What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[cnm]

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.

The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached. What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy. It is at that point the system stops heating.

 

[cnm]

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.

I cannot make sense of that. Is it phrased correctly?

 

[cnm]

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.

My interpretation of your statement is that you said exactly that. "the MECHANISM" and "It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation" is pretty unequivocal.

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.

 

[cnm]

Again, if you [IanC] 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.

I was taught in secondary school that sunlight is regarded as effectively parallel. Were you not? After all, parallel is what collimated means.

edit...Oh, done I see.

 

[Wuwei]

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!

OK I will play your little game. A 15 micron photon has an energy of 0.0827 eV. However the energy in a covalent bond 20 to 100 times that. So the 15 micron CO2 emission can't possibly affect the covalent bond.

So now maybe you can tell me why you think valence is so important in the GWE.


.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.


.

It IS relevant since CO2, DUE to the 16 Valence Electrons set up can absorb IR photons.

"Bonding in Carbon Dioxide
From the Lewis structure we can see that the carbon in CO2 must make 2 sigma bonds and it has no lone pairs. This atom will be 2sp hybridized with remaining 2px and 2py atomic orbitals."

The 16 valence electrons fill through the 2 pi bonding orbitals so there is a full double bond between carbon and each oxygen.


from Wikipedia:

"Similar to an electron in an inner shell, a valence electron has the ability to absorb or release energy in the form of a photon. An energy gain can trigger an electron to move (jump) to an outer shell; this is known as atomic excitation. Or the electron can even break free from its associated atom's valence shell; this is ionization to form a positive ion. When an electron loses energy (thereby causing a photon to be emitted), then it can move to an inner shell which is not fully occupied."

bolding and size increase mine

IR is known as a PHOTON

Animation from NCAR shows this simple vibrational process:

That's ONE Carbon atom in the middle and TWO Oxygen atoms on the outside.

Like I said before they are indeed involved.

You can stop ignoring the hard evidence.

 

[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.

I cannot make sense of that. Is it phrased correctly?

It has to be read in context. I disagreed with the statement on how the atmosphere warmed.

IR output is reduced when CO2 concentration is increased and the emission height moves upwards into a colder part of the atmosphere.

The surface/atmosphere system stores the energy that did not escape, leading to a system wide temperature increase.

Increased surface temperature produces more radiation that escapes through the AW and equilibrium is restored.

Remember, every increase in any GHG will push the emission height higher into a colder region of the atmosphere. This reduces IR output to space. It must be compensated for in IR bands that bypass the atmosphere and GHGs.

The other important thing to remember is that there is no 'new' energy being created. The energy is exactly the same amount that was not released to space.

 

[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.

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.

Still waiting for you to show me ONE EXAMPLE of that term "collimated light" being used in science literature. You don't just pull the word "collimated" out of thin air! If you can't then it invalidates everything else you claim as well as being made up!

FRAUD!

CHARLATAN!

What makes your opinions on climate change anymore valid than a shoe salesman's?

 

[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.

My interpretation of your statement is that you said exactly that. "the MECHANISM" and "It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation" is pretty unequivocal.

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 interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.

 

[toobfreak]

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!

OK I will play your little game. A 15 micron photon has an energy of 0.0827 eV. However the energy in a covalent bond 20 to 100 times that. So the 15 micron CO2 emission can't possibly affect the covalent bond.

So now maybe you can tell me why you think valence is so important in the GWE.


.

Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.

 

[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.

Still waiting for you to show me ONE EXAMPLE of that term "collimated light" being used in science literature. You don't just pull the word "collimated" out of thin air! If you can't then it invalidates everything else you claim as well as being made up!

FRAUD!

CHARLATAN!

What makes your opinions on climate change anymore valid than a shoe salesman's?

Wow!!!!

You really are unhinged!

How often have you had Restraining Orders taken out on you?

 

[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.

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.

Still waiting for you to show me ONE EXAMPLE of that term "collimated light" being used in science literature. You don't just pull the word "collimated" out of thin air! If you can't then it invalidates everything else you claim as well as being made up!

FRAUD!

CHARLATAN!

What makes your opinions on climate change anymore valid than a shoe salesman's?

Wow!!!!

You really are unhinged!

How often have you had Restraining Orders taken out on you?

So you have no documentation anywhere of the term "collimated light" ever being used by anyone anywhere and you just made it up. I thought so.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

Still waiting for you to show me ONE EXAMPLE of that term "collimated light" being used in science literature. You don't just pull the word "collimated" out of thin air! If you can't then it invalidates everything else you claim as well as being made up!

FRAUD!

CHARLATAN!

What makes your opinions on climate change anymore valid than a shoe salesman's?

Wow!!!!

You really are unhinged!

How often have you had Restraining Orders taken out on you?

So you have no documentation anywhere of the term "collimated light" ever being used by anyone anywhere and you just made it up. I thought so.

When I used to own a 25" F5 Obsession Telescope (Yes the Mirror was 25" across, 2" thick) I had to use a Collimating Laser unit, similar to a 2" Ocular in size, to line up the Large and small mirrors together, it was a spread pattern light to account for the edges and large mirror tilt, this way the image would be sharp and in focus with minor off axis errors and cometary star images to a minimum.

Otherwise never see the phrase collimating light/laser anywhere.

 

[cnm]

It has to be read in context.

To me 'those bands' appeared to be assigned to the Atmospheric Window, leading to confusion. Thanks for your elucidation.

 

[cnm]

My interpretation of you is that you are an unequivocal idiot. Always has been. Always will. Just one more unqualified voice in the dark. Your opinion means nothing.

Fair enough. I will take that assertion as seriously as 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.

 

[cnm]

So you [ianC] have no documentation anywhere of the term "collimated light" ever being used by anyone anywhere and you just made it up. I thought so.

Dude. Just be thankful he didn't use 'uni-directional'. You'd never have got over that one.

 

[SSDD]

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.

A blanket can't raise your temperature...and it doesn't do what it does by means of anything like a radiative greenhouse effect.

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

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.

Sorry guy...not my words...I just go along with the laws of physics...sorry if they throw a monkey wrench in your made up greenhouse hypothesis.

I am not going to go further.

Of course not...you do this every time...talk and talk and talk but when it becomes clear that you aren't going to be able to support your beliefs with anything like the actual laws of physics, you walk away. It is to be expected...a belief is a very hard thing to overcome...especially when you come to hold said belief in spite of reality.

 

[SSDD]

[

Simply put: The earth's atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight. That's why we don't live in permanent darkness on the surface, and we can catch a sunburn, too. The atmosphere is, however, largely opaque to the infrared radiation the earth's surface is emitting.

To part one, true...the atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight.

To part two, false...the atmosphere is largely transparent to infrared radiation as well. 95% of the atmosphere is composed of O2 and N2 which are effectively transparent to infrared radiation.

 

[SSDD]

The Enhanced GHE works by raising the emission height which means a lower temperature which in turn means less radiation produced to escape.

Which might actually mean something if radiation were the primary, or even a significant means of transporting energy through the troposphere...it is neither..it is barely a bit player...energy movement through the troposphere is completely dominated by conduction and convection.

 

[SSDD]

Look up Trenberth Diagram. for a more complete picture that I think is "sanctioned" by the IPCC. However some of the deniers here scoff at Trenberth.

The trenberth cartoon? HAAHAHHHAHHA SNORT HAAAHHAAHAAHAHAAHAH NNSNORT HHHA AHAAAHAHHHAHAHHA

Anyone who takes the trenberth cartoon seriously is a top shelf idiot...