What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[IanC]

What an idiot you seem to be. Do you have any formal education in the sciences? If so, what is it and have you asked them for a refund? The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space. The rest of your "fat cell diet theory" apparently went right over your head.

My fear is that you actually are a 'trained physicist '. That is a scary thought, especially if you are responsible for anything of importance.

While the atmosphere does reflect some sunlight and does absorb a small amount, the surface is where highly ordered high energy wavelength solar is converted into diffuse longwave radiation. A large increase of entropy even if the actual amount of energy going in and out are the same.

 

[IanC]

More CO₂ makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation. I am guessing, that is well understood

There is a fixed amount of CO2 specific surface radiation for a known temperature. The average mean free path for 15 micron radiation is about 2 metres at STP. Increasing the concentration of CO2 slightly decreases the mean free path but does not immediately change the available energy that CO2 can absorb.

Do you know what mechanism actually causes the surface to warm?

I'll talk more after you explain your understanding.

 

[IanC]

"What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?"

We see another libtard thread in the making under the veil of "science." First we are asked what explanation we use. Then when they are offered, they are attacked unless they lead to the one irreconcilable conclusion supporting Climate Change as a function of man. Then we are attacked on our personal credentials by as person who gives nothing on his own.

This is just one more climate thread by a climate believer under the guise of science really intended only to sell climate change theory while attacking all and anything which does not agree with or support it. Nothing more.

I think you should go back and reread the OP.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.

More CO₂ makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation. I am guessing, that is well understood.

With more energy retained within the system, temperatures rising, there's the secondary effect of more water vapor, making the system even more opaque, pushing temperatures even higher. That also shouldn't be hard to understand.

As to "huge changes", that depends on what you find "huge".

The difference between the last ice age and pre-industrial temperature averages is just 4°C to 6°C. I would call that "huge". Some estimates for future average temperatures, contingent on emissions scenarios, put the temperature rise close to +5°C. I'd call that "huge".

Do you find any problem with any of the above?

From the Wikipedia link:

"In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next ice age, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles"

bolding mine

What a bunch of nonsense since CO2 is not a molecular cage, and that any postulated warm forcing increase for CO2 is easily overcome by the even greater increase of energy OUTFLOW leaving the planet.

Here is a simple explanation that most people never seem to ponder over, since it makes clear CO2 doesn't promote actual warming at all, from The Inconvenient Skeptic:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

LINK

red bolding mine

 

[toobfreak]

What an idiot you seem to be. Do you have any formal education in the sciences? If so, what is it and have you asked them for a refund? The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space. The rest of your "fat cell diet theory" apparently went right over your head.

My fear is that you actually are a 'trained physicist '.

Have no doubt of that.

That is a scary thought, especially if you are responsible for anything of importance.

Afraid the boogie man is gonna getcha?

While the atmosphere does reflect some sunlight and does absorb a small amount, the surface is where highly ordered high energy wavelength solar is converted into diffuse longwave radiation. A large increase of entropy even if the actual amount of energy going in and out are the same.

I'm still waiting for you tell us what science education YOU have. Any? Lessee:

• highly ordered high energy wavelength solar: What the hell is "highly ordered?" You mean circularly polarized? What? You mean phased? What is a high energy wavelength? How does frequency relate to energy? If there are any "higher energy" wavelengths, wouldn't they be the UV and SHORTER wavelengths rather than the lazy long IR wavelengths of heat? Now you are talking like you got your degree from the back of a box of Corn Flakes.
• diffuse longwave radiation: Again, are there some longwave radiation that isn't diffuse? And what makes it diffuse? Isn't blue light more diffuse in the fact that it is scattered by water droplets while IR passes through largely unchecked?
• Entropy? WTF?

Dude, you are toast. I'm generally pretty informal here but I question if you have even a HS diploma.

 

[Olde Europe]

Do you know what mechanism actually causes the surface to warm?

Of course.

 

[cnm]

Do you know what mechanism actually causes the surface to warm?

Of course.

But we're reliably informed by a trained physicist it is the atmosphere that is warmed by the sun.

 

[Olde Europe]

But we're reliably informed by a trained physicist it is the atmosphere that is warmed by the sun.

All told, that's even true, insofar as almost the entirety of the energy warming the atmosphere originates there.

 

[Olde Europe]

Increasing the concentration of CO2 slightly decreases the mean free path but does not immediately change the available energy that CO2 can absorb.

Of course not. Increasing CO₂ increases backradiation from the near-surface atmosphere (that's the meaning of decreased "mean free path"), which means a higher surface temperature, which then increases surface radiation. I really don't know why you insist on increasing complexity when, originally, you were looking for a layman explanation of GHE.

 

[cnm]

All told, that's even true, insofar as almost the entirety of the energy warming the atmosphere originates there.

But we are reliably informed by a trained physicist the atmosphere is the primary receptacle of the sun's energy.

 

[SSDD]

So you are claiming that back radiation slows the warming of the earth?...you are saying that the earth would be warmer if not for so called greenhouse gasses?

That is what the word moderation means in that context...

No. It slows the cooling of the earth.

Climate science says that the earth has WARMED 1.5 degrees since 1820. They use the word warmed...and no matter how you twist it, slower cooling does not equal warming... The more you talk, the more weasel words you have to use in an attempt to rationalize your belief...weasel words are not necessary when discussing science...but weasel words come in very handy if you are trying to promote pseudoscience.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you are claiming that back radiation slows the warming of the earth?...you are saying that the earth would be warmer if not for so called greenhouse gasses?

That is what the word moderation means in that context...

No. It slows the cooling of the earth.

Climate science says that the earth has WARMED 1.5 degrees since 1820. They use the word warmed...and no matter how you twist it, slower cooling does not equal warming... The more you talk, the more weasel words you have to use in an attempt to rationalize your belief...weasel words are not necessary when discussing science...but weasel words come in very handy if you are trying to promote pseudoscience.

no matter how you twist it, slower cooling does not equal warming...

Slower cooling does equal warming.....assuming the incoming energy is the same.
That's why people insulate their homes. Slower cooling makes our homes warmer in the winter.

 

[IanC]

I'm still waiting for you tell us what science education YOU have. Any?

Why would you care about the education I claim to have? I certainly ignore your claim to be a trained physicist.

 

[IanC]

• highly ordered high energy wavelength solar: What the hell is "highly ordered?" You mean circularly polarized? What? You mean phased? What is a high energy wavelength? How does frequency relate to energy? If there are any "higher energy" wavelengths, wouldn't they be the UV and SHORTER wavelengths rather than the lazy long IR wavelengths of heat? Now you are talking like you got your degree from the back of a box of Corn Flakes.
• diffuse longwave radiation: Again, are there some longwave radiation that isn't diffuse? And what makes it diffuse? Isn't blue light more diffuse in the fact that it is scattered by water droplets while IR passes through largely unchecked?
• Entropy? WTF?

Polarized? By what mechanism? By highly ordered I mean that it is collimated. The reason why you can focus sunlight with a magnifying glass.

High energy wavelength? We can tell the temperature of a distant star by the proportions of the radiation reaching us. A hotter star has the capability of producing higher energy photons than a cooler star. But the main clue is the amount produced at specific bands. Hot produces more radiation, at higher energy wavelengths on average.

Diffuse longwave? For wavelengths directly escaping through the Atmospheric Window the radiation is somewhat ordered because the photons only travel in a direct line away from the surface. Radiation absorbed and emitted by GHGs is totally scattered in all directions.

Entropy is a fairly difficult concept. If we are having problems coming to agreement on simple concepts it would be a waste of time to skip ahead several levels.

 

[IanC]

Increasing the concentration of CO2 slightly decreases the mean free path but does not immediately change the available energy that CO2 can absorb.

Of course not. Increasing CO₂ increases backradiation from the near-surface atmosphere (that's the meaning of decreased "mean free path"), which means a higher surface temperature, which then increases surface radiation. I really don't know why you insist on increasing complexity when, originally, you were looking for a layman explanation of GHE.

You should put more thought into this problem.

The only thing that controls 'backradiation' is the temperature of the atmosphere producing it. The mean free path varies with the density, and affects all directions equally a la the equapartition theorum.

 

[Olde Europe]

Increasing the concentration of CO2 slightly decreases the mean free path but does not immediately change the available energy that CO2 can absorb.

Of course not. Increasing CO₂ increases backradiation from the near-surface atmosphere (that's the meaning of decreased "mean free path"), which means a higher surface temperature, which then increases surface radiation. I really don't know why you insist on increasing complexity when, originally, you were looking for a layman explanation of GHE.

You should put more thought into this problem.

The only thing that controls 'backradiation' is the temperature of the atmosphere producing it. The mean free path varies with the density, and affects all directions equally a la the equapartition theorum.

Yeah, you are just describing the same thing using other terms. BTW, the term is "equipartition theorem".

 

[toobfreak]

I'm still waiting for you tell us what science education YOU have. Any?

Why would you care about the education I claim to have? I certainly ignore your claim to be a trained physicist.

STILL won't answer a simple question. That pretty much sums up what I expected. Never mind I've talked physics a hundred times here in the past 2 years with Tards like you and everytime they ALWAYS do two things:

1. Deny you know anything without any basis for that belief.
2. Run from any kind of legitimate challenge.

 

[toobfreak]

• highly ordered high energy wavelength solar: What the hell is "highly ordered?" You mean circularly polarized? What? You mean phased? What is a high energy wavelength? How does frequency relate to energy? If there are any "higher energy" wavelengths, wouldn't they be the UV and SHORTER wavelengths rather than the lazy long IR wavelengths of heat? Now you are talking like you got your degree from the back of a box of Corn Flakes.
• diffuse longwave radiation: Again, are there some longwave radiation that isn't diffuse? And what makes it diffuse? Isn't blue light more diffuse in the fact that it is scattered by water droplets while IR passes through largely unchecked?
• Entropy? WTF?

Polarized? By what mechanism? By highly ordered I mean that it is collimated. The reason why you can focus sunlight with a magnifying glass.

High energy wavelength? We can tell the temperature of a distant star by the proportions of the radiation reaching us. A hotter star has the capability of producing higher energy photons than a cooler star. But the main clue is the amount produced at specific bands. Hot produces more radiation, at higher energy wavelengths on average.

Diffuse longwave? For wavelengths directly escaping through the Atmospheric Window the radiation is somewhat ordered because the photons only travel in a direct line away from the surface. Radiation absorbed and emitted by GHGs is totally scattered in all directions.

Entropy is a fairly difficult concept. If we are having problems coming to agreement on simple concepts it would be a waste of time to skip ahead several levels.

I don't suppose you'd want to know that I almost went into being an astronomer in high school before switching to electrical engineering and electronic design but still teach it on the side before you embarrass yourself any further with your garbage terminology and Jethro Bodine handling of very basic physics concepts.

I mean, just who the hell do you think you're fooling with your quack terminology and lame bullshit in the first place?

 

[IanC]

I'm still waiting for you tell us what science education YOU have. Any?

Why would you care about the education I claim to have? I certainly ignore your claim to be a trained physicist.

STILL won't answer a simple question. That pretty much sums up what I expected. Never mind I've talked physics a hundred times here in the past 2 years with Tards like you and everytime they ALWAYS do two things:

1. Deny you know anything without any basis for that belief.
2. Run from any kind of legitimate challenge.

I'm not running away from anything. I'm refusing to give personal information on a public message board. Post up some copies of your degrees and I may consider doing the same.

 

[IanC]

• highly ordered high energy wavelength solar: What the hell is "highly ordered?" You mean circularly polarized? What? You mean phased? What is a high energy wavelength? How does frequency relate to energy? If there are any "higher energy" wavelengths, wouldn't they be the UV and SHORTER wavelengths rather than the lazy long IR wavelengths of heat? Now you are talking like you got your degree from the back of a box of Corn Flakes.
• diffuse longwave radiation: Again, are there some longwave radiation that isn't diffuse? And what makes it diffuse? Isn't blue light more diffuse in the fact that it is scattered by water droplets while IR passes through largely unchecked?
• Entropy? WTF?

Polarized? By what mechanism? By highly ordered I mean that it is collimated. The reason why you can focus sunlight with a magnifying glass.

High energy wavelength? We can tell the temperature of a distant star by the proportions of the radiation reaching us. A hotter star has the capability of producing higher energy photons than a cooler star. But the main clue is the amount produced at specific bands. Hot produces more radiation, at higher energy wavelengths on average.

Diffuse longwave? For wavelengths directly escaping through the Atmospheric Window the radiation is somewhat ordered because the photons only travel in a direct line away from the surface. Radiation absorbed and emitted by GHGs is totally scattered in all directions.

Entropy is a fairly difficult concept. If we are having problems coming to agreement on simple concepts it would be a waste of time to skip ahead several levels.

I don't suppose you'd want to know that I almost went into being an astronomer in high school before switching to electrical engineering and electronic design but still teach it on the side before you embarrass yourself any further with your garbage terminology and Jethro Bodine handling of very basic physics concepts.

I mean, just who the hell do you think you're fooling with your quack terminology and lame bullshit in the first place?

Be specific. Which of my statements do you consider incorrect? Is it the terminology uou disagree with, or the concept?

Will you defend your statements that seem ridiculous?