Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Discussion in 'Environment' started by SSDD, Feb 10, 2017.

  1. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,691
    Thanks Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,346
    So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

    So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

    [​IMG]

    Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

    Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

    Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

    The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

    So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,691
    Thanks Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,346
    So are all of our warmers unable...or unwilling to identify simple graphics depicting the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,945
    Thanks Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +3,973
    They're YOUR graphics. YOU identify them. No one here wants to play your infantile games.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  4. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,691
    Thanks Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,346

    Not my graphics...graphics from the atmospheric sciences departments of various universities....if you are afraid to identify them as depictions of the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect, I understand...not much actual science there anyway...I can see how you would be fearful of engaging in any discussion based on them...pseudoscience is hardly a basis for any actual conversation...
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  5. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,454
    Thanks Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,195
    I haven't looked at your graphs in any detail, and haven't read any IPCC documents, so I have no comment on your basic question. But you have to recognize that many here do not trust anything you say or do since you have been so obstinate in not believing well understood physics for so long. You have gone around in circles so many times that the warmers who believe the science of the last 150 years are truly suspicious you are continuing to play some sort of game.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,691
    Thanks Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,346
    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...

    [​IMG]



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

    CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

    [​IMG]

    Here is the link to Penn State...

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

    [​IMG]

    Now buzz off...maybe an adult will come around who actually wants to discuss this...
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2017
  7. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,691
    Thanks Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,346

    I am asking if those graphs, from the atmospheric sciences departments of respected universities depict the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect....once I can establish that they are indeed depictions of the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect, and that me and whoever cares to discuss my questions are beginning on the same page, then I would like to discuss the topic....

    Either you can...or you can't....clearly crick can't because he is afraid to even say whether or not they depict the mechanism of the greenhouse effect...
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,631
    Thanks Received:
    2,698
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +12,160
    I am not an alarmist or warmer but I am very well versed in the sciences. Those graphs do represent a very basic understanding of the Green House Effect but they do not deal with secondary routes of energy loss so they are incomplete in defining the GHE.

    They know this and they are afraid if they admit that it is the basic premise they will be shown for What they are.. petulant children who don't like to be put on the spot.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2017
  9. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,691
    Thanks Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,346
    I didn't have any questions about secondary routes of energy loss....my questions were pretty much restricted to the graphs and the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect...

    Damned telling that for all the warmers around here who claim to understand the science, none of them are up to even a very basic discussion for fear of....something......damned telling.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Wuwei
    Offline

    Wuwei Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    2,454
    Thanks Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,195
    The diagrams you show are quite oversimplified, where they pretend there is some thin layer of atmosphere somewhere above the earth that captures the entire physics. This is almost useless in understanding what is happening.

    I got a lot of my atmospheric information from a long article by the American Institute of Physics.
    Simple Models of Climate
    They go through what happens layer by layer. The more valuable information starts with Fourier. Search his name in the article. The radiation flow has to be integrated (calculus) by a pile of infinitesimally thin layers.

    Edit:
    Note what they do is similar to the mean value theorem in calculus, where they take what should be an infinitesimal and widen it to the entire atmosphere in one shot. It's too much of a short cut for me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2017

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

news

,
toddsterpatriot