No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[IanC]

The moon has no atmosphere but the same amount of solar input as the Earth. its surface is much colder when in darkness and much warmer when in the light but the average temperature is lower than the average temperature on earth. the dark parts quickly radiate away any energy retained by thermal inertia and are then warmed only by heat produced by fission in the core. the warm parts in the light radiate away energy at a tremendous rate because radiation emitted is proportional to the temperature (in Kelvin) to the fourth power.

the earth does have an atmosphere. sunlight hitting the surface not only warms the surface but passes some of that energy to the atmosphere by conduction. during daylight warming the air molecules not only warm (kinetic energy) but puff up (potential energy). during nighttime cooling energy stored as both kinetic and potential is released, but in all directions, so that some of the energy returns to the surface. this energy does not 'warm' the surface directly because the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore the net radiation energy transfer is always outward through the atmosphere and into space. to give a made up example if the earth surface was radiating 100w but getting 10w back from atmospheric radiation then the net loss would be 90w. the surface would still be cooling but at a slower rate.

next, add greenhouse gases. the surface radiation no longer directly escapes to space. while conduction is still taking place, part of surface radiation is absorbed into the atmosphere and is converted through molecular collisions into kinetic and potential energy. the atmosphere is now both warmer and higher. for example, if half of the surface radiation is captured by the atmosphere by GHGs, and half of that is returned to the surface, then the surface is getting back the 10w from conduction and radiation plus half of the 50w absorbed, 25w. the surface is losing 100w but getting back 10w and 25w for a net loss of only 65w.

obviously this lower rate of loss would affect the surface temperature. in the first case, atmosphere only, the solar input would collect at the surface until the temperature rose enough that the total surface radiation made up for the 10w imbalance of energy being released into space. in the GHG example the surface would warm even more to make up for the 35w deficit of outgoing radiation.

this is an absurdly simplified explanation. in real life we know that the energy received from the Sun must exactly match the outgoing energy leaving into space or there will be cooling or warming. we know how much Solar input the surface receives (less than 200w on average) and we know how warm the surface is (~15C, 400w). the only way we can close that energy budget is by back radiation returning to the surface from the atmosphere.

we also know, by measurement, that the type and amount of radiation released from the surface does not come out from the other side of the atmosphere. where did the energy go, if not into the total energy of the atmosphere?

I am supporting the Greenhouse Effect here. I do not support the warmer's version of feedbacks etc. But that is another story with its own complications. For now I just want people to think thing through and come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Greenhouse Effect. And while I dont agree with IPCC consensus projections for increased CO2, there must be a warming influence of undetermined quantity for increased GHGs.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, AGW is real and the Arctic Ice is melting, as is the permafrost. The alpine glaciers are rapidly retreating, the Greenland Ice Cap is melting at a faster rate than predicted. Where the Arctic Ice is today is where in 1981 it was predicted to be near the end of this century by the alarmists.

We shall see what kind of feedbacks we get, and shall be seeing that pretty quickly. People like you have been stating that the scientists are being too alarmist now for 36 years. And the 'alarmists', the credible ones like Dr. Hansen, have seen their predictions proven to be too conservative. Yes, I think that we shall see some damaging effects on our civilization within my lifetime. Already Swiss Re and Munich Re are saying that we are seeing them in the form of extreme weather events.

 

[waltky]

CO2 levels have reached a record high this year due to El Nino...

Greenhouse Gas Levels Breaking All Records
October 24, 2016 — The World Meteorological Organization reports the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere has reached a record high this year, driven in part by the powerful El Nino event, which started in 2015 and continued well into 2016.

According to WMO, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million for the first time in 2015 and surged to new records this year. WMO Secretary General, Petteri Taalas says this symbolic, but significant milestone bodes ill for the planet as these CO2 emissions will stay in the atmosphere for generations. “At the moment, we are not moving in the right direction. We are actually moving in the wrong direction and this warming potential of the planet has been growing," Taalas said.

Carbon dioxide results from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activity. Meteorologists say CO2 accounts for 65 percent of the warming effect on our climate. Two other greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide contribute about 17 percent and six percent respectively to the long-lived warming of earth’s climate.

Steam and smoke is seen over the coal burning power plant in Gelsenkirchen, Germany.​

Taalas tells VOA it is not possible to tackle climate change without tackling CO2 emissions because the lifetime of this greenhouse gas is very long. “There have been some scientific studies estimating that the return back to pre-industrial levels may take tens of thousands of years. And, therefore, it is really urgent that we start reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide and if we do not do so, then this problem will remain with us for thousands, even tens of thousands of years," Taalas said.

Taalas welcomes the Paris Climate agreement. But, he notes its impact may be limited as emissions reductions are voluntary and not legally binding. He says the world still has a chance to turn things around in the coming decades if it moves from political will to concrete action. He says negative trends will continue for several decades. But, he adds improvements in the climate will be seen by 2060 if nations start reducing their C02 emissions now.

Greenhouse Gas Levels Breaking All Records

 

[SSDD]

Wow ian...ever hear of circular thinking? Your hypothesis is put forward as proof of your hypothesis?...good one. And look who thanks you...congratulations.

 

[IanC]

Wow ian...ever hear of circular thinking? Your hypothesis is put forward as proof of your hypothesis?...good one. And look who thanks you...congratulations.

You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.

Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere.

I gave a simple version of what I think, you put up a simple version of how you think it happens. We're waiting. Again....

 

[SSDD]

You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.

Of course I have...the gravitothermal atmospheric effect explains it without the need for greenhouse gasses....in fact, the US standard atmosphere is right on the button with no need for greenhouse gasses... And I don't need to have a point by point explanation for the mechanism any more than I need a point by point explanation for the mechanism of gravity...what you have is a great deal of assumption, that doesn't mesh with observation..and relies entirely on untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical models.

Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere.

tell me ian, how is it that you believe in back radiation when it can't be measured at ambient temperature, even though you suppose that it is nearly double that which comes in from the sun?...do you need cooled instruments to measure energy coming in from the sun?...certainly not, because that is precisely what the second law predicts...energy moving from the warmer sun to the cooler earth...

I gave a simple version of what I think, you put up a simple version of how you think it happens. We're waiting. Again....

I gave it to you already....the gravitothermal atmospheric effect....look it up...you don't need to be a rocket scientist to find it...it isn't my fault that it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs..but it meshes just fine with every observation ever made...and as a bonus, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an entirely made up fudge factor.

I get it that it is frustrating to you...but it is what it is...and like it or not, observation, and reality support me...not you.

 

[IanC]

You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.

Of course I have...the gravitothermal atmospheric effect explains it without the need for greenhouse gasses....in fact, the US standard atmosphere is right on the button with no need for greenhouse gasses... And I don't need to have a point by point explanation for the mechanism any more than I need a point by point explanation for the mechanism of gravity...what you have is a great deal of assumption, that doesn't mesh with observation..and relies entirely on untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical models.

Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere.

tell me ian, how is it that you believe in back radiation when it can't be measured at ambient temperature, even though you suppose that it is nearly double that which comes in from the sun?...do you need cooled instruments to measure energy coming in from the sun?...certainly not, because that is precisely what the second law predicts...energy moving from the warmer sun to the cooler earth...

I gave a simple version of what I think, you put up a simple version of how you think it happens. We're waiting. Again....

I gave it to you already....the gravitothermal atmospheric effect....look it up...you don't need to be a rocket scientist to find it...it isn't my fault that it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs..but it meshes just fine with every observation ever made...and as a bonus, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an entirely made up fudge factor.

I get it that it is frustrating to you...but it is what it is...and like it or not, observation, and reality support me...not you.

So you duck the question yet again.

You are worse than even Crick or Old Rocks. At least they actually link up to some thousands of pages long document, or 2 hour long video before asking me to search for the needle in a haystack.

You just say it's somewhere out in the internet, that I could find it if only I tried hard enough.


Obviously you don't even understand your own opinion well enough to put it down in your own words. No short simplified version to point out the main idea, nothing.

I have put down in my own words how gravity is an integral part of energy storage, and how the potential/kinetic energy relationship affects temperature. You have not. You are like Joe Postma or Doug Cotton, notorious trolls who constantly repeat their 'sciencey' gibberish and refuse to answer or even acknowledge legitimate rebuttals. Your heroes at PSI, where you get not only your talking points but their style for evading unanswerable questions.

Until you actually say something that makes sense, and then defend it, I will continue to "'persecute' you for your illogical and self serving bullshit.

 

[jc456]

You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.

Of course I have...the gravitothermal atmospheric effect explains it without the need for greenhouse gasses....in fact, the US standard atmosphere is right on the button with no need for greenhouse gasses... And I don't need to have a point by point explanation for the mechanism any more than I need a point by point explanation for the mechanism of gravity...what you have is a great deal of assumption, that doesn't mesh with observation..and relies entirely on untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical models.

Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere.

tell me ian, how is it that you believe in back radiation when it can't be measured at ambient temperature, even though you suppose that it is nearly double that which comes in from the sun?...do you need cooled instruments to measure energy coming in from the sun?...certainly not, because that is precisely what the second law predicts...energy moving from the warmer sun to the cooler earth...

I gave a simple version of what I think, you put up a simple version of how you think it happens. We're waiting. Again....

I gave it to you already....the gravitothermal atmospheric effect....look it up...you don't need to be a rocket scientist to find it...it isn't my fault that it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs..but it meshes just fine with every observation ever made...and as a bonus, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an entirely made up fudge factor.

I get it that it is frustrating to you...but it is what it is...and like it or not, observation, and reality support me...not you.

So you duck the question yet again.

You are worse than even Crick or Old Rocks. At least they actually link up to some thousands of pages long document, or 2 hour long video before asking me to search for the needle in a haystack.

You just say it's somewhere out in the internet, that I could find it if only I tried hard enough.


Obviously you don't even understand your own opinion well enough to put it down in your own words. No short simplified version to point out the main idea, nothing.

I have put down in my own words how gravity is an integral part of energy storage, and how the potential/kinetic energy relationship affects temperature. You have not. You are like Joe Postma or Doug Cotton, notorious trolls who constantly repeat their 'sciencey' gibberish and refuse to answer or even acknowledge legitimate rebuttals. Your heroes at PSI, where you get not only your talking points but their style for evading unanswerable questions.

Until you actually say something that makes sense, and then defend it, I will continue to "'persecute' you for your illogical and self serving bullshit.

Ian, you just stated SSDD didn't answer your question. how do you figure? He gave you an answer. It's obvious you didn't like the answer you got. plain and simply. Did you look up gravitothermal atmospheric effect? if you didn't, then how do you figure it is an opinion? dude, you seem to be acting desperate. So again, you asked, "You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input" "Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere."

SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

And BTW, SSDD is correct, you believe a feedback from the atmosphere is as hot as the incoming sun rays. If that is so, prove it? You shouldn't have to cool a thermometer to take a reading. he is spot fking on with that comment. So again, you sir are in a position that I call lying. And SSDD deserves an apology.

 

[IanC]

hahahahaha.

You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.

Of course I have...the gravitothermal atmospheric effect explains it without the need for greenhouse gasses....in fact, the US standard atmosphere is right on the button with no need for greenhouse gasses... And I don't need to have a point by point explanation for the mechanism any more than I need a point by point explanation for the mechanism of gravity...what you have is a great deal of assumption, that doesn't mesh with observation..and relies entirely on untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical models.

Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere.

tell me ian, how is it that you believe in back radiation when it can't be measured at ambient temperature, even though you suppose that it is nearly double that which comes in from the sun?...do you need cooled instruments to measure energy coming in from the sun?...certainly not, because that is precisely what the second law predicts...energy moving from the warmer sun to the cooler earth...

I gave a simple version of what I think, you put up a simple version of how you think it happens. We're waiting. Again....

I gave it to you already....the gravitothermal atmospheric effect....look it up...you don't need to be a rocket scientist to find it...it isn't my fault that it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs..but it meshes just fine with every observation ever made...and as a bonus, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an entirely made up fudge factor.

I get it that it is frustrating to you...but it is what it is...and like it or not, observation, and reality support me...not you.

So you duck the question yet again.

You are worse than even Crick or Old Rocks. At least they actually link up to some thousands of pages long document, or 2 hour long video before asking me to search for the needle in a haystack.

You just say it's somewhere out in the internet, that I could find it if only I tried hard enough.


Obviously you don't even understand your own opinion well enough to put it down in your own words. No short simplified version to point out the main idea, nothing.

I have put down in my own words how gravity is an integral part of energy storage, and how the potential/kinetic energy relationship affects temperature. You have not. You are like Joe Postma or Doug Cotton, notorious trolls who constantly repeat their 'sciencey' gibberish and refuse to answer or even acknowledge legitimate rebuttals. Your heroes at PSI, where you get not only your talking points but their style for evading unanswerable questions.

Until you actually say something that makes sense, and then defend it, I will continue to "'persecute' you for your illogical and self serving bullshit.

Ian, you just stated SSDD didn't answer your question. how do you figure? He gave you an answer. It's obvious you didn't like the answer you got. plain and simply. Did you look up gravitothermal atmospheric effect? if you didn't, then how do you figure it is an opinion? dude, you seem to be acting desperate. So again, you asked, "You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input" "Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere."

SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

And BTW, SSDD is correct, you believe a feedback from the atmosphere is as hot as the incoming sun rays. If that is so, prove it? You shouldn't have to cool a thermometer to take a reading. he is spot fking on with that comment. So again, you sir are in a position that I call lying. And SSDD deserves an apology.

simple enough jc. put down the main points of "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". we shall see if it agrees with my past statements, or destroys the Greenhouse Effect. you do the work of explaining your position for a change. I am tired of having to explain both sides, just to prove my position is more solid. hop to it, chop,chop.

 

[jc456]

hahahahaha.

You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.

Of course I have...the gravitothermal atmospheric effect explains it without the need for greenhouse gasses....in fact, the US standard atmosphere is right on the button with no need for greenhouse gasses... And I don't need to have a point by point explanation for the mechanism any more than I need a point by point explanation for the mechanism of gravity...what you have is a great deal of assumption, that doesn't mesh with observation..and relies entirely on untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical models.

Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere.

tell me ian, how is it that you believe in back radiation when it can't be measured at ambient temperature, even though you suppose that it is nearly double that which comes in from the sun?...do you need cooled instruments to measure energy coming in from the sun?...certainly not, because that is precisely what the second law predicts...energy moving from the warmer sun to the cooler earth...

I gave a simple version of what I think, you put up a simple version of how you think it happens. We're waiting. Again....

I gave it to you already....the gravitothermal atmospheric effect....look it up...you don't need to be a rocket scientist to find it...it isn't my fault that it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs..but it meshes just fine with every observation ever made...and as a bonus, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an entirely made up fudge factor.

I get it that it is frustrating to you...but it is what it is...and like it or not, observation, and reality support me...not you.

So you duck the question yet again.

You are worse than even Crick or Old Rocks. At least they actually link up to some thousands of pages long document, or 2 hour long video before asking me to search for the needle in a haystack.

You just say it's somewhere out in the internet, that I could find it if only I tried hard enough.


Obviously you don't even understand your own opinion well enough to put it down in your own words. No short simplified version to point out the main idea, nothing.

I have put down in my own words how gravity is an integral part of energy storage, and how the potential/kinetic energy relationship affects temperature. You have not. You are like Joe Postma or Doug Cotton, notorious trolls who constantly repeat their 'sciencey' gibberish and refuse to answer or even acknowledge legitimate rebuttals. Your heroes at PSI, where you get not only your talking points but their style for evading unanswerable questions.

Until you actually say something that makes sense, and then defend it, I will continue to "'persecute' you for your illogical and self serving bullshit.

Ian, you just stated SSDD didn't answer your question. how do you figure? He gave you an answer. It's obvious you didn't like the answer you got. plain and simply. Did you look up gravitothermal atmospheric effect? if you didn't, then how do you figure it is an opinion? dude, you seem to be acting desperate. So again, you asked, "You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input" "Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere."

SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

And BTW, SSDD is correct, you believe a feedback from the atmosphere is as hot as the incoming sun rays. If that is so, prove it? You shouldn't have to cool a thermometer to take a reading. he is spot fking on with that comment. So again, you sir are in a position that I call lying. And SSDD deserves an apology.

simple enough jc. put down the main points of "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". we shall see if it agrees with my past statements, or destroys the Greenhouse Effect. you do the work of explaining your position for a change. I am tired of having to explain both sides, just to prove my position is more solid. hop to it, chop,chop.

The fact is you claimed SSDD didn't answer your question, and he did. That makes you a liar. you seem comfortable with that new title since you diverted the direction of the post.

Oh and btw, I have explained my position.

 

[IanC]

Earth's surface radiates about 400w , solar input is less than half of that. Where does the extra energy come from?

Simple question.

 

[IanC]

hahahahaha.

You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input.

Of course I have...the gravitothermal atmospheric effect explains it without the need for greenhouse gasses....in fact, the US standard atmosphere is right on the button with no need for greenhouse gasses... And I don't need to have a point by point explanation for the mechanism any more than I need a point by point explanation for the mechanism of gravity...what you have is a great deal of assumption, that doesn't mesh with observation..and relies entirely on untestable, unmeasurable, unobservable mathematical models.

Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere.

tell me ian, how is it that you believe in back radiation when it can't be measured at ambient temperature, even though you suppose that it is nearly double that which comes in from the sun?...do you need cooled instruments to measure energy coming in from the sun?...certainly not, because that is precisely what the second law predicts...energy moving from the warmer sun to the cooler earth...

I gave a simple version of what I think, you put up a simple version of how you think it happens. We're waiting. Again....

I gave it to you already....the gravitothermal atmospheric effect....look it up...you don't need to be a rocket scientist to find it...it isn't my fault that it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs..but it meshes just fine with every observation ever made...and as a bonus, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an entirely made up fudge factor.

I get it that it is frustrating to you...but it is what it is...and like it or not, observation, and reality support me...not you.

So you duck the question yet again.

You are worse than even Crick or Old Rocks. At least they actually link up to some thousands of pages long document, or 2 hour long video before asking me to search for the needle in a haystack.

You just say it's somewhere out in the internet, that I could find it if only I tried hard enough.


Obviously you don't even understand your own opinion well enough to put it down in your own words. No short simplified version to point out the main idea, nothing.

I have put down in my own words how gravity is an integral part of energy storage, and how the potential/kinetic energy relationship affects temperature. You have not. You are like Joe Postma or Doug Cotton, notorious trolls who constantly repeat their 'sciencey' gibberish and refuse to answer or even acknowledge legitimate rebuttals. Your heroes at PSI, where you get not only your talking points but their style for evading unanswerable questions.

Until you actually say something that makes sense, and then defend it, I will continue to "'persecute' you for your illogical and self serving bullshit.

Ian, you just stated SSDD didn't answer your question. how do you figure? He gave you an answer. It's obvious you didn't like the answer you got. plain and simply. Did you look up gravitothermal atmospheric effect? if you didn't, then how do you figure it is an opinion? dude, you seem to be acting desperate. So again, you asked, "You're the one who refuses to offer up an explanation as to how the surface is warm enough to radiate almost 400w while only receiving less than 200w from solar input" "Shut me up with your wisdom, tell us how that can happen without input back from the atmosphere."

SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

And BTW, SSDD is correct, you believe a feedback from the atmosphere is as hot as the incoming sun rays. If that is so, prove it? You shouldn't have to cool a thermometer to take a reading. he is spot fking on with that comment. So again, you sir are in a position that I call lying. And SSDD deserves an apology.

simple enough jc. put down the main points of "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". we shall see if it agrees with my past statements, or destroys the Greenhouse Effect. you do the work of explaining your position for a change. I am tired of having to explain both sides, just to prove my position is more solid. hop to it, chop,chop.

The fact is you claimed SSDD didn't answer your question, and he did. That makes you a liar. you seem comfortable with that new title since you diverted the direction of the post.

Oh and btw, I have explained my position.

Link me up to your explanation of your position. You keep saying that you have but it can never be found.

 

[SSDD]

So you duck the question yet again.

here ian,,,,,if you are that f'ing lazy...or to stupid to use google, by all means, here...not that it will possibly matter to someone so stupid and lazy....this is a fine place to start...

The Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect: Old controversy – new relevance

 

[SSDD]

SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

I think that the fact that climate science..and along with them he, himself is, and has been wrong...and warmers, even luke warmers lie when you question their dogma..

 

[IanC]

So you duck the question yet again.

here ian,,,,,if you are that f'ing lazy...or to stupid to use google, by all means, here...not that it will possibly matter to someone so stupid and lazy....this is a fine place to start...

The Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect: Old controversy – new relevance

unfortunately the text is in a graphic format so I can't pull out a quote

"presumably, one could drive a heat engine with this temperature gradient, thus violating the second law"

honestly, this is your explanation of why the surface radiates 400w while only getting less than half that from the Sun? really?

 

[IanC]

SSDD posted "gravitothermal atmospheric effect". It was an answer. Why do you lie and state he didn't answer you? That is sure a sign of desperation when one lies.

I think that the fact that climate science..and along with them he, himself is, and has been wrong...and warmers, even luke warmers lie when you question their dogma..

hahahahaha. when pressed over and over again to explain your position, you finally came up with Loschmidt's Gravito-Thermal Effect. An unrelated topic that involves a perpetual motion machine. good job SSDD

 

[jc456]

Earth's surface radiates about 400w , solar input is less than half of that. Where does the extra energy come from?

Simple question.

so ian, where do you get the 400 W number from?

 

[IanC]

Earth's surface radiates about 400w , solar input is less than half of that. Where does the extra energy come from?

Simple question.

so ian, where do you get the 400 W number from?

objects above zero degrees Kelvin radiate in proportion to their temperature (in Kelvins) to the fourth power. a temperature of roughly 15C (288K) radiates at roughly 400w.

as an aside, this fundemental law of nature is also a negative feedback for temperature increase, as every degree of warming needs more and more energy to sustain it.

 

[IanC]

So you duck the question yet again.

here ian,,,,,if you are that f'ing lazy...or to stupid to use google, by all means, here...not that it will possibly matter to someone so stupid and lazy....this is a fine place to start...

The Loschmidt Gravito-Thermal Effect: Old controversy – new relevance

hahahahahahahahahahahaha. I cannot stop laughing!!! this is SSDD's explanation! Did he think I wouldnt read it? More likely he just felt he had to put something, anything down. what an idiot.


Perhaps I am missing something SSDD. is there something more than just the G-T Effect? can you explain the relevance in more detail? so far it seems like a total blunder on your part.

 

[IanC]

by the way, the gravito-thermal effect is simply described as....the total energy of air molecules higher up in the atmosphere is skewed more to potential energy rather than kinetic energy. this means the temperature is lower at altitude than close to the surface even though all air molecules have the same AVERAGE total energy in average.

the idea of making a heat engine based on the temperature difference between high and low is ridiculous, although it appears as if the formal proof is more difficult to produce than the commonsense dismissal of all perpetual motion machines.