Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Olde Europe]

Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.

That's just a very minor part, as it's a shorthand for saying that "a body at a temperature of -18°C emits 239.7 W/m^2". That doesn't even begin to describe SSDD's error interpreting this "simple equation".

 

[SSDD]

Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..

 

[SSDD]

Bzzzz...239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.

F'ing moron...are you unaware that you can run that 239.7 through the SB equation and find out what the radiating temperature is for something that is radiating at that wm2?....clearly not...an object radiating at 239.7wm2 has a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you people are proving your ignorance beyond any shadow of a doubt...

The surface receives 239.7 W/m2 from the Sun and 239.7 W/m2 from the atmosphere (back radiation).
Those 2 inputs result in the surface temperature of about 29C.

Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees...and certainly not a temperature of 48 degrees warmer than either..

Now that I've pointed out your confused understanding, explain how those pesky photons from the Sun travel through the hotter corona.

All you have pointed out is that you don't have a clue and can't read even the simplest of equations and had no idea that the wm2 output of a radiator equals a radiating temperature....

 

[Wuwei]

Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.

That's just a very minor part, as it's a shorthand for saying that "a body at a temperature of -18°C emits 239.7 W/m^2". That doesn't even begin to describe SSDD's error interpreting this "simple equation".

Yes, I agree, but I was focusing on a very simple idea that the sock puppets might understand, not that it will do any good.

The basic flaw as I see it is that if you want to assume a specific power density and use the S-B equation to calculate the temperature, you are actually calculating a temperature that provides an outgoing radiation from a surface. SameShits idea is to immediately turn that around and call it incoming radiation to that surface. And that is insane.

 

[SSDD]

239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.

Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.

So you admit that you don't have any idea how to plug that wm2 value into the SB equation and get a radiating temperature?...that's what I thought...all your consdesending superiority is absolutely laughable...

and I am not substituting the temperature...I am merely pointing out what the radiating temperature of a particular wm2 is....you know so little about this that you don't even know what you don't know...I am laughing my ass off at the lot of you...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say

No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.

 

[SSDD]

Yes. Substituting a value of temperature into an equation that requires a value of power density is idiocy. Thinking others should believe it is truly the sign of a troll.

That's just a very minor part, as it's a shorthand for saying that "a body at a temperature of -18°C emits 239.7 W/m^2". That doesn't even begin to describe SSDD's error interpreting this "simple equation".

You are so full of it that it is ridiculous....you have no idea what the equation says and you put your trust into a couple of yahoos who didn't even know where the numbers where coming from till it was explained to them at a 5th grade level....the level of ignorance is astounding...Not from you...I knew you were a no nothing poser...but wuwei had me fooled till it became clear that he had no idea what the equation was about or what it was saying...congratulations on picking the losing team.

 

[SSDD]

Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say

No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.

I haven't mis interpreted anything...but if you believe I have, by all means tell me what you think it says...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bzzzz...239.7 means W/m2, not -18C.

F'ing moron...are you unaware that you can run that 239.7 through the SB equation and find out what the radiating temperature is for something that is radiating at that wm2?....clearly not...an object radiating at 239.7wm2 has a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you people are proving your ignorance beyond any shadow of a doubt...

The surface receives 239.7 W/m2 from the Sun and 239.7 W/m2 from the atmosphere (back radiation).
Those 2 inputs result in the surface temperature of about 29C.

Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees...and certainly not a temperature of 48 degrees warmer than either..

Now that I've pointed out your confused understanding, explain how those pesky photons from the Sun travel through the hotter corona.

All you have pointed out is that you don't have a clue and can't read even the simplest of equations and had no idea that the wm2 output of a radiator equals a radiating temperature....

Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees

The Sun is radiating down. The Sun is not -18 degrees.

Two inputs of 239.7 W/m2 each can certainly result in a temperature of more than -18C.

Now explain how those pesky photons from the Sun travel through the hotter corona

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say

No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.

I haven't mis interpreted anything...but if you believe I have, by all means tell me what you think it says...

Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.

As though you don't know the difference between a positive number and a negative number.

 

[SSDD]

Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees

The Sun is radiating down. The Sun is not -18 degrees.

Of course it isn't...but that's not what climate science says...we are talking about their model...not mine...clearly you had no idea what their model said...you just believed...well, now you know what it says...or maybe you still don't...either way I have described exactly what the equations in question are saying..

Two inputs of 239.7 W/m2 each can certainly result in a temperature of more than -18C.

Sorry, but they can't...you think you can pour a bucket of water at 40 degrees in a container of water...and another bucket of water at 40 degrees into the same container and raise the temperature above 40 degrees?...you must because that is what you are claiming when you claim that two inputs of the same temperature can somehow combine to make the temperature higher.

 

[IanC]

???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.

I admit I havent read the article that goes with the graph. the graph makes little sense out of context but it appears to be more related to Willis's shell problem than the Earth. it goes from a simple energy in, energy out example to a example where the new added atmosphere is at equilibrium but the surface is not. all changes in surface or atmospheric temperatures are powered by solar input that is not released to space but instead is retained by the system (the amount that would continue to radiate to space if solar input stopped).

 

[Wuwei]

Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.

As though you don't know the difference between a positive number and a negative number.

On further thought, that outgoing radiation is long wave and is the same value as the energy of the incoming shortwave radiation. So the calculated -18C is the temperature the earth would be if there were no atmosphere at all. In short, equilibrium requires that the input from the sun is balanced by the output of the earth since it is a situation of radiation only.

That is only a curiosity and has nothing to do with today's climate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right...except what you aren't getting is that according to the model...the earth is radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere is radiating downwards at -18 degrees...two inputs of -18 degrees can never result in a radiating temperature of more than -18 degrees

The Sun is radiating down. The Sun is not -18 degrees.

Of course it isn't...but that's not what climate science says...we are talking about their model...not mine...clearly you had no idea what their model said...you just believed...well, now you know what it says...or maybe you still don't...either way I have described exactly what the equations in question are saying..

Two inputs of 239.7 W/m2 each can certainly result in a temperature of more than -18C.

Sorry, but they can't...you think you can pour a bucket of water at 40 degrees in a container of water...and another bucket of water at 40 degrees into the same container and raise the temperature above 40 degrees?...you must because that is what you are claiming when you claim that two inputs of the same temperature can somehow combine to make the temperature higher.

Of course it isn't...but that's not what climate science says...we are talking about their model...not mine...

Their model does not say the Sun is -18C.
Their model says the input from the Sun combined with back radiation can heat up the Earth above -18C.

Sorry, but they can't

They clearly do.

Sorry, but they can't...you think you can pour a bucket of water at 40 degrees in a container of water...and another bucket of water at 40 degrees into the same container and raise the temperature above 40 degrees?...

No. No one does.

you must because that is what you are claiming when you claim that two inputs of the same temperature can somehow combine to make the temperature higher.

Why do you keep saying the inputs are the same temperature?
The Sun is clearly warmer than the Earth's atmosphere.
Are you confused when you make that claim? Or just stupid?

 

[SSDD]

Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say

No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.

I haven't mis interpreted anything...but if you believe I have, by all means tell me what you think it says...

Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.

You really are behind the curve here aren't you...in fact, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even see the curve from here...OK...very slowly and perhaps at a 4th grade level this time... see the pretty blue arrow?...it represents upward radiation at 239.7wm2...that means it is radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees....see the equation down at the bottom..see where it says 239.7? the pretty blue arrow is representing that 239.7...now, see the pretty red arrow pointing down..that represents the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere....also at 239.7 degrees also a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....now look again at the equation at the bottom of the graphic...see the second 239.7 that is added to the first 239.7?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...see the 6.85 x 10^-8?...that is an operation involving the SB equation which converts the radiation into a temperature....see the 303K at the end of the equation...that means that they are saying that those to radiation emissions at 239.7wm2 have combined to produce a temperature of about 29 degrees...that is 48 degrees warmer than either of the emitting temperatures....now if you can't grasp that I am sorry...I can't make it any simpler than that...

 

[SSDD]

Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.

As though you don't know the difference between a positive number and a negative number.

On further thought, that outgoing radiation is long wave and is the same value as the energy of the incoming shortwave radiation. So the calculated -18C is the temperature the earth would be if there were no atmosphere at all. In short, equilibrium requires that the input from the sun is balanced by the output of the earth since it is a situation of radiation only.

That is only a curiosity and has nothing to do with today's climate.

Save your further thoughts...you outed yourself when you admitted that you had no idea where the numbers were even coming from...you don't have a clue and it is a bit late to pretend that you do now...

I will agree with you that the fake radiative greenhouse effect has nothing whatsoever to do with todays climate as it does not exist. It is an artifact of a complete misuse of the SB Law..

 

[jc456]

So all these engineers who design electronics have it all wrong when they add more fins to a power transistor heat sink, because they radiate back at each other.

Without fan cooling these radiative heat sinks can get it down to as low as 0.3 deg C per watt

Scroll down to page 7 on this pdf, thats where the math & data is for radiative heat transfer for a TO3 style heat sink:
https://www.comsol.co.in/paper/download/83831/eppes_presentation.pdf

great post polarbear!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since the original radiator is the Sun, the claim that the Sun is -18C is even more moronic than your usual claims.
And why does something radiating upward heat the Earth's surface? Moron!

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say...and that is the basis for the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....they aren't my numbers...they come from climate science....so deny as much as you like...clearly your denial is based in nothing but ignorance since you can't grasp what any of the graphics are saying...you are merely expressing what you wish, rather than what you know..

Of course it is moronic...and yet, that is precisely what the graphics say

No, that's what your moronic misinterpretation says.

I haven't mis interpreted anything...but if you believe I have, by all means tell me what you think it says...

Sure you did.
You're claiming outgoing radiation from the surface should be added to incoming radiation from the atmosphere.

You really are behind the curve here aren't you...in fact, you are so far behind the curve that you can't even see the curve from here...OK...very slowly and perhaps at a 4th grade level this time... see the pretty blue arrow?...it represents upward radiation at 239.7wm2...that means it is radiating at a temperature of -18 degrees....see the equation down at the bottom..see where it says 239.7? the pretty blue arrow is representing that 239.7...now, see the pretty red arrow pointing down..that represents the claimed back radiation from the atmosphere....also at 239.7 degrees also a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....now look again at the equation at the bottom of the graphic...see the second 239.7 that is added to the first 239.7?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...see the 6.85 x 10^-8?...that is an operation involving the SB equation which converts the radiation into a temperature....see the 303K at the end of the equation...that means that they are saying that those to radiation emissions at 239.7wm2 have combined to produce a temperature of about 29 degrees...that is 48 degrees warmer than either of the emitting temperatures....now if you can't grasp that I am sorry...I can't make it any simpler than that...

?...that means they are adding the radiation going up from the surface to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere...


They're adding the radiation coming down from the Sun to the radiation coming down from the atmosphere.
Two positive numbers.
Inside your own damn picture. See the box?
Solar radiation + Infrared radiation from the atmosphere.

Radiation going up from the surface is a negative.

now if you can't grasp that I am sorry

Your idiocy is sorry. We all grasp that.

 

[SSDD]

???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.

No ian.....i don't think that...but that is what the graphics from the "respected" universities say...

Tell me that you know how to plug numbers into the SB equation and determine a radiating temperature from wm2...or are you unable to do that?.....if you can then tell me what the radiating temperature is of an object radiating at 239.7wm2....

And I agree...anyone who would build a model of what causes our temperature to be what it is who begins with the premise that the radiation coming in from the sun is 239.7 wm2.....or -18 degrees is a f'ing idiot...but that is what I have been saying about climate science since they switched from ice age scares to global warming scares...

 

[Wuwei]

???? SSDD thinks the Sun is -18C? hahahahaha, what a fucking idiot.

I admit I havent read the article that goes with the graph. the graph makes little sense out of context but it appears to be more related to Willis's shell problem than the Earth. it goes from a simple energy in, energy out example to a example where the new added atmosphere is at equilibrium but the surface is not. all changes in surface or atmospheric temperatures are powered by solar input that is not released to space but instead is retained by the system (the amount that would continue to radiate to space if solar input stopped).

The graph is an oversimplified back-of-the-envelope calculation for undergraduates. It assumes a constant temperature atmosphere and a constant density. But it is a cute trick to give an order of magnitude result.

But you are right that, as simple as it is, idiots can misinterpret it and call everyone else idiots who understand the science better.