Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[SSDD]

The sun heats the earth. The GHG's keep the earth from loosing as much heat as it would without them. Period.

So you say...except we find very warm temperatures on planets that have little if any greenhouse gas in their atmospheres and not enough incoming solar radiation to power a greenhouse effect even if they did.

According to thermodynamics...blah blah blah.

Right...

You must have misunderstood. Here is the correct physics:

According to which magic grimoir?

If you have a 1 square meter ice cube, it will radiate 315.64 Watts total.

And because you have more surface area...the temperature will still be 32 degrees

The energy rates of two ice cubes cannot be added together because they don't share the same area.

If I place them in direct contact...of course they do....and the atmosphere and the earth share the same area any exactly as much as two ice cubes in direct contact.. your whole "same area" bullshit is exactly that...show me a thermodynamic example...show me two radiators "sharing the same area" producing a temperature greater than either of them alone.

 

[SSDD]

So you feel free to show me a single example in all of thermodynamics where the radiation of two radiators are added together and the combined output is used to determine a temperature...lets see it. You really believe that combining the output of two radiators emitting at a temperature of -18 degrees can ever, in reality, result in a temperature of 33 degrees?...you really believe that? if so then you are an abject idiot...if that could ever happen, we would have a limitless energy source to power every device on earth and it wouldn't cost any more than simply placing objects near each other and collecting the increased energy emitted by them being in proximity...

Listen very carefully: Two ice cubes cannot heat up anything hotter than the two ice cubes.

And a radiator emitting at -18 degrees and another radiator emitting at -18 degrees can never generate a temperature greater than -18 degrees...

 

[Wuwei]

And a radiator emitting at -18 degrees and another radiator emitting at -18 degrees can never generate a temperature greater than -18 degrees...

Yea! You finally got it!!!

 

[Olde Europe]

And a radiator emitting at -18 degrees and another radiator emitting at -18 degrees can never generate a temperature greater than -18 degrees...

Yea! You finally got it!!!

Naw, he hasn't, and you're wrong saying so, as a square meter of the earth, receiving radiation from two distinct radiators, but from the same direction, the sun and the atmosphere, clearly demonstrates. Neither did he understand that adding another ice cube doesn't change the Wm^⁻2.

We clearly need a shrug button here.

 

[SSDD]

And a radiator emitting at -18 degrees and another radiator emitting at -18 degrees can never generate a temperature greater than -18 degrees...

Yea! You finally got it!!!

I have always had it...I am afraid that it is you who is missing the point....look again at the graphic...cliimate science is claiming that the upward radiation from the earth...at -18 degrees and the downward radiation from the atmosphere...again, -18 degrees are combining to create enough radiation to account for a temperature of 303K..or 29.8C....two objects radiating at -18 can never generate a temperature of more than -18

 

[SSDD]

And a radiator emitting at -18 degrees and another radiator emitting at -18 degrees can never generate a temperature greater than -18 degrees...

Yea! You finally got it!!!

Naw, he hasn't, and you're wrong saying so, as a square meter of the earth, receiving radiation from two distinct radiators, but from the same direction, the sun and the atmosphere, clearly demonstrates. Neither did he understand that adding another ice cube doesn't change the Wm^⁻2.

We clearly need a shrug button here.

Two distinct radiators...the ground is getting the energy it radiates from the sun....where do you suppose the atmosphere is getting its energy if it is mostly invisible to incoming solar radiation...that means that the sun isn't warming the atmosphere...

And by the way...adding another ice cube does change the wm^2...but because you are increasing the surface area, the temperature doesn't change....I am afraid that you really don't get the topic at all as you are making some very basic errors...and I get that you like to pretend that I don't know what I am talking about because I don't agree with you...but when I ask for examples within thermodynamics for what climate science is claiming...neither you, nor anyone else can come up with any because they don't exist...climate science claiming that the earth radiating upwards at -18 degrees and the atmosphere radiating downward at -18 degrees results in a net radiating temperature of more than 29 degrees...and that is precisely what that equation is saying...clearly you can't read even a basic equation or you would get that...

 

[Wuwei]

Naw, he hasn't, and you're wrong saying so, as a square meter of the earth, receiving radiation from two distinct radiators, but from the same direction, the sun and the atmosphere, clearly demonstrates. Neither did he understand that adding another ice cube doesn't change the Wm^⁻2.

We clearly need a shrug button here.

Right. I didn't read it carefully. I thought he was still talking about two ice cubes.

 

[SSDD]

def

Naw, he hasn't, and you're wrong saying so, as a square meter of the earth, receiving radiation from two distinct radiators, but from the same direction, the sun and the atmosphere, clearly demonstrates. Neither did he understand that adding another ice cube doesn't change the Wm^⁻2.

We clearly need a shrug button here.

Right. I didn't read it carefully. I thought he was still talking about two ice cubes.

So two ice cubes at -18 could never radiate a temperature more than -18...but the surface of the earth radiating upwards at -18 and the atmosphere radiating downward at -18 can combine to equal a temperature of 29 degrees?

Do you really believe that...no...I know you believe it...the better question is how do you believe it?....what sort of mental gymnastics do you engage in to believe that radiation emitting from two ice cubes behaves fundamentally differently from radiation emitting from the surface of the earth and the claimed radiation emitting downward from the atmosphere?

 

[Wuwei]

show me two radiators "sharing the same area" producing a temperature greater than either of them alone.

You still don't understand! It is absurd to say that two radiators share the same area. The topic is about a single area of an absorber. That absorber has two radiators radiating energy at it. Just look at the diagram you posted!

Secondly. In the diagram you posted one of the radiators is the SUN!!!! The sun is very very hot. You don't understand that either. My gosh.

 

[Wuwei]

I have always had it...I am afraid that it is you who is missing the point....look again at the graphic...cliimate science is claiming that the upward radiation from the earth...at -18 degrees and the downward radiation from the atmosphere...again, -18 degrees are combining to create enough radiation to account for a temperature of 303K..or 29.8C....two objects radiating at -18 can never generate a temperature of more than -18

Nope you have never had it. You forgot the sun is radiating down at a temperature of thousands of degrees.

 

[Wuwei]

So two ice cubes at -18 could never radiate a temperature more than -18...but the surface of the earth radiating upwards at -18 and the atmosphere radiating downward at -18 can combine to equal a temperature of 29 degrees?

First, ice cubes do not radiate temperature. They radiate EM energy.

Second, you forgot to mention that the SUN is also radiating down. That is where the energy comes from in the first place.

...what sort of mental gymnastics do you engage in to believe that radiation emitting from two ice cubes behaves fundamentally differently from radiation emitting from the surface of the earth and the claimed radiation emitting downward from the atmosphere?

I have told you so many times and you still don't understand. Two ice cubes can never warm anything that is hotter than ice cubes. I think you agree with that. But if one of the ice cubes is thousands of degrees (as in the sun) then you can warm a surface above the temperature of the other ice cube. It is such a simple point!

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

 

[Olde Europe]

Right. I didn't read it carefully. I thought he was still talking about two ice cubes.

I find it doesn't matter what he's talking about. The situation as described in the model concerning the earth's energy balance is fairly unique insofar as the GHG atmosphere lets through most of the sun's radiation while being warmed up by, and radiating back most of, the earth's infrared radiation. That results in the earth's surface receiving radiation from the same direction from two different sources, which is the main difference from "two ice cubes" doubling the generated radiative energy per square meter. To anyone with a lick of scientific sense that would be a case of satire gone awry, but then, real life turns out to be even less funny than that.

I find, he's just fond of generating nonsense, and watching the "warmers" tying themselves into knots to find the best way to explain fairly simple concepts, which he then reliably fails to understand.

As I said elsewhere, debating the goof is tantamount to erecting a monument to pointlessness. I, for one, am strongly disinclined to do that.

 

[SSDD]

show me two radiators "sharing the same area" producing a temperature greater than either of them alone.

You still don't understand! It is absurd to say that two radiators share the same area. The topic is about a single area of an absorber. That absorber has two radiators radiating energy at it. Just look at the diagram you posted!

Secondly. In the diagram you posted one of the radiators is the SUN!!!! The sun is very very hot. You don't understand that either. My gosh.

I understand perfectly...what you don't seem to get is exactly how absurd the claims are that climate science is making...

Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...

 

[Wuwei]

I find it doesn't matter what he's talking about. The situation as described in the model concerning the earth's energy balance is fairly unique insofar as the GHG atmosphere lets through most of the sun's radiation while being warmed up by, and radiating back most of, the earth's infrared radiation. That results in the earth's surface receiving radiation from the same direction from two different sources, which is the main difference from "two ice cubes" doubling the generated radiative energy per square meter. To anyone with a like of scientific sense that would be a case of satire gone awry, but then, real life turns out to be even less funny than that.

I find, he's just fond of generating nonsense, and watching the "warmers" tying themselves into knots to find the best way to explain fairly simple concepts, which he then reliably fails to understand.

As I said elsewhere, debating the goof is tantamount to erecting a monument to pointlessness. I, for one, am strongly disinclined to do that.

Yes. You are right. I have been able to back him into corners of absurdity in things like the meaning of the 2nd law of thermo, the Stefan-Boltzman equation, the cosmic microwave background, etc. and he will just drop the thread only to come back maybe in another thread with the same thing. Yes, he is playing a game and I think we both know it's a game. The game is really not about science at all because he makes up his own rules and I follow his rules to an absurdity. It is an interesting game for me, but the plot of the game gets bogged down and moves along too slowly. So you are right, it is a monument to pointlessness.

 

[SSDD]

I have always had it...I am afraid that it is you who is missing the point....look again at the graphic...cliimate science is claiming that the upward radiation from the earth...at -18 degrees and the downward radiation from the atmosphere...again, -18 degrees are combining to create enough radiation to account for a temperature of 303K..or 29.8C....two objects radiating at -18 can never generate a temperature of more than -18

Nope you have never had it. You forgot the sun is radiating down at a temperature of thousands of degrees.

So then why does climate science say that the incoming solar radiation is 239.7wm^2....that is a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....is the absurdity of the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect starting to sink in yet?

As you say, the sun is radiating at thousands of degrees...if it were just one thousand degrees, that would be...according to the SB law 56,700wm^2

 

[SSDD]

I find it doesn't matter what he's talking about. The situation as described in the model concerning the earth's energy balance is fairly unique insofar as the GHG atmosphere lets through most of the sun's radiation while being warmed up by, and radiating back most of, the earth's infrared radiation. That results in the earth's surface receiving radiation from the same direction from two different sources, which is the main difference from "two ice cubes" doubling the generated radiative energy per square meter. To anyone with a like of scientific sense that would be a case of satire gone awry, but then, real life turns out to be even less funny than that.

I find, he's just fond of generating nonsense, and watching the "warmers" tying themselves into knots to find the best way to explain fairly simple concepts, which he then reliably fails to understand.

As I said elsewhere, debating the goof is tantamount to erecting a monument to pointlessness. I, for one, am strongly disinclined to do that.

Yes. You are right. I have been able to back him into corners of absurdity in things like the meaning of the 2nd law of thermo, the Stefan-Boltzman equation, the cosmic microwave background, etc. and he will just drop the thread only to come back maybe in another thread with the same thing. Yes, he is playing a game and I think we both know it's a game. The game is really not about science at all because he makes up his own rules and I follow his rules to an absurdity. It is an interesting game for me, but the plot of the game gets bogged down and moves along too slowly. So you are right, it is a monument to pointlessness.

I am laughing at you wuwei..pretending to be superior...it has become clear now that you haven't had even the slightest idea of what the greenhouse effect has been claiming...you have had no idea..for all this time that 239.7wm^2 equals a radiating temperature of -18..did you think I just pulled -18 degrees out of my hat?....do you even know how to plug numbers into the SB equation to get either a radiating temperature or a wm^2?....apparently not.....you haven't had a clue about any of it...and now you seem to be claiming that the incoming radiation from the sun and the so called back radiation from the atmosphere occupy the same space even though the sun isn't heating the atmosphere...the atmosphere is invisible to the incoming short wave...as far as the atmosphere is concerned..it's only source of energy is the IR coming from the surface of the earth..

 

[Olde Europe]

Yes. You are right. I have been able to back him into corners of absurdity in things like the meaning of the 2nd law of thermo, the Stefan-Boltzman equation, the cosmic microwave background, etc. and he will just drop the thread only to come back maybe in another thread with the same thing. Yes, he is playing a game and I think we both know it's a game. The game is really not about science at all because he makes up his own rules and I follow his rules to an absurdity. It is an interesting game for me, but the plot of the game gets bogged down and moves along too slowly. So you are right, it is a monument to pointlessness.

If you look at his elaborations on this thread alone, the ignorance is patently staggering. He's been debating this "equation" over 137 posts, and has yet to realize that the radiation coming from the sun is at 1370W/m^2. He has no clue that radiative energy dissipates over the distance, and thus the W/m^2 radiated off at the sun's surface isn't the same as the W/m^2 received at the earth's surface, or top of the atmosphere. Just for starters... Pointless. Upon further consideration, there's a benefit to be had letting him stand as a monument to ignorance, as opposed to erecting a monument to pointlessness.

 

[SSDD]

Yes. You are right. I have been able to back him into corners of absurdity in things like the meaning of the 2nd law of thermo, the Stefan-Boltzman equation, the cosmic microwave background, etc. and he will just drop the thread only to come back maybe in another thread with the same thing. Yes, he is playing a game and I think we both know it's a game. The game is really not about science at all because he makes up his own rules and I follow his rules to an absurdity. It is an interesting game for me, but the plot of the game gets bogged down and moves along too slowly. So you are right, it is a monument to pointlessness.

If you look at his elaborations on this thread alone, the ignorance is patently staggering. He's been debating this "equation" over 137 posts, and has yet to realize that the radiation coming from the sun is at 1370W/m^2. He has no clue that radiative energy dissipates over the distance, and thus the W/m^2 radiated off at the sun's surface isn't the same as the W/m^2 received at the earth's surface, or top of the atmosphere. Just for starters... Pointless. Upon further consideration, there's a benefit to be had letting him stand as a monument to ignorance, as opposed to erecting a monument to pointlessness.

You are a laughing stock....and don't have the first clue as to what you are talking about....I know precisely what the incoming radiation from the sun is...Here...lets take a look at your cartoon... How much energy does it say is coming in from the sun?...how much of that is actually striking the ground? Look at the idiocy of your cartoon...163.3 absorbed from the sun by the surface...398 emitted by the surface....absorbing 163...emitting 398...how much sense does that make? and you actually believe that bullshit...one more idiot drone who believes in magic...people like you are absolutely laughable...mostly because you believe climate science.