What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[toobfreak]

The atmosphere blocks a full 30% of the direct incoming solar flux with a full 18% of that ABSORBED. HOW is it absorbed? It can only be absorbed as heat energy (converted to IR), thereby raising the energy state of the ensuing matter (raising valence electron energy to a higher level). All those who scoffed at this are hereby busted again as just more climatology asshats with no real understanding of physics.

It may surprise you to learn that, but everyone posting on here (as far as I can see them) knows that.

Those 18% compare to the 77% of sunlight warming the surface PLUS another roughly 100% of back radiation doing the same, how?

Which is why we say, sunlight largely warms the surface, which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario). That doesn't mean the sun doesn't warm the atmosphere directly, just that it's a small part of the overall energy flux.

Then what is the problem? I said the atmosphere converts solar energy to IR, I never said it converted ALL OF IT. I was trying to make a very brief and very concise statement which fairly described the relationship between the Earth-Sun which constituted the overall general concept of greenhouse warming, which is what the OP seemed to be asking for, not write a doctoral on the subject.

 

[Wuwei]

Any material heated is absorbed energy in the form of greater vibrational energy in the electron cloud, triatomic or otherwise.

The vibration classically is more like a tuning fork. It is not the electron cloud that has the vibration. The nuclei are vibrating.

 

[toobfreak]

Wow that is the most verbose diatribe I have ever seen at USMB.

TRANSLATION: You can't dispute the material so again, attack the messenger. Probably more substance in my one post there than all 3,400 of yours.

Wow that is the most verbose diatribe I have ever seen at USMB.

What I meant by that is your unnecessary and lengthy references to the Hertzsprung Russell diagram and general relativity, etc. etc.
.

You think that was lengthy? I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy. I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.

 

[Wuwei]

You think that was lengthy? I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy. I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.

It was totally irrelevant and for this thread lengthy.


.

 

[Crixus]

I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed. You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.

I then specifically searched for the IPCC version. Imagine my surprise when 'denier' sites were the major places of discussion.

How weak is their case if they are effectively hiding it? For the record, I believe in the GHE in principle as a very important part of atmospheric radiative physics. I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.

What is your reference site for the GHE? Or do you just know it?

I'll post up a few links later if no one cares to post theirs.

That it’s largely bullshit.

 

[toobfreak]

Any material heated is absorbed energy in the form of greater vibrational energy in the electron cloud, triatomic or otherwise.

The vibration classically is more like a tuning fork. It is not the electron cloud that has the vibration. The nuclei are vibrating.

True. The atom as a whole is vibrating in the sense of a classical particle, the nucleus being the lion's share, but the immediate effect is that there are only so many ways an atom can store more energy. Eventually it will cause electrons to rise to higher energy states or leave the atom altogether as they are really the only part of the atom moving capable of changing energy states.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You think that was lengthy? I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy. I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.

It was totally irrelevant and for this thread lengthy.


.

Who wrote this, Toobfreak replied to?

"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."

It was very relevant since H-R Diagram classification is connected to distance, wavelength and energy outflow of stars.

You are stumbling all over the place now.

 

[toobfreak]

You think that was lengthy? I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy. I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.

It was totally irrelevant and for this thread lengthy.
.

No it wasn't. It makes for more thorough and interesting reading by fleshing out the topic. And the topic was stellar temperature which the H-R charts. I've written four textbooks on science BTW, have you written any? Everything in my post was what I wanted to say, part to make a point, part to qualify my statements. Many people here talk but I seem to be one of the few willing to actually qualify himself. No one made you read it.

 

[toobfreak]

You think that was lengthy? I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy. I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.

It was totally irrelevant and for this thread lengthy.


.

Who wrote this, Toobfreak replied to?

"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."

It was very relevant since H-R Diagram classification is connected to distance, wavelength and energy outflow of stars.

You are stumbling all over the place now.

IanC the OP wrote the part in bold. Is it any wonder why my head is splitting open?

 

[Sunsettommy]

You think that was lengthy? I barely touched upon the H-R diagram and its relation to stellar spectroscopy. I guess you never met anyone who writes for a living.

It was totally irrelevant and for this thread lengthy.


.

Who wrote this, Toobfreak replied to?

"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."

It was very relevant since H-R Diagram classification is connected to distance, wavelength and energy outflow of stars.

You are stumbling all over the place now.

IanC the OP wrote the part in bold. Is it any wonder why my head is splitting open?

Yeah, but raking them over the coals can be therapeutic too....., I do that with some of the warmists who regulary post embarrassing nonsense.

 

[Olde Europe]

Then what is the problem? I said the atmosphere converts solar energy to IR, I never said it converted ALL OF IT. I was trying to make a very brief and very concise statement which fairly described the relationship between the Earth-Sun which constituted the overall general concept of greenhouse warming, which is what the OP seemed to be asking for, not write a doctoral on the subject.

The problem is manifold. You misstated the GHE by raising the impression that all or most of the sun's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and converted by it into IR radiation. That's not the case, and whatever portion of sunlight the atmosphere absorbs, it's not part of the GHE. That was on top of describing it as a "closed system".

You are, with all due respect, not in a position to write a doctoral on the matter (none of us is). So, why not make this a place of cooperative learning, as opposed to defecating in each others' shoes and claiming victory?

_____________________________________

Oh, and SunsetTommy, don't stop reading where you find it convenient, okay?

"which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario)."

This incorrect since that specific energy flow LEFT the surface to be absorbed then radiated back down, thereby NO additional increase in warming happened. You can't create energy out of nothing.​

 

[Wuwei]

True. The atom as a whole is vibrating in the sense of a classical particle, the nucleus being the lion's share, but the immediate effect is that there are only so many ways an atom can store more energy. Eventually it will cause electrons to rise to higher energy states or leave the atom altogether as they are really the only part of the atom moving capable of changing energy states.

The plethora of atomic energy levels is not relevant to the GHE. (Neither is stellar astronomy.) The point is that at earth temperatures the vibration mode is the only one that is excited in GH molecules by the BB radiation from the earth.

.

 

[IanC]

To me the reason the GHE works is because the surface warms up to send more radiation through the Atmospheric Window which directly escapes to space because the atmospheric emissivity is close to zero for those bands.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here. Have you tried to say, "The reason why the GHE does not result in runaway heating is because the surface warms up to send more radiation through the Atmospheric Window." Is that it?

Nope. But I did garble my message somewhat.

There are two parts to this CO2 global warming problem.

The original GHE that stored energy in the atmosphere and warmed it but was at equilibrium for longer periods like a year.

Now we are trying to figure out the Enhanced GHE caused by adding more GHGs to the atmosphere. What do you think happens? Seriously, what happens and in what order?

Adding 'some' more CO2 doesn't immediately affect the surface. The surface is still producing the same amount of CO2 reactive radiation. Does it warm the near surface atmosphere? Maybe by an undetectable amount. Instead of all the 15 micron radiation being absorbed to extinction in the first 10 metres it now only takes 9.99 metres. But the atmosphere is being mixed by convection. Remember, the surface

Alright. Let's take a look at what crap is being spewed by this shithead. Another USMB shithead who questions and refutes everyone else's qualifications and education while in usual Tard fashion, refuses to give us the slightest detail of his own. Yet somehow we are supposed to take him seriously?

A variation on the logic fault 'appeal to authority'.

Thoughts and ideas stand on their own worth, not by the person speaking them.

I am not going to make any claims as to my edication because I am unwilling to prove it. Just that simple.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Then what is the problem? I said the atmosphere converts solar energy to IR, I never said it converted ALL OF IT. I was trying to make a very brief and very concise statement which fairly described the relationship between the Earth-Sun which constituted the overall general concept of greenhouse warming, which is what the OP seemed to be asking for, not write a doctoral on the subject.

The problem is manifold. You misstated the GHE by raising the impression that all or most of the sun's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and converted by it into IR radiation. That's not the case, and whatever portion of sunlight the atmosphere absorbs, it's not part of the GHE. That was on top of describing it as a "closed system".

You are, with all due respect, not in a position to write a doctoral on the matter (none of us is). So, why not make this a place of cooperative learning, as opposed to defecating in each others' shoes and claiming victory?

_____________________________________

Oh, and SunsetTommy, don't stop reading where you find it convenient, okay?

"which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario)."

This incorrect since that specific energy flow LEFT the surface to be absorbed then radiated back down, thereby NO additional increase in warming happened. You can't create energy out of nothing.​

Here is the ENTIRE sentence YOU wrote:

"Which is why we say, sunlight largely warms the surface, which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario)."

You clearly say this, "which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more..."

Stop playing word games fella, since you didn't say WHAT the comparison was in detail, so I ignored it.

My answer was correct which you didn't contest at all:

"This incorrect since that specific energy flow LEFT the surface to be absorbed then radiated back down, thereby NO additional increase in warming happened. You can't create energy out of nothing."

 

[toobfreak]

You misstated the GHE by raising the impression that all or most of the sun's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere

Never said anything close to that. Only an IDIOT would think or assume that the air absorbed all of the sun's energy! How could you get a suntan then? How would the surface warm? Sunlight would be cold! In fact, there would BE no sunlight! Earth would be dark. Ridiculous.

You are, with all due respect, not in a position to write a doctoral on the matter

Again, WHERE DID I EVER EVEN SUGGEST THAT? My background (as pertains here) is in general physics and material science, electricity, optics and electronics. I've stated that repeatedly. Far more than anyone else here has qualified. I've repeatedly stated that I'm NOT an expert on climate or climatology. Not even an enthusiast. Bores the snot out of me. My interest in climate is mainly historical and the only reason why I venture into these threads at all is because none of the climate change global warming theories, models or claims I ever see or read pass the Common Sense Test.

 

[Olde Europe]

Stop playing word games fella, since you didn't say WHAT the comparison was in detail, so I ignored it.

Is there something about "compared to a non-GHG scenario" that is difficult to understand? Really?

 

[IanC]

By highly ordered I mean that it is collimated. The reason why you can focus sunlight with a magnifying glass. In nearly a lifetime of study of light, optics, stars, etc., I've never heard sunlight referred to as being "collimated" -------- until NOW. "Highly ordered." A totally vague description which could mean anything. Is sunlight collimated? No.

You dont like my descriptive words? Hahahahaha. So what?

Solar insolation reaches the Earth in a highly ordered state, collimated.

That is why solar panels are 'aimed' at the Sun. That is why plant leafs 'follow' the Sun across the sky.

An interesting thought. Could you go up close to the Sun and magnify the light so that it was more intense than the surface? The answer is suprisingly simple.


Edit- TF said "Collimated Sunlight and see what you get. Conclusion: BUSTED." What it actually means is that my thoughts and words are my own.

 

[Olde Europe]

Now we are trying to figure out the Enhanced GHE caused by adding more GHGs to the atmosphere. What do you think happens? Seriously, what happens and in what order?

Adding 'some' more CO2 doesn't immediately affect the surface. The surface is still producing the same amount of CO2 reactive radiation. Does it warm the near surface atmosphere? Maybe by an undetectable amount. Instead of all the 15 micron radiation being absorbed to extinction in the first 10 metres it now only takes 9.99 metres. But the atmosphere is being mixed by convection.

What happens is, as you said, the reduction in the mean free path of photons.

Say, originally within 2 meters 50% of IR radiation is caught.

Add more CO₂ - reduce the mean free path to 1.95 meters. That means that near surface atmosphere becomes proportionally hotter, and back radiation rises accordingly.

Yes, convection matters, but in both scenarios. As more heat is transported upward by it, higher levels of the atmosphere also become warmer, also resulting in higher back radiation compared to the original scenario.

Remember also we're not adding a little bit of CO₂ but are on the way to a 50% increase compared to pre-industrial times.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Stop playing word games fella, since you didn't say WHAT the comparison was in detail, so I ignored it.

Is there something about "compared to a non-GHG scenario" that is difficult to understand? Really?

You can't be that stupid, since you provide ZERO information about what that non-GHG scenario is in the first place, which is WHY I ignored it.

I quote you:

" (compared to a non-GHG scenario)" which is never explained at all in your entire post:

Here is all of the words of YOUR post:

"It may surprise you to learn that, but everyone posting on here (as far as I can see them) knows that.

Those 18% compare to the 77% of sunlight warming the surface PLUS another roughly 100% of back radiation doing the same, how?

Which is why we say, sunlight largely warms the surface, which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more (compared to a non-GHG scenario). That doesn't mean the sun doesn't warm the atmosphere directly, just that it's a small part of the overall energy flux."

No detail on what that non-GHG scenario consist of is found.

This statement is wrong and YOU know it since you have yet to make a cogent reply to it.

"which radiates infrared, which in turn warms up GHGs, which radiates back to warm the surface more..."

 

[Olde Europe]

Again, WHERE DID I EVER EVEN SUGGEST THAT?

"which is what the OP seemed to be asking for, not write a doctoral on the subject." You then went on to claim you've determined that the climate models you see melt away under the scrutiny you apply to them. That isn't just a "doctoral", that would be Nobel Prize-worthy.

Do you realize how often you are asking, "Where did I write / suggest that?" Isn't that a hassle? Why not check your verbiage before you unleash it, so that others have less of an opportunity to rub your nose in it? Wouldn't that be smart?