Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks. Now where did Old Rocks say -18 and -18 gets you to 29?

with his link and this cartoon:

The link and the cartoon don't say -18 and -18 gives you 29.

sure they do.

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The inaccuracy is the claim that -18 and -18 get you to 29.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, perhaps you really need to stop trying to create strawmen. No one has said that -18 to -18 is going to create 29. Add that to the other nonsense you have posted, and you really are not worth talking to.

Yes, I agree that he is not worth talking to. He is a troll and I am feeding him. But I am always curious how deep his layering of stupid on top of stupid will go. And yes, it is quite futile because he pretends to disbelieve all the science starting at the dawn of thermodynamics.

and yet you can't seem to answer his most basic question. How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29? It is the only way to achieve greenhouse effect. You know this right? or have you answered how the earth surface could emit more than it absorbs.

How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29?

Who said that? Where?

it states it all the cartoons that have posted.

Which cartoon mentions -18?

You really don't have even a little clue...do you? are you another one who doesn't know how to plug numbers into the SB equation to find radiating wm2...or what temperature that wm2 equals?....239.7 wm2 equals a radiating temperature of -18 degrees C...

 

[jc456]

with his link and this cartoon:

The link and the cartoon don't say -18 and -18 gives you 29.

sure they do.

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The inaccuracy is the claim that -18 and -18 get you to 29.

well that's what the equation results in. Just the way I described it. feel free to correct the part of the equation shown as you having a problem with.

 

[jc456]

Yes, I agree that he is not worth talking to. He is a troll and I am feeding him. But I am always curious how deep his layering of stupid on top of stupid will go. And yes, it is quite futile because he pretends to disbelieve all the science starting at the dawn of thermodynamics.

and yet you can't seem to answer his most basic question. How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29? It is the only way to achieve greenhouse effect. You know this right? or have you answered how the earth surface could emit more than it absorbs.

How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29?

Who said that? Where?

it states it all the cartoons that have posted.

Which cartoon mentions -18?

You really don't have even a little clue...do you? are you another one who doesn't know how to plug numbers into the SB equation to find radiating wm2...or what temperature that wm2 equals?....239.7 wm2 equals a radiating temperature of -18 degrees C...

even old doors figured that out.

 

[SSDD]

and yet you can't seem to answer his most basic question. How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29? It is the only way to achieve greenhouse effect. You know this right? or have you answered how the earth surface could emit more than it absorbs.

How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29?

Who said that? Where?

it states it all the cartoons that have posted.

Which cartoon mentions -18?

post #135

You said, "you all think -18 to -18 will get 29"
That looks like SSDD on his own.
You should ask him about his confusion.

You guys are the ones who are confused because you can't even read basic mathematical equations and apparently don't have the slightest idea of how to convert a radiating wm2 into temperature....i always have known that you don't have a clue...but thanks for finally proving it beyond a doubt...

 

[jc456]

How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29?

Who said that? Where?

it states it all the cartoons that have posted.

Which cartoon mentions -18?

post #135

You said, "you all think -18 to -18 will get 29"
That looks like SSDD on his own.
You should ask him about his confusion.

You guys are the ones who are confused because you can't even read basic mathematical equations and apparently don't have the slightest idea of how to convert a radiating wm2 into temperature....i always have known that you don't have a clue...but thanks for finally proving it beyond a doubt...

^^^^^^^^^winner^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[SSDD]

Thanks. Now where did Old Rocks say -18 and -18 gets you to 29?

with his link and this cartoon:

The link and the cartoon don't say -18 and -18 gives you 29.

sure they do.

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The stupidity is absolutely amazing...isn't it...and these guys are constantly congratulating each other on how smart and superior they are....what a f'ing laugh..

 

[jc456]

with his link and this cartoon:

The link and the cartoon don't say -18 and -18 gives you 29.

sure they do.

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The stupidity is absolutely amazing...isn't it...and these guys are constantly congratulating each other on how smart and superior they are....what a f'ing laugh..

I'm laughing, truly amazed. I would never had thunk these folks didn't know how to do math.

 

[SSDD]

with his link and this cartoon:

The link and the cartoon don't say -18 and -18 gives you 29.

sure they do.

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The inaccuracy is the claim that -18 and -18 get you to 29.

The claim is certainly...most definitely...beyond a doubt inaccurate...and yet...that claim describes the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect...

 

[jc456]

The link and the cartoon don't say -18 and -18 gives you 29.

sure they do.

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The inaccuracy is the claim that -18 and -18 get you to 29.

The claim is certainly...most definitely...beyond a doubt inaccurate...and yet...that claim describes the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect...

or at least the one being promoted.

 

[SSDD]

The link and the cartoon don't say -18 and -18 gives you 29.

sure they do.

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The stupidity is absolutely amazing...isn't it...and these guys are constantly congratulating each other on how smart and superior they are....what a f'ing laugh..

I'm laughing, truly amazed. I would never had thunk these folks didn't know how to do math.

And this isn't even hard math...hell...it really doesn't even rise to the level of algebra...and you certainly don't need algebra to determine temperature...or calculate what a radiating temperature is if you know how many wm2 the object is radiating...and none of them had a clue...they didn't have the slightest idea where the -18 or the 29 degrees was coming from....as if I just made them up...that simply goes beyond clueless...I really need to snag some of these quotes for my sig lines...they show a level of cluelessness that I haven't really seen on this board before...from people who fancy themselves the smartest guys in the room...

 

[Olde Europe]

Now we have incoming solar radiation of 239.7 wm2 coming from the sun being absorbed by the surface...and 239.7 emitting upwards to the atmosphere. [...]

Now watch closely...because this is where the magic happens...

They combine the upward and downward radiation...both at -18 degrees C...wave the magic wand over the equation and abracadabra......they get an emitting temperature of 303k.

That would indeed be magic. But that description is courtesy of you being not quite capable of reading that graph, or rather, reading your assumption into it. The equation says something far different.

 

[jc456]

sure they do.

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The stupidity is absolutely amazing...isn't it...and these guys are constantly congratulating each other on how smart and superior they are....what a f'ing laugh..

I'm laughing, truly amazed. I would never had thunk these folks didn't know how to do math.

And this isn't even hard math...hell...it really doesn't even rise to the level of algebra...and you certainly don't need algebra to determine temperature...or calculate what a radiating temperature is if you know how many wm2 the object is radiating...and none of them had a clue...they didn't have the slightest idea where the -18 or the 29 degrees was coming from....as if I just made them up...that simply goes beyond clueless...I really need to snag some of these quotes for my sig lines...they show a level of cluelessness that I haven't really seen on this board before...from people who fancy themselves the smartest guys in the room...

I was following the discussion and why I finally got in where I did. I couldn't believe what I was witnessing from these supposed science junkies. And I ain't no science junkie and they know it. I get the math and I understood the numbers. wow. just wow.

 

[jc456]

Now we have incoming solar radiation of 239.7 wm2 coming from the sun being absorbed by the surface...and 239.7 emitting upwards to the atmosphere. [...]

Now watch closely...because this is where the magic happens...

They combine the upward and downward radiation...both at -18 degrees C...wave the magic wand over the equation and abracadabra......they get an emitting temperature of 303k.

That would indeed be magic. But that description is courtesy of you being not quite capable of reading that graph, or rather, reading your assumption into it. The equation says something far different.

oh, well tell us what it means to you?

What the question really is how does -18 and -18 get you 29? What lab assignment can show that gain of heat?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The explicit diagrams are right there in the first post....and the formula is right there....now kindly produce the physical law that says that the earth radiating up at a temperature of -18 and the atmosphere radiating down at -18 result in a temperature of almost 29 degrees C....again..I'll wait.

In one sentence you say the earth's temperature is -18C and also +29C. Contradiction. That's not in the OP diagram.

Congratulations...in one sentence you managed to spend whatever small bit of credibility you may have had. I have to admit, you had me fooled...I believed that you had some grasp of this topic however misguided you may have been, but you have made it painfully obvious that you don't have the first clue...hell, you can't even plug numbers into the SB equations to figure out how much wattage must be emitted in order to emit at a particular temperature...the two numbers above that you claim are not in the OP diagram are there as clear as day to someone who has a clue...someone who even managed to pass high school algebra...but they are completely invisible to you...

That just makes your self congratulation over being so superior priceless....

OK...my error...I though you had some grasp of math but since it has become painfully obvious that I have been talking way over your head this whole time...let me take you through this step by step and I will explain each step for you...


Since this one has all the pertinent material on it...we will use it...the rest are the same, they just don't show you the math by which they are arriving at their temperatures....

But we need to back up one step since I want to make sure I explain all this to you...so we will begin with this graph...

Rocks posted it from the university of washington site.....I think the poor old dear thought he was giving me some information that I was unaware of...he should have been addressing his comment to you..but in his post, he would have been talking over your head as well...

See the black arrow...pointing down at the earth surface...it is the climate science representation of the incoming solar energy...they state that the amount of energy reaching the surface for the purpose of their model is 239.7wm2....OK...if we run that 239.7wm2 through the SB equation, which they have done...we get an emitting temperature of 255K...which is an emitting temperature of -18.15 degrees C....so there is where the -18 degrees C begins...according to climate science...the surface of the earth receives 239.7wm2 from the sun (-18C) and in turn emits 239.7wm2 upwards toward the atmosphere...emitting temperature....255K or -18.15C. Note that none of the incoming solar radiation has any effect on the atmosphere (occupying same space bullshit you posed) because the atmosphere is mostly invisible to the incoming short wave from the sun...

OK...enter the next chart....note that the black incoming solar radiation arrow is still there...and the blue radiation from the surface arrow is still there....

Now we have incoming solar radiation of 239.7 wm2 coming from the sun being absorbed by the surface...and 239.7 emitting upwards to the atmosphere...don't forget that 239.7 wm2 works out to an emitting temperature of -18.15 degrees C....

At this point, they factor in "back radiation"....note that the back radiation is also 239.7 wm2....radiating back towards the surface of the earth...again...-18.15 degrees C....

Now watch closely...because this is where the magic happens...

They combine the upward and downward radiation...both at -18 degrees C...wave the magic wand over the equation and abracadabra......they get an emitting temperature of 303k.......two objects radiating towards each other...each emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees C...and from those two radiators and those two radiators alone, they get an emitting temperature of 303K...which is 29.85 degrees C...that is a temperature that is 48 degrees warmer than either of the emitters....

And of course it is a contradiction...hell...it is a lot more than that...it is a thermodynamic impossibility....and yet, that forms the basis of the climate model that supposedly explains the temperature of planet earth...

Now that I know we are way over your head, I am not going to ask you to point to any physical law that says that it is possible to have two radiators emitting towards each other at a radiating temperature of -18 degrees each and end up with an emitting temperature of 29.85 degrees C...48 degrees warmer than either emitter....but maybe you can get one of these other geniuses on the warmer side who also believe this bullshit to help you find such a physical law...here is a hint...there is no such law...because two emitters radiating towards each other at -18 degrees C could never produce an emitting temperature of more than -18 degrees C....

And before you start that bullshit about the radiators sharing the same square meter...consider a container of 1 cubic meter...you put in a gas radiating at -18 degrees...and then add another gas radiating at -18 degrees...being sure to keep the internal pressure the same so you aren't being fooled by the heat of compression due to higher pressure..those two gasses sharing the same cubic meter are never going to radiate at a temperature of more than -18 degrees...

Am I still talking over your head?....is any of this bullshit sinking in?...are you starting to see exactly how insane the greenhouse model is?

two objects radiating towards each other...each emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees C...

Why are you trying to add energy radiating away from the Earth to energy radiating toward the Earth?

And before you start that bullshit about the radiators sharing the same square meter

The Sun can't radiate thru the atmosphere at the same time the atmosphere is also radiating? Why not?

is any of this bullshit sinking in?...

No, your bullshit isn't sinking in.

 

[SSDD]

Now we have incoming solar radiation of 239.7 wm2 coming from the sun being absorbed by the surface...and 239.7 emitting upwards to the atmosphere. [...]

Now watch closely...because this is where the magic happens...

They combine the upward and downward radiation...both at -18 degrees C...wave the magic wand over the equation and abracadabra......they get an emitting temperature of 303k.

That would indeed be magic. But that description is courtesy of you being not quite capable of reading that graph, or rather, reading your assumption into it. The equation says something far different.

And yet, that is precisely what the equation says...but hey, if you want to be entertaining...why don't you tell us what you think it says....

I see 239.7 wm2 radiating up + 239.7 wm2 radiating down divided by the Stefan Boltzman constant equals a radiating temperature of 303 degrees kelvin or 29.85 degrees celsius...

What do you see?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD, perhaps you really need to stop trying to create strawmen. No one has said that -18 to -18 is going to create 29. Add that to the other nonsense you have posted, and you really are not worth talking to.

Yes, I agree that he is not worth talking to. He is a troll and I am feeding him. But I am always curious how deep his layering of stupid on top of stupid will go. And yes, it is quite futile because he pretends to disbelieve all the science starting at the dawn of thermodynamics.

and yet you can't seem to answer his most basic question. How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29? It is the only way to achieve greenhouse effect. You know this right? or have you answered how the earth surface could emit more than it absorbs.

How is it you all think -18 to -18 will get 29?

Who said that? Where?

another one who can't read a simple graphic and understand what is being stated... Here...let me help you out...

At the bottom of the graph....see the line where it says T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K

That is where it says precisely that...239.7 wm2 radiating up from the surface of the earth (239.7wm2 = radiating temperature of -18C) plus 239.7 wm2 radiating down from the atmosphere and some judicious misuse of the SB equations yields you a radiating temperature of 303K which is 29.85C

It has become more than obvious that none of you yahoos has even the slightest idea of the wacko misuse of the SB law and the laws of thermodynamics that go into the lunacy that is the greenhouse effect...you have just been believing because all the questions that you ask...and the comments that wuwei has made make it more than clear that you can't read the equations for yourself and know what they say..

At the bottom of the graph....see the line where it says T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K

That is where it says precisely that...239.7 wm2 radiating up from the surface of the earth (239.7wm2 = radiating temperature of -18C) plus 239.7 wm2 radiating down from the atmosphere

Radiating up and radiating down don't get added together.
Radiating down from the Sun and radiating down from the atmosphere is what you should add.

another one who can't read a simple graphic

Irony is ironic.

You never did explain how photons from the cooler surface of the Sun manage to travel through the much hotter corona of the Sun. Unless you think they are somehow blocked? Are they?

 

[jc456]

The explicit diagrams are right there in the first post....and the formula is right there....now kindly produce the physical law that says that the earth radiating up at a temperature of -18 and the atmosphere radiating down at -18 result in a temperature of almost 29 degrees C....again..I'll wait.

In one sentence you say the earth's temperature is -18C and also +29C. Contradiction. That's not in the OP diagram.

Congratulations...in one sentence you managed to spend whatever small bit of credibility you may have had. I have to admit, you had me fooled...I believed that you had some grasp of this topic however misguided you may have been, but you have made it painfully obvious that you don't have the first clue...hell, you can't even plug numbers into the SB equations to figure out how much wattage must be emitted in order to emit at a particular temperature...the two numbers above that you claim are not in the OP diagram are there as clear as day to someone who has a clue...someone who even managed to pass high school algebra...but they are completely invisible to you...

That just makes your self congratulation over being so superior priceless....

OK...my error...I though you had some grasp of math but since it has become painfully obvious that I have been talking way over your head this whole time...let me take you through this step by step and I will explain each step for you...


Since this one has all the pertinent material on it...we will use it...the rest are the same, they just don't show you the math by which they are arriving at their temperatures....

But we need to back up one step since I want to make sure I explain all this to you...so we will begin with this graph...

Rocks posted it from the university of washington site.....I think the poor old dear thought he was giving me some information that I was unaware of...he should have been addressing his comment to you..but in his post, he would have been talking over your head as well...

See the black arrow...pointing down at the earth surface...it is the climate science representation of the incoming solar energy...they state that the amount of energy reaching the surface for the purpose of their model is 239.7wm2....OK...if we run that 239.7wm2 through the SB equation, which they have done...we get an emitting temperature of 255K...which is an emitting temperature of -18.15 degrees C....so there is where the -18 degrees C begins...according to climate science...the surface of the earth receives 239.7wm2 from the sun (-18C) and in turn emits 239.7wm2 upwards toward the atmosphere...emitting temperature....255K or -18.15C. Note that none of the incoming solar radiation has any effect on the atmosphere (occupying same space bullshit you posed) because the atmosphere is mostly invisible to the incoming short wave from the sun...

OK...enter the next chart....note that the black incoming solar radiation arrow is still there...and the blue radiation from the surface arrow is still there....

Now we have incoming solar radiation of 239.7 wm2 coming from the sun being absorbed by the surface...and 239.7 emitting upwards to the atmosphere...don't forget that 239.7 wm2 works out to an emitting temperature of -18.15 degrees C....

At this point, they factor in "back radiation"....note that the back radiation is also 239.7 wm2....radiating back towards the surface of the earth...again...-18.15 degrees C....

Now watch closely...because this is where the magic happens...

They combine the upward and downward radiation...both at -18 degrees C...wave the magic wand over the equation and abracadabra......they get an emitting temperature of 303k.......two objects radiating towards each other...each emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees C...and from those two radiators and those two radiators alone, they get an emitting temperature of 303K...which is 29.85 degrees C...that is a temperature that is 48 degrees warmer than either of the emitters....

And of course it is a contradiction...hell...it is a lot more than that...it is a thermodynamic impossibility....and yet, that forms the basis of the climate model that supposedly explains the temperature of planet earth...

Now that I know we are way over your head, I am not going to ask you to point to any physical law that says that it is possible to have two radiators emitting towards each other at a radiating temperature of -18 degrees each and end up with an emitting temperature of 29.85 degrees C...48 degrees warmer than either emitter....but maybe you can get one of these other geniuses on the warmer side who also believe this bullshit to help you find such a physical law...here is a hint...there is no such law...because two emitters radiating towards each other at -18 degrees C could never produce an emitting temperature of more than -18 degrees C....

And before you start that bullshit about the radiators sharing the same square meter...consider a container of 1 cubic meter...you put in a gas radiating at -18 degrees...and then add another gas radiating at -18 degrees...being sure to keep the internal pressure the same so you aren't being fooled by the heat of compression due to higher pressure..those two gasses sharing the same cubic meter are never going to radiate at a temperature of more than -18 degrees...

Am I still talking over your head?....is any of this bullshit sinking in?...are you starting to see exactly how insane the greenhouse model is?

two objects radiating towards each other...each emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees C...

Why are you trying to add energy radiating away from the Earth to energy radiating toward the Earth?

And before you start that bullshit about the radiators sharing the same square meter

The Sun can't radiate thru the atmosphere at the same time the atmosphere is also radiating? Why not?

is any of this bullshit sinking in?...

No, your bullshit isn't sinking in.

Why are you trying to add energy radiating away from the Earth to energy radiating toward the Earth?

bingo!!!!! Ask old rocks.

 

[SSDD]

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The stupidity is absolutely amazing...isn't it...and these guys are constantly congratulating each other on how smart and superior they are....what a f'ing laugh..

I'm laughing, truly amazed. I would never had thunk these folks didn't know how to do math.

And this isn't even hard math...hell...it really doesn't even rise to the level of algebra...and you certainly don't need algebra to determine temperature...or calculate what a radiating temperature is if you know how many wm2 the object is radiating...and none of them had a clue...they didn't have the slightest idea where the -18 or the 29 degrees was coming from....as if I just made them up...that simply goes beyond clueless...I really need to snag some of these quotes for my sig lines...they show a level of cluelessness that I haven't really seen on this board before...from people who fancy themselves the smartest guys in the room...

I was following the discussion and why I finally got in where I did. I couldn't believe what I was witnessing from these supposed science junkies. And I ain't no science junkie and they know it. I get the math and I understood the numbers. wow. just wow.

How does it feel to be the smartest guy in the room?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The link and the cartoon don't say -18 and -18 gives you 29.

sure they do.

Underline the part that states that.

why? is there some number in there that isn't accurate?

The inaccuracy is the claim that -18 and -18 get you to 29.

The claim is certainly...most definitely...beyond a doubt inaccurate...and yet...that claim describes the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect...

The claim is certainly...most definitely...beyond a doubt inaccurate...

Like most of your claims.