What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[SSDD]

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.

That's right the earth has warmed. And yes slower cooling is not warming.

You are confusing the warming of the earth over the decades with the greenhouse action in the atmosphere over the microseconds.

Let me spell it out. The sun is pumping heat to the earth surface. The earth radiates that heat. If there were no GHG's the oceans would freeze because of the earth radiation. GHG's limit the upward escape of radiation. The oceans don't freeze. The earth is warmer than it would be if there were no GHGs.

I was purposefully a little sloppy in this explanation for succinctness.


.

We need better nomenclature to differentiate between 'direct warming' and 'causing conditions that lead to warming'.

The nomenclature is fine...what you need is a new hypothesis...and don't you find it interesting that all of you have your own personal made up hypothesis while it is difficult to find any warmers or luke warmers who promote the actual mainstream GW hypothesis?

 

[SSDD]

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.

That's right the earth has warmed. And yes slower cooling is not warming.

You are confusing the warming of the earth over the decades with the greenhouse action in the atmosphere over the microseconds.

Let me spell it out. The sun is pumping heat to the earth surface. The earth radiates that heat. If there were no GHG's the oceans would freeze because of the earth radiation. GHG's limit the upward escape of radiation. The oceans don't freeze. The earth is warmer than it would be if there were no GHGs.

I was purposefully a little sloppy in this explanation for succinctness.


.

We need better nomenclature to differentiate between 'direct warming' and 'causing conditions that lead to warming'.

Yes we do. It has caused no end to the confusion of those less educated in science.

.

The only ones who are confused are warmers and luke warmers...so confused, in fact that you all simply make up your own version of the GH hypothesis and attempt to rationalize it with the same failed physics that the mainstream hypothesis promotes...

 

[IanC]

I'd say, given your interest in a valid, comprehensible layman's explanation of the GHE, there was a chance to advance your aim. Reacting in kind to the Freak meant you missed that chance. While politically on the pretty far right, at least the Freak isn't a brain-dead denialingdong guzzling at the denialingdong trough. That's welcome, no?

Sorry Pollyanna but few people here change their minds on anything. It takes energy to overcome the inertia of familiar thinking and the comfort of a worldview built up over decades.

Again, the purpose of this thread is to show the dearth of easily accessible sites that give a decent explanation of the GHE, that I could send a precocious 11 year old to discover the basics.

 

[SSDD]

I am not really interested in private individuals' personal descriptions.

Why not...since you have your own private personal GH hypothesis which bears very little resemblance to the mainstream GH hypothesis...In fact, about the only similarity is the belief that CO2 causes warming by some alchemical process whereby a body is warmed by its own radiation.

 

[SSDD]

It seems the problem here is that some people treat this forum and this thread as a game. The object is to win the game and save face. A lesser important objective to understand the science behind GW.


.

Projecting your own traits on others is hardly a rational argument...you are willing to weasel endlessly....

 

[SSDD]

I'd say, given your interest in a valid, comprehensible layman's explanation of the GHE, there was a chance to advance your aim. Reacting in kind to the Freak meant you missed that chance. While politically on the pretty far right, at least the Freak isn't a brain-dead denialingdong guzzling at the denialingdong trough. That's welcome, no?

Sorry Pollyanna but few people here change their minds on anything. It takes energy to overcome the inertia of familiar thinking and the comfort of a worldview built up over decades.

Again, the purpose of this thread is to show the dearth of easily accessible sites that give a decent explanation of the GHE, that I could send a precocious 11 year old to discover the basics.

The explanation is fine..your issue is that the mainstream hypothesis really doesn't sound much like your own personal made up hypothesis...nor does it sound much like wuwei's, or the skid mark's either...All of you have a personal version that you made up from whole cloth and you all are attempting to use the same failed physics from the mainstream hypothesis which you all seem to reject to validate your personal GH hypothesis...

 

[Wuwei]

.

I am not confusing anything...

Yes you are.

Your personal made up GH hypothesis is bullshit just as the mainstream GH hypothesis is bullshit...

I, along with Ian have not found a good IPCC reference concerning the physics of the GHE. The non-technical junior reference you cited is not adequate, do you know any other available reference.

.

 

[Wuwei]

It seems the problem here is that some people treat this forum and this thread as a game. The object is to win the game and save face. A lesser important objective to understand the science behind GW.

Projecting your own traits on others is hardly a rational argument...you are willing to weasel endlessly....

That is amusing and ironic. You are still playing the game. I'm looking at the real science of basic physics, not the alt-science.

.

 

[IanC]

I am not really interested in private individuals' personal descriptions.

Why not...since you have your own private personal GH hypothesis which bears very little resemblance to the mainstream GH hypothesis...In fact, about the only similarity is the belief that CO2 causes warming by some alchemical process whereby a body is warmed by its own radiation.

Hahahahaha. Post up a quote from me where I said that.

 

[Wuwei]

your issue is that the mainstream hypothesis really doesn't sound much like your own personal made up hypothesis...nor does it sound much like wuwei's, or the skid mark's either

Could you direct us to a site that clearly explains what you think is the mainstream hypothesis?

 

[SSDD]

.

I am not confusing anything...

Yes you are.

Your personal made up GH hypothesis is bullshit just as the mainstream GH hypothesis is bullshit...

I, along with Ian have not found a good IPCC reference concerning the physics of the GHE. The non-technical junior reference you cited is not adequate, do you know any other available reference.

.

The references are find and accurately describe the mainstream hypothesis...your issue with them is that they don't match your made up hypothesis...yet another example of how you just make it up as you go...in this case, you made up your own version of the greenhouse hypothesis...

 

[SSDD]

I am not really interested in private individuals' personal descriptions.

Why not...since you have your own private personal GH hypothesis which bears very little resemblance to the mainstream GH hypothesis...In fact, about the only similarity is the belief that CO2 causes warming by some alchemical process whereby a body is warmed by its own radiation.

Hahahahaha. Post up a quote from me where I said that.

Do you believe that the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warmer temperatures? Whatever the CO2 molecule is doing with the energy, the fact remains that the energy radiated from the surface of the earth...any belief that radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warming is a de facto belief that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own energy.

 

[SSDD]

your issue is that the mainstream hypothesis really doesn't sound much like your own personal made up hypothesis...nor does it sound much like wuwei's, or the skid mark's either

Could you direct us to a site that clearly explains what you think is the mainstream hypothesis?

Look it up yourself...you won't be happy with any of them though because your personal made up GH hypothesis is different from the mainstream hypothesis...

And it is absolutely hilarious that you wack jobs think the science is settled when you can't even seem to find a statement of the hypothesis that suits you...the irony literally drips...

 

[Wuwei]

The references are find and accurately describe the mainstream hypothesis...your issue with them is that they don't match your made up hypothesis...yet another example of how you just make it up as you go...in this case, you made up your own version of the greenhouse hypothesis..

What references are you talking about? That is my question.

.

 

[toobfreak]

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 same guy who made this statement called me a 'tard.
And he wonders why people don't take him seriously.

This from a guy whose made NO qualification of any of his statements and has made nearly a dozen nonsensical statements of juvenile proportions now disputes that you need an atmosphere in order to have a greenhouse effect. Do you have any formal training in science at all?

 

[Olde Europe]

Sorry Pollyanna but few people here change their minds on anything. It takes energy to overcome the inertia of familiar thinking and the comfort of a worldview built up over decades.

Again, the purpose of this thread is to show the dearth of easily accessible sites that give a decent explanation of the GHE, that I could send a precocious 11 year old to discover the basics.

There's not much of a chance for that, given what emerges currently, but why not make this threat the place where to "send a precocious 11 year old to discover the basics"?

Or it's just going to be yet another brawl, after thousands of instances of the exact same brawl. I'd say, that's largely your choice as the OP.

 

[toobfreak]

Never mind I've talked physics a hundred times here in the past 2 years with Tards like you

Do you always talk about inputs to and outputs from closed systems?

Show me where I ever used the words "inputs" or "outputs" in regards to a closed system, idiot.

 

[IanC]

Whatever the CO2 molecule is doing with the energy, the fact remains that the energy radiated from the surface of the earth...any belief that radiation from the surface of the earth can result in warming is a de facto belief that a body can be warmed by reabsorbing its own energy

Whatever SSDD. By your bizarroland version of physics, a blanket doesn't keep you warm.

You create buzzwords like 'spontaneous'. The surface spontaneously radiatrs because the Sun added energy and reduces entropy. The atmosphere spontaneously radiates because the surface added energy and reduced entropy.

I am not going to go further.

 

[toobfreak]

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 same guy who made this statement called me a 'tard.

And he wonders why people don't take him seriously.

Serious question, Ian: Why on earth don't you help him to clean up that statement? That way we all might learn something about the issue, and arrive at something like a clearer depiction of what the GHE really is. For, as of now, all we learned was about your ability to heap contempt on others.

Yes, it isn't the atmosphere that "converts" sunlight into IR radiation. Simply put, it's the surface that absorbs sunlight, warms up, and emits IR radiation, which is then absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Odd that you don't think the atmosphere can absorb heat from the Sun yet you think it can be warmed by the Earth? Is it really that hard to understand that as Sunlight filters down from the Sun that it strikes dust particles and other particulates which are heated by the Sun and water droplets which are both heated by the Sun as well as acting like tiny spherical lenses to refract sunlight? Any wavelength which is transparent to a material like water passes through mostly, merely being changing in direction by an alteration of its speed of propagation through the medium as a function of its refractive index while the remaining energy acts to heat the substance. Of course, water droplets are not pure, full of contaminants and solids from the Earth, but as the wavelength becomes increasingly less transparent to the material it becomes increasingly more converted into infrared energy. The Sun puts out far more than just visible light.

 

[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.

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.

Right, right, right. Another Tard Bullshitter. I have a Masters in Physics and a Bachelors in Electronics. I spent a good portion of my life designing global telecom and practically my entire life studying astronomy and particle physics. But you can't give us any "personal" information. Just the other week I challenged another Tard here who claimed to have had "many" businesses including still having a consulting business, so I challenged him to show us some official papers, ANY of the myriad papers that go hand in hand in owning a business, personal info redacted of course. HE NEVER DID. So just to prove my point that at least I was on the up and up, I produced copies of my two old state tax licenses, certificates of registration that are on hand, that ONLY the owner of a business would have, along with personally identifiable objects in the photo to prove these were not taken off the web or something.

IN MY TWO FREEKING YEARS HERE I've run into more bullshitters than in my entire life; armchair experts in everything; at least a half dozen yahoos here that all claimed this or that, but if there is one thing I can smell is a liar. I know when someone KNOWS science and when they are just blowing smoke and you've already proven yourself a LIAR.

Your "science degree" comes from reading books and web articles and I have to go eat and rest now, but I'll be back later to see if you answer my other post. If not, I just might take you apart piece by piece. If there is one thing I know, it is optics, energy, solar processes, et al., and you've walked right into a trap on that one butthole. When I come back, I'm gonna TAKE YOU APART. I don't claim to be any sort of expert in weather, climate or atmospherics, but I know physics, I know optics, I know energy, and I know a great deal about the production of energy in a star, its aging, etc., and we're going to find out what you REALLY know.

Looking forward to it.

Still looking forward to any detail as to what qualification you have at all to even discuss the subject much less be taken seriously as a person of any education? I'm all ears.