Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Wuwei]

Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
i don't blindly accept models and mind experiments as being real like you.

I don't accept them blindly. A vast amount of prior empirical scientific experiments have created modern physics.

 

[Wuwei]

Only if the energy is converted to heat...it isn't. This goes back to the inability of iR to heat the air...

You are wrong. I showed the air heats up. If you don't believe science, then I can't help you understand it.

If you acknowledge that the temperature is a result of gravity/pressure, and conduction, then you must give up on the nonsensical idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere dominated by gravity/pressure and convection.

And I am still waiting for you to describe the physical reason for the temperature variation at the grand canyon and other such places in the context of a radiative greenhouse effect.

The lapse rate is a simple equation.
Lapse rate = g/Cp.
g is the gravitational acceleration and cp is the specific heat.
Notice that that there are no other influences, such as sun energy or GH back radiation.

By the way..here is an interesting tidbit about venus...

Venus Compared to Earth - Universe Today

“Venus’ surface temperature experiences little to no variation, owing to its dense atmosphere, very slow rotation, and very minor axial tilt. Its mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C/863.6 °F) is virtually constant, with little or no change between day and night, at the equator or the poles. The one exception is the highest point on Venus, Maxwell Montes, where atmospheric pressure drops to about 4.5 MPa (45 bar) and the temperature drops to about 655 K (380 °C).”

Care to explain that in the context of a greenhouse effect?

Sure it's simple. Use the lapse rate formula above and substitute the two Venus parameters in the formula.

By the way...all one has to do is a quick search to see what you have said about the hot spot in the past to see that you are lying when you claim to know nothing about it.

Go right ahead and search. I'm not lying. You are probably thinking of someone else.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
i don't blindly accept models and mind experiments as being real like you.

I don't accept them blindly. A vast amount of prior empirical scientific experiments have created modern physics.

So lets see the one that demonstrates how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it.

Don't bother looking...it doesn't exist...thought experiments...nothing more.

 

[SSDD]

You are wrong. I showed the air heats up. If you don't believe science, then I can't help you understand it.

No you didn't..you provided a model with no empirical evidence to back it uo. Lets see the experiment that supports the model.

Lets see the observational evidence, or physical measurements that demonstrate how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes in increments of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it

The lapse rate is a simple equation.
Lapse rate = g/Cp.
g is the gravitational acceleration and cp is the specific heat.

Always dodging...your screen name should be artful dodger.. I asked you to describe the physical process that formula represents. The model works because it is describing a physical process that happens in reality. Describe it.

Sure it's simple. Use the lapse rate formula above and substitute the two Venus parameters in the formula.

Waiting for you to describe the physical process that formula represents.

Go right ahead and search. I'm not lying. You are probably thinking of someone else.

A quick search shows that you have expended a fair amount of words in trying to convince people that climate science didn't predict the tropospheric hot spot as the smoking gun for AGW even though the IPCC said otherwise. So you lied...what else is new?

 

[Wuwei]

So lets see the one that demonstrates how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it.

Don't bother looking...it doesn't exist...thought experiments...nothing more.

That's right CO2 back radiation never heats or cools anything. The sun does the heating. The CO2 only prevents too much of the 396 W/m^2 from radiation all that back to space.

 

[Wuwei]

Always dodging...your screen name should be artful dodger.. I asked you to describe the physical process that formula represents. The model works because it is describing a physical process that happens in reality. Describe it.

The process involves the definition of an adiabatic process, the first law of thermodynamics, the definition of specific heat, and gravitational acceleration. The details of how these are put together are in
https://hs.umt.edu/physics/documents/BOREALIS/Lapse Rate Terms and Formulas2012.pdf
and are too messy to put here. What's your point?

 

[Billy_Bob]

So lets see the one that demonstrates how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it.

Don't bother looking...it doesn't exist...thought experiments...nothing more.

That's right CO2 back radiation never heats or cools anything. The sun does the heating. The CO2 only prevents too much of the 396 W/m^2 from radiation all that back to space.

CO2 prevents no escape.. IT may slow it minutely but every bit of energy escapes to space..This is why you are duped.. You think it stops it.. It does not!

 

[Crick]

Really? Let's see your data. Cause, if radiation in equals radiation out, the Earth would be at equilibrium and temperatures should be stable. Is that your contention?

 

[Wuwei]

Really? Let's see your data. Cause, if radiation in equals radiation out, the Earth would be at equilibrium and temperatures should be stable. Is that your contention?

Not only that, but only 161 W/m² the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the earth. Even though the sun radiation is 341 W/m². A lot of it is reflected by clouds, by the surface and absorbed by the upper atmosphere. Since 161 W/m² is absorbed at the surface. That is all the can be radiated to space if the GHG's didn't do their job.

Since the earth radiates 161 W/m² you can go to the SB calculator at,
Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator
and plug in the numbers, you will get an equilibrium temperature of 232 K, or -41 C.
That comes from the conservation of energy. Energy in equal energy out.

Minus 41 degrees C would freeze the entire surface of the earth. Thank heavens for the green house gases.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 172131

Why does your diagram not show the pressure from the solar wind you claim is controlling its behavior?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Really? Let's see your data. Cause, if radiation in equals radiation out, the Earth would be at equilibrium and temperatures should be stable. Is that your contention?

They are stable or very near it..

 

[Crick]

Sorry, fool, the Earth is not at thermal equilibrium.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry, fool, the Earth is not at thermal equilibrium.

Looks pretty stable to me...which part of this suggests wild instability to you? Every time you talk, you just demonstrate how little you know...you just yammer on and on and none of it is anything more than an opinion that someone with a political agenda gave you...

I know you can't read graphs, but these two are important...get an adult, or even a moderately intelligent child to help you out with them...they are the actual extent of all your wild handwaving hysterics about out of control global warming...take a look and tell me exactly what about the two graphs below, you find alarming...and which part suggests that the earth's climate isn't damned closed to being in equilibrium? Anomalies are tools used by people who want to fool uneducated dupes...yes, I'm talking about you....here are the actual temperature difference we are talking about since 1900 and they are at best, trivial.

 

[Crick]

When I say "god are you stupid" it's not that your content is inherently ignorant, it's that you actually think you're fooling anyone. So... god are you stupid.

 

[Crick]

Really? Let's see your data. Cause, if radiation in equals radiation out, the Earth would be at equilibrium and temperatures should be stable. Is that your contention?

They are stable or very near it..

Link?

 

[SSDD]

When I say "god are you stupid" it's not that your content is inherently ignorant, it's that you actually think you're fooling anyone. So... god are you stupid.

And yet there you are with your ignorance hanging out for everyone to see. No reply...no defense of your beliefs..nothing but name calling....of course, for you, between name calling, and actually trying to defend your position, name calling is the better option.

 

[SSDD]

Really? Let's see your data. Cause, if radiation in equals radiation out, the Earth would be at equilibrium and temperatures should be stable. Is that your contention?

They are stable or very near it..

Link?

Guess the graphs didn't help you out much...what's the matter, couldn't find a moderately intelligent child to help you figure out what they mean?

 

[Crick]

So, no link. No suprise.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So, no link. No suprise.

No surprise that your to stupid to see that SSDD posted the evidence very clearly. Alas all you have is piles of bull shit... IF we were not near equilibrium our weather would be very wild and we have had the calmest weather for about 45 years now.. Again it warmed a bit but it did not cause the catastrophes you proclaimed would happen...

I am laughing out loud at your insistence on ignorance and falsified science to promote your failed ideology..

 

[Crick]

Equilibrium concerns energy in and out of the atmosphere. By direct satellite measurement, energy in does not equal energy out. That is why we have been warming for the last 150 years. We are NOT at equilibrium.