reflected. 240w divided by 10^5 is an amount that can be safely ignored.
If you disagree, explain why.
Edit- it should actually be the amount of visible green light that gets divided by 10^5, a much smaller amount. But CO2 has other absorbance bands. Is this extra complexity necessary? I dont think so. Either amount is insignificant.
Funny, one source claims: 6.33×107 W/m2
Part 2: Solar Energy Reaching The Earth’s Surface | ITACA
Another source says: the average is 6.11 kWhr/m^2 per day.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-ener...nd-per-square-meter-per-minute-solar-constant
This source claims: 1,000 W/m2
The Sun's Energy
YOU CLAIM: The average solar insolation reaching the Earth is 340w, 100w is reflected.
So you just claimed that a full 30% of all sunlight is reflected back into space when I've already shown that figure is closer to 3%
View attachment 262108
Then you have the audacity to suggest this only leaves 240 watts across the entire face of the Earth? You are an incredible accident of fraud and bumbling inexactness, while jumping on the SLIGHTEST inaccuracies of others!
AND STILL, WITHOUT A SHRED of credible independent supporting research to back up a single thing you say! Too funny!
Are you sure that you want keep humiliating yourself?
Only humiliation here is looking you in the mirror.
Ok then Mr 'trained physicist '.
Roughly 1360 w/m2 of solar radiation reaches the Earth orbit distance. The amount intercepted by the Earth would be equal to a disk with the same diameter as the Earth. The Earths surface has four times the area as that disk. 1360 divided by four is 340w/m2.
The Earth has an albedo of 0.3. That means it reflects 30 percent of the solar radiation back into space. That drops the solar insolation to 240w/m2. If you are complaining that I subtracted all of the albedo at once rather than cumulatively through the different layers, then I plead quilty. Tell you what. You can have the whole 340w outside the atmosphere figure to calculate tha amount of solar produced CO2 IR reaching the Earth. It is still insignificant.
Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?
CO2 very rarely re-emits near surface due to the mass of the atmosphere and collision energy transfer at ground level.
At altitude the mass is such that LWIR CAN EASILY ESCAPE as N2 and water vapor are non existent and collisions are rare above cloud boundary where re-nucleation of water vapor releases its energy, due to the decreased mass of the atmosphere.
The Spherical Shape of the Earththe earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating, it's where you loose your argument, you attempt to stabilize it which isn't what's happening. anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this.Funny, one source claims: 6.33×107 W/m2
Part 2: Solar Energy Reaching The Earth’s Surface | ITACA
Another source says: the average is 6.11 kWhr/m^2 per day.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-ener...nd-per-square-meter-per-minute-solar-constant
This source claims: 1,000 W/m2
The Sun's Energy
YOU CLAIM: The average solar insolation reaching the Earth is 340w, 100w is reflected.
So you just claimed that a full 30% of all sunlight is reflected back into space when I've already shown that figure is closer to 3%
View attachment 262108
Then you have the audacity to suggest this only leaves 240 watts across the entire face of the Earth? You are an incredible accident of fraud and bumbling inexactness, while jumping on the SLIGHTEST inaccuracies of others!
AND STILL, WITHOUT A SHRED of credible independent supporting research to back up a single thing you say! Too funny!
Are you sure that you want keep humiliating yourself?
Only humiliation here is looking you in the mirror.
Ok then Mr 'trained physicist '.
Roughly 1360 w/m2 of solar radiation reaches the Earth orbit distance. The amount intercepted by the Earth would be equal to a disk with the same diameter as the Earth. The Earths surface has four times the area as that disk. 1360 divided by four is 340w/m2.
The Earth has an albedo of 0.3. That means it reflects 30 percent of the solar radiation back into space. That drops the solar insolation to 240w/m2. If you are complaining that I subtracted all of the albedo at once rather than cumulatively through the different layers, then I plead quilty. Tell you what. You can have the whole 340w outside the atmosphere figure to calculate tha amount of solar produced CO2 IR reaching the Earth. It is still insignificant.
Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?
the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating,
Would that make the number more than 340w/m2 or less than 340w/m2?
anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this
Irony is ironic.
The Spherical Shape of the Earththe earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating, it's where you loose your argument, you attempt to stabilize it which isn't what's happening. anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this.Are you sure that you want keep humiliating yourself?
Only humiliation here is looking you in the mirror.
Ok then Mr 'trained physicist '.
Roughly 1360 w/m2 of solar radiation reaches the Earth orbit distance. The amount intercepted by the Earth would be equal to a disk with the same diameter as the Earth. The Earths surface has four times the area as that disk. 1360 divided by four is 340w/m2.
The Earth has an albedo of 0.3. That means it reflects 30 percent of the solar radiation back into space. That drops the solar insolation to 240w/m2. If you are complaining that I subtracted all of the albedo at once rather than cumulatively through the different layers, then I plead quilty. Tell you what. You can have the whole 340w outside the atmosphere figure to calculate tha amount of solar produced CO2 IR reaching the Earth. It is still insignificant.
Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?
the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating,
Would that make the number more than 340w/m2 or less than 340w/m2?
anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this
Irony is ironic.
"Because the Earth is a sphere, the surface gets much more intense sunlight, hence heat, at the equator than at the poles. On the equinox, the Sun passes directly overhead at noon on the equator and a square centimeter of ground receives about 1 calorie of heat energy (see solar constant). On the same day, at 60°N, the latitude of Anchorage, Alaska, or Oslo, Norway, or St. Petersburg, Russia, the Sun rises no higher than 30° above the horizon at noon and heats a given parcel of ground with only a half the intensity as at the equator. At the poles, the Sun appears to sit on the horizon for periods upwards of 24 hours, and its rays skim horizontally over the surface."
You tell me, it's your crazy equation made up as if the earth was a disk fully exposed to the sun flat side? hahahahaha, you crack me up dude.
As per usual, I make a point and you say it is refuted by adding a non sequitur.
How much energy does the Earth lose to space by conduction and convection? 0%
How much energy does the Earth lose to space by radiation? 100%
I am not saying comductiom and convection have no part in our system. But if I was to act like you then I would say that gravity was the dominant factor. And unlike you, I could built a strong case for it. You just run away.
Fair enough. I will take that assertion as seriously as The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space.My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.
Can you show us a physical law which predicts that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation?
See? You're just being stupid again. Radiation leaving an object travels in a straight line. It cannot hit the original emitter.
It's fun to tease him with it.I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.
.
I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.
You seem to think that just because almost all energy is transported to the top of the troposphere via conduction and convection, that somehow it can't radiate out once an altitude is reached in which molecules are so far apart that energy movement via conduction is no longer efficient
Fair enough. I will take that assertion as seriously as The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space.My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.
Can you show us a physical law which predicts that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own radiation?
See? You're just being stupid again. Radiation leaving an object travels in a straight line. It cannot hit the original emitter.
Picking fly specks out of pepper again? Which physical law predicts that if you redirect an objects radiation back to it that it can be warmed?
I dont like Trenberth's Cartoon either but at least it is a starting point. Guys like SSDD just sputter when asked for a better energy budget and say look it up yourself.
Care to explain what it is you dislike about Trenberth's energy budget diagram? TIA.
I have absolutely no idea how realistic it is.You believe it wholeheartedly because it is the basis for your religion...
No, light from a light bulb is not considered parallel. Ffs, this is secondary school physics.By the OP's definitions then, if sunlight is collimated, so then is an ordinary light bulb, which is ridiculous.
I dont feel like going over it yet again.
As so often happens, there is actually an article on energy budgets over at WUWT. You should check it out.
GHGs lose radiation to space once they are high enough that an emitted photon is not just reabsorbed by another molecule of the same GHG.
The amount of radiation produced by a GHG that can escape is predicated on the temperature of the emission height.
The amount of radiation that a GHG absorbs from the surface is predicated by the temperature of the surface.
The amount of radiation available to be stored in the atmosphere is absorbed radiation less emitted radiation.
Because the surface is warmer than the emission height there will always be surplus radiation available to be returned to the surface.
I have explained this to you dozens of times. And asked you at what point in this line of logic do you disagree.
I have given you hints even.
I find it hard to believe a trained physicist has not encountered the term STP before.STP means standard temperature and pressure, ie roughly what it is at sea level.
All objects radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. If they are in proximity then the net movement of energy will always be from warm to cool but both objects continue to radiate according to their temperature and emissivity.
CO2 collides 30,000 times with other molecules in our atmosphere during the time a photon resides in a CO2 molecule, making emission nearly impossible.
All fine and good, I won't dispute any of that, my interests have never been in gases but rather solid materials in a laboratory setting, but it remains curious to me you people seem fixated on the exact properties and relationships of ONE atom, CO2 in relation to the atmosphere when CO2 is:
- Not even the strongest or only GHG.
- Only one of MANY items in the atmosphere which absorb sunlight as infrared energy.
