The Sound of Settled Science

[Wuwei]

Which law....Lets see the statement of any law which states that spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperature happens...

The SB law.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...maybe your bastardized version of the greenhouse effect is only about near the surface, but the greenhouse effect described by climate science deals with the entire troposphere...

This is what you posted in #272 as the science definition of the greenhouse effect:

The radiative greenhouse effect is defined as: warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (such as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet's surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases​

Where does it say anything about the "entire troposphere"?


.

 

[SSDD]

So with no back radiation, there is no warming..and with back radiation, there is the same answer..which is no warming..you keep arguing for a non existent thing to be happening which gives you the same result as if the thing didn't happen...either way there is no difference....and it is irrelevant anyway since there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

In the SB law the term T is the earth temperature. The term Tc is the atmosphere temperature.

T>Tc for this example​

Plug those numbers in and you get the P. You don't even have to think about whether it's radiation exchange or not.


.

The SB law isn't concerned with the temperartue of the earth and its atmosphere... T is any radiator and Tc is its cooler background...the SB law can't be applied to the atmosphere since it has no area...a radiator other than a black body radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between itself and its cooler background...

And the only "exchange" is from the radiator to its cooler background.

 

[SSDD]

Of course not...IR can not warm the air.

Yes it does near the earth surface. You haven't shown why not.

No..it doesn't...Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR...I am sure that you wish your feats of mental masturbation could actually result in IR warming the air, but alas, it doesn't...nor does it make a radiative greenhouse effect real in a troposphere completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.

Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR​

That is exactly right. But I'm referring to the fact that the CO2 got that energy from IR. It is a two step process. 1. Get energy from IR. 2. Collide with air. You are forgetting the first step.


.

And it is not a radiative greenhouse effect...no matter how you twist it...it just isn't.

I didn't say it was. It's the mode of transfer of earths heat to the atmosphere.


.

Jumping through mental hoops is not going to make a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in a troposphere that is completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection....You can't weasel your way into a radiative greenhouse effect no matter how much you try...

 

[SSDD]

Which law....Lets see the statement of any law which states that spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperature happens...

The SB law.


.

Sorry...wrong again... Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing there about back radiation...or spontaneous two way energy exchange between radiators of different temperatures...that law is a statement about a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum...nothing more.

Do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you know how to roll?

Do you believe that just because you believe a thing, and say it that magically it becomes true? There is no physical law that even predicts spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperatures...much less a law that it happens.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...maybe your bastardized version of the greenhouse effect is only about near the surface, but the greenhouse effect described by climate science deals with the entire troposphere...

This is what you posted in #272 as the science definition of the greenhouse effect:

The radiative greenhouse effect is defined as: warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (such as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet's surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases​

Where does it say anything about the "entire troposphere"?


.

You really are an abject idiot aren't you? This is science and if you are going to discuss it, you are expected to have some idea of what the terms mean...clearly you don't...you just spew your beliefs and think that because you say it, or because it isn't written in crayon for the feebleminded somewhere, that it must be true...

Here...since you are clearly not bright enough to look even this very basic information up for yourself...

greenhouse effect | Definition, Diagram, Causes, & Facts ...
: Greenhouse effect, a warming of Earth’s surface and troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere) caused by the presence of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and certain other gases in the air.


https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Robinsonetal98petitionproj.pdf

Especially important in considering the effect of changes in at- mospheric composition upon Earth temperatures are temperatures in the lower troposphere – at an altitude of roughly 4 km. In the tropo- sphere, greenhouse-gas-induced temperature changes are expected to be at least as large as at the surface


Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

The basic mechanism can be qualified in a number of ways, none of which affect the fundamental process. The atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere, largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate.


If you care to find a definition of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science which describes the process being restricted to the first few meters of the atmosphere, by all means, lets see it... We both know that no such definition exists...or maybe, you really don't know...maybe you are just ignorant and not as dishonest as the skidmark..

 

[Wuwei]

The SB law isn't concerned with the temperartue of the earth and its atmosphere... T is any radiator and Tc is its cooler background...the SB law can't be applied to the atmosphere since it has no area...a radiator other than a black body radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between itself and its cooler background...

And the only "exchange" is from the radiator to its cooler background.

The SB law can be applied to the earth. The only statement above that is correct is that T is any radiator.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes it does near the earth surface. You haven't shown why not.

No..it doesn't...Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR...I am sure that you wish your feats of mental masturbation could actually result in IR warming the air, but alas, it doesn't...nor does it make a radiative greenhouse effect real in a troposphere completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection.

Energy lost by CO2 molecules via collisions is not IR​

That is exactly right. But I'm referring to the fact that the CO2 got that energy from IR. It is a two step process. 1. Get energy from IR. 2. Collide with air. You are forgetting the first step.


.

And it is not a radiative greenhouse effect...no matter how you twist it...it just isn't.

I didn't say it was. It's the mode of transfer of earths heat to the atmosphere.


.

Jumping through mental hoops is not going to make a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in a troposphere that is completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection....You can't weasel your way into a radiative greenhouse effect no matter how much you try...

Again, I didn't say it was. I simply described the mode of transfer of earths heat to the atmosphere.


.

 

[Wuwei]

Which law....Lets see the statement of any law which states that spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperature happens...

The SB law.

Sorry...wrong again... Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Nothing there about back radiation...or spontaneous two way energy exchange between radiators of different temperatures...that law is a statement about a theoretical perfect black body in a theoretically perfect vacuum...nothing more.

Do you ever actually research anything or is making it up as you go the only way you know how to roll?

Do you believe that just because you believe a thing, and say it that magically it becomes true? There is no physical law that even predicts spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperatures...much less a law that it happens.

The SB law is derived from Planck's law, which has no restrictions on where the radiation from a black body goes and no restrictions on receiving radiation from another black body at any temperature.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...maybe your bastardized version of the greenhouse effect is only about near the surface, but the greenhouse effect described by climate science deals with the entire troposphere...

This is what you posted in #272 as the science definition of the greenhouse effect:

The radiative greenhouse effect is defined as: warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (such as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet's surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases​

Where does it say anything about the "entire troposphere"?


.

You really are an abject idiot aren't you? This is science and if you are going to discuss it, you are expected to have some idea of what the terms mean...clearly you don't...you just spew your beliefs and think that because you say it, or because it isn't written in crayon for the feebleminded somewhere, that it must be true...

Here...since you are clearly not bright enough to look even this very basic information up for yourself...

greenhouse effect | Definition, Diagram, Causes, & Facts ...
: Greenhouse effect, a warming of Earth’s surface and troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere) caused by the presence of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and certain other gases in the air.


https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Robinsonetal98petitionproj.pdf

Especially important in considering the effect of changes in at- mospheric composition upon Earth temperatures are temperatures in the lower troposphere – at an altitude of roughly 4 km. In the tropo- sphere, greenhouse-gas-induced temperature changes are expected to be at least as large as at the surface


Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

The basic mechanism can be qualified in a number of ways, none of which affect the fundamental process. The atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere, largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate.


If you care to find a definition of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science which describes the process being restricted to the first few meters of the atmosphere, by all means, lets see it... We both know that no such definition exists...or maybe, you really don't know...maybe you are just ignorant and not as dishonest as the skidmark..

You are right. I am restricting climate science to the first few meters. If you reject what is happening there, what is the point of discussing the whole troposphere. It's more of the same laws of physics that you are having trouble with.

There are much better references than the ones you gave. For example, the AIP site. This has references to other articles at the AIP.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



.

 

[flacaltenn]

Since the members that reject basic Physics and the Ghouse effect won't start their OWN threads and instead hijack 1/2 of the GW threads to repeatedly slog these "alternate theories" -- I'm creating a "sticky thread" to have this same 20 page rolling rampage in ONE PLACE...

You're still welcome to start your OWN "denial of science" threads with an appropriately limited scope in an Opening Post -- but the hijacking of EVERY TOPIC has got to stop now....

All of the rules and design of USMB is to get UNIQUE discussions in each thread. Not have every thread end in the same 20 page rope-a-dope discussion...