What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[toobfreak]

Moron,

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?

In science, clear formulation of language is of paramount importance therefore you are not a scientist. You just don't pick descriptors out of the air.

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

Still horseshit unless you can link us to a credible scientific article that STATES THAT. Sorry, you don't get tio make up shit.

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

WRONG, Commander Proton. All that shows is that sunlight is DIRECTIONAL. The efficiency of a solar photovoltaic cell drops off precipitously with the angle of incidence due to the substrate and surface reflection. Similar for plants that by facing the Sun, they better capture the maximum energy due to cellular leaf construction by reducing incidence to zero. BIG difference between directional light and "collimated" energy, son, you ought to go read a little on collimation. Again, if you can show me one science article that refers to sunlight as collimated, I'd be impressed. So far, all you've produced is a lot of talk out your ass.

delete nonsense

 

[jc456]

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?

when you got nothing, to argue with, too fking funny. Ian has no clue what he's asking for. he thinks gases warms the planet with radiation rather than conduction. hmmmmmm.

 

[toobfreak]

Do you realize how often you are asking, "Where did I write / suggest that?" Isn't that a hassle?

Soooooo................ in other words, OE, I NEVER SAID IT and you are putting words in people's mouths they never said because you don't read well and infer shit then put it on THEM to explain. Otherwise you'd copy and link us to where I actually SAID any of the shit you keep trying to divert to. It's a far bigger hassle to have someone argue against something you never even said, refuse to show where you ever said it, put the onus on YOU to prove you never said it, then say they can't be bothered to prove their own claims! That is the words of an idiot.

If you can't stick to what people actually SAY and STATE, if you can't even provide proof to your own claims, then you're obviously in no position to debate anything here. Go take a pill and lay down.

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

There is no cogent reply to your failure to understand to what was simple English - other than to point out your failure to understand. A non-GHG scenario is, quite obviously, an earth without GreenHouse Gasses in the atmosphere. I didn't think that was in any way problematic.

 

[Olde Europe]

Do you realize how often you are asking, "Where did I write / suggest that?" Isn't that a hassle?

Soooooo................ in other words, OE, I NEVER SAID IT and you are putting words in people's mouths they never said because you don't read well and infer shit then put it on THEM to explain. Otherwise you'd copy and link us to where I actually SAID any of the shit you keep trying to divert to. It's a far bigger hassle to have someone argue against something you never even said, refuse to show where you ever said it, put the onus on YOU to prove you never said it, then say they can't be bothered to prove their own claims! That is the words of an idiot.

If you can't stick to what people actually SAY and STATE, if you can't even provide proof to your own claims, then you're obviously in no position to debate anything here. Go take a pill and lay down.

Yeah, you went all haughty and implied you could write a "doctoral", and you could competently judge the validity of climate models, and now you are fiercely back-pedaling. That's fine. Have at it, Freak.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

There is no cogent reply to your failure to what is simple English - other than to point out your failure to understand. A non-GHG scenario is, quite obviously, an earth without GreenHouse Gasses in the atmosphere. I didn't think that was in any way problematic.

Sigh,

I am aware of that, what YOU can't figure out is that you repeatedly post ZERO details of the non-GHG scenario, you called it a SCENARIO after all...…………..., so where are the numbers?

You are still wrong anyway since the GHG part of your statement is absurd:

"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..."

My reply is still correct:

"This is incorrect since that specific energy flow first LEFT the surface to be absorbed again then radiated back down, thereby NO additional increase in warming happened."

You can stop now since you have NEVER countered me at all.

 

[IanC]

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. "High energy wavelength," a clumsy terminology. High energy refers to short wavelengths, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. Wavelength is normally referred to by it's length not by its energy, which here is totally open to asking what constitutes "high energy" in IanC's mind? For all intents and purposes, I can only assume he was intending to refer to blue light and UV light, the SHORTER end of the Sun's primary spectrum. As for the bit about judging stellar temperature, it is not done by the "proportions of the radiation," producing higher energy," etc., it is done by simple spectral analysis of the star's color spectrum in what is referred to as its spectral and luminosity classification, according to Hertzsprung-Russel

You don't like my terminology? So what.

I say many things here in words that are more likely to be understood. When it comes to EMR, high energy and short wavelength are opposite sides of the same coin. Perhaps you would rather me use wavenumbers instead of microns. Hahahahaha.

Here are the curves for three different temperatures. The range is very similar for all three. The amounts per wavelength vary considerably.

Why are you acting like my answers and explanations make no sense? Jealous because you can't do the same?

 

[toobfreak]

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?

Wow. Total black and white disjunctive reasoning. What has not intending to write a detailed dissertation on something, clearly never my initial intention have to do with finding climate theory failing to meet the common sense test as has been repeatedly shown here a hundred times? In fact, only a month or two ago, I showed where a top study indicated the Earth has endured something like 1300X more GHG as all output since mankind industrialized! Never mind. Rhetorical question to an idiot. I see now why these threads always fall down into pointless ad hominem bickering, it is because they get hijacked by idiots like you who invariably make it about the individual rather than the topic, all the while an OP and others who've made dozens of indefensible statements of technical inaccuracy as pointed out. I refuse to be sucked into another pointless shit-throwing contest again when clearly, neither the OP, you or anyone else here has shown ANY evidence to convince me we need to go back into the Dark Ages to save the planet. Good Lord, now they are claiming the sea will rise 6 feet. Anything to sell that carbon crap nonsense. Good night.

 

[toobfreak]

Yeah, you went all haughty and implied you could write a "doctoral",

You're an idiot. To stupid to waste time on.. NO WHERE did I ever imply I could write a doctoral, especially considering I stated several times I'm not even an enthusiast much less expert in the field! Only a drooling moron would infer from any of that I intended or could write a doctoral on a subject I don't even care about. The entire climate thing is a fraud. It was shown so years ago when all those emails were exposed in Europe showing where a bunch of climate mongers were all fudging the data to make it come out saying what they wanted. And if an idiot like you is representative of their ilk, they will lose the battle.

 

[Wuwei]

It can be applied to ANY atom that absorbs energy, as shown here:

Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons

"The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the valence shell are valence electrons. Valence electrons are the highest energy electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive. While inner electrons (those not in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds. For this reason, elements with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way. The Periodic Table was designed with this feature in mind. Each element has a number of valence electrons equal to its group number on the Periodic Table."

Yes, elementary but irrelevant. As I said several times already. Those higher energy transitions in atoms or molecules are not involved in the GHE.

.

 

[Wuwei]

The entire climate thing is a fraud.

Entire climate thing? Are you thinking the physical basis of the GHE is fraudulent? If so, can you be more specific?

.

 

[IanC]

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. Eeya. I'll skip over the reference to "diffuse longwave" because again, it is so vague a term as to again sound like empty jargon. I can only assume he was trying to say scattered IR light. Generally, all IR is scattered. "Atmospheric Window," another jargon phrase sounding like a "tech-speak" term hoping to impress presumed to be an attempt to refer to that percentage of energy re-radiated back out into space.

The atmospheric window is 8 microns to 14 microns. With the exception of the ozone notch all wavelengths escape directly from the surface, with no interaction to the atmosphere.

The wavelengths that interact with GHGs come out of the atmosphere at higher (and colder) altitudes. The GHG wavelengths are absorbed and emitted continuously during the migration upwards. That is why I called them diffuse, they are moving in all directions.

Why do I have to explain all this simple stuff to you? You assured us that you were a trained physicist.

 

[toobfreak]

Why do I have to explain all this simple stuff to you? You assured us that you were a trained physicist.

I've only asked you to explain one thing to me clown, SHOW ME A LINK to a scientific article that sites sunlight as collimated light. You haven't. As to the rest, you've not shown you are trained in anything but dog catcher, so I listen to nothing you say. Any butt munch can produce a chart of wavy lines and the words "greenhouse effect." OF COURSE there is a greenhouse effect you Idiot! Without it, Earth would be as cold as the North Pole. Wow.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It can be applied to ANY atom that absorbs energy, as shown here:

Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons

"The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the valence shell are valence electrons. Valence electrons are the highest energy electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive. While inner electrons (those not in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds. For this reason, elements with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way. The Periodic Table was designed with this feature in mind. Each element has a number of valence electrons equal to its group number on the Periodic Table."

Yes, elementary but irrelevant. As I said several times already. Those higher energy transitions in atoms or molecules are not involved in the GHE.

.

You are making a fool of yourself since IN the link shows that ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it. It is clear you didn't read the link, it would have saved you here.

Here is one for Carbon:

1. Electrons always fill orbitals of lower energy first. 1s is filled before 2s, and 2s before 2p.
2. The Pauli Exclusion Principle states no two electrons within a particular atom can have identical quantum numbers. In function, this principle means that if two electrons occupy the same orbital, they must have opposite spin.
3. Hund's Rule states that when an electron joins an atom and has to choose between two or more orbitals of the same energy, the electron will prefer to enter an empty orbital rather than one already occupied. As more electrons are added to the atom, these electrons tend to half-fill orbitals of the same energy before pairing with existing electrons to fill orbitals.

Figure %: The ground state electron configuration of carbon, which has a total of six electrons. The configuration is determined by applying the rules of the Aufbau Principle.

GHG all have Valence electrons in them, stop fighting the evidence!

 

[toobfreak]

You assured us that you were a trained physicist.

You know, it's funny. I run an astronomy forum FULL of professionals, from retired cops to engineers, technicians, doctors to research scientists. When the topic comes up what any one of us does for a living, no one ever questions their education or work. It's self evident in talking to them! People of good standing don't go around expecting others to be making up such stuff.

If you're sitting in a waiting room and you overhear someone talking about their Lexus and you happen to own one too, you might say: "How do you like it?" or "Which model did you get?" Not: "Oh I think you're just making it up."

You're failure to understand physics is a BROAD discipline covering nearly the full gamut of scientific fields and that every physicist specializes in certain areas, especially the ONES I'VE LISTED, your utter refusal to state any education, background, work or training you have or have done, and the way it bothers you so much I told you mine, like you FREEKING RESENT IT, ENVY IT, like it was some high, unobtainable goal as if I claimed to be a billionaire, only goes to prove once again that you're an utter sham.

If you had any kind of real science degree and actually worked in a related science field where you KNEW what you were talking about with climatology, you wouldn't think anything of another person stating their background or field! Especially if it might be along similar lines.

You said if I showed my diplomas you'd consider it-- -- -- -- Horseshit. You have no diplomas to show and you never were considering it, otherwise you would have never thrown that condition in as a backdoor excuse to later use as a way of getting out of it. You said you never reveal any personal info, well, saying you work in, say, forestry, isn't revealing any "personal" info; such statements are merely a ruse at not saying anything about themselves that can be later attacked or criticized by people like you, much less have to be remembered later on so that you don't forget and contradict yourself. Honest people don't need to worry about that because the truth is the truth and so you don't ever have to go back and remember a thing, not to mention I've discussed my background in at least a dozen threads I'd bet. Go back and find a contradiction.

You're a LIAR, a SHAM and a FRAUD. That is why you hide behind a veil of anonymity while attacking others who do not. You are just one more ass-biscuit armchair nothing disgruntled wannabe that seems to gravitate to this forum claiming and promising the world while never actually delivering anything of substance.

 

[toobfreak]

You are making a fool of yourself since IN the link shows that ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it.

It's pretty hard Tommy to be a normal elemental atom and NOT have a valence electron, isn't it? Otherwise that would kinda make you into an ion or maybe an alpha particle, etc.

I find it funny that all the climate believers, all they ever produce is diagrams from one of their pet climate studies which are in question to begin with, while all the climate deniers always present hard facts and documented science which the believers can never answer!

 

[Wuwei]

ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it. It is clear you didn't read the link, it would have saved you here. .... etc...
GHG all have Valence electrons in them, stop fighting the evidence!.

This was my reply:
Yes, elementary but irrelevant. As I said several times already. Those higher energy transitions in atoms or molecules are not involved in the GHE.

I already said it is irrelevant to the GHE. You don't have to keep posting elementary Quantum Mechanics 101. There is no point in it. Read my reply again.


.

 

[Wuwei]

You are making a fool of yourself since IN the link shows that ALL atoms of the Periodic Table have at least one Valence Electron in it.

It's pretty hard Tommy to be a normal elemental atom and NOT have a valence electron, isn't it? Otherwise that would kinda make you into an ion or maybe an alpha particle, etc.

I find it funny that all the climate believers, all they ever produce is diagrams from one of their pet climate studies which are in question to begin with, while all the climate deniers always present hard facts and documented science which the believers can never answer!

My gosh, you are really creating a strawman. Maybe you can tell me why you or tommy thinks the atomic energy levels and valance electrons are an important part of the GHE. Of course it is fundamental in the chemistry of molecules, but my topic was about the vibration modes of those molecules. We are one step beyond the atomic physics.

Ions? That doesn't happen with the micron level radiation from the earth. Yes yes, I know lightning creates ions, but you guys are off in a tangent.


.

 

[IanC]

Why do I have to explain all this simple stuff to you? You assured us that you were a trained physicist.

I've only asked you to explain one thing to me clown, SHOW ME A LINK to a scientific article that sites sunlight as collimated light. You haven't. As to the rest, you've not shown you are trained in anything but dog catcher, so I listen to nothing you say. Any butt munch can produce a chart of wavy lines and the words "greenhouse effect." OF COURSE there is a greenhouse effect you Idiot! Without it, Earth would be as cold as the North Pole. Wow.

Why did you link to my post refuting your understanding of the Atmospheric Window, when all you are doing is whinging about collimation again?

Collimated light
light whose rays are parallel, and therefore will spread minimally as it propagates

I think that is a reasonable description of sunlight arriving at the Earth. If you want to use a different word then you are free to do so.

 

[IanC]

You're a LIAR, a SHAM and a FRAUD. That is why you hide behind a veil of anonymity while attacking others who do not. You are just one more ass-biscuit armchair nothing disgruntled wannabe that seems to gravitate to this forum claiming and promising the world while never actually delivering anything of substance.

A LIAR, a SHAM, and a FRAUD!

Hahahahaha. And your proof is that I wont make any claims about my education or career before I retired.

I think you should visit a mental healthcare professional for assessment.