No Atmosphere, Atmosphere, Greenhouse Gas Atmosphere

[IanC]

after reading some of the comments on SSDD's link, I remember trying to interest SSDD in the Pot Lid Hypothesis. it is both an exposition of the paradoxes and conundrums of atmospheric physics, as well as a history of how certain areas have been ignored or simplified by assumption in climate models. an interesting read. but SSDD refused to, for some reason. I think only Old Rocks seemed to show any interest in it, which is somewhat bizarre.

I recommend it.

 

[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?

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.

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

 

[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.

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

Celsius invented the temperature scale with zero being the freezing point of water and 100 being the boiling point of water.

Lord Kelvin investigated what the coldest temperature possible was, with no molecular movement at all. He used the celsius scaling but moved the starting point to zero degrees K(elvin) which is equivalent to minus 273C. other than moving the zero point it is the same as Celsius.

the rest of your post is unintelligible. would you care to try again? try to be logical and concise, and there is no need to ask if I agree. it is your explanation.

 

[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?

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.

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

Celsius invented the temperature scale with zero being the freezing point of water and 100 being the boiling point of water.

Lord Kelvin investigated what the coldest temperature possible was, with no molecular movement at all. He used the celsius scaling but moved the starting point to zero degrees K(elvin) which is equivalent to minus 273C. other than moving the zero point it is the same as Celsius.

the rest of your post is unintelligible. would you care to try again? try to be logical and concise, and there is no need to ask if I agree. it is your explanation.

so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?

 

[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.

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

Celsius invented the temperature scale with zero being the freezing point of water and 100 being the boiling point of water.

Lord Kelvin investigated what the coldest temperature possible was, with no molecular movement at all. He used the celsius scaling but moved the starting point to zero degrees K(elvin) which is equivalent to minus 273C. other than moving the zero point it is the same as Celsius.

the rest of your post is unintelligible. would you care to try again? try to be logical and concise, and there is no need to ask if I agree. it is your explanation.

so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?

The average global temperature is roughly 15C. Converting that to the Kelvin scale is 273 + 15 = 288.

The incoming solar insulation is less than 200w, on average over the globe. Surface radiation is 400w, on average over the globe. That leaves an unexplained deficit of over 200w.

My question to you, SSDD, and others is where does the extra energy come from. I have asked this question repeatedly over the past few years, and I have gotten no logical response.

I have also repeatedly explained where and how this missing energy is obtained by the surface.

Are you asking me to repeat myself yet again? Why would you listen this time after ignoring my answer every other time?

 

[jc456]

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.

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

Celsius invented the temperature scale with zero being the freezing point of water and 100 being the boiling point of water.

Lord Kelvin investigated what the coldest temperature possible was, with no molecular movement at all. He used the celsius scaling but moved the starting point to zero degrees K(elvin) which is equivalent to minus 273C. other than moving the zero point it is the same as Celsius.

the rest of your post is unintelligible. would you care to try again? try to be logical and concise, and there is no need to ask if I agree. it is your explanation.

so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?

The average global temperature is roughly 15C. Converting that to the Kelvin scale is 273 + 15 = 288.

The incoming solar insulation is less than 200w, on average over the globe. Surface radiation is 400w, on average over the globe. That leaves an unexplained deficit of over 200w.

My question to you, SSDD, and others is where does the extra energy come from. I have asked this question repeatedly over the past few years, and I have gotten no logical response.

I have also repeatedly explained where and how this missing energy is obtained by the surface.

Are you asking me to repeat myself yet again? Why would you listen this time after ignoring my answer every other time?

well let's hear your answer on where the same amount energy comes from other than the sun. Because I got to hear this one.

 

[IanC]

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.

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

Celsius invented the temperature scale with zero being the freezing point of water and 100 being the boiling point of water.

Lord Kelvin investigated what the coldest temperature possible was, with no molecular movement at all. He used the celsius scaling but moved the starting point to zero degrees K(elvin) which is equivalent to minus 273C. other than moving the zero point it is the same as Celsius.

the rest of your post is unintelligible. would you care to try again? try to be logical and concise, and there is no need to ask if I agree. it is your explanation.

so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?

The average global temperature is roughly 15C. Converting that to the Kelvin scale is 273 + 15 = 288.

The incoming solar insulation is less than 200w, on average over the globe. Surface radiation is 400w, on average over the globe. That leaves an unexplained deficit of over 200w.

My question to you, SSDD, and others is where does the extra energy come from. I have asked this question repeatedly over the past few years, and I have gotten no logical response.

I have also repeatedly explained where and how this missing energy is obtained by the surface.

Are you asking me to repeat myself yet again? Why would you listen this time after ignoring my answer every other time?

well let's hear your answer on where the same amount energy comes from other than the sun. Because I got to hear this one.

I have explained time and time again. it is YOUR turn to explain because you have rejected my answer every time in the past.

where do YOU think the 200+ watts come from. the Sun's input is measured. the Earth's surface is measured. you can argue the numbers a few percent either way but there is NO possible way to close the deficit by blaming faulty measurements. WHERE does the extra energy come from?

 

[jc456]

ok, where does the 288k come from?

Oh and, do you agree that the earth surface is 70% water? And if that is so, how can you double the output when the greatest percentage of the planet only absorbs incoming solar energy? and that only one hemisphere is in sun at any one time.

Celsius invented the temperature scale with zero being the freezing point of water and 100 being the boiling point of water.

Lord Kelvin investigated what the coldest temperature possible was, with no molecular movement at all. He used the celsius scaling but moved the starting point to zero degrees K(elvin) which is equivalent to minus 273C. other than moving the zero point it is the same as Celsius.

the rest of your post is unintelligible. would you care to try again? try to be logical and concise, and there is no need to ask if I agree. it is your explanation.

so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?

The average global temperature is roughly 15C. Converting that to the Kelvin scale is 273 + 15 = 288.

The incoming solar insulation is less than 200w, on average over the globe. Surface radiation is 400w, on average over the globe. That leaves an unexplained deficit of over 200w.

My question to you, SSDD, and others is where does the extra energy come from. I have asked this question repeatedly over the past few years, and I have gotten no logical response.

I have also repeatedly explained where and how this missing energy is obtained by the surface.

Are you asking me to repeat myself yet again? Why would you listen this time after ignoring my answer every other time?

well let's hear your answer on where the same amount energy comes from other than the sun. Because I got to hear this one.

I have explained time and time again. it is YOUR turn to explain because you have rejected my answer every time in the past.

where do YOU think the 200+ watts come from. the Sun's input is measured. the Earth's surface is measured. you can argue the numbers a few percent either way but there is NO possible way to close the deficit by blaming faulty measurements. WHERE does the extra energy come from?

Well first you have to prove 400w. Which you can't

 

[IanC]

Celsius invented the temperature scale with zero being the freezing point of water and 100 being the boiling point of water.

Lord Kelvin investigated what the coldest temperature possible was, with no molecular movement at all. He used the celsius scaling but moved the starting point to zero degrees K(elvin) which is equivalent to minus 273C. other than moving the zero point it is the same as Celsius.

the rest of your post is unintelligible. would you care to try again? try to be logical and concise, and there is no need to ask if I agree. it is your explanation.

so again, where does 288K come from? It was the question to which you responded Kelvin. I know that, I wanted to know where you get 288k from. why isn't it 239K?

And again, you stated that 400W was double what the emitted energy was from the incoming sun, so somewhere you have to get an extra 200w. I asked you from where?

The average global temperature is roughly 15C. Converting that to the Kelvin scale is 273 + 15 = 288.

The incoming solar insulation is less than 200w, on average over the globe. Surface radiation is 400w, on average over the globe. That leaves an unexplained deficit of over 200w.

My question to you, SSDD, and others is where does the extra energy come from. I have asked this question repeatedly over the past few years, and I have gotten no logical response.

I have also repeatedly explained where and how this missing energy is obtained by the surface.

Are you asking me to repeat myself yet again? Why would you listen this time after ignoring my answer every other time?

well let's hear your answer on where the same amount energy comes from other than the sun. Because I got to hear this one.

I have explained time and time again. it is YOUR turn to explain because you have rejected my answer every time in the past.

where do YOU think the 200+ watts come from. the Sun's input is measured. the Earth's surface is measured. you can argue the numbers a few percent either way but there is NO possible way to close the deficit by blaming faulty measurements. WHERE does the extra energy come from?

Well first you have to prove 400w. Which you can't

Do you reject the Planck curve for the Sun's radiation or only the Planck curve for the Earth?

Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?

Can you make inferences from looking at the measured radiation given off by both bodies and the discrepancies from a theoretical blackbody.

Do you ever combine several ideas together and have a new idea pop into your head? I think not.

 

[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

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?

That is certainly the basis...and oddly enough ian, Graeff has demonstrated the temperature gradient in columns of air that Maxwell and Boltzman said could not happen...observed, and repeatable, in a laboratory...and it doesn't violate the second law...the giants simply misunderstood and claimed that it would violate the second law...

Hell ian, don't bother pursuing it...you have your dogma, and your failed hypothesis, and your failing models...of what use could the truth possibly be to you?

 

[SSDD]

objects above zero degrees Kelvin radiate in proportion to their temperature (in Kelvins) to the fourth power.

yep.....in a vacuum...unfortunately, the atmosphere isn't a vacuum...so the background temperature determines the amount of energy they radiate.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Clearly you didn't read what was there...nor did you follow the links...Graeff has demonstrated the temperature gradient in a column of air that maxwell and boltzman said couldn't happen...again, with the logical fallacies...is that what you are reduced to now ian?...since you can't provide any actual evidence to support your own beliefs, you must make an appeal to ridicule when faced with anything that challenges your dogma?

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.

it is all there ian, in the text and the links...it is clear that you are as rooted in your dogma as rocks, crick, and mammoth are in theirs...no evidence, no observations, no measurement. I tend to favor people who can demonstrate what they believe in the real world....there are, in fact, proven through repeatable, observable, measurable, quantifiable experiment, temperature gradients in columns of air...actual proof that maxwell and boatsman were wrong when they said that columns of air would reach equilibrium...now I know that the fact that they have been demonstrably proven wrong means nothing to a dogmatist like you...but I am not rooted in dogma...I am looking for evidence....in actual science, you look for evidence that the hypothesis is wrong...you don't simply repeat it because everyone else is.

 

[SSDD]

Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?

The SB equations are meaningless for gasses since a gas molecule is not a black body...nor is it a gray body. Using the SB equations for energy exchange in the atmosphere is a fundamental, foundational error of climate science and everything that follows is therefore flawed.

 

[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?

That is certainly the basis...and oddly enough ian, Graeff has demonstrated the temperature gradient in columns of air that Maxwell and Boltzman said could not happen...observed, and repeatable, in a laboratory...and it doesn't violate the second law...the giants simply misunderstood and claimed that it would violate the second law...

Hell ian, don't bother pursuing it...you have your dogma, and your failed hypothesis, and your failing models...of what use could the truth possibly be to you?

Hold on a minute here SSDD. I asked you where the missing 200+ watts of unaccounted for energy came from. You said the G-T Effect.

I posted up your link. It said nothing about 200w, instead it talked about a heat engine driven by temperature gradient of the atmosphere. It even mentioned 'back conduction ' which you have previously mocked.

It is no answer to my question. I encourage you to fill in the gaps of logic that are obviously missing.

You say Graeff performed an experiment. Was the temperature gradient more or less than expected for the change in strength of the gravity field from bottom to top? What were the assumptions made by Maxwell regarding gravity field?

I am more than willing to discuss the gravity effects on atmospheric temperatures. But you have to put your ass on the line and explain your position in your own words, and stop expecting me to search the internet for information that will somehow lead me to your bizarre interpretation of physics.

 

[IanC]

objects above zero degrees Kelvin radiate in proportion to their temperature (in Kelvins) to the fourth power.

yep.....in a vacuum...unfortunately, the atmosphere isn't a vacuum...so the background temperature determines the amount of energy they radiate.

So that's your newest catch phrase? "Sure...in a vacuum"

It is not the characteristics of being a vacuum that change the rate of radiation of an object, it is the amount of radiation being received through the vacuum.

An object sitting in the vacuum only a million miles away from the Sun will still be radiating it's full power in all directions but I can assure you the side towards the Sun will be hotter than the side away from it.

What does the vacuum do, other than stop the possibility of conduction?

 

[SSDD]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...you really have become quite the liar in your attempt to rationalize your dogma....like your posting up of the loschmidt article completely avoiding the relevance to jelbring and n&z...doesn't your recent rapid decent into dishonesty raise questions about why?....I honesty thought you had more character than that...was I wrong?

 

[IanC]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...you really have become quite the liar in your attempt to rationalize your dogma....like your posting up of the loschmidt article completely avoiding the relevance to jelbring and n&z...doesn't your recent rapid decent into dishonesty raise questions about why?....I honesty thought you had more character than that...was I wrong?

Whoaaaa now. Jelbring and N&Z? Where did they come from? Are you changing your position again?

I have asked you many times in the past to explain the position of those type of guys. You always refuse and say I should just look it up if I'm interested.

So it's not Loschmidt, it's those other guys that have the answer? So why aren't you championing their cause? Why aren't you putting up explanations of their work? Have they found the cause of the missing 200+ watts?

Let's go, post up some relevant info. I sure hope it's more substantive than your last 'explanation'.

 

[IanC]

No, ian, it isn't a catch phrase..it is simply what the SB equations say...

Please point out where the S-B equations make mention of a special exemption for vacuum and non vacuum states. I know they deal with conditions of no radiation, an imaginary state because even empty space has some background radiation, and conditions where two objects have a net exchange of energy but I haven't seen any special mention of vacuums. Where did you see it? Got a link?

 

[IanC]

Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?

The SB equations are meaningless for gasses since a gas molecule is not a black body...nor is it a gray body. Using the SB equations for energy exchange in the atmosphere is a fundamental, foundational error of climate science and everything that follows is therefore flawed.

Now the Sun isn't composed of gasses? You are just a fountain of misinformation aren't you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you reject the S-B equation for the Sun or just the Earth?

The SB equations are meaningless for gasses since a gas molecule is not a black body...nor is it a gray body. Using the SB equations for energy exchange in the atmosphere is a fundamental, foundational error of climate science and everything that follows is therefore flawed.

Now the Sun isn't composed of gasses? You are just a fountain of misinformation aren't you.

I'd like his explanation for how the cooler Sun's surface manages to radiate toward the much hotter corona.