Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where do you want to go from here?
In fact, it was a simplified explanation of how AGW works.
Yes.Where do you want to go from here?
I am still trying to get to a place of agreement....I wan't to be sure I am not reading anything into your statements that you didn't intend to say.. Are we in agreement that the various graphics I copied from the various universities are, in fact, stripped down, bare bones, simplest possible models of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?
If yes, then I have questions.
Yes.Where do you want to go from here?
I am still trying to get to a place of agreement....I wan't to be sure I am not reading anything into your statements that you didn't intend to say.. Are we in agreement that the various graphics I copied from the various universities are, in fact, stripped down, bare bones, simplest possible models of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?
If yes, then I have questions.
In fact, it was a simplified explanation of how AGW works.
Yep. So, why not go for a more accurate model?
For a stable climate, a balance is required between incoming solar radiation and the outgoing radiation emitted by the climate system. Therefore the climate system itself must radiate on average 235 Wm-2 back into space. Details of this energy balance can be seen in Figure 1.2, which shows on the left hand side what happens with the incoming solar radiation, and on the right hand side how the atmosphere emits the outgoing infrared radiation. Any physical object radiates energy of an amount and at wavelengths typical for the temperature of the object: at higher temperatures more energy is radiated at shorter wavelengths. For the Earth to radiate 235 Wm-2, it should radiate at an effective emission temperature of -19°C with typical wavelengths in the infrared part of the spectrum. This is 33°C lower than the average temperature of 14°C at the Earth's surface. To understand why this is so, one must take into account the radiative properties of the atmosphere in the infrared part of the spectrum.
Yes.Where do you want to go from here?
I am still trying to get to a place of agreement....I wan't to be sure I am not reading anything into your statements that you didn't intend to say.. Are we in agreement that the various graphics I copied from the various universities are, in fact, stripped down, bare bones, simplest possible models of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?
If yes, then I have questions.
Great...
refer to the graphic below....in the simplest most unambiguous language you can muster, can you tell me what this equation says...
239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4
=>T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K
Never mind about the slight differences between the numbers on the different graphics...I assume they are saying the same thing and reaching their numbers with the same equation....I am only interested in what the equation says...and more interested in the second expression than the first.
In fact, it was a simplified explanation of how AGW works.
Yep. So, why not go for a more accurate model?
For a stable climate, a balance is required between incoming solar radiation and the outgoing radiation emitted by the climate system. Therefore the climate system itself must radiate on average 235 Wm-2 back into space. Details of this energy balance can be seen in Figure 1.2, which shows on the left hand side what happens with the incoming solar radiation, and on the right hand side how the atmosphere emits the outgoing infrared radiation. Any physical object radiates energy of an amount and at wavelengths typical for the temperature of the object: at higher temperatures more energy is radiated at shorter wavelengths. For the Earth to radiate 235 Wm-2, it should radiate at an effective emission temperature of -19°C with typical wavelengths in the infrared part of the spectrum. This is 33°C lower than the average temperature of 14°C at the Earth's surface. To understand why this is so, one must take into account the radiative properties of the atmosphere in the infrared part of the spectrum.
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.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.
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.
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...
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.
Yes.Where do you want to go from here?
I am still trying to get to a place of agreement....I wan't to be sure I am not reading anything into your statements that you didn't intend to say.. Are we in agreement that the various graphics I copied from the various universities are, in fact, stripped down, bare bones, simplest possible models of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?
If yes, then I have questions.
Great...
refer to the graphic below....in the simplest most unambiguous language you can muster, can you tell me what this equation says...
239.7 + 239.7 = sigmaT^4
=>T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K
Never mind about the slight differences between the numbers on the different graphics...I assume they are saying the same thing and reaching their numbers with the same equation....I am only interested in what the equation says...and more interested in the second expression than the first.
They, not it, are the equations you copied from the text box in your graphic and which, as it explains, illustrate the "Energy balance at the Earth's surface".
Was that so hard?
In fact, it was a simplified explanation of how AGW works.
Yep. So, why not go for a more accurate model?
For a stable climate, a balance is required between incoming solar radiation and the outgoing radiation emitted by the climate system. Therefore the climate system itself must radiate on average 235 Wm-2 back into space. Details of this energy balance can be seen in Figure 1.2, which shows on the left hand side what happens with the incoming solar radiation, and on the right hand side how the atmosphere emits the outgoing infrared radiation. Any physical object radiates energy of an amount and at wavelengths typical for the temperature of the object: at higher temperatures more energy is radiated at shorter wavelengths. For the Earth to radiate 235 Wm-2, it should radiate at an effective emission temperature of -19°C with typical wavelengths in the infrared part of the spectrum. This is 33°C lower than the average temperature of 14°C at the Earth's surface. To understand why this is so, one must take into account the radiative properties of the atmosphere in the infrared part of the spectrum.
Here's an even prettier one, perhaps that helps:
SSDD is demonstrating with his basic misunderstanding of what the notes stated, the lack of comprehension he demonstrates in all basic physics.
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.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.
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.
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...
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.
but I am very well versed in the sciences.
Your claim that "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" tends to disprove that claim.
The equation is stating that for a closed system in equilibrium, energy in equals energy out. How much more of a "straight forward description" do you require? And, since your efforts here are all obviously rhetorical, why don't you just cut to the chase and tell us what you believe to be wrong with those equations?
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.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.
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.
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...
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.
but I am very well versed in the sciences.
Your claim that "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" tends to disprove that claim.
Covailence is the magnetic bands which bond molecules together. How do you suppose that they affect photons? The solar system and the earth itself is an observable demonstration of how that works on our level to see.
