Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[jc456]

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.

Yes it is staggering, but he has a new gimmic in his game that he wants to play out. He doesn't realize that it is already played out.

When he is backed in to a corner he reverts to taunting. He reminds me of the knight in a Monte Python movie where an adversary chops off his limbs one by one. Armless and legless he continues taunting his "cowardly" adversary who leaves the scene.

These are out of context excerpts of some of SSDD's childish taunts to me in this thread.

now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs...
There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...
I am surprised that you would admit to believing such bullshit...
Now run along and do your best to ignore ...
.in a word...bullshit...
..you haven't had a clue about any of it....
I am laughing at you wuwei..pretending to be superior...​

He seems to be especially emotional in the taunts aimed at you in your last post.

You are a laughing stock...
Look at the idiocy of your cartoon...
and you actually believe that bullshit...
one more idiot drone who believes in magic...
.people like you are absolutely laughable...​

When he gets that emotional it is a sign that he is running out of steam.

so it seems your tactic is to talk shit rather than discuss the topic. gotcha. answer the man's question about how the earth can emit more than it absorbs from the sun.

 

[jc456]

I'm all ears here SID. What is the temperature of the surface of the Earth and how does it get there?

two radiators radiating at -18 degrees can combine to produce an output temperature 18 degrees warmer than either.... care to show me a physical law that says that is possible?

We need to agree on how heat and temperature work. Heat is energy and temperature is the amount of heat that a mass has. When heat (AKA "energy") flows it's called "power".

A one watt light bulb (just a little bit of 'power') can heat up an entire mountain to a temperature so hot that it can vaporize --but what's required is that we first have to make sure none of the heat escapes (we need a very very big thermos bottle) and second we have to wait a long time.

The green house effect is our thermos bottle, and the neat NASA pic (at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1164px-The-NASA-Earth's-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg) seems to say the efficiency is about 0.2% --and that means the entire earth heats up 1°F every year.

It doesn't. Our neat NASA pic is not all that complete after all.

wow!

 

[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.

he stated that's what you are saying.

 

[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?

 

[jc456]

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.

 

[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?

it states it all the cartoons that have posted.

Which cartoon mentions -18?

 

[jc456]

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?

post #135

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

there is also this one:
QUOTE="Old Rocks, post: 16550216, member: 13758"]
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes
Anyone interested can go to the site at the link.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

there is also this one:
QUOTE="Old Rocks, post: 16550216, member: 13758"]
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes
Anyone interested can go to the site at the link.

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

 

[jc456]

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.

there is also this one:
QUOTE="Old Rocks, post: 16550216, member: 13758"]
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes
Anyone interested can go to the site at the link.

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

with his link and this cartoon:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

there is also this one:
QUOTE="Old Rocks, post: 16550216, member: 13758"]
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes
Anyone interested can go to the site at the link.

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

there is also this one:
QUOTE="Old Rocks, post: 16550216, member: 13758"]
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes
Anyone interested can go to the site at the link.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

there is also this one:
QUOTE="Old Rocks, post: 16550216, member: 13758"]
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes
Anyone interested can go to the site at the link.

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.

 

[jc456]

there is also this one:
QUOTE="Old Rocks, post: 16550216, member: 13758"]
Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes
Anyone interested can go to the site at the link.

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?

 

[SSDD]

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?

 

[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.

that is exactly what you are saying.

Rocks is old...he is rarely aware of what he is saying...

 

[SSDD]

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.

Yes it is staggering, but he has a new gimmic in his game that he wants to play out. He doesn't realize that it is already played out.

When he is backed in to a corner he reverts to taunting. He reminds me of the knight in a Monte Python movie where an adversary chops off his limbs one by one. Armless and legless he continues taunting his "cowardly" adversary who leaves the scene.

These are out of context excerpts of some of SSDD's childish taunts to me in this thread.

now run away with your hands clapped over your ears screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs...
There is more, if you care to continue, but I will understand if you run away...
I am surprised that you would admit to believing such bullshit...
Now run along and do your best to ignore ...
.in a word...bullshit...
..you haven't had a clue about any of it....
I am laughing at you wuwei..pretending to be superior...​

He seems to be especially emotional in the taunts aimed at you in your last post.

You are a laughing stock...
Look at the idiocy of your cartoon...
and you actually believe that bullshit...
one more idiot drone who believes in magic...
.people like you are absolutely laughable...​

When he gets that emotional it is a sign that he is running out of steam.

so it seems your tactic is to talk shit rather than discuss the topic. gotcha. answer the man's question about how the earth can emit more than it absorbs from the sun.

Of course that is the tactic...it is always the tactic...show them how wrong they are and their response is to congratulate each other on their superiority...liberals are f'ing stupid and you just can't fix stupid...

 

[jc456]

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.

that is exactly what you are saying.

Rocks is old...he is rarely aware of what he is saying...

exactly

 

[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?

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..