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...

All of the above charts are a bit simplistic as they address only the basic mechanism and do not give meaning to any of the terms, but basically, greenhouse warming is pretty simple: does the rate of incoming heat into a system exceed its rate of release? What are the sources of incoming energy? The Sun (which varies both intrinsically slightly as well as a function of our distance and angle to it), and to a lesser degree, from the Earth itself, which includes both internal heat as well as activity from man.

What are some of the variables? The Earth's albedo, or reflectivity--- a snow covered Earth reflects more heat into space. Another factor is the opacity of the sky to wavelengths longer than about 450nm, the beginnings of the IR band. Various trace gasses such as Methane, CO2 and even water vapor all have some effect on how well the atmosphere reflects infrared energy back to the Earth.

Now the question is how does one quantify all of these factors into an accurate model of the actual Earth to derive meaningful data. The first problem is our poor understanding of all of the factors first, second, whether we can honestly or accurate quantify them. I don't see the above charts doing any of that without a great deal more information and explanation. So does your buddy Crick have the definitive answer either? I would say NO.

The simplistic models are the basis of the hypothesis and they are wrong...so it follows that if your most basic premise is wrong, everything after will be wrong as well.

Here is a very basic request regarding the greenhouse effect and if you go out and look, you will find that you can't satisfy it...I routinely ask for a single piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent link between the absorption and emission of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...now, if the greenhouse effect theory has any merit at all, you would think that there would be data to support its most basic premise...but alas, there is not.

I have other very basic questions which remain unanswered as well due to a complete lack of data...climate science is all models even though the energy movement through our atmosphere is an observable, measurable, testable phenomenon....why do you suppose that is?

 

[SSDD]

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...

That's the best you can do? Another insult? Why didn't you comment on the very simple derivation that came from Dartmouth University. Millions of scientists through their texts and journals know that the derivation is the only one that makes any sense. Do you not understand it?

Odd that you perceive a statement of fact as an insult...too bad for you.

 

[SSDD]

Most people only understand simple examples, that is why there are so many of them.

The atmosphere stores and recycles energy. That is how a solar input of only 165w can support a surface radiating at 400w.

Water vapor stores and recycles energy...and that is the only thing in the atmosphere that stores and recycles energy.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD collects talking points and does not care to imbed them into a coherent underlying pattern. He knows 'facts' but does not understand them. He simply ignores anything that does not fit into his worldview.

He also thinks everyone else is doing the same thing. He falsely assumes his position has just as great a chance for being right as anyone else's.

He doesn't change his position as new information is added. He is stuck in the science defined 150 years ago.

Yes. We know that and I think he knows that too. His latest missive did not even attempt a "talking point" related to science. He resorted to his usual menu of trollish sounding insults. I think he is running out of steam. Of course he will deny that and come back with something stale as usual.

He may abandon this thread but you can be sure that he will pop up in another with the same bald assertions.

When I leave a thread it is out of sheer tedium ian...I ask for some measurement and observation to support your belief in the models...you can't deliver..and go into more tedious unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mind models...exactly what do you think that sort of bullshit proves other than that you are well versed in your dogma?... Our atmosphere, and energy movement through it is an observable, measurable, testable quantity...and yet, you can't provide the first observed, measured, example to support your version of how energy moves through it....and the few examples that you manage to provide aren't examples of anything other than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.

 

[IanC]

Most people only understand simple examples, that is why there are so many of them.

The atmosphere stores and recycles energy. That is how a solar input of only 165w can support a surface radiating at 400w.

Water vapor stores and recycles energy...and that is the only thing in the atmosphere that stores and recycles energy.

Say what???

Are you now disavowing N&Z? What happened to atmospheric pressure being the only factor in surface temperature?

Get your story straight.

 

[IanC]

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...

WUWEI has shown his understanding multiple times in the past, and now has produced numerous references to support his position.

Right...by claiming that a black body has a great deal of heat capacity...by believing, like you, that the difference between the temperature of a radiator and its surroundings has no effect on the amount of radiation it puts out..and on and on...all he has demonstrated is that, like you, he can't differentiate between models and reality....is that your benchmark for "understanding"...blind belief in the models?

Here it is. I knew there was a statement of yours that I wanted to comment on.

Heat capacity is a red herring. Radiation is the least efficient pathway for transporting energy. Conduction and convection can move energy much more quickly.

Radiation is the limiting factor in our discussion. The stored energy in an object can migrate faster to the surface by conduction than the surface can lose energy by radiation.

Of course there will still be a temperature gradient behind the surface, as there is any time energy is being lost to the environment.

 

[Wuwei]

Odd that you perceive a statement of fact as an insult...too bad for you.

Rather than being childishly petulant, how about commenting on why worldwide university texts and scientists disagree with you about the Dartmouth reference I gave.

 

[X.Onasis]

A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.

At first it seemed he didn't understand the difference between long and short wave radiation and now he's insisting someone believes heat is moving from a cold body to a warmer one.

Can someone describe his point?

 

[IanC]

A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.

At first it seemed he didn't understand the difference between long and short wave radiation and now he's insisting someone believes heat is moving from a cold body to a warmer one.

Can someone describe his point?

The main point is that SSDD thinks objects stop radiating if they are near another object that is as warm or warmer.

The other side thinks all objects radiate fully at all times.

 

[Wuwei]

A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.

At first it seemed he didn't understand the difference between long and short wave radiation and now he's insisting someone believes heat is moving from a cold body to a warmer one.

Can someone describe his point?

His point is that thermodynamics laws that have been understood by science for over 100 years are wrong. Therefore any current understanding of atmospheric physics is wrong. He substitutes his own interpretations of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics which are wrong. In short, he doesn't understand and believe in modern science and doesn't quit arguing against it. The only science he believes in is what you can directly see. Current concepts of photons, radiation heat flow, etc. are out as far as he thinks.

 

[SSDD]

A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.

At first it seemed he didn't understand the difference between long and short wave radiation and now he's insisting someone believes heat is moving from a cold body to a warmer one.

Can someone describe his point?

The main point is that SSDD thinks objects stop radiating if they are near another object that is as warm or warmer.

The other side thinks all objects radiate fully at all times.

In the usual manner, you completely miss the point...the point was that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but thank's as always for playing...see the front desk for your parting gift.

 

[SSDD]

A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.

At first it seemed he didn't understand the difference between long and short wave radiation and now he's insisting someone believes heat is moving from a cold body to a warmer one.

Can someone describe his point?

His point is that thermodynamics laws that have been understood by science for over 100 years are wrong. Therefore any current understanding of atmospheric physics is wrong. He substitutes his own interpretations of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics which are wrong. In short, he doesn't understand and believe in modern science and doesn't quit arguing against it. The only science he believes in is what you can directly see. Current concepts of photons, radiation heat flow, etc. are out as far as he thinks.

Still waiting for the first observed, measured example that even begins to support your "interpretation" of the movement of energy...and, alas, will have to continue to wait forever since no observed, measured example supporting your claims will ever come forth...

 

[SSDD]

Most people only understand simple examples, that is why there are so many of them.

The atmosphere stores and recycles energy. That is how a solar input of only 165w can support a surface radiating at 400w.

Water vapor stores and recycles energy...and that is the only thing in the atmosphere that stores and recycles energy.

Say what???

Are you now disavowing N&Z? What happened to atmospheric pressure being the only factor in surface temperature?

Get your story straight.

Ian, you are quite the liar...I have said over and over that with the exception of water vapor, the only thing all other gasses provide towards the cliamte on earth is their mass...if you had an actual leg to stand on, you wouldn't have to constantly be making up arguments for me and then railing against your own fiction.

 

[SSDD]

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...

WUWEI has shown his understanding multiple times in the past, and now has produced numerous references to support his position.

Right...by claiming that a black body has a great deal of heat capacity...by believing, like you, that the difference between the temperature of a radiator and its surroundings has no effect on the amount of radiation it puts out..and on and on...all he has demonstrated is that, like you, he can't differentiate between models and reality....is that your benchmark for "understanding"...blind belief in the models?

Here it is. I knew there was a statement of yours that I wanted to comment on.

Heat capacity is a red herring. Radiation is the least efficient pathway for transporting energy. Conduction and convection can move energy much more quickly.

Radiation is the limiting factor in our discussion. The stored energy in an object can migrate faster to the surface by conduction than the surface can lose energy by radiation.

Of course there will still be a temperature gradient behind the surface, as there is any time energy is being lost to the environment.

The point being, he claimed that a black body had considerable heat capacity while a theoretical perfect black body has no heat capacity.

 

[SSDD]

Of course it is completely terrible mathematics to apply the distributive property to an equation that is already reduced...when I asked him when else he might do that with an equation, he had no answer...maybe you have one...when would you do that and for what reason?

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Radiation emission and absorption

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf

So there is no reason to view that intermediate step as a final step for calculation since the calculation is easer with the reduced form,

This is a snapshot of the second reference:

View attachment 171648

Aside from that, in physics, an equation is like a sentence..it attempts to describe a thing that is happening in reality...changing the equation changes the story it tells...and just as with language, changing the story does not change what happened in reality..it is just telling a lie.

That is so wrong. Changing an equation using arithmetic theorems has absolutely no effect on changing the "story" or what the equation stands for. In the case of the SB law. It is the intermediate step with the subtraction that tells the real "story."

That equation tells us that a body is emitting and absorbing. The reduced form of the equation with (T^4 -Tc^) is a very obvious arithmetic simplicity for succinctness of calculations and expression of the formula.

Typical...of course one wouldn't expect for you to see that your example is nothing more than a prime example of torturing an equation in an attempt to force it to agree with you...laughable...and sad that such chicanery has become acceptable "science".

 

[Wuwei]

Still waiting for the first observed, measured example that even begins to support your "interpretation" of the movement of energy...and, alas, will have to continue to wait forever since no observed, measured example supporting your claims will ever come forth...

Still waiting for the first observed, measured example that even begins to support your "interpretation" of the movement of energy as one way. The burden of proof is yours.

 

[Wuwei]

Typical...of course one wouldn't expect for you to see that your example is nothing more than a prime example of torturing an equation in an attempt to force it to agree with you...laughable...and sad that such chicanery has become acceptable "science".

Another trollish comment that in effect says that you disagree with all scientists all over the world and not just me.

 

[IanC]

It is the other way around. The separated form is part of the derivation to show the physics of the incoming and outgoing radiation of an object. Once that physics is understood the two equations are combined to make the arithmetic calculation less redundant. The arithmetic manipulation does not change the physics in any way. Here are two references to show that the equation

is an intermediate step.

Keep talking..you just keep showing how little you know...

WUWEI has shown his understanding multiple times in the past, and now has produced numerous references to support his position.

Right...by claiming that a black body has a great deal of heat capacity...by believing, like you, that the difference between the temperature of a radiator and its surroundings has no effect on the amount of radiation it puts out..and on and on...all he has demonstrated is that, like you, he can't differentiate between models and reality....is that your benchmark for "understanding"...blind belief in the models?

Here it is. I knew there was a statement of yours that I wanted to comment on.

Heat capacity is a red herring. Radiation is the least efficient pathway for transporting energy. Conduction and convection can move energy much more quickly.

Radiation is the limiting factor in our discussion. The stored energy in an object can migrate faster to the surface by conduction than the surface can lose energy by radiation.

Of course there will still be a temperature gradient behind the surface, as there is any time energy is being lost to the environment.

The point being, he claimed that a black body had considerable heat capacity while a theoretical perfect black body has no heat capacity.

I shouldn't answer for Wuwei but I need to clarify the original definition of a perfect Blackbody. It was originally given the property of 'infinite thinness'. This of course is not possible, it is just another defined property to get at the essence of the topic without going into the weeds with complications and contradictions that the messiness of reality throws in.

The diagram in the OP did the same. It cropped out many details to strongly make one point. It wasn't supposed to be a complete climate model, it was supposed to illustrate a fundamental relationship. And it did.

 

[IanC]

Most people only understand simple examples, that is why there are so many of them.

The atmosphere stores and recycles energy. That is how a solar input of only 165w can support a surface radiating at 400w.

Water vapor stores and recycles energy...and that is the only thing in the atmosphere that stores and recycles energy.

Say what???

Are you now disavowing N&Z? What happened to atmospheric pressure being the only factor in surface temperature?

Get your story straight.

Ian, you are quite the liar...I have said over and over that with the exception of water vapor, the only thing all other gasses provide towards the cliamte on earth is their mass...if you had an actual leg to stand on, you wouldn't have to constantly be making up arguments for me and then railing against your own fiction.

I am more than willing to discuss how the mass of the atmosphere affects the surface temperature. I have given my description of what happens in previous threads. I am still waiting for your explanation of how it works. If you would explain yourself then I wouldn't have to infer what you mean by cryptic code words.

 

[X.Onasis]

A quick reading of the first and last pages leaves me not understanding the OP's original question's initial reply: what's his point? I mean besides the gobbledygook word soup he employs for obfuscation.

At first it seemed he didn't understand the difference between long and short wave radiation and now he's insisting someone believes heat is moving from a cold body to a warmer one.

Can someone describe his point?

The main point is that SSDD thinks objects stop radiating if they are near another object that is as warm or warmer.

The other side thinks all objects radiate fully at all times.

In the usual manner, you completely miss the point...the point was that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but thank's as always for playing...see the front desk for your parting gift.

So you don't understand the greenhouse effect? What's so difficult about it?