Nye's Quadrant

[SSDD]

You keep making that naked statement but refuse to argue its merits.

I already did...without so called GHG's, you would only have convection to move energy to the upper atmosphere.

Without GHGs all the surface IR radiation would simply escape to space. Instead of just the narrowed range of 8-16 microns.

No ian...did you miss all the links I posted stating that convection is the main transport of energy through the troposphere?...Take away the greenhouse gasses and then convection remains the main transport of energy through the troposphere...the difference being that you take away the small amount of energy radiated by those so called greenhouse gasses to the upper atmosphere.

On the other side of the coin, without GHGs the atmosphere would only be receiving energy by conduction from the surface. None of the surface radiation would be imparted to the atmosphere.

No ian...without greenhouse gasses, convection would still be the means of energy movement. You are really coming out with some crazy ideas.

Introduction to the Atmosphere: Background Material

Clip: Energy is transferred between the earth's surface and the atmosphere via conduction, convection, and radiation.[/quote]

It becomes more clear all the time that you deserve a seat up in the first class car of the AGW crazy train...you like to think I am confused, but geez ian.....you are really out there. Who would have thought that this particular topic would have brought all those crazy ideas in your head rushing out in such a torrent?

So we would appear to have a cooler surface and a cooler atmosphere because of increased radiation loss due to lack of GHGs.

Don't say we...perhaps it appears that way from the landscape of your crazy world, but out here in reality...it just isn't so...

Yet you claim the opposite. Where is the energy coming from to support your claim?

As I have always said...so called greenhouse gasses are holes in the proverbial blanket keeping the earth warm...without radiation, you would have the mechanism of convection, conduction, and less radiation to move energy to the top of the troposphere...greenhouse gasses subtract a bit of the total energy being moved by convection and add to the total amount of energy moving through the troposphere by radiation. Holes in the blanket.

 

[IanC]

I suppose your worldview and crazy opinions demand that you ignore rebuttals and criticism.

Convection only moves energy once it is in the atmosphere. The surface is not convecting energy to the atmosphere, it is conducting it.

Without GHGs, the only energy input into the atmosphere would be surface conduction, but on the plus side it would not be losing energy by radiation. The atmosphere would be in lockstep with surface temperature.

What happens at the surface when there are no GHGs? All of the IR radiation produced at the surface is free to escape to space. The solar input would simply be transformed into IR and leave. 200w in, 200w out. But 200w is a very cold radiating temperature.

There would still be a moderating and warming effect from the atmosphere as it stores energy during daylight and gives it up during the night but it would be much cooler than with GHGs.

How do GHGs warm the surface? They restrict the amount of radiation freely escaping to space. Only a fraction gets through, the remainder gets stored in the atmosphere where it is available to be returned to the surface.

This is not free energy, this is recycled energy, stored in the gravity field.

The surface receives 200w solar input, another 200w returning energy from the atmosphere which supports a 400w operating temperature. Of the 400w, 200w escapes freely and 200w is captured by the atmosphere, and the cycle repeats with energy input equalling energy output.

My numbers are grossly simplified, the mechanism is grossly simplified, but the process is real.

 

[IanC]

without radiation, you would have the mechanism of convection, conduction, and less radiation to move energy to the top of the troposphere...greenhouse gasses subtract a bit of the total energy being moved by convection and add to the total amount of energy moving through the troposphere by radiation. Holes in the blanket

Without GHGs there is little radiation produced by the atmosphere. You do realize that radiation is the only process that removes energy, right? It doesn't matter where the energy in the atmosphere resides if it cannot escape.

 

[SSDD]

I suppose your worldview and crazy opinions demand that you ignore rebuttals and criticism.

Sorry ian, but the crazy is coming from you....you are so set on being right, that you simply can't see how wrong you are.

Convection only moves energy once it is in the atmosphere. The surface is not convecting energy to the atmosphere, it is conducting it.

And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....

Without GHGs, the only energy input into the atmosphere would be surface conduction, but on the plus side it would not be losing energy by radiation. The atmosphere would be in lockstep with surface temperature.

And it isn't enough that you are wrong once...you have to keep repeating it.. I repeat...the bulk of the energy in the atmosphere comes from the ocean, and it doesn't get there via radiation.

How do GHGs warm the surface? They restrict the amount of radiation freely escaping to space. Only a fraction gets through, the remainder gets stored in the atmosphere where it is available to be returned to the surface.

GHG's do not warm the surface...the earth heats the atmosphere...no way around it.

My numbers are grossly simplified, the mechanism is grossly simplified, but the process is real.

Your hypothesis is grossly wrong...but hey, what else is new.

 

[IanC]

And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....

You said an atmosphere without GHGs would be warmer. Are you now changing that to all GHGs except for water vapour?

 

[IanC]

And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....

I thought you believed that surface temperature was entirely dependent on mass and gravity. Are you now saying the water cycle is a 'bulk' factor?

 

[IanC]

this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....

Are you confused about the difference between convection and latent heat of phase change?

 

[SSDD]

And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....

You said an atmosphere without GHGs would be warmer. Are you now changing that to all GHGs except for water vapour?

We live on a water planet...and then there are the planets like uranus which have essentially no GHG's which are warmer than here deep in their atmospheres...and it isn't due to incoming solar... Observational examples abound of you being wrong but you are blinded by the magic.

 

[IanC]

And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....

You said an atmosphere without GHGs would be warmer. Are you now changing that to all GHGs except for water vapour?

We live on a water planet...and then there are the planets like uranus which have essentially no GHG's which are warmer than here deep in their atmospheres...and it isn't due to incoming solar... Observational examples abound of you being wrong but you are blinded by the magic.

I am blinded by nothing, and nothing you have said proves me wrong.

General cases are built up from basic principles, ignoring the secondary details which soon lead to untenable complexity.

You said the Earth would be warmer without greenhouse gases. I went with your definition and showed that was not correct. Your rebuttal is to say it is a water world. Those two statements are mutually exclusive. Pick your poison, I will show I am more correct than you under any set of legitimate assumptions.

Now you are shifting the goalposts to Uranus. Fine. But first you need to explain your position about what is happening. I asked both you and crick to describe how the gas planets lose heat and balance their energy budget but you both ducked the issue.

It is a bit tiresome to be the only one stating a position, explaining it, and then defending it. You make naked claims and then fail to explain your reasoning, or defend it from legitimate criticism.

 

[SSDD]

And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....

You said an atmosphere without GHGs would be warmer. Are you now changing that to all GHGs except for water vapour?

We live on a water planet...and then there are the planets like uranus which have essentially no GHG's which are warmer than here deep in their atmospheres...and it isn't due to incoming solar... Observational examples abound of you being wrong but you are blinded by the magic.

I am blinded by nothing, and nothing you have said proves me wrong.

Of course you are and everything I have said proves you wrong....you have magic..and nothing else...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and they prove exactly squat...other than that you have been duped by post modern science itself which requires no empirical evidence....only consensus.

You said the Earth would be warmer without greenhouse gases. I went with your definition and showed that was not correct. Your rebuttal is to say it is a water world. Those two statements are mutually exclusive. Pick your poison, I will show I am more correct than you under any set of legitimate assumptions.

No ian..you didn't prove anything...you posited an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model and called it proof...I pointed out that there are planets within our solar system that have no appreciable amount of greenhouse gas which are as warm or warmer than earth but don't get nearly as much solar input as we do...observation, I am afraid, trumps your pointless models.

Perhaps you would like to explain why those planets are warmer than here with no greenhouse gas if if what small amount of sola radiation they receive radiates directly out into space.

And do try to explain without using some unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable model. If you can't do so without such nonsense, then just say we don't know...which i am sure you willl find painful since it will fall in the same category as the rest of your models.

 

[IanC]

No ian..you didn't prove anything...you posited an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model and called it proof...I pointed out that there are planets within our solar system that have no appreciable amount of greenhouse gas which are as warm or warmer than earth but don't get nearly as much solar input as we do...observation, I am afraid, trumps your pointless models

Prove? No, neither myself or any others on this board are 'proving' anything. Am I describing specific mechanisms, explaininghow they fit into the overall picture and defending criticisms of my position? Yes.

In your above comment you claim planets that are as warm or warmer than Earth with less solar input. You don't name them, describe them, or show that they are a legitimate comparison. By process of elimination that means Mars and beyond. It isn't Mars so that means the gas planets, or incorrectly described moons of them, or Pluto which apparently is no longer considered a planet.

If your example is a gas planets then how are you comparing it to Earth? Your previous excursion into the N&Z curve fitting model gives a temperature of about 75K at Earth surface pressure. Presumably we have probe data that also show a similar temperature/pressure gradient. So where are your examples?

Can we legitimately compare rocky planets to gas planets anyways? Earth converts solar radiation into heat and IR radiation at the surface, what is the mechanism for gas planets?

Your statement makes no sense and is easily confounded. Try again with more detail.

 

[polarbear]

I for one prefer to agree with what other engineers who are in the top echelon have to say about the 2nd law of thermodynamics...which as it happens is almost exactly what you are trying to get across...with an occasional glitch in it, but not the kind that would disqualify the gist of your interpretation.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

This is the process and it does not matter how you package ΔQ. Unless Q has a human like awareness as soon as it resides in intelligent photons which decide to counteract either of the 2 possible heat transfers.
"Total energy includes the potential and kinetic energy, the work done by the system, and the transfer of heat through the system. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that, while many physical processes that satisfy the first law are possible, the only processes that occur in nature are those for which the entropy of the system either remains constant or increases.

If we have a constant volume process, the formulation of the first law gives:


dE = dQ = C (constant volume) * dT

Similarly, for a constant pressure process, the formulation of the first law gives:
dH = dQ = C (constant pressure) * dT

These equations can be integrated from condition "1" to condition "2" to give:

S2 - S1 = Cv * ln ( T2 / T1) + R * ln ( V2 / V1)

and

S2 - S1 = Cp * ln ( T2 / T1) - R * ln ( p2 / p1)

where Cv is the heat capacity at constant volume, Cp is the heat capacity at constant pressure
If we divide both equations by the mass of gas, we can obtain intrinsic, or "specific" forms of both equations:

s2 - s1 = cv * ln ( T2 / T1) + R * ln ( v2 / v1)


and

s2 - s1 = cp * ln ( T2 / T1) - R * ln ( p2 / p1)
If we have a constant volume process, the second term in the equation is equal to zero, since v2/v1 = 1. We can then determine the value of the specific heat for the constant volume process. But if we have a process that changes volume, the second term in the equation is not zero. We can think of the first term of the equation as the contribution for a constant volume process, and the second term as the additional change produced by the change in volume. A similar type of argument can be made for the equation used for a change in pressure."
-------------------------------------------------------End of quote----------------------
Not only do the AGW kooks ignore that the "back radiation" source is a gas that has nothing in common with a black body radiation profile but go on and cite the fact that a smaller ΔT resulting in a lower ΔQ per time is "proof" of additional energy that would not be there if there were no CO2. And all the while we have developed turbines spewing out concentrated GHG but are so stealthy that not even heat seeking missiles can home in on....unless the pilot uses the after burner:

And you can see the characteristic standing wave pattern..."standing" in relation to the object of origin and how its almost all gone already in the 4th pressure oscillation.
What you see are "shock diamonds" that disappear just as soon as their pressure matches the ambient pressure and so does the IR emitted by the shock diamond.
But according to "climatology experts" none of that plays a significant role because they only deal with cyberspace air in a cyberspace dumber than that of a Microsoft XBox and can bounce ΔQ packets off colder air back down to the warmer ground and not just prevent it from cooling in a 1 step go as soon as the volume changed but play ping pong with ΔQ till there is more of it than they started out with on the not so black body to begin with until they have their "temperature anomaly" and finally allow ΔQ to go where it did in the real world all the eons before the tree whisperer and other assorted crackpots modeled our climate into a hockey stick

 

[IanC]

I for one prefer to agree with what other engineers who are in the top echelon have to say about the 2nd law of thermodynamics...which as it happens is almost exactly what you are trying to get across...with an occasional glitch in it, but not the kind that would disqualify the gist of your interpretation.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

This is the process and it does not matter how you package ΔQ. Unless Q has a human like awareness as soon as it resides in intelligent photons which decide to counteract either of the 2 possible heat transfers.
"Total energy includes the potential and kinetic energy, the work done by the system, and the transfer of heat through the system. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that, while many physical processes that satisfy the first law are possible, the only processes that occur in nature are those for which the entropy of the system either remains constant or increases.

If we have a constant volume process, the formulation of the first law gives:


dE = dQ = C (constant volume) * dT

Similarly, for a constant pressure process, the formulation of the first law gives:
dH = dQ = C (constant pressure) * dT

These equations can be integrated from condition "1" to condition "2" to give:

S2 - S1 = Cv * ln ( T2 / T1) + R * ln ( V2 / V1)

and

S2 - S1 = Cp * ln ( T2 / T1) - R * ln ( p2 / p1)

where Cv is the heat capacity at constant volume, Cp is the heat capacity at constant pressure
If we divide both equations by the mass of gas, we can obtain intrinsic, or "specific" forms of both equations:

s2 - s1 = cv * ln ( T2 / T1) + R * ln ( v2 / v1)


and

s2 - s1 = cp * ln ( T2 / T1) - R * ln ( p2 / p1)
If we have a constant volume process, the second term in the equation is equal to zero, since v2/v1 = 1. We can then determine the value of the specific heat for the constant volume process. But if we have a process that changes volume, the second term in the equation is not zero. We can think of the first term of the equation as the contribution for a constant volume process, and the second term as the additional change produced by the change in volume. A similar type of argument can be made for the equation used for a change in pressure."
-------------------------------------------------------End of quote----------------------
Not only do the AGW kooks ignore that the "back radiation" source is a gas that has nothing in common with a black body radiation profile but go on and cite the fact that a smaller ΔT resulting in a lower ΔQ per time is "proof" of additional energy that would not be there if there were no CO2. And all the while we have developed turbines spewing out concentrated GHG but are so stealthy that not even heat seeking missiles can home in on....unless the pilot uses the after burner:

And you can see the characteristic standing wave pattern..."standing" in relation to the object of origin and how its almost all gone already in the 4th pressure oscillation.
What you see are "shock diamonds" that disappear just as soon as their pressure matches the ambient pressure and so does the IR emitted by the shock diamond.
But according to "climatology experts" none of that plays a significant role because they only deal with cyberspace air in a cyberspace dumber than that of a Microsoft XBox and can bounce ΔQ packets off colder air back down to the warmer ground and not just prevent it from cooling in a 1 step go as soon as the volume changed but play ping pong with ΔQ till there is more of it than they started out with on the not so black body to begin with until they have their "temperature anomaly" and finally allow ΔQ to go where it did in the real world all the eons before the tree whisperer and other assorted crackpots modeled our climate into a hockey stick

I can seldom figure out what your point is. Usually you start off with a reasonable bit of information but then veer off to an example that has little to do with the information, then you make a conclusion that is not drawn from either the information or the example.

ie. your cut&paste makes several good points about entropy and reversible/irreversible processes. For the atmosphere that corresponds to reversible energy storage in the gravity field, and irreversible transmission of energy from the surface through the air and out into space.

Then your fighter jet example just muddies the waters.

Then your conclusion is just an ad hom against climate scientists.




I agree that the greenhouse effect has been grossly oversimplified to give an understandable mental image to layman.

Why don't you present your less simplified version of how the atmosphere warms the surface? You do believe the atmosphere causes the surface to be warmer on average than without an atmosphere, right?

 

[SSDD]

ie. your cut&paste makes several good points about entropy and reversible/irreversible processes. For the atmosphere that corresponds to reversible energy storage in the gravity field, and irreversible transmission of energy from the surface through the air and out into space.

ALL...that is ALL natural processes are irreversible.

I agree that the greenhouse effect has been grossly oversimplified to give an understandable mental image to layman.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

 

[IanC]

ie. your cut&paste makes several good points about entropy and reversible/irreversible processes. For the atmosphere that corresponds to reversible energy storage in the gravity field, and irreversible transmission of energy from the surface through the air and out into space.

ALL...that is ALL natural processes are irreversible.

I don't think chemists would agree with you there.

Take a liter of water at 20C and measure the pH. Warm the water to 25C and the pH goes up due to increased dissociation. Cool the water back to 20C and the pH returns to its original value.

You irreversibly added to entropy by heating and cooling the water but the water itself is identical before and after. A reversible process.

Likewise, the atmosphere has both reversible and irreversible processes acting upon it. Energy flowing through it increases entropy but the ability to store and release energy is reversible.

 

[IanC]

I agree that the greenhouse effect has been grossly oversimplified to give an understandable mental image to layman.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Again, you are making a naked assertion with no relevant description of what details you are disagreeing with. Why don't you save yourself some typing by just responding "No" to everything I say?

 

[IanC]

There are many grossly simplified statements put out by the media and left uncorrected by climate scientists.

The biggest one is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR and reemits it in a random direction, some of which returns to the surface, directly warming the surface.

I disagree with all parts of that statement. I have contested all parts of that statement. It is an incorrect description of events yet the over all result is true. The presence of CO2 does lead to a warmer surface temperature, just not by the method described.

 

[SSDD]

I don't think chemists would agree with you there.

Take a liter of water at 20C and measure the pH. Warm the water to 25C and the pH goes up due to increased dissociation. Cool the water back to 20C and the pH returns to its original value.

Again with your crazy misunderstandings of actual science...the more you talk the more I understand how you came to be duped...

What are Reversible and Irreversible Processes in Thermodynamics?

clip: There are two main types of thermodynamic processes: the reversible and irreversible. The reversible process is the ideal process which never occurs, while the irreversible process is the natural process that is commonly found in the nature.

http://twt.mpei.ac.ru/TTHB/2/KiSyShe/eng/Chapter3/3-2-Reversible-and-irreversible-processes.html

Clip: It is a matter of general experience that all natural spontaneous processes are irreversible, and no natural reversible processes exist.

SECOND LAW

Clip: All natural processes are irreversible.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemica...-fall-2003/study-materials/suppnotes_ch04.pdf

Clip: All real or natural processes are not reversible. Hence reversible processes are only idealizations that are very useful in showing limiting behavior. The performance of real processes is frequently compared with ideal performance under reversible conditions.

6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics

Clip: and all natural processes are irreversible.

 

[polarbear]

I for one prefer to agree with what other engineers who are in the top echelon have to say about the 2nd law of thermodynamics...which as it happens is almost exactly what you are trying to get across...with an occasional glitch in it, but not the kind that would disqualify the gist of your interpretation.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

This is the process and it does not matter how you package ΔQ. Unless Q has a human like awareness as soon as it resides in intelligent photons which decide to counteract either of the 2 possible heat transfers.
"Total energy includes the potential and kinetic energy, the work done by the system, and the transfer of heat through the system. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that, while many physical processes that satisfy the first law are possible, the only processes that occur in nature are those for which the entropy of the system either remains constant or increases.

If we have a constant volume process, the formulation of the first law gives:


dE = dQ = C (constant volume) * dT

Similarly, for a constant pressure process, the formulation of the first law gives:
dH = dQ = C (constant pressure) * dT

These equations can be integrated from condition "1" to condition "2" to give:

S2 - S1 = Cv * ln ( T2 / T1) + R * ln ( V2 / V1)

and

S2 - S1 = Cp * ln ( T2 / T1) - R * ln ( p2 / p1)

where Cv is the heat capacity at constant volume, Cp is the heat capacity at constant pressure
If we divide both equations by the mass of gas, we can obtain intrinsic, or "specific" forms of both equations:

s2 - s1 = cv * ln ( T2 / T1) + R * ln ( v2 / v1)


and

s2 - s1 = cp * ln ( T2 / T1) - R * ln ( p2 / p1)
If we have a constant volume process, the second term in the equation is equal to zero, since v2/v1 = 1. We can then determine the value of the specific heat for the constant volume process. But if we have a process that changes volume, the second term in the equation is not zero. We can think of the first term of the equation as the contribution for a constant volume process, and the second term as the additional change produced by the change in volume. A similar type of argument can be made for the equation used for a change in pressure."
-------------------------------------------------------End of quote----------------------
Not only do the AGW kooks ignore that the "back radiation" source is a gas that has nothing in common with a black body radiation profile but go on and cite the fact that a smaller ΔT resulting in a lower ΔQ per time is "proof" of additional energy that would not be there if there were no CO2. And all the while we have developed turbines spewing out concentrated GHG but are so stealthy that not even heat seeking missiles can home in on....unless the pilot uses the after burner:

And you can see the characteristic standing wave pattern..."standing" in relation to the object of origin and how its almost all gone already in the 4th pressure oscillation.
What you see are "shock diamonds" that disappear just as soon as their pressure matches the ambient pressure and so does the IR emitted by the shock diamond.
But according to "climatology experts" none of that plays a significant role because they only deal with cyberspace air in a cyberspace dumber than that of a Microsoft XBox and can bounce ΔQ packets off colder air back down to the warmer ground and not just prevent it from cooling in a 1 step go as soon as the volume changed but play ping pong with ΔQ till there is more of it than they started out with on the not so black body to begin with until they have their "temperature anomaly" and finally allow ΔQ to go where it did in the real world all the eons before the tree whisperer and other assorted crackpots modeled our climate into a hockey stick

I can seldom figure out what your point is. Usually you start off with a reasonable bit of information but then veer off to an example that has little to do with the information, then you make a conclusion that is not drawn from either the information or the example.

ie. your cut&paste makes several good points about entropy and reversible/irreversible processes. For the atmosphere that corresponds to reversible energy storage in the gravity field, and irreversible transmission of energy from the surface through the air and out into space.

Then your fighter jet example just muddies the waters.

Then your conclusion is just an ad hom against climate scientists.




I agree that the greenhouse effect has been grossly oversimplified to give an understandable mental image to layman.

Why don't you present your less simplified version of how the atmosphere warms the surface? You do believe the atmosphere causes the surface to be warmer on average than without an atmosphere, right?

"Why don't you present your less simplified version of how the atmosphere warms the surface? You do believe the atmosphere causes the surface to be warmer on average than without an atmosphere, right?"
Are you kidding? It`s you who keeps simplifying the entire process !
As you and the warmers must, by insisting that the atmosphere warms the surface instead of getting it right...which is that the surface is the main source for warming the atmosphere.
If the atmosphere would be warming the surface then it would be hotter in Malaysia than on the sunny side of the ISS.
Staying Cool on the ISS | Science Mission Directorate
Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C)
And the only reason why Malaysia does not plunge down to almost - 160 C at night as the shady side of the ISS is at, is because the atmosphere over Malaysia is a massive heat reservoir because it has mass. If the skin of the ISS would have a higher mass than it does it would also cool down slower..not because of this idiotic back-radiation Hippie-"science" which has it that the additional mass would add any more energy into the ISS/+the added mass system that already is there.
I keep showing you examples of transistor radiative heat sinks that clearly show that the fins do not heat each other up with "back-radiation" and if that was the case then NASA engineers would be "deniers of settled science", because they pack even more "back radiators" per area into their heat radiators than we do in electronic applications.
Here is a thermal image of a VCHP NASA did at the Glenn Research Center:
VCHPs for Variable Thermal Links

This is settled REAL SCIENCE, not the kind of heat radiator back-radiation idiots would come up with which eliminates the phantom that does not exist and iron out the ribs that "back-radiate" at each other to make a perfectly flat "non-backradiation-radiator"
No wonder that NASA does not let these "settled science-backradiation scientists" anywhere near their hardware and gave them only a computer-model playpen safe space which extends right into the media and a publication system which censors all but the Hippie "science"-playpen group think gibberish and their ridiculous doomsday horoscopes.

 

[IanC]

And the only reason why Malaysia does not plunge down to almost - 160 C at night as the shady side of the ISS is at, is because the atmosphere over Malaysia is a massive heat reservoir because it has mass

And that is what I have been saying over and over again while you guys keep saying no no no.

Energy is stored in the atmosphere. In both kinetic and potential form.

Heat moves from one object to another according to temperature differential.

With no GHGs the atmosphere would only receive energy from the surface by conduction and much of the surface energy would just freely escape to space by radiation, the ratio of conduction/radiation would be determined the most efficient loss of energy possible.

If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, certain band of surface IR are absorbed and converted into stored energy by molecular collision. Some but not all of this energy is released at high altitude as IR. The atmosphere is warmer because of this extra stored energy at surface levels and cooler at the top.

If you add water, then you get even more surface radiation being intercepted by the atmosphere. Plus you get an extra means of warming the atmosphere with the water cycle depositing energy at the cloudtops by moving energy by evaporation/convection/precipitation. The total stored energy of the atmosphere has again increased. The ratio between conduction/radiation/conversation is still being determined by the most efficient means of expelling energy.

How does the atmosphere 'warm' the surface? By changing the equilibrium, the temperature gradient. Solar input causes higher surface temperature when less surface output is possible.

There are two ways that the atmosphere returns energy to the surface. One is mass mediated. Air molecules are striking the surface and imparting their kinetic energy. The other is radiation, some by GHGs if they emit very close to the surface and the IR is not immediately reabsorbed, and the radiation produced by the latent heat release at the cloudtops during precipitation (less the GHG bands, and only the radiation going in the right direction)

The energy loss to space is always very close to the amount of solar input. Otherwise the globe would be warming or cooling.

Disturbing the amount of CO2 causes the CO2 specific IR to be captured in a smaller volume of air near the surface. By definition putting the same amount of energy into a smaller volume will increase the temperature. Which of course means more energy returned to the surface by molecular collision.

I personally do not think this disturbance in saturation point makes a big change but it does cause a little change in the equilibriums of various routes of energy escape.

You can change temperature of a specific point along the pathway of energy travel without changing the actual inputs and outputs. Throw a towel over your cable box and it will warm up. Where did the extra energy come from? It came from the energy not released to the environment while the towel/box came back to equilibrium. The same amount of energy would be released after the power to the cable box was turned off.