Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Wuwei]

If you look at his elaborations on this thread alone, the ignorance is patently staggering. He's been debating this "equation" over 137 posts, and has yet to realize that the radiation coming from the sun is at 1370W/m^2. He has no clue that radiative energy dissipates over the distance, and thus the W/m^2 radiated off at the sun's surface isn't the same as the W/m^2 received at the earth's surface, or top of the atmosphere. Just for starters... Pointless. Upon further consideration, there's a benefit to be had letting him stand as a monument to ignorance, as opposed to erecting a monument to pointlessness.

Yes it is staggering, but he has a new gimmic in his game that he wants to play out. He doesn't realize that it is already played out.

When he is backed in to a corner he reverts to taunting. He reminds me of the knight in a Monte Python movie where an adversary chops off his limbs one by one. Armless and legless he continues taunting his "cowardly" adversary who leaves the scene.

These are out of context excerpts of some of SSDD's childish taunts to me in this thread.

now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs...
There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...
I am surprised that you would admit to believing such bullshit...
Now run along and do your best to ignore ...
.in a word...bullshit...
..you haven't had a clue about any of it....
I am laughing at you wuwei..pretending to be superior...​

He seems to be especially emotional in the taunts aimed at you in your last post.

You are a laughing stock...
Look at the idiocy of your cartoon...
and you actually believe that bullshit...
one more idiot drone who believes in magic...
.people like you are absolutely laughable...​

When he gets that emotional it is a sign that he is running out of steam.

 

[SSDD]

Yes it is staggering, but he has a new gimmic in his game that he wants to play out. He doesn't realize that it is already played out.

So when you realize that you didn't, in fact, have a clue...you switch to bullshit...you girls should get a room...stroking each others delicate little egos like that in public is just lewd....

When he is backed in to a corner he reverts to taunting.

And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.

how does it feel to find out that you didn't have a clue...hell, I bet you really thought the greenhouse effect was based on reality rather than a world that is bathed by sunlight only capable of raising its temperature to -18 degrees and must rely on magic doubling of radiation to get up to a habitable level...

Your whole aire of superiority sort of flops now that you have been exposed as not having a clue...the sun is hot.....bbbbwwwawhhhhaaahahahahhah

He sun is hot...and yet, you didn't have the slightest idea that climate science says that the sunlight we receive is sufficient to raise the temperature to -18 degrees...laughing out loud at you and your butt buddy....

 

[expat_panama]

...radiation coming from the sun is at 1370W/m^2...

....how much sense does that make?

Everyone seems to be making this harder than it really is.

Look, about two hundred solar terraWatts hits the earth on one side (plus or minus about sixteen terraWatts depending on whether it's July or December) while some thirty terraWatts is coming up from the earth's core. Total energy input say, 230 terraWatts.

We're talking about global warming. Temperature is heat energy per mass. That energy input for the earth's mass means every one of the earth's 6 (with 24 zeros) kilograms will increase by 9°F every year. That would happen if we had a green house effect that was 100% efficient.

We don't.

NOAA's temp record shows that for the past 10K years we've had global cooling---

--because apparently the greenhouse efficiency is not even enough to keep the heat we got.

 

[Crick]

And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.

He can't be taunting you when he is not speaking to you. And the word would be spelled "loser". Loser.

 

[Wuwei]

And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.

He can't be taunting you when he is not speaking to you. And the word would be spelled "loser". Loser.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around being accused of my post taunting a person. Puzzling, since my "taunting" post was largely a list of that person taunting me.

Is a list of taunts by person S aimed at person W considered to be person W taunting person S?

Seems like Alice In Wonderland logic.

 

[SSDD]

And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.

He can't be taunting you when he is not speaking to you. And the word would be spelled "loser". Loser.

And once again..you prove ignorance on yet another topic...go learn the definitions and usages of words...

 

[SSDD]

And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.

He can't be taunting you when he is not speaking to you. And the word would be spelled "loser". Loser.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around being accused of my post taunting a person. Puzzling, since my "taunting" post was largely a list of that person taunting me.

Is a list of taunts by person S aimed at person W considered to be person W taunting person S?

Seems like Alice In Wonderland logic.

Guess you don't know basic definitions and usages either...you and crick belong together.....

And about that CO2 in the atmosphere....CO2, being an emitter raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...if you raise the emissivity of an object, by definition....what happens to its temperature?

And did you bother to relieve your ignorance regarding the claims of climate science regarding the greenhouse effect? got any idea how a radiator radiating up at -18 and a radiator radiating down and -18 manage to generate a temperature of 28C?....such an energy exchange would be easily proven in a lab....got any evidence that it can happen?

Got any instances in thermodynamics where you add the output of two radiators to get a combined output and temperature?

Can you show me a formula based on any physical law where you can combine the output of two radiators and end up with an output 48 degrees warmer than either?...because that is what those graphs from those supposedly respected universities are claiming..maybe you could write to their physics departments and some warmer there could invent a story complicated enough to make the impossible possible....I, for one, would be interested in hearing it...and such a thing certainly could be demonstrated in pretty much any modestly equipped lab...lets see it....

 

[Crick]

I'm all ears here SID. What is the temperature of the surface of the Earth and how does it get there?

 

[SSDD]

I'm all ears here SID. What is the temperature of the surface of the Earth and how does it get there?

Not through magic...that's for damned sure..

I have already stated repeatedly...there is an atmospheric thermal effect that perfectly accounts for the temperature here on earth and every other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere...whereas the greenhouse effect only works here and only with a fudge factor and you have to believe that two radiators radiating at -18 degrees can combine to produce an output temperature 18 degrees warmer than either....

care to show me a physical law that says that is possible?

 

[Wuwei]

And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.

He can't be taunting you when he is not speaking to you. And the word would be spelled "loser". Loser.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around being accused of my post taunting a person. Puzzling, since my "taunting" post was largely a list of that person taunting me.

Is a list of taunts by person S aimed at person W considered to be person W taunting person S?

Seems like Alice In Wonderland logic.

Guess you don't know basic definitions and usages either...you and crick belong together.....

And about that CO2 in the atmosphere....CO2, being an emitter raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...if you raise the emissivity of an object, by definition....what happens to its temperature?

And did you bother to relieve your ignorance regarding the claims of climate science regarding the greenhouse effect? got any idea how a radiator radiating up at -18 and a radiator radiating down and -18 manage to generate a temperature of 28C?....such an energy exchange would be easily proven in a lab....got any evidence that it can happen?

Got any instances in thermodynamics where you add the output of two radiators to get a combined output and temperature?

Can you show me a formula based on any physical law where you can combine the output of two radiators and end up with an output 48 degrees warmer than either?...because that is what those graphs from those supposedly respected universities are claiming..maybe you could write to their physics departments and some warmer there could invent a story complicated enough to make the impossible possible....I, for one, would be interested in hearing it...and such a thing certainly could be demonstrated in pretty much any modestly equipped lab...lets see it....

Look SSDD, you have a barrier in your acceptance of science: something has to be observable, measurable, testable before you believe it. It also cannot be a model. That leaves you only with 19th century science. The invisible 20th century world of atoms and photons lie outside your realm.

You also have a preordained faith that there is no such thing as back-radiation. The hard sciences do not start out with a hard faith like that. So any discussion with you turns into a game. You interpret some formula or picture in a way that you think supports your preordained idea, and others show where that is wrong or leads to a contradiction.

People here can beat to death your game, and it will just go round in circles. It's sort of like a game of chess where after several moves you brush the board clear and start over with the same opening moves. When that game is done you will invent a new game.

We beat to death your new current game on this thread, but I don't think you realize it yet. Your current challenge is for us to analyze something about a radiators radiating at -18. Your example is too vague, and I for one am not going to try to second guess what is bothering you. You need explicit diagrams of what you are thinking, how it differs from current science thinking, how it is similar and how variables in your diagram relate to formulae. Then you may see for yourself what is wrong.

 

[expat_panama]

I'm all ears here SID. What is the temperature of the surface of the Earth and how does it get there?

two radiators radiating at -18 degrees can combine to produce an output temperature 18 degrees warmer than either.... care to show me a physical law that says that is possible?

We need to agree on how heat and temperature work. Heat is energy and temperature is the amount of heat that a mass has. When heat (AKA "energy") flows it's called "power".

A one watt light bulb (just a little bit of 'power') can heat up an entire mountain to a temperature so hot that it can vaporize --but what's required is that we first have to make sure none of the heat escapes (we need a very very big thermos bottle) and second we have to wait a long time.

The green house effect is our thermos bottle, and the neat NASA pic (at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1164px-The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg) seems to say the efficiency is about 0.2% --and that means the entire earth heats up 1°F every year.

It doesn't. Our neat NASA pic is not all that complete after all.

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm trying to wrap my brain around being accused of my post taunting a person. Puzzling, since my "taunting" post was largely a list of that person taunting me.

Is a list of taunts by person S aimed at person W considered to be person W taunting person S?

Seems like Alice In Wonderland logic.

He's just trolling you, and in the most primitive, "Naw, you are (taunting)!" fashion. Logic has as much to do with that as it has with his "discussion" of the GHE, that is, nothing whatsoever. Smart move, not to let yourself be bothered by same, and, in particular, not to respond in kind. That's just what trolls hope to attain.

Whatever... he still hasn't understood how the sun's radiative flux (short wave) combines with the atmosphere's flux (IR) to a combined 479.6W/m^2, and that the earth's flux needs to be of that magnitude in order to get rid of the energy, and for that, in that simplified model, the surface temperature has to be 303°K to generate that flux.

... 150 postings (mostly) of either folks explaining things to him, and he, inadvertently, obliviously, sneering at his own incomprehension. Four years of discussing climate science, and that's his top-level attainment: Climate science is shit, because I don't understand the most basic GHE concept.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And look who has just taken to taunting...looser with a great big capital LOOSER.

He can't be taunting you when he is not speaking to you. And the word would be spelled "loser". Loser.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around being accused of my post taunting a person. Puzzling, since my "taunting" post was largely a list of that person taunting me.

Is a list of taunts by person S aimed at person W considered to be person W taunting person S?

Seems like Alice In Wonderland logic.

Guess you don't know basic definitions and usages either...you and crick belong together.....

And about that CO2 in the atmosphere....CO2, being an emitter raises the emissivity of the atmosphere...if you raise the emissivity of an object, by definition....what happens to its temperature?

And did you bother to relieve your ignorance regarding the claims of climate science regarding the greenhouse effect? got any idea how a radiator radiating up at -18 and a radiator radiating down and -18 manage to generate a temperature of 28C?....such an energy exchange would be easily proven in a lab....got any evidence that it can happen?

Got any instances in thermodynamics where you add the output of two radiators to get a combined output and temperature?

Can you show me a formula based on any physical law where you can combine the output of two radiators and end up with an output 48 degrees warmer than either?...because that is what those graphs from those supposedly respected universities are claiming..maybe you could write to their physics departments and some warmer there could invent a story complicated enough to make the impossible possible....I, for one, would be interested in hearing it...and such a thing certainly could be demonstrated in pretty much any modestly equipped lab...lets see it....

got any idea how a radiator radiating up at -18 and a radiator radiating down and -18 manage to generate a temperature of 28C?....

Smart photons. DERP!

 

[Wuwei]

He's just trolling you, and in the most primitive, "Naw, you are (taunting)!" fashion. Logic has as much to do with that as it has with his "discussion" of the GHE, that is, nothing whatsoever. Smart move, not to let yourself be bothered by same, and, in particular, not to respond in kind. That's just what trolls hope to attain.

Yes, I know he is a troll. He is smarter than his minions -- those who rate his posts as "Winner". Staunch stubbornness isn't always synonymous with lack of intelligence. But the thing that is puzzling is why does he degrade himself with his unviable stance. It seems that he has no self respect. But you are right -- a troll. Lack of self respect is one requirement of a troll.

 

[SSDD]

Look SSDD, you have a barrier in your acceptance of science: something has to be observable, measurable, testable before you believe it. It also cannot be a model. That leaves you only with 19th century science. The invisible 20th century world of atoms and photons lie outside your realm.

Nope..I love science...I have a very low tolerance for pseudoscientific bullshit pretending to be science however...

You also have a preordained faith that there is no such thing as back-radiation. The hard sciences do not start out with a hard faith like that. So any discussion with you turns into a game. You interpret some formula or picture in a way that you think supports your preordained idea, and others show where that is wrong or leads to a contradiction.

For the purpose of the conversation..I accepted the bullshit of back radiation...earth radiating up at -18 degrees...atmosphere radiating down at -18 degrees...show me the physical law that states that the two can combine to produce a radiating temperature 48 degrees warmer than either...

People here can beat to death your game, and it will just go round in circles. It's sort of like a game of chess where after several moves you brush the board clear and start over with the same opening moves. When that game is done you will invent a new game.

No amount of game playing will ever make to radiators emitting at -18 degrees realize an output of 48 degrees warmer than either...to even attempt to defend such bullshit is to attempt to defend the indefensible...and your claim that you can combine the two because they "share the same space" is some of the most ridiculous balderdash I have ever heard...inject a container with two gasses...both radiating at any temperature you like...they are sharing the same space and there is no way that they combine to produce a radiating temperature that is higher than either...if you don't raise the pressure that is...

We beat to death your new current game on this thread, but I don't think you realize it yet.

Actually, you didn't...you spewed some pseudoscience and then, you and a couple of twits who share your politics went about congratulating each other...I am afraid that you lost that one but aren't quite sharp enough and perhaps never will be sharp enough to realize it...you gave yourself away with your ignorance of even the temperatures involved...

Your current challenge is for us to analyze something about a radiators radiating at -18.

NO...sorry...not vague at all...right there from the chart...earth radiating up at -18 degrees...atmosphere radiating down at -18 degrees...and according to the graphic..the resulting temperature is almost 29 degrees C....show me the physical law that says such a thing can happen....I'll wait.

[QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 16563861You need explicit diagrams of what you are thinking, how it differs from current science thinking, how it is similar and how variables in your diagram relate to formulae. Then you may see for yourself what is wrong.[/QUOTE]

The explicit diagrams are right there in the first post....and the formula is right there....now kindly produce the physical law that says that the earth radiating up at a temperature of -18 and the atmosphere radiating down at -18 result in a temperature of almost 29 degrees C....again..I'll wait.

 

[SSDD]

He's just trolling you, and in the most primitive, "Naw, you are (taunting)!" fashion. Logic has as much to do with that as it has with his "discussion" of the GHE, that is, nothing whatsoever. Smart move, not to let yourself be bothered by same, and, in particular, not to respond in kind. That's just what trolls hope to attain.

Yes, I know he is a troll. He is smarter than his minions -- those who rate his posts as "Winner". Staunch stubbornness isn't always synonymous with lack of intelligence. But the thing that is puzzling is why does he degrade himself with his unviable stance. It seems that he has no self respect. But you are right -- a troll. Lack of self respect is one requirement of a troll.

Whistling by the graveyard is not going to find you the physical law that accounts for the pseudoscientific bullshit in those graphics from supposedly respected universities...

 

[Wuwei]

The explicit diagrams are right there in the first post....and the formula is right there....now kindly produce the physical law that says that the earth radiating up at a temperature of -18 and the atmosphere radiating down at -18 result in a temperature of almost 29 degrees C....again..I'll wait.

In one sentence you say the earth's temperature is -18C and also +29C. Contradiction. That's not in the OP diagram.

 

[jc456]

show me two radiators "sharing the same area" producing a temperature greater than either of them alone.

You still don't understand! It is absurd to say that two radiators share the same area. The topic is about a single area of an absorber. That absorber has two radiators radiating energy at it. Just look at the diagram you posted!

Secondly. In the diagram you posted one of the radiators is the SUN!!!! The sun is very very hot. You don't understand that either. My gosh.

so are you saying that the atmosphere doesn't touch the surface?

 

[jc456]

SSDD, perhaps you really need to stop trying to create strawmen. No one has said that -18 to -18 is going to create 29. Add that to the other nonsense you have posted, and you really are not worth talking to.

that is exactly what you are saying.

 

[jc456]

SSDD, perhaps you really need to stop trying to create strawmen. No one has said that -18 to -18 is going to create 29. Add that to the other nonsense you have posted, and you really are not worth talking to.

Yes, I agree that he is not worth talking to. He is a troll and I am feeding him. But I am always curious how deep his layering of stupid on top of stupid will go. And yes, it is quite futile because he pretends to disbelieve all the science starting at the dawn of thermodynamics.

and yet you can't seem to answer his most basic question. How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29? It is the only way to achieve greenhouse effect. You know this right? or have you answered how the earth surface could emit more than it absorbs.