Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

We have been through this a hundred times. The surface is a near blackbody and therefore radiates according to its temperature, roughly 400w/m^2. Solar input to the surface is roughly 160 Watts per metre squared. There is a deficit of over 200 Watts. I say the missing energy comes from the atmosphere, and you say...nothing. You have no coherent answer.

The surface is a gray body...and on and on and in the end, all you have is your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, mathematical model

 

[IanC]

We have been through this a hundred times. The surface is a near blackbody and therefore radiates according to its temperature, roughly 400w/m^2. Solar input to the surface is roughly 160 Watts per metre squared. There is a deficit of over 200 Watts. I say the missing energy comes from the atmosphere, and you say...nothing. You have no coherent answer.

The surface is a gray body...and on and on and in the end, all you have is your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, mathematical model

Okay, say the emissivity is 0.9 instead of 1.0. that is roughly 360w instead of 400. Less the solar input of 160 still leaves about 200w of deficit. Explain how the deficit is made up.

 

[Wuwei]

If there were experimental evidence, then that would mean that there is observation and measurement of two way energy flow...there is none, therefore there is no experimental evidence...you seem to believe that model output is actual experimental data.

Within the theory of quantum mechanics, photons are emitted from a warm body in all directions. There is no QM mechanism that prevents those photons from hitting a hotter body. You have not given any QM mechanism on how photons are impeded from doing that. That's why people on this board refer to your misunderstanding as "smart photons". Do you care to give your QM mechanism?

So you say...according to the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.. I understand perfectly. You believe based on what someone told you....and you hate it that others don't join you in your belief..and you hate it that you can't provide the observational evidence that would prove you right...alas, that is the nature of faith...unfortunate that you have it confused with actual science.

You got distracted from the question. It is this:
There is no QM mechanism that prevents photons from one body hitting a hotter body. You have not given any QM mechanism on how photons are impeded from doing that. Do you care to give your QM mechanism?

 

[Old Rocks]

Amazing!

Have you published this yet? Have you yet written a formal, open letter to the major scientifoc societies of the planet? Have you started sharing this idea with actual scientists and academics, in order to gain input on it?

Of course you have! Not.

Nothing but a piss poor, impotent logical fallacy? Is that really all you have? Step on up hot rod...lets see a single piece of data made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one...

Or here is an even easier one...lets see a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

My bet is that neither will be forthcoming because neither exists...and what will you do? Run away like you have every other time I asked you for such data? Come up with another logical fallacy or just use one of the same old ones you tend to toss around as if they represented actual intelligence? Maybe call some names? Maybe a combination of all of the above...

What you WON'T do is provide the requested data.

It's not a fallacy. I am not engaging you in discussion of the truth of any of the denier bullshit you are spreading. I am ridiculing you for being an obvious charlatan and fraud. You publish no science and explocitly state that the people who actually do are liars and incompetent. You are a fraud.

SSDD is a confused idiot....but at least he doesn't want to waste trillions on windmills.

And you are just as silly as he is on that subject. People are putting up the mills with or without subsidization now. The mills produce electricity at a cheaper rate than do fossil fuel plants, far cheaper than nuclear. They require no infrastructure other than the grid. No water required, no pipelines, no railroads to bring in the coal. The produce no pollution, and last just as long as the fossil fuel plants, and are far easier to rebuild. Same for solar.

Trillions are going to be spent worldwide for electrical energy in the coming decades. It is simply an economic choice between fossil fuels that are far more expensive, and have some noxious externalities, or clean renewables. And the economics say renewables with grid scale storage is going to be the choice.

 

[SSDD]

You got distracted from the question. It is this:
There is no QM mechanism that prevents photons from one body hitting a hotter body. You have not given any QM mechanism on how photons are impeded from doing that. Do you care to give your QM mechanism?

So you are saying that you know all of the QM mechanisms, what they are, how they work, and what they work on? Tell me, is the fundamental mechanism of gravity quantum in nature? I have always wondered how it works, as have most scientists. I suppose you should have mentioned that you know all of the QM mechanisms and how they worked to them. In order to make the claim that there "IS NO MECHANISM" implies that you know all of the mechanisms....right? Or are you just saying whatever comes to mind in an effort to support your argument?

 

[SSDD]

3sat.Mediathek[/URL]

That is a link to a German Sat 1 tv broadcast...a documentary on the increasingly unstable power grid due to wind and solar. At the 17 minute mark they are discussing the fact that the grid required an average of 3 interventions daily last year to avert instability....and they cost the consumers about a billion euros last year.


Gefahr eines Blackouts nimmt zu

Here is a report from BAZ, a Swiss outlet. “The danger of a blackout is rising” and that power grid operator Swissgrid “must intervene increasingly more often in the power grid“.

According to the BAZ, in 2011 Swissgrid had to intervene only twice over the entire year. But since then the grid has become far more unstable, and that at the current rate it will be necessary to intervene 400 times in 2017.


Siemens Gamesa: Konzern will bis zu 6000 Stellen streichen

The article states that that European wind energy company Siemens Gamesa is eliminating 6000 jobs due to changing economic conditions and the country’s last remaining major solar manufacturer, Bonn-based Solarworld, earlier this year announced it would file for bankruptcy.

These people believed the hype and committed entire nations to the folly of wind and solar and now are paying a heavy price...we don't need that sort of failure here.

A balanced solution to the cumulative threat of industrialized wind farm development on cinereous vultures (Aegypius monachus) in south-eastern Europe

Here is a published article discussing the eminent extinction of the last vulture species native to southeastern Europe. The mortality rate has increased 8X due to wind mills.

It goes on and on rocks...in nations that have committed and invested heavily in wind and solar, they are paying a heavy price....outrageous power bills for consumers and unstable, failing grids. There is a reason we gave up wind as a viable energy source a couple of hundred years ago. Maybe you want to go back to the hunter gatherer days, but personally, I don't care to move in that direction.

 

[SSDD]

Whats the matter fort fun?....not up to an actual discussion on the state of the science of climate change...not up to dealing with the hard questions that skeptics are asking? Don't worry..no one actually expected you to be able to manage that anyway. Running away was your best strategy since honesty doesn't seem to be an option for you guys.

 

[Wuwei]

So you are saying that you know all of the QM mechanisms, what they are, how they work, and what they work on? Tell me, is the fundamental mechanism of gravity quantum in nature? I have always wondered how it works, as have most scientists. I suppose you should have mentioned that you know all of the QM mechanisms and how they worked to them. In order to make the claim that there "IS NO MECHANISM" implies that you know all of the mechanisms....right? Or are you just saying whatever comes to mind in an effort to support your argument?

The QM mechanisms for EM radiation emitted from warm bodies were well known for about 100 years. No advanced mechanisms such as quantum gravity or quantum electrodynamics are needed nor useful in explaining EM thermal radiation.

You still have not given any QM mechanism on how thermal photons are impeded from striking a hotter body. Do you care to give your QM mechanism?

 

[IanC]

Whats the matter fort fun?....not up to an actual discussion on the state of the science of climate change...not up to dealing with the hard questions that skeptics are asking? Don't worry..no one actually expected you to be able to manage that anyway. Running away was your best strategy since honesty doesn't seem to be an option for you guys.

Running away is one of your personal favourites.

You have failed to respond at least a hundred times to my simple question.

How does the surface maintain an average temperature of 15C, which means it is radiating at 400w, when the solar insolation is only 160w?

This is a basic question. There are no tricks here. I have been waiting for five years to hear your answer.

Will you simply run away again?

I think I will not hear a response from you even if I wait another five years.

 

[SSDD]

The QM mechanisms for EM radiation emitted from warm bodies were well known for about 100 years. No advanced mechanisms such as quantum gravity or quantum electrodynamics are needed nor useful in explaining EM thermal radiation.

No they aren't...and if you believe that they are, then you are even less informed than I would have thought. Clearly you are not able to differentiate between what is real and known by observation, measurement, and experiment, and what remains little more than a story we tell about what might be.

If you think I am wrong, refer to Niels Bohr and his thoughts on the "quantum world"... "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.

Learn the difference between what is real and known and what is not and remains hypothetical.

You still have not given any QM mechanism on how thermal photons are impeded from striking a hotter body. Do you care to give your QM mechanism?

No will I. Unlike you, I can differentiate between what we can observe, measure and know and what we can't....and I am able to differentiate between actual descriptions of mechanisms and stories about hypotheticals that are used as place markers till such time as we actually start to develop some real understanding. The idea that we even begin to grasp the underlying mechanisms of energy transfer is laughable...hell, at this date we don't even have a handle on the underlying mechanism of gravity. You people who believe that science knows all and sees all are living in a dream world...real scientists will tell you that at this point, we are barely scratching the surface and just beginning to know what we don't know.

 

[SSDD]

Running away is one of your personal favourites.

You have failed to respond at least a hundred times to my simple question.

How does the surface maintain an average temperature of 15C, which means it is radiating at 400w, when the solar insolation is only 160w?

I have told you..the fact that you don't like the answer is not my problem...your first problem is believing that the solar insolation is 160w....second, you seem to disregard that water vapor can absorb and hold energy..unlike CO2 at atmospheric temperatures...CO2 simply absorbs and emits the energy on to cooler pastures...what small bit of energy it actually gets to emit...the vast bulk is transferred to non radiative gasses and is moved via conduction....you believe that radiation is a large enough portion of the energy movement in the lower atmosphere to have an effect...another place where you have it all wrong.

 

[Wuwei]

The QM mechanisms for EM radiation emitted from warm bodies were well known for about 100 years. No advanced mechanisms such as quantum gravity or quantum electrodynamics are needed nor useful in explaining EM thermal radiation.

No they aren't...and if you believe that they are, then you are even less informed than I would have thought. Clearly you are not able to differentiate between what is real and known by observation, measurement, and experiment, and what remains little more than a story we tell about what might be.

If you think I am wrong, refer to Niels Bohr and his thoughts on the "quantum world"... "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description.

Learn the difference between what is real and known and what is not and remains hypothetical.

You still have not given any QM mechanism on how thermal photons are impeded from striking a hotter body. Do you care to give your QM mechanism?

No will I. Unlike you, I can differentiate between what we can observe, measure and know and what we can't....and I am able to differentiate between actual descriptions of mechanisms and stories about hypotheticals that are used as place markers till such time as we actually start to develop some real understanding. The idea that we even begin to grasp the underlying mechanisms of energy transfer is laughable...hell, at this date we don't even have a handle on the underlying mechanism of gravity. You people who believe that science knows all and sees all are living in a dream world...real scientists will tell you that at this point, we are barely scratching the surface and just beginning to know what we don't know.

You are hell-bent on promoting a mechanism of one way thermal energy flow, but you cannot support it with any science. The reason is, as we both said, you don't believe modern science.

 

[SSDD]

You are hell-bent on promoting a mechanism of one way thermal energy flow, but you cannot support it with any science. The reason is, as we both said, you don't believe modern science.

Yeah..nothing but that wacky 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that it is not possible for heat or energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...Let me know when they change that to state that energy..any amount at all, can move spontaneously from cool to warm.

 

[Wuwei]

You are hell-bent on promoting a mechanism of one way thermal energy flow, but you cannot support it with any science. The reason is, as we both said, you don't believe modern science.

Yeah..nothing but that wacky 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that it is not possible for heat or energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...Let me know when they change that to state that energy..any amount at all, can move spontaneously from cool to warm.

That wacky 2nd law allows two way thermal energy flow since more energy flows from the hot body than it receives from the colder body. That is according to QM, which we both know you don't believe. Do you care to give your QM mechanism for one way flow?

 

[mamooth]

I accidentally left my laser pointer near the hot air output from the furnace. Half of it got warmer. I took it out to play with the cat, and it still worked.

Ruh-roh. According to the SSDD theory, it couldn't have still worked. Lasers bounce light back and forth between the two ends, where it gets absorbed, amplified and emitted again on each cycle. According to the SSDD theory, the warmer end couldn't have absorbed photons from the colder end, so there's no way it could have worked.

But it did work, because SSDD's physics is hilariously stupid.

 

[IanC]

your first problem is believing that the solar insolation is 160w

This is a measured quantity. Why do you have a problem with it? What is the figure you would prefer to use? 25% higher? That still leaves a massive deficit. 400 W output cannot be supported by an input of 200 W. Where is the missing energy coming from?

Why won't you tell us where YOU think the extra energy is coming from?

 

[IanC]

CO2 simply absorbs and emits the energy on to cooler pastures...what small bit of energy it actually gets to emit...the vast bulk is transferred to non radiative gasses and is moved via conduction....you believe that radiation is a large enough portion of the energy movement in the lower atmosphere to have an effect...another place where you have it all wrong

You're getting closer. The energy absorbed in the lower atmosphere by CO2 warms the air and decreases the surface conduction to the atmosphere.

If 15 micron radiation was not intercepted by CO2 and added to the total energy of the atmosphere, then it would simply escape to space like the radiation leaving through the Atmospheric Window.

Then the atmosphere would cool, allowing the surface to pass more heat to the atmosphere by conduction, cooling the surface.

It's all rather simple if you keep track of the energy flows.

 

[SSDD]

That wacky 2nd law allows two way thermal energy flow since more energy flows from the hot body than it receives from the colder body. That is according to QM, which we both know you don't believe. Do you care to give your QM mechanism for one way flow?

According to your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...while every observation and measurement ever made is of one way gross energy movement from warm to cool. Again, failure to differentiate between what is real and what is the output of a model. When the 2nd law is changed to state that energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm and it is fine so long as the net is from warm to cool, you be sure to let me know...till then, I am afraid that the 2nd law doesn't agree with you.

 

[SSDD]

I accidentally left my laser pointer near the hot air output from the furnace. Half of it got warmer. I took it out to play with the cat, and it still worked.

Ruh-roh. According to the SSDD theory, it couldn't have still worked. Lasers bounce light back and forth between the two ends, where it gets absorbed, amplified and emitted again on each cycle. According to the SSDD theory, the warmer end couldn't have absorbed photons from the colder end, so there's no way it could have worked.

But it did work, because SSDD's physics is hilariously stupid.

What is stupid, and sad is your attempt to be funny. You aren't. It is tough to make butthurt and bitter appear funny.

 

[SSDD]

your first problem is believing that the solar insolation is 160w

This is a measured quantity. Why do you have a problem with it? What is the figure you would prefer to use? 25% higher? That still leaves a massive deficit. 400 W output cannot be supported by an input of 200 W. Where is the missing energy coming from?

Why won't you tell us where YOU think the extra energy is coming from?

Where on earth is 160Wm2 hitting the earth 24 hours a day?

And there is no "extra" energy. Most of it comes from the sun, some comes from within the earth...but there is no 'extra' energy to be found. If you can't account for it, then you aren't looking in the right place. The fact that you don't know where it comes from doesn't mean that it is the result of the magic of CO2.