Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[TheTechnologist]

The equations in the first picture aren't even correct:

(239.7 + 239.7)/(5.6x10^8) does NOT equal 303K.

And contains no units! LOL

They are clearly abbreviating the diagram for children, probably 5 year olds if this was "Lost in Space".

Of course, most of the re-pube-licker party in today's reality.

 

[TheTechnologist]

The first image is obviously a baby-formula version of this hairball of physics: Convert watt/meter²/K [W/(m²·K)] <—> Btu (th)/hour/foot²/°F • Thermodynamics — Heat • Heat Transfer Coefficient • Compact Calculator

And it is designed to demonstrate the mechanics, not be accurate.

 

[IanC]

I agree that those diagrams show the basic mechanism of one component of the Greenhouse Effect.

The main error is not describing HOW the atmosphere gets and stores the needed energy to radiate 300w both upwards and downwards. It comes from the energy held back from space as the system moves towards equilibrium. This borrowed energy is the reason why the surface temperature is increased beyond the solar input.

 

[SSDD]

So I was in a conversation with one of our local crop of warmers...one who claims to grasp the science and claims to have read the literature...including the IPCC documentation...... and rather than continue to swap insults, I decided that I might try asking a couple of questions about the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So I grab a diagram from the University of Washington atmospheric sciences department which they say describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Here it is.

Our local warmer immediately begins to equivocate and then asks what's my point?

Well, I thought my point was pretty clear...I wanted to establish that we were on the same page to begin with...so I go out and get a few more diagrams from the atmospheric sciences department at Penn State, and Harvard, and one from no place in particular that seems to be showing the same thing. These are they.

Again, I ask if these describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. And what does the pathetic wretch ask me?...again...what's my point? This guy, who claims to get the science, and claims to have read the IPCC documentation can't bring himself to say whether or not the graphs above, purported by the University of Washington, Penn State, and Harvard to describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect actually describes the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.

Who was the pathetic wretch I was talking to?....I am sure you can guess if you like...or you can go to the conversation here and see for yourself....

The fact that this warmer was scared....or unsure enough to even say whether or not the graphics above accurately show the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science perhaps brings up a much larger point...but that's beside the point and doesn't begin to answer the questions I have about the greenhouse effect.

So are there any warmers here on the board that might be able to look at the graphics above and say whether or not they describe the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science and perhaps talk a bit about that mechanism and effect? By the way...I notice some trivial differences in the above graphics that actually show the amount of radiation moving about...those differences are irrelevant to my questions...

So what is your point?

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

How do you come to that CONCLUSION?

Pretty straight forward...read the posts.

 

[SSDD]

How do you come to that CONCLUSION?

He came to that conclusion by not understanding what the Stefan Boltzmann law is, and he didn't understand the difference between the units,
watts per square meter, and
watts.

Unlike you, I understand the SB law well enough to know that you can't apply it to the atmosphere and get any sort of rational model out of the application...and the greenhouse effect as described by climate science relies heavily on a bastardized invalid form of the SB law.

 

[SSDD]

The equations in the first picture aren't even correct:

(239.7 + 239.7)/(5.6x10^8) does NOT equal 303K.

And contains no units! LOL

They are clearly abbreviating the diagram for children, probably 5 year olds if this was "Lost in Space".

Of course, most of the re-pube-licker party in today's reality.

Take that up with cliamte science...not my numbers...not my hypothesis...it is more like a diagram made by 5 year olds than one made for 5 year olds...

 

[SSDD]

The first image is obviously a baby-formula version of this hairball of physics: Convert watt/meter²/K [W/(m²·K)] <—> Btu (th)/hour/foot²/°F • Thermodynamics — Heat • Heat Transfer Coefficient • Compact Calculator

And it is designed to demonstrate the mechanics, not be accurate.

It doesn't demonstrate any real world mechanics...the fact is that there is not one piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature which supports the claim of a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

 

[SSDD]

I agree that those diagrams show the basic mechanism of one component of the Greenhouse Effect.

The main error is not describing HOW the atmosphere gets and stores the needed energy to radiate 300w both upwards and downwards. It comes from the energy held back from space as the system moves towards equilibrium. This borrowed energy is the reason why the surface temperature is increased beyond the solar input.

You crack me up ian...you believe that the atmosphere radiates 300 wm2 downward even though it can not be measured without an instrument that is cooled to -80 degrees...how gullible do you have to be?

 

[Wuwei]

Unlike you, I understand the SB law well enough to know that you can't apply it to the atmosphere and get any sort of rational model out of the application...and the greenhouse effect as described by climate science relies heavily on a bastardized invalid form of the SB law.

Right you don't understand the SB law. You disagree with all scientists over the last 100 years.

 

[SSDD]

Unlike you, I understand the SB law well enough to know that you can't apply it to the atmosphere and get any sort of rational model out of the application...and the greenhouse effect as described by climate science relies heavily on a bastardized invalid form of the SB law.

Right you don't understand the SB law. You disagree with all scientists over the last 100 years.

It is pretty clear that you don't understand the SB law at all..and the more you talk, the more apparent that fact becomes. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to the emissions of a body (black body or gray body) with a single surface for all wavelength. Do you believe the atmosphere can be aptly described as a gray body with a single surface for all wavelengths...or do you think that perhaps the earths outgoing long wave radiation originates from multiple emission layers?

You can't rightly even apply the SB law to the earth because there is no single radiating surface for which to apply it. Further, the SB law, as with the Planck law from which it is derived relates radiation to the temperature of the layer that emits it...not the atmosphere above it.

And in addition to that, climate science claims that the emissivity of the earth is something like 0.995...that is saying that the earth is "almost" a black body. A black body that the SB law can be applied to has no heat capacity...the earth has considerable heat capacity.

I could go on, but I doubt that you will even get these basics...

 

[Wuwei]

It is pretty clear that you don't understand the SB law at all..and the more you talk, the more apparent that fact becomes. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to the emissions of a body (black body or gray body) with a single surface for all wavelength. Do you believe the atmosphere can be aptly described as a gray body with a single surface for all wavelengths...or do you think that perhaps the earths outgoing long wave radiation originates from multiple emission layers?

You can't rightly even apply the SB law to the earth because there is no single radiating surface for which to apply it. Further, the SB law, as with the Planck law from which it is derived relates radiation to the temperature of the layer that emits it...not the atmosphere above it.

And in addition to that, climate science claims that the emissivity of the earth is something like 0.995...that is saying that the earth is "almost" a black body. A black body that the SB law can be applied to has no heat capacity...the earth has considerable heat capacity.

I could go on, but I doubt that you will even get these basics...

The SB law always applies to penetration of radiation into or out of a material. Lambert's coefficient is a measure of that penetration. In water thermal IR penetration is a micron or so. In a gas it is much deeper. Thus thinking the SB law only applies to a single surface is incorrect in theory. But in practice, if the coefficient is small it doesn't really matter.

The earth is "almost" a black body only at thermal temperatures, not in the visible range. It is very capable of receiving and storing heat from the sun.

 

[SSDD]

The SB law always applies to penetration of radiation into or out of a material. Lambert's coefficient is a measure of that penetration. In water thermal IR penetration is a micron or so. In a gas it is much deeper. Thus thinking the SB law only applies to a single surface is incorrect in theory. But in practice, if the coefficient is small it doesn't really matter.

The earth is "almost" a black body only at thermal temperatures, not in the visible range. It is very capable of receiving and storing heat from the sun.

And there you have it...unassailable evidence that you don't have a clue... Can you not read a simple equation...the SB law is all about the amount of radiation a body emits...there is no expression within the law from which you might derive absorption.

You have proven beyond any doubt that you are, and have been just talking out of your ass...it was pretty clear when you were trying to claim that IR was detected with a radio telescope but now you have proven it in spades.

Then just to ice the cake, you suggest that because the earth can receive and store heat from the sun it is a good example of a black body...a theoretical perfect black body emits all the energy it absorbs...(NO HEAT CAPACITY)...the more energy a body is able to retain, the further away from a perfect black body it gets...the fact that the earth is capable of retaining a great deal of energy (heat capacity) means that it is not almost a black body..hell it is a piss poor gray body...it has significant heat capacity while a black body has no heat capacity.

It is little f'ing wonder that you have been bamboozled by the cult of climate science...you don't have a clue...you just soak up trivia and regurgitate it with no idea of what it means.

 

[Wuwei]

The SB law always applies to penetration of radiation into or out of a material. Lambert's coefficient is a measure of that penetration. In water thermal IR penetration is a micron or so. In a gas it is much deeper. Thus thinking the SB law only applies to a single surface is incorrect in theory. But in practice, if the coefficient is small it doesn't really matter.

The earth is "almost" a black body only at thermal temperatures, not in the visible range. It is very capable of receiving and storing heat from the sun.

And there you have it...unassailable evidence that you don't have a clue... Can you not read a simple equation...the SB law is all about the amount of radiation a body emits...there is no expression within the law from which you might derive absorption.

You have proven beyond any doubt that you are, and have been just talking out of your ass...it was pretty clear when you were trying to claim that IR was detected with a radio telescope but now you have proven it in spades.

Then just to ice the cake, you suggest that because the earth can receive and store heat from the sun it is a good example of a black body...a theoretical perfect black body emits all the energy it absorbs...(NO HEAT CAPACITY)...the more energy a body is able to retain, the further away from a perfect black body it gets...the fact that the earth is capable of retaining a great deal of energy (heat capacity) means that it is not almost a black body..hell it is a piss poor gray body...it has significant heat capacity while a black body has no heat capacity.

It is little f'ing wonder that you have been bamboozled by the cult of climate science...you don't have a clue...you just soak up trivia and regurgitate it with no idea of what it means.

Right, the SB law is about emission of radiant energy from an object. However an object can also absorb energy. The SB law also covers how much radiant energy a background emits when the entire background is at a uniform temperature. The total radiant energy to and from the body is the difference, or net.

As far as the earth, you forgot that emissivity is around 0.95 only for thermal energy at earth ambient temperature, but emissivity is much lower for the shorter wavelengths (or higher frequencies) such as that from the sun. That allows the much hotter sun to warm the earth.

 

[IanC]

And there you have it...unassailable evidence that you don't have a clue... Can you not read a simple equation...the SB law is all about the amount of radiation a body emits...there is no expression within the law from which you might derive absorption.

Of course it does. Why do you think it has a term for emmisivity in it? And a term for area as well.

 

[IanC]

Then just to ice the cake, you suggest that because the earth can receive and store heat from the sun it is a good example of a black body...a theoretical perfect black body emits all the energy it absorbs...(NO HEAT CAPACITY)...the more energy a body is able to retain, the further away from a perfect black body it gets...the fact that the earth is capable of retaining a great deal of energy (heat capacity) means that it is not almost a black body..hell it is a piss poor gray body...it has significant heat capacity while a black body has no heat capacity

Do you even know the definitions for Blackbody, Whitebody and Graybody?

 

[SSDD]

Right, the SB law is about emission of radiant energy from an object. However an object can also absorb energy. The SB law also covers how much radiant energy a background emits when the entire background is at a uniform temperature. The total radiant energy to and from the body is the difference, or net.

Duck and cover...dodge and weave...double talk till you puke...The SB law is about emission... And there is no net energy exchange outside of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. Unless of course you care to show me an example of two way energy exchange...that would be an observation and measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy emitting from a radiator and returning to the radiator from its surroundings..made with an instrument at ambient temperature.

As far as the earth, you forgot that emissivity is around 0.95 only for thermal energy at earth ambient temperature, but emissivity is much lower for the shorter wavelengths (or higher frequencies) such as that from the sun. That allows the much hotter sun to warm the earth.

You can spin till you have enough yarn to knit a rug big enough to cover the floor of the super dome...the fact is that attempting to apply the SB law to the movement of energy from the surface to space is just piss poor shitty science...and belief that it is ok is just gross stupidity.

 

[SSDD]

And there you have it...unassailable evidence that you don't have a clue... Can you not read a simple equation...the SB law is all about the amount of radiation a body emits...there is no expression within the law from which you might derive absorption.

Of course it does. Why do you think it has a term for emmisivity in it? And a term for area as well.

No ian..you are assuming another law...not reading anything about absorption in the equation...are you sure you have ever had a math class? Because you read all sorts of stuff into equations that simply is not there.

 

[SSDD]

Then just to ice the cake, you suggest that because the earth can receive and store heat from the sun it is a good example of a black body...a theoretical perfect black body emits all the energy it absorbs...(NO HEAT CAPACITY)...the more energy a body is able to retain, the further away from a perfect black body it gets...the fact that the earth is capable of retaining a great deal of energy (heat capacity) means that it is not almost a black body..hell it is a piss poor gray body...it has significant heat capacity while a black body has no heat capacity

Do you even know the definitions for Blackbody, Whitebody and Graybody?

yes I do, which is why I pointed out that a black body has no heat capacity when wuwei claimed that because the earth has significant heat capacity, it is nearly a perfect black body...you want to try and defend that kind of ignorance...go right ahead.

 

[xband]

Central Ohio is eagerly awaiting The Greenhouse Effect and fuck Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth.

 

[SSDD]

Central Ohio is eagerly awaiting The Greenhouse Effect and fuck Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth.

algore is an inconvenient idiot....who has made a killing on the AGW scam because believers are idiots as well...he is playing on the fact that you can fool some of the people all of the time.