What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[cnm]

but it remains curious to me you people seem fixated on the exact properties and relationships of ONE atom, CO2 in relation to the atmosphere when CO2 is:

Even from a trained physicist this sort of shit makes my head hurt.

'ONE atom, CO2'. Ffs.

When added to 'closed systems' and 'STP' and 'atmosphere as the greenhouse MECHANISM' I start to wonder as to the training physicists receive.

 

[cnm]

That I spent many years working in a physics research lab is well documented.

Why then so many basic howlers and ignorance?

 

[Olde Europe]

STP means standard temperature and pressure, ie roughly what it is at sea level.

I find it hard to believe a trained physicist has not encountered the term STP before.

That may or may not be the case.

What happened I find far worse, since reading "the mean collision rate at STP", and questioning that rate, without ever considering that STP might be a salient term in the description would betray catastrophic difficulties following English language descriptions. Like, also, giving the radiation intensity on the sun's surface as the radiation impacting earth. Or, describing earth as a closed system. Whatever, he seems to be posting mostly while tired and emotional, and he doesn't change for the better in that state.

 

[toobfreak]

Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?

Really? Give me a list of all the applied physics and astronomy text books from the 1970s (or anytime for that matter) that go into that crap about CO2. I'll wait. Then tell me you know it all off the top of your fucking head from 40 years ago? I have a house full of such books. Not in any of them. Just like I'm still waiting on your answer to any textbook that describes sunlight as collimated or well ordered, the answer to my math problem, or what if any education you have. You see, I went to school back before people were obsessed with all this CO2 scare climate change garbage, and my work was in material science of optoelectronics, semiconductors and electricity for about the 40th time, not atmospherics or earth science, no one gave a rat shit how long CO2 hung onto something or how it gave it up unless they actually WORKED IN THAT FIELD, much less knew it off the top of their head as you pretend to do, so you continuously astound me that you think I give a rat's shit about CO2? The more the merrier I say!

Meantime, all you've shown is that you have read a few articles on climate science, greenhouse warming and such. Or maybe this garbage is all you talk about day and night? If so, then why do you worry about which greenhouse model others use? And if ANY of them are valid, then why are there so many of them and why are they still models? I've asked you one simple math problem that you can't even solve and EVADE. Shall I ask you harder math problems? Questions about optics, light, image processing, digital, analog, solar magnetohydrodynamics, particle physics, propagation of gravity waves in spiral galaxies, quantum chromodynamics, telecommunications, quark confinement theories, how to eliminated the need for RIAA equalization, acoustics or a hundred other things?

At best, you're a ONE PUMP CHUMP, so sorry asshole, you've provided NO credible scientific documentation to support anything you've said other than the albedo thing which is pretty common knowledge and basic. You're pathetic. Now we know why you hide behind made up technobabble jargon and ad hominem attacks at other people to deflect from yourself. Tell us how many technologies you've created or added to? Any? Tell us how you've aided in the national defense? Ever? Tell us the journals, publications, papers and books you've written? One? Tell us about any personal inventions you've developed? Huh? What? I CAN'T FUCKING HEAR YOU, you pathetic little creep.

You pathetic lying faggot coward, you haven't ONE CREDIBLE FUCKING THING you have shown here or can show for any real contribution you've made to the world in your whole life I bet, and you sit there in the safety behind your sweaty little smartphone tapping away about your pseudo-fake garbage science of how the world is going to end in 12 years if we all don't give up our cars and fossil fuels? What a pathetic joke you are! The Sun in the "green channel" does blah blah blah for so long at this level to an atom of CO2. . . . . Jackass, "green channel?" Real scientists talk about the E Fraunhofer line. Tell us Ace, do you even know what frequency IR light vibrates at with a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters? What about a 10Å x-ray, what frequency would that be? Can you convert Hex base 16 to denary? What can you tell us about the physics of an AGN emitter? A GTO thyristor? What is the advantage of a non-polarized polypropylene capacitor in the signal path at VB over a styrene or tantalum? Huh, smartshit?

Tell us all about it, Ian.

 

[Wuwei]

For God's sake guys! Chill out.

 

[cnm]

Now that's what I call a quality rant. Easily worth an 'atom' of CO2.

 

[cnm]

For God's sake guys! Chill out.

Are we not entertained?

 

[Wuwei]

For God's sake guys! Chill out.

Are we not entertained?

I believe in internalizing frustration and let it come out harmlessly as an ulcer.

.

 

[toobfreak]

My point is that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...it simply is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection. CO2 has no effect on the temperature and no other so called greenhouse gas does either except for water vapor.

THANK YOU. Finally, one person that actually says something both intelligent and substantive! POINT WELL TAKEN. NOW I see your interest in the photonic reradition of CO2, a weak GHG at best, vs. kinetic transfer between other gas atoms. Sniff. Sniff. It passes the Common Sense Test. And since gas has such a poor thermal conductive coupling to solids like water and land, it's hard to understand how any man-made carbon effect could be responsible for a mean rise in the temperature of the Earth if I understand you correctly!

If that is the case, then any changes we see in ice melting, weather, etc., must be coming from OUTSIDE, because more energy is being put into the Earth from the Sun itself.

But, IF THAT IS SO, then, the entire Man-Made Climate Change thing must be a CROCK OF SHIT.

 

[Olde Europe]

I believe in internalizing frustration and let it come out harmlessly as an ulcer.

.

Here's hoping I won't add to that frustration by declaring my objection to your coping mechanism - at least, I am not prepared to adopt it, as of yet.

But then, I am starting to appreciate your sense of humor - I guess. Perhaps that helps.

 

[Olde Europe]

If that is the case, then any changes we see in ice melting, weather, etc., must be coming from OUTSIDE, because more energy is being put into the Earth from the Sun itself.

But, IF THAT IS SO, then, the entire Man-Made Climate Change thing must be a CROCK OF SHIT.

Make that the "Chinese Hoax". That's the technical term for "climate change" in the age of Trumpish imbecility.

And yeah, it absolutely must - MUST - be the sun, if you accept the evidence for a changing climate (rising temperatures, ice melt etc.), and you're still going full denialingdong as to the human contribution. It patently MUST be the sun. Funny, though, our satellites measuring solar insolation cannot find any increase commensurate to the changing climate.

But wait, maybe the sensors are ... Chinese!

 

[Wuwei]

THANK YOU. Finally, one person that actually says something both intelligent and substantive! POINT WELL TAKEN. NOW I see your interest in the photonic reradition of CO2, a weak GHG at best, vs. kinetic transfer between other gas atoms. Sniff. Sniff. It passes the Common Sense Test. And since gas has such a poor thermal conductive coupling to solids like water and land, it's hard to understand how any man-made carbon effect could be responsible for a mean rise in the temperature of the Earth if I understand you correctly!

If that is the case, then any changes we see in ice melting, weather, etc., must be coming from OUTSIDE, because more energy is being put into the Earth from the Sun itself.

But, IF THAT IS SO, then, the entire Man-Made Climate Change thing must be a CROCK OF SHIT

It seems you agree with SSDD. Do you also agree with SSDD on the physical reasons why he rejects the GHE. He has an amazing alt-science.

For example he thinks black body radiation fails in the direction of colder objects. Two objects can't both simultaneously radiate toward each other. Ever. Only the warmer object can radiate toward the colder. That is his basis for rejecting back radiation. Alt-science.

USMB has forbidden us to go around and around with arguments on alt-science. So if you are interested in pursuing that you can go to this site.

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

This all I have to say about it in this thread.


.

 

[Olde Europe]

For example he thinks black body radiation fails in the direction of colder [warmer?] objects.

I think you messed up the punch line.

On another note, perhaps GHE isn't a concept that lends itself to simplification to such a degree as to be understood by an 11 year old, while also satisfactory to scientific bean counters. So, this thread tries to square the circle (when it's not engaged in peeing contests).

 

[Wuwei]

For example he thinks black body radiation fails in the direction of colder [warmer?] objects.

I think you messed up the punch line.

On another note, perhaps GHE isn't a concept that lends itself to simplification to such a degree as to be understood by an 11 year old, while also satisfactory to scientific bean counters. So, this thread tries to square the circle (when it's not engaged in peeing contests).

Arrrg! you're right. I used colder when I meant warmer. Now I inadvertently made him look worse than he actually is.

.

 

[IanC]

I dont feel like going over it yet again.

As so often happens, there is actually an article on energy budgets over at WUWT. You should check it out.

That's okay. I found your thread (2011), and your understanding sure has improved since, because back then you didn't understand what the GHE is, and misrepresented its magnitude.

You'd have to pay me ever to go to WUWT again. That's time I'll never get back, with nothing of any value in return.

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. Wirebender (SSDDs previous incarnation) was just as good at hijacking threads 8 years ago as he is now.

 

[IanC]

So called GHG's almost never get to emit a photon...they lose the energy they absorbed energy via collision in damned near every instance...

Every excited state that is thwarted by molecular collision is matched by an excited state caused by collision.

 

[IanC]

Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?

Really? Give me a list of all the applied physics and astronomy text books from the 1970s (or anytime for that matter) that go into that crap about CO2. I'll wait. Then tell me you know it all off the top of your fucking head from 40 years ago? I have a house full of such books. Not in any of them. Just like I'm still waiting on your answer to any textbook that describes sunlight as collimated or well ordered, the answer to my math problem, or what if any education you have. You see, I went to school back before people were obsessed with all this CO2 scare climate change garbage, and my work was in material science of optoelectronics, semiconductors and electricity for about the 40th time, not atmospherics or earth science, no one gave a rat shit how long CO2 hung onto something or how it gave it up unless they actually WORKED IN THAT FIELD, much less knew it off the top of their head as you pretend to do, so you continuously astound me that you think I give a rat's shit about CO2? The more the merrier I say!

Meantime, all you've shown is that you have read a few articles on climate science, greenhouse warming and such. Or maybe this garbage is all you talk about day and night? If so, then why do you worry about which greenhouse model others use? And if ANY of them are valid, then why are there so many of them and why are they still models? I've asked you one simple math problem that you can't even solve and EVADE. Shall I ask you harder math problems? Questions about optics, light, image processing, digital, analog, solar magnetohydrodynamics, particle physics, propagation of gravity waves in spiral galaxies, quantum chromodynamics, telecommunications, quark confinement theories, how to eliminated the need for RIAA equalization, acoustics or a hundred other things?

At best, you're a ONE PUMP CHUMP, so sorry asshole, you've provided NO credible scientific documentation to support anything you've said other than the albedo thing which is pretty common knowledge and basic. You're pathetic. Now we know why you hide behind made up technobabble jargon and ad hominem attacks at other people to deflect from yourself. Tell us how many technologies you've created or added to? Any? Tell us how you've aided in the national defense? Ever? Tell us the journals, publications, papers and books you've written? One? Tell us about any personal inventions you've developed? Huh? What? I CAN'T FUCKING HEAR YOU, you pathetic little creep.

You pathetic lying faggot coward, you haven't ONE CREDIBLE FUCKING THING you have shown here or can show for any real contribution you've made to the world in your whole life I bet, and you sit there in the safety behind your sweaty little smartphone tapping away about your pseudo-fake garbage science of how the world is going to end in 12 years if we all don't give up our cars and fossil fuels? What a pathetic joke you are! The Sun in the "green channel" does blah blah blah for so long at this level to an atom of CO2. . . . . Jackass, "green channel?" Real scientists talk about the E Fraunhofer line. Tell us Ace, do you even know what frequency IR light vibrates at with a wavelength of 0.1 millimeters? What about a 10Å x-ray, what frequency would that be? Can you convert Hex base 16 to denary? What can you tell us about the physics of an AGN emitter? A GTO thyristor? What is the advantage of a non-polarized polypropylene capacitor in the signal path at VB over a styrene or tantalum? Huh, smartshit?

Tell us all about it, Ian.

Wow! Why are you so upset about not knowing about albedo or blackbody radiation? No one actually believed your bullshit about being college educated.

 

[toobfreak]

Wow! Why are you so upset about not knowing about albedo or blackbody radiation? No one actually believed your bullshit about being college educated.

Proof once again this clod doesn't even read at a grade school level. The ONE THING I agreed with was the basic common knowledge of albedo and blackbody radiation, which I've not only known about since early grade school, but for which there is no debate! These are simple,undisputed, basic aspects of science. What is more interesting is the focus not on proving whatever science may be here to prove any of the horseshit claims of the ultimate destination of climate change, but the repeated juvenile attacks on me personally trying to "discredit" me simply because of my actual background in scientific development, yet, if any of the other parties DON'T have any actual science background, WHAT POSSIBLE MERIT DO THEY HAVE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS? WHY THE FEAR? IanC is a schmuck that proves nothing, answers nothing, evades every topic, hides behind a cloak, yet is so concerned about ME.

I smell the fear.

If he thought I really were some barely high school educated baboon, he would be ignoring me, oddly, he doesn't even call for any proof I have of my work in science and physics. I was a practical engineer for many years, a problem solver, and there is indeed a deep problem here, why the Climate-believers try to destroy those that disagree with them rather than simply offer up any clear proof, ANY proof, or hard science.

Indeed, all I've seen here is unsupported THEORIES, hackneyed science wrapped in a bubble. by a bunch of glib-talking, unqualified people. The only people here who have shown me a smattering of real credible science knowledge are wuwei, SSDD and I guess sunsettommy. I get that maybe wuwei might actually WORK in a related science field. I deal with professionals in science all the time, people all around the country and planet on another forum I run and NONE of them are shy about qualifying themselves or what they know and do. NONE of them act such such petty children as here, slinging insults and doubts about whether the other person is even being honest about their background. If fact, some of us even exchange phone numbers and addresses and are real friends I trust. But not here.

Like I said before, you walk into a medical convention and say you are a doctor, no one questions you. You walk into a bar and announce you are a doctor and people might not believe you. This is a bar.

I honestly haven't seen ONE PERSON here who can even solve for X. Is there ANYONE here who can tell me the value of X? The question is now ON THE TABLE.

BTW, the above solution only proves you have a high school education. This is BASIC ALGEBRA, friends, not rocket science. I'll wait for the answers.

I have a nose for the truth, and something stinks to high heaven here. Nothing presented here in any of the "models" for climate change pass the Sniff Test. And neither does Ian. If "climate science" were anything credible beyond mere theories and unprovable models, we wouldn't be having this debate here.

The Sun shines in "collimated" sunlight. Man, this dude just takes the cake.

 

[Olde Europe]

Thanks for the stroll down memory lane. Wirebender (SSDDs previous incarnation) was just as good at hijacking threads 8 years ago as he is now.

You're welcome.

It should be noted, though, that no one poster can hijack a thread. Not unless aided and abetted by those who would obsessive-compulsively devote their attention to the troll. Or even acknowledge his existence. ... and there's always at least one who couldn't resist if their life depended on it.

 

[SSDD]

My point is that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...it simply is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure, conduction and convection. CO2 has no effect on the temperature and no other so called greenhouse gas does either except for water vapor.

THANK YOU. Finally, one person that actually says something both intelligent and substantive! POINT WELL TAKEN. NOW I see your interest in the photonic reradition of CO2, a weak GHG at best, vs. kinetic transfer between other gas atoms. Sniff. Sniff. It passes the Common Sense Test. And since gas has such a poor thermal conductive coupling to solids like water and land, it's hard to understand how any man-made carbon effect could be responsible for a mean rise in the temperature of the Earth if I understand you correctly!

If that is the case, then any changes we see in ice melting, weather, etc., must be coming from OUTSIDE, because more energy is being put into the Earth from the Sun itself.

But, IF THAT IS SO, then, the entire Man-Made Climate Change thing must be a CROCK OF SHIT.

I prefer the term steaming pile of excrement, but crock of shit works just as well. It is all bullshit based on models which are based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of how energy moves through the troposphere. The only evidence they can post up to support their hypothesis is the claimed "consensus" of climate scientists as if how many people believe a thing somehow makes it true.

By the way...the pause in temperature increase is about 2 decades old now, and if you look at studies of the sun in the latter 20th century when "warming" was all the rage, you will find that the output of the sun was at its highest point in 2 centuries...since then the sun as begun to go quite and the pause continued and now, the oceans are beginning to cool.. It is, has been, and always will be the sun.