Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

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...

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.

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.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And his later suggestion that magnetic fields might be responsible for the photon behavior SSDD contends.

Its actually a well established Quantum Mechanical Hypothesis. But I would not expect someone, with as little training as you, to know that.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD is demonstrating with his basic misunderstanding of what the notes stated, the lack of comprehension he demonstrates in all basic physics.

All I have demonstrated is an interest in what the equations are stating....clearly, you can't state in your own words what they say...so again..if you can't contribute, why are you here?

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes

There you go, anyone can go to the site and see what it says.

 

[SSDD]

Do you guys not have any words of your own?....and to top it off, you are addressing the wrong graph and the wrong equation...my question comes from this graph which is further down the page... and is regarding what this equation is stating...

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K

 

[Billy_Bob]

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...

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.

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.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...

"Covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" is sciency? DERP!

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

 

[Old Rocks]

A simple approach

We can get the above results directly by recognizing that the top
layer of the atmosphere must emit 239.7 W/m2 of infrared radiation
to space (same amount of solar radiation that enters the atmosphere:
what goes in must go out). The bottom layer of the atmosphere
will emit an equal amount downward to the surface of the planet.
Hence, for thermal equilibrium, the surface of the planet must emit
enough radiation to balance not only the amount it receives from the
sun (239.7 W/m2), but also what it receives in the form of downward
infrared radiation from the atmosphere 239.7 W/m2). Hence, its emission
must match 239.7+239.7 = 479.4 W/m2. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann
law: constant x T 4 = 479.4 W/m2. We thus calculate T = 303 K.
The figure below illustrates this calculation. Contrast it to the figure
above where we assumed no atmosphere, and you will see where
the greenhouse effect comes in.

The effective temperature we calculate in this manner is much warmer than the actual temperature of the Earth (288 K), because we made a number of simplifying assumptions.

Limitations of this calculation

1) It's assumed that the atmosphere is isothermal. The layer of the
real atmosphere that's most important in terms of the greenhouse
effect is the troposphere, where temperature decreases with height.
Because of this height dependence, the real atmosphere emits more
radiation in the downward direction than in the upward direction (88
units vs. 70 units in Fig. 3-19).

2) It's assumed that the atmosphere absorbs all the outgoing
radiation at all wavelengths in the infrared part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. In reality, the absorption of radiation by
the atmosphere is highly wavelength dependent. At some wavelengths
there's very little absorption and the radiation emitted by the
earth's surface escapes to space, while at other wavelengths it gets
absorbed, reemitted, absorbed and reemitted many times before it
finally escapes. To carry out this calculation accurately it has to
be done wavelength-by wavelength... to capture the fine scale detail
in the spectrum requires literally thousands of calculations
analogous to the one we did in class.

ATM S 211 - Notes

OK, the text surrounding that graph. And why do I need words of my own? This is atmospheric physics, not geology. So let the people teaching atmospheric physics address it.

 

[Old Rocks]

ATM S 211 - Notes

3) Radiative transfer isn't the only process by which energy escapes
from the earth's surface. Conduction of heat and evaporation of water
transfer about twice as much energy from the earth's surface to the
atmosphere as the net upward flux of infrared radiation from the
radiation does. If the temperature distribution on earth were
determined only by radiative transfer (as in this example) the Earth
would be so hot as to be uninhabitable. In this sense the true
'greenhouse effect' on Earth is much larger than the 33 K difference
between the observed surface temperature (288 K) and the effective
radiating temperature (255 K) ascribed to it in your text.

Sample exercises:

(a) Inverse square law
Take two planets, planet A and planet B. Planet B is at 10 times the
distance from the Sun as planet A. We know the solar flux at A is
2000 W/m2. What is the flux reaching planet B?
Based on the inverse square law, we have the following relationship between the fluxes arriving at both planets:

Fb/Fa = (Da/Db)2
Where Fa and Fb are the solar fluxes arriving at planets A and B, and Da and Db are the respective distances of these planets from their sun. We are given the following information:
Fa = 2000 W/m2 and Db =10 x Da

so we can write:
Fb = Fa * (Da/Db)2 = 2000 * (Da/(10 x Da))2 = 2000 x (1/10)2 = 2000 x 1/100 = 20 W/m2

We thus find that the flux arriving at planet B is 120 W/m2 (100 times less than the flux arriving at planet A).

(b) Planetary energy balance and effective radiating temperature
We calculated the effective radiating temperature for Earth in class, as summarized in the above notes. Let's do the same for Mars. Here is the information we have: the albedo on Mars is A = 0.22, and the solar flux reaching Mars is equal to 593 W/m2.
Based on the planetary energy balance applied to Mars, the solar radiation reaching the planet's surface must be equal to the infrared energy emitted by the planet:
F(1-A)/4 = constant x T4
with F = 593 W/m2, A = 0.22, constant = 5.67 x 10-8 W /m2/K4
so we find T4 = F(1-A)/4/constant = 593 x (1-0.22)/4/(5.67 x 10-8) = 20.4 x 10+8 K4
Now let's take the fourth root of 20.4 x 10+8 K4, we find T = 212 K. The effective radiating temperature of Mars is thus 212 K. The observed temperature on Mars is 218 K, so it's atmosphere has a small greenhouse effect of 218-212 = 6 K.

Ah yes, equations. LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do you guys not have any words of your own?....and to top it off, you are addressing the wrong graph and the wrong equation...my question comes from this graph which is further down the page... and is regarding what this equation is stating...

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K

this equation fails to take into account storage or the earths own created heat.

 

[SSDD]

ATM S 211 - Notes

3) Radiative transfer isn't the only process by which energy escapes
from the earth's surface. Conduction of heat and evaporation of water
transfer about twice as much energy from the earth's surface to the
atmosphere as the net upward flux of infrared radiation from the
radiation does. If the temperature distribution on earth were
determined only by radiative transfer (as in this example) the Earth
would be so hot as to be uninhabitable. In this sense the true
'greenhouse effect' on Earth is much larger than the 33 K difference
between the observed surface temperature (288 K) and the effective
radiating temperature (255 K) ascribed to it in your text.

Sample exercises:

(a) Inverse square law
Take two planets, planet A and planet B. Planet B is at 10 times the
distance from the Sun as planet A. We know the solar flux at A is
2000 W/m2. What is the flux reaching planet B?
Based on the inverse square law, we have the following relationship between the fluxes arriving at both planets:

Fb/Fa = (Da/Db)2
Where Fa and Fb are the solar fluxes arriving at planets A and B, and Da and Db are the respective distances of these planets from their sun. We are given the following information:
Fa = 2000 W/m2 and Db =10 x Da

so we can write:
Fb = Fa * (Da/Db)2 = 2000 * (Da/(10 x Da))2 = 2000 x (1/10)2 = 2000 x 1/100 = 20 W/m2

We thus find that the flux arriving at planet B is 120 W/m2 (100 times less than the flux arriving at planet A).

(b) Planetary energy balance and effective radiating temperature
We calculated the effective radiating temperature for Earth in class, as summarized in the above notes. Let's do the same for Mars. Here is the information we have: the albedo on Mars is A = 0.22, and the solar flux reaching Mars is equal to 593 W/m2.
Based on the planetary energy balance applied to Mars, the solar radiation reaching the planet's surface must be equal to the infrared energy emitted by the planet:
F(1-A)/4 = constant x T4
with F = 593 W/m2, A = 0.22, constant = 5.67 x 10-8 W /m2/K4
so we find T4 = F(1-A)/4/constant = 593 x (1-0.22)/4/(5.67 x 10-8) = 20.4 x 10+8 K4
Now let's take the fourth root of 20.4 x 10+8 K4, we find T = 212 K. The effective radiating temperature of Mars is thus 212 K. The observed temperature on Mars is 218 K, so it's atmosphere has a small greenhouse effect of 218-212 = 6 K.

Ah yes, equations. LOL

OK...you have proven that you can cut and paste...now can you demonstrate that you have some understanding of what you are cutting and pasting and state in plain english what this equation is stating...if you can, then by all means proceed...if you can't, stop wasting my time and I will wait for someone who can.

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K

 

[SSDD]

Do you guys not have any words of your own?....and to top it off, you are addressing the wrong graph and the wrong equation...my question comes from this graph which is further down the page... and is regarding what this equation is stating...

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K

this equation fails to take into account storage or the earths own created heat.

Not important to my question...it is clear that these guys have been faking all along...when asked to state in plain english what a simple equation is stating, they simply can't do it...I am wondering if there is a warmer here who is up to such a simple task...

 

[Billy_Bob]

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67x10^-8) = 303K

(239.7 + 239.7)

This implies that the atmosphere will conduct 1/2 of its energy downward and the other half to space. If the earth were a flat plane this might apply, but it is not. Being a sphere, its more likely a 65/35 split, making any further assumptions garbage.

Any assumptions made using this will result in a failure of modeling as shown in Trenberths cartoon.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...

"Covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" is sciency? DERP!

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

Tell me.

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?

Tell me.

What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

Tell me.

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.

Hold a photon? With what?

There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is that reason?

 

[Wuwei]

Great...
refer to the graphic below....in the simplest most unambiguous language you can muster, can you tell me what this equation says...

I'm working on it. Will be a few minutes.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...

"Covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" is sciency? DERP!

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

Tell me.

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?

Tell me.

What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

Tell me.

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.

Hold a photon? With what?

There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is that reason?

LOL... Basic Atomic Sciences (structure) taught to first year chemistry students.. DO some research.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...he is busy demonstrating that his comfort level doesn't extend beyond swapping insults...he is showing us that he can't interpret, in plain english, what even the most simple mathematical expression is saying.

Don't get all "sciency" on him...

"Covailent [sic] bonds repel photons" is sciency? DERP!

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band? What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not. There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?

Tell me.

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?

Tell me.

What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?

Tell me.

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.

Hold a photon? With what?

There is a reason water will become excited and heat up, while CO2 will not.

What is that reason?

LOL... Basic Atomic Sciences taught to first year chemistry students.. DO some research.

You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.

When you get a real source that says "covailent [sic] bonds repel photons from cooler matter", then I'll take your silliness more seriously.
Until then, your idiocy is damaging the anti-AGW argument. Moron.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

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.

The whole graph starts out with an assumption about the sun's downward short-wave energy, the black arrow. It is only the energy that actually hits the earth surface, and does not include reflected energy that does not warm the surface.

The surface must radiate the exact same amount of energy. Otherwise the earth would exhibit global warming or cooling. That is the upward blue arrow.

The gray patch is the mysterious atmosphere. It doesn't matter how anything happens between the earth and top of the atmosphere, the top of atmosphere must radiate the same amount to space. That is the upward red arrow. If it did not, the earth or atmosphere would globally warm or cool.

Now comes the basic assumption: the atmosphere (gray patch) is a scattering medium. IR can not penetrate very far without being scattered in an arbitrary direction. So half the energy (239.7) goes up and half goes down.

If you look at the diagram you will see the black arrow down and a red arrow down, both having the same energy. The total is twice 239.7. That is shown in the 239.7 + 237.7 in the upper equation. That energy is the left hand side of the S-B equation, and the sigmaT^4 is the usual right side of the S-B equation.

The only unknown in that equation is T at the earth surface. So they solve for T by taking the 4th root of T, etc. That is done in the second line of the equation. The result is 303K which is close to the actual average earth surface temperature.

That is the sole purpose of the diagram and equations, to compute the temperature.

 

[SSDD]

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.

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.

The whole graph starts out with an assumption about the sun's downward short-wave energy, the black arrow. It is only the energy that actually hits the earth surface, and does not include reflected energy that does not warm the surface.

The surface must radiate the exact same amount of energy. Otherwise the earth would exhibit global warming or cooling. That is the upward blue arrow.

The gray patch is the mysterious atmosphere. It doesn't matter how anything happens between the earth and top of the atmosphere, the top of atmosphere must radiate the same amount to space. That is the upward red arrow. If it did not, the earth or atmosphere would globally warm or cool.

Now comes the basic assumption: the atmosphere (gray patch) is a scattering medium. IR can not penetrate very far without being scattered in an arbitrary direction. So half the energy (239.7) goes up and half goes down.

If you look at the diagram you will see the black arrow down and a red arrow down, both having the same energy. The total is twice 239.7. That is shown in the 239.7 + 237.7 in the upper equation. That energy is the left hand side of the S-B equation, and the sigmaT^4 is the usual right side of the S-B equation.

The only unknown in that equation is T at the earth surface. So they solve for T by taking the 4th root of T, etc. That is done in the second line of the equation. The result is 303K which is close to the actual average earth surface temperature.

That is the sole purpose of the diagram and equations, to compute the temperature.

OK....at long last someone has the cojones required to state the obvious...or more likely, the brains and education required to see the obvious....can you believe 83 posts just to get someone to state what that simple equation is saying?

So here is the point of my thread....we have 239.7 more or less radiating from the surface...and 239.7 more or less radiating down from the atmosphere which combine to give us enough radiation to achieve an approximate of the average global temperature.

At its foundation, the greenhouse effect is based on the claim that if you have two objects radiating at roughly the same temperature, their radiation will combine and they will radiate at a higher temperature....I could, replace the atmosphere with a block of ice radiating at 32 degrees rather than the -18 degrees that the 239.7 equates to...and put it next to another block of ice radiating at 32 degrees and combined, they would radiate at some temperature higher than 32 degrees.

That, my friend, is a thermodynamic impossibility...you could have a swimming pool full of ice blocks and their combined radiation would never result in an effective radiating temperature of more than 32 degrees....now, if you have a thermodynamic impossibility represented in the most basic version of your model....no matter how complicated you make that model, you will never make that thermodynamic impossibility true.

 

[Wuwei]

You want me to research your idiotic claims? Nice try Sparky.

Todd, shame on you for ignoring BIlly. I will answer his thoughtful questions for you.

What is the electrical charge of a photon particle?
23 Macro Farsteds

What is the electrical charge of a molecules covailent band?
92.6 femptoFouriers

What is the frequency of that band? How will that frequency/charge affect a particle of opposite charge? of like charge?
42.0 HertzSoBad

There is a provable/empirically observed reason water will hold a photon and CO2 will not.
Yes. Water creates an anti-vortex of positronium. CO2 is only a diaevialieant subspace.

 

[Wuwei]

At its foundation, the greenhouse effect is based on the claim that if you have two objects radiating at roughly the same temperature, their radiation will combine and they will radiate at a higher temperature....I could, replace the atmosphere with a block of ice radiating at 32 degrees rather than the -18 degrees that the 239.7 equates to...and put it next to another block of ice radiating at 32 degrees and combined, they would radiate at some temperature higher than 32 degrees.

That, my friend, is a thermodynamic impossibility...you could have a swimming pool full of ice blocks and their combined radiation would never result in an effective radiating temperature of more than 32 degrees....now, if you have a thermodynamic impossibility represented in the most basic version of your model....no matter how complicated you make that model, you will never make that thermodynamic impossibility true.

Your first sentence doesn't make sense. As far as your second sentence, a block of ice does not have the same properties as the earth and atmosphere.

Your second paragraph says that all the universities you referenced are spreading falsehoods. Actually you are right in the sense that they are using oversimplified assumptions. The authors and everyone in this thread already told you that.

Finally you should probably continue this discussion with BillyBob. He is well versed in your level of science.

 

[SSDD]

Your first sentence doesn't make sense. As far as your second sentence, a block of ice does not have the same properties as the earth and atmosphere.

Your second paragraph says that all the universities you referenced are spreading falsehoods. Actually you are right in the sense that they are using oversimplified assumptions. The authors and everyone in this thread already told you that.

Finally you should probably continue this discussion with BillyBob. He is well versed in your level of science.

Does that equation care whether I put 239.7 which is the IR from the earth and atmosphere or 314 which is the approximate wm^2 that an ice cube radiates? Does that equation care whether we are talking about atmosphere or ice cubes or rocks?

The equation doesn't care what we are talking about...or where the radiation comes from....it is stating that you can take two objects radiating at roughly the same wm^2 and add the two numbers together, run them through the SB equation and the result will be a temperature higher than that of either of the objects...ice cubes....ground and atmosphere....floor and ceiling...the equation doesn't care.....the result will be a final temperature greater than either of the objects....

Again...a thermodynamic impossibility...now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs if you like, but the fact is that you have a thermodynamic impossibility at the heart of the claimed mechanism for the greenhouse effect...

There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...