Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[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.

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?

The GHE is more difficult to explain than you would think when arguing with someone like SSDD who demands undeniable proof for every step in the logic chain.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

He feels that there is no such thing as back-radiation, that gas in the atmosphere cannot emit photons or waves toward the warmer surface, because that would violate the 2nd Law.

As the flaws in his "theory" are exposed, his explanations get more and more complex.
It's an interesting pathology, but quickly grows tedious.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Considering that every measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement from warm to cool, I don't really know what else you could ask for....there has never been a measurement of energy moving from a cool source to a warmer source....not made with an instrument at ambient temperature anyway...all such measurements have been made with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than the radiator which means that you are measuring energy moving from a warmer source to the cooler radiator, not from a cooler source to a warmer source.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Wouldn't be the first time I have disagreed with scientists all over the world...nor would it be the first time I was right and they were wrong....your quasi religious acceptance of baseless proclamations from the scientific community is just plain sad.

 

[SSDD]

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.

The diagram was bullshit...still is and always will be.

 

[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.

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.

PV+nRT...look it up sometime.

 

[SSDD]

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

Nothing is difficult about it...it is fiction...fiction is easy to understand but apparently separating fiction from reality is quite difficult for some people.

But hey...if you believe you can provide a single piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means, step on up to the plate and deliver....or don't...which is what you will be forced to do since there is no such data...anywhere.

 

[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.

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

The GHE is more difficult to explain than you would think when arguing with someone like SSDD who demands undeniable proof for every step in the logic chain.

Once again you lie...I am not asking for undeniable proof...hell, all I am asking for is a single piece of observed, measured data made with an instrument at ambient temperature that even begins to establish a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas (other than water) and warming in the atmosphere...and you can't deliver because no such evidence exists...it is all models not borne out by any sort of actual observation or measurement.

 

[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.

PV+nRT...look it up sometime.

Go on. Mistranscribing the the gas law is a start but only just. Start describing the energy flows, etc

 

[SSDD]

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.

PV+nRT...look it up sometime.

Go on. Mistranscribing the the gas law is a start but only just. Start describing the energy flows, etc

Describe the fundamental mechanism of gravity ian...we understand that about as well as we understand the way energy moves through the atmosphere...meaning...we don't...asking for something that we are barely scratching the surface on is just stupid...

 

[X.Onasis]

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

Nothing is difficult about it...it is fiction...fiction is easy to understand but apparently separating fiction from reality is quite difficult for some people.

But hey...if you believe you can provide a single piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means, step on up to the plate and deliver....or don't...which is what you will be forced to do since there is no such data...anywhere.

That's easy. On average, the Earth is warmer than the moon. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[X.Onasis]

You do understand that the moon is colder because it has no atmosphere don't you?

 

[Wuwei]

Considering that every measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement from warm to cool

Every measurement is consistent with two way flow. Look up your favorite hyperphysics site.

there has never been a measurement of energy moving from a cool source to a warmer source

Yes there has. The kinetic energy of cool atoms in a gas will hit a warmer surface.

 

[Wuwei]

Wouldn't be the first time I have disagreed with scientists all over the world...nor would it be the first time I was right and they were wrong....your quasi religious acceptance of baseless proclamations from the scientific community is just plain sad.

Wow. "I'm right. Physics is wrong," is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

 

[SSDD]

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

Nothing is difficult about it...it is fiction...fiction is easy to understand but apparently separating fiction from reality is quite difficult for some people.

But hey...if you believe you can provide a single piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means, step on up to the plate and deliver....or don't...which is what you will be forced to do since there is no such data...anywhere.

That's easy. On average, the Earth is warmer than the moon. What's so hard to understand about that?

Are you really that stupid...the atmosphere of uranus absorbs IR and it is the coldest place in the solar system.

 

[SSDD]

Considering that every measurement ever made shows gross one way energy movement from warm to cool

Every measurement is consistent with two way flow. Look up your favorite hyperphysics site.

Since net flow doesn't alter the final temperature, of course it is consistent...but that doesn't mean that it is happening...consistent is a weasel word...no measurement of two way energy movement has ever been made...

Yes there has. The kinetic energy of cool atoms in a gas will hit a warmer surface.

Saying that it happens is not a measurement of it happening..you seem to have a problem differentiating between what is real and what you wish.

 

[SSDD]

Wouldn't be the first time I have disagreed with scientists all over the world...nor would it be the first time I was right and they were wrong....your quasi religious acceptance of baseless proclamations from the scientific community is just plain sad.

Wow. "I'm right. Physics is wrong," is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

logical fallacy...and again...this is not the first time I have disagreed with the scientific community and turned out that I was right and they were wrong...or even the second time...

 

[IanC]

Yes there has. The kinetic energy of cool atoms in a gas will hit a warmer surface.

Saying that it happens is not a measurement of it happening..you seem to have a problem differentiating between what is real and what you wish.

Wow!?!

I did not see that one coming. Now he's saying there is a force field forbidding air molecules from hitting the Earth's surface.

Amazing. Is this another case of 'how do rocks know which way to fall?' Hey, wait a minute....

Hahahaha

 

[Wuwei]

Since net flow doesn't alter the final temperature, of course it is consistent...but that doesn't mean that it is happening...consistent is a weasel word...no measurement of two way energy movement has ever been made...

Since it is consistent, and the atomic physics supports it, there is every reason to accept it. There is every reason not to accept one way thermal radiation because you have to come up with a reason why radiation from the cooler object is blocked or impeded in some way. You never gave a mechanism nor model for that. There isn't any.

Saying that it happens is not a measurement of it happening..you seem to have a problem differentiating between what is real and what you wish.

PV = nRT..
For a constant volume, what would cause the pressure on a hotter surface to go up when the temperature of an adjacent colder gas goes up a little? The answer is colder atoms hitting the surface.

 

[Wuwei]

logical fallacy...and again...this is not the first time I have disagreed with the scientific community and turned out that I was right and they were wrong...or even the second time..

Logical fallacy: Since I have disagreed with the scientific community and turned out to be right before, then I am always right when I disagree with the scientific community.