What is the Greenhouse Effect?

[SSDD]

It all says that you're as stupid as stupid can be. Go back to the thread where you linked to that article and look at what I quoted from its abstract that clearly shows the authors conclusion was that the difference would be reduced radiation to space and higher future temperatures. See if the light comes on for you then.

Yeah, I read it...and saw the author's error immediately. He assumed that low emissivity in the far IR wavelengths would equal warming....because he failed to consider, or just didn't know that low emissivity must be coupled with low absorptivity. The author assumed, as is the case with all climate science that even though emissivity was low in the far IR that absorptivity must still be 100%...that is the sort of stupidity that is rampant in climate science...assumption after assumption. Lowered emissivity only equals warming if absorptivity doesn't change...alas, that isn't the case.

If 70% of the earths surface is a very poor absorber of the peak wavelengths of CO2, what does that do to the AGW hypothesis...and the greenhouse hypothesis for that matter?

 

[Crick]

You saw the error in the peer reviewed, PhD study that YOU posted up here...

Man, you need psychiatric help.

 

[SSDD]

You saw the error in the peer reviewed, PhD study that YOU posted up here...

Man, you need psychiatric help.

Yep...saw it. You think a PhD makes one infallable? Do you deny that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all eavelengths

 

[Crick]

I don't deny Kirchoff's law but it's quite obvious you don't understand it and you don't understand what the study you posted here actually shows.

Without the slightest exaggeration or hyperbole, your understanding of physics couldn't be worse if you tried.

 

[Crick]

Let's start here:

From our good friends at Wikipedia:

In thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium.

Note two terms in this statement: "wavelength-specific radiative emission" and "thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium" You keep saying "at all wavelengths" and you ignore the point that the ocean is almost nowhere at thermal or radiative exchange equilibrium.

The point of the study you posted was that the ocean was not emitting as much energy as many GCMs assumed. He was not attempting to state that the ocean was colder than scientists believe it to be but that it, and the rest of the world as a result, was going to get warmer faster than the GCM were projecting.

The idea that scientists studying the effect of radiation incident on the ocean's surface are ignorant of Kirchoff's law of thermal radiation is akin to wondering if the carpenter who just built your house knows how to use a hammer. So, no, you did not catch anyone making such a mistake. Your understanding of every variety of physics you have touched on so far has been so far below simply wanting as to make you exceptional in that regard. I hear everyone is good at something. You seem to be exceptional at profoundly misunderstanding physics. A stand-up comic could make a good routine just reading some of your comments out loud. But I digress. Your "epic fail" turned out, indeed, to be another of your epic fails.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You saw the error in the peer reviewed, PhD study that YOU posted up here...

Man, you need psychiatric help.

Flat Earthers also had a rigorous peer review process nearly identical to the AGWCult process

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

You saw the error in the peer reviewed, PhD study that YOU posted up here...

Man, you need psychiatric help.

Flat Earthers also had a rigorous peer review process nearly identical to the AGWCult process

What Flat Earthers would that be Frank?

And what property of CO2 does the chart I posted show, that, for some reason, you don't want to talk about?[

 

[IanC]

SSDD has raised a very legitimate point here. If the low measurements in far IR are true then the CO2 effect over water is minimal. Is that what the current models espouse?

 

[IanC]

Let's start here:

From our good friends at Wikipedia:

In thermodynamics, Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation refers to wavelength-specific radiative emission and absorption by a material body in thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium.

Note two terms in this statement: "wavelength-specific radiative emission" and "thermodynamic equilibrium, including radiative exchange equilibrium" You keep saying "at all wavelengths" and you ignore the point that the ocean is almost nowhere at thermal or radiative exchange equilibrium.

The point of the study you posted was that the ocean was not emitting as much energy as many GCMs assumed. He was not attempting to state that the ocean was colder than scientists believe it to be but that it, and the rest of the world as a result, was going to get warmer faster than the GCM were projecting.

The idea that scientists studying the effect of radiation incident on the ocean's surface are ignorant of Kirchoff's law of thermal radiation is akin to wondering if the carpenter who just built your house knows how to use a hammer. So, no, you did not catch anyone making such a mistake. Your understanding of every variety of physics you have touched on so far has been so far below simply wanting as to make you exceptional in that regard. I hear everyone is good at something. You seem to be exceptional at profoundly misunderstanding physics. A stand-up comic could make a good routine just reading some of your comments out loud. But I digress. Your "epic fail" turned out, indeed, to be another of your epic fails.

If this study is true then it is an own goal of truly epic proportions.

 

[Crick]

What is an "own goal"?

 

[IanC]

What is an "own goal"?

when you accidentally score on your own team.

this paper makes a small point in the Arctic but when carried over to the rest of the oceans of the world, the result is a mockery of the CO2 effect. if sea water doesnt emit or absorb appreciable amounts of 15 micron (CO2's strong point) infrared then there is no CO2 effect for more than two thirds of the planet.

 

[Crick]

Did it occur to you that the ocean absorbs radiation from the visible band and absorbs heat from the atmosphere via conduction and that Kirchoff's Law only applies in cases of thermal and radiative equilibrium which exist virtually no where on the ocean's surface?

 

[SSDD]

Did it occur to you that the ocean absorbs radiation from the visible band and absorbs heat from the atmosphere via conduction and that Kirchoff's Law only applies in cases of thermal and radiative equilibrium which exist virtually no where on the ocean's surface?

So now radiation from CO2 is not important?...after all this time of telling us how CO2 is the control knob...now it isn't important? That's what us skeptics have been saying for some time now....And of course the ocean absorbs from the visible band..does the term "its the sun stupid" ring a bell?...as to absorbing via conduction?...sorry, energy doesn't conduct from cool to warm any more than it radiates..I guess you are going to start promoting back conduction and back convection now?...good luck with that...and you won't be able to provide any observed, measured instances of that either.

 

[IanC]

Did it occur to you that the ocean absorbs radiation from the visible band and absorbs heat from the atmosphere via conduction and that Kirchoff's Law only applies in cases of thermal and radiative equilibrium which exist virtually no where on the ocean's surface?

I think if you filled a kiddie pool with tap water and put an open sided tent over it, you would be waiting a loooooong time for it to warm up. and even then most of the heat would come from the ground, not the air.

 

[Roadrunner]

Carl Brehmer asks a damned fine question when he asks what is the greenhouse effect.

Is it a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?
Is it an increase in downwelling IR radiation from the atmosphere?
Is it an increase in the R-value of the atmosphere, i.e., greenhouse gases act like insulation?
Is it a decrease in upper atmospheric temperatures which forces an increase in lower atmospheric temperatures?
Is it an increase in the atmosphere's temperature lapse rate?
Is it a warming of the entire atmosphere while the temperature lapse rate remains unchanged?
Is it simply the difference between the Earth's "effective radiating temperature" and surface level air temperatures?
Is it when greenhouse gases force heat to move back towards the Earth's surface against the temperature gradient?
Is it simply when greenhouse gases slow the rate at which the surface cools?
Is it when greenhouse gases cause the outgoing longwave radiation to be emitted from progressively higher and higher altitudes?
Is it when greenhouse gases essentially turn the many mile thick, fluid, compressible, gaseous atmosphere into a solid piece of glass?
Does it only exist at night like John Tyndall said?
Is it "when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere [and] it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and
retarding the escape of reflected heat." Mass vs EPA 2007 (This is this definition that got carbon dioxide classified as a "pollutant".)
Is it the effect without which the surface of the Earth would be the same temperature as if there were no atmosphere at all?
Is it the effect without which the surface of the Earth would be the same temperature as Mars?
Is it the effect that is assumed to have caused the Earth to come out of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800's simply because carbon dioxide levels
have increased since then as well?
Is it the effect that threatens to "runaway" causing the oceans to boil, convert to steam and kill everything?

Or:

Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to melt all of the glaciers if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to decrease crop yields if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase desertification if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to decrease the supply of fresh water if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase flooding if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase coastal erosion if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase heat waves if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase the intensity of cyclones if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to raise the sea level by more than 20 feet if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase heavy precipitation if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase the intensity and frequency of war if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to kill the world's coral reefs if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause the ecosystem to collapse if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause the global economy to collapse if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more droughts if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more rain if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more storms if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase death by disease if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to eliminate snowfall if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to kill almost everything on Earth if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?

Or:

Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a global carbon tax?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a draconian global energy policy?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten Western nations into willingly submitting to deindustrialization?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to prevent third-world economic development?
Is it a boogyman that is being used by "renewable energy" companies to fleece the government of billions of dollars in subsidies?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a restructuring of the global political order?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to population reduction?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a global system under which every
human being and every resource is inventoried and controlled by a central global authority?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting a massive wealth redistribution scheme?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to global fascism?

Or:

Is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) which is presumably being caused by the greenhouse effect a moral yardstick?
If you believe in CAGW are you a moral person?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you an immoral person?
If you believe in CAGW do you want to protect the environment?
If you don't believe in CAGW do you want to destroy the environment?
If you believe in CAGW will Gaia love you?
If you don't believe in CAGW will Gaia show you her wrath?
If you believe in CAGW are you a good person?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you a bad person?
If you believe in CAGW are you a selfless person who only wants to serve humanity?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you a selfish person who only wants to satisfy your own needs?
If you believe in CAGW are your motives pure?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you on the payroll of the greedy oil companies who are spreading disinformation?
If you believe in CAGW are you one who knows true science?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you one who denies true science?
If you believe in CAGW will you go to heaven when you die?
If you don't believe in CAGW will you go to hell when you die?

I'm just asking because I know what the "greenhouse effect" isn't. It isn't science, because scientific laws have a singular, succinct definition that is quantified by a singular succinct mathematical formula, they don't conflict with the other known laws of physics and they cannot be falsified by empirical observation. Beyond that, science does not have a political agenda nor does it make moral judgments.

Questions posed by Carl Brehmer.....any answers?

It is the warm, fuzzy blanket God threw over us so we could crawl out of the caves and get on with evolving, instead of huddling around freezing.

I wonder what the nuts want, a fuckin' Ice Age?

 

[Roadrunner]

What is the Greenhouse Effect?

Well it is two things depending on how lockstep nuts you are. The thing that Carter said was going to kill us by the year 2000. Or the thing that Al Gore in his desperate attempt at attention said was going to kill us a few years ago.

I am still so happy we didn't get the New Ice Age we heard about in the early 60's, when lakes in Louisiana were freezing over.

I'll take hot over cold any day.

 

[Crick]

So you've told us. Do you have anything else to add?

 

[mamooth]

The author assumed, as is the case with all climate science that even though emissivity was low in the far IR that absorptivity must still be 100%...that is the sort of stupidity that is rampant in climate science...assumption after assumption.

You're still an idiot, failing hard at all science across every discipline.

I explained, in the smallest possible words, how absorptivity has nothing to do with reflectivity. Water absorbs 100% of the far IR that falls on it, as confirmed by direct measurements. You're a kook moron for claiming that isn't true. But since your cult demands you act like a kook moron, you're going to proudly keep acting like a kook moron.

 

[SSDD]

The author assumed, as is the case with all climate science that even though emissivity was low in the far IR that absorptivity must still be 100%...that is the sort of stupidity that is rampant in climate science...assumption after assumption.

You're still an idiot, failing hard at all science across every discipline.

I explained, in the smallest possible words, how absorptivity has nothing to do with reflectivity. Water absorbs 100% of the far IR that falls on it, as confirmed by direct measurements. You're a kook moron for claiming that isn't true. But since your cult demands you act like a kook moron, you're going to proudly keep acting like a kook moron.

Tell me hairball...of what value is it for radiation to penetrate a substance if the substance can not absorb the radiation?...and you still have not shown anything that shows either sea water or reflectivity in the far IR wavelength....

 

[mamooth]

Tell me hairball...

I'll be addressing you only as "pissdrinker" from now on. Now, if you'd like civil treatment from me, you need to offer it. The ball is in your court, pissdrinker.

of what value is it for radiation to penetrate a substance if the substance can not absorb the radiation?

Pissdrinker, you're violating conservation of energy again. Where does the energy go after it penetrates? According to your loony Hockey Schtick cult pseudoscience, the IR and all the energy it carries penetrates into the ocean, and then simply vanishes without a trace.

...and you still have not shown anything that shows either sea water or reflectivity in the far IR wavelength....

I'll repost this here as well, pissdrinker, so you can run from it on two different threads.