What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[SSDD]

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.

.

More sceince you are behind the times on...ulcers are not caused by stress..or frustration. A fact I pointed out to my gastroenterologist decades before science caught up...mark yet another instance where the "consensus" was dead wrong..

 

[SSDD]

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!

That "evidence" is only evidence that the climate changes...if temperatures had never risen before, and ice had never melted before, you might be on to something...since those things and more have happened over and over in the climate, all you are doing is assigning a new, and unproven cause to events that have been happening since the earth first formed. In so far as ice goes, there is more ice now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Interesting how you warmers manage to remain ignorant of that fact and speak of ice melting as if it were something new and frightening...it is laughable, especially in the context history as there is more ice now than there has been foremost of the past 10 mellinia.

 

[SSDD]

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.

.

You will go blind if you persist in mental masturbation to that degree. The only person you make look bad is yourself with your admission that you believe in models over observable, measurable reality.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Sorry guy...you made that unsubstantiated claim when I first got here...as memory serves, the management of the board investigated and told you that there was no evidence that I and wire bender were the same person...guess you have a model that says I was here before and it says that I was so you choose to believe the model over the evidence.

I did take your advice and looked up some of the threads he was part of and it seems that even though he had different ideas than me, he confounded you at every turn as well...he also wanted actual observed evidence that you couldn't produce.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Only if the numbers of excited molecules equals the number of unexcited molecules. CO2 and other so called GHG's are mere trace gasses.

 

[Wuwei]

..ulcers are not caused by stress..

Thank heavens for that. Now I can look at this thread and not worry about ulcers.

 

[Wuwei]

You will go blind if you persist in mental masturbation to that degree.

Science has shown you will not go blind. However authoritative sources say you will grow hair on your hands.

.

 

[Olde Europe]

How many times have we heard that CO2 is such a small portion of air it can't have much of an effect on climate.

Yep. That ranks right up there with "Humans are so small (compared to earth), they can't possibly have an impact on climate."

Otherwise I haven't checked your calculations. But then, it would be surprising if we found very hot CO₂, and also very cold N₂ or O₂ (non-GHGs) - at the same time. So, common sense dictates that collisions are the main avenue for energy transfer in an atmosphere warmed up by IR radiation. Correct?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

Only if the numbers of excited molecules equals the number of unexcited molecules. CO2 and other so called GHG's are mere trace gasses.

That trace gas emits 1.35 10^22 15 micron photons per second in a cubic meter.
Even though there are only 400 ppm of CO2 the energy radiation density is 175 Watts of 15 micron EM radiating within a cubic meter.

.

.

 

[Wuwei]

How many times have we heard that CO2 is such a small portion of air it can't have much of an effect on climate.

Yep. That ranks right up there with "Humans are so small (compared to earth), they can't possibly have an impact on climate."

Otherwise I haven't checked your calculations. But then, it would be surprising if we found very hot CO₂, and also very cold N₂ or O₂ (non-GHGs) - at the same time. So, common sense dictates that collisions are the main avenue for energy transfer in an atmosphere warmed up by IR radiation. Correct?

Correct. Collisions are 30,000 times more probable. I was surprised the radiation energy was so high. It's based on the fact that there are a huge number of molecules in a cubic meter. So, as you imply a trace in one context (numbers) can be large in another context - radiant energy.


.

 

[Wuwei]

I know the answer!!! Choose me! Choose me! I can tell you without looking it up.

Here is one for you prove e^ix = cos x + i sin x
No fair looking it up.

.

 

[Olde Europe]

I know the answer!!! Choose me! Choose me! I can tell you without looking it up.

Here is one for you prove e^ix = cos x + i sin x
No fair looking it up.

.

And I thought you dislike pissing contests.

The "solution" is, of course, x^-1/3. There's nothing to "solve" there.

 

[Wuwei]

And I thought you dislike pissing contests.

Yeah, I guess I'm being sucked into the spirit of things here. It's too bad this thread is disintegrating beyond repair.
.

The "solution" is, of course, x^-1/3. There's nothing to "solve" there.

I think he is looking for a descriptive sentence, like the inverse of the cube root of X. But as you say there is actually nothing to solve.

If he made a further statement such as x = 9, then there would be something to solve. Namely, simultaneous non-linear equations, albeit rather trivial.


.

 

[Olde Europe]

Yeah, I guess I'm being sucked into the spirit of things here. It's too bad this thread is disintegrating beyond repair.

So, let's try to get it back on track. Here's what I found to be a good explanation of the GHE (as provided earlier):

Greenhouse effect

1. Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds.

2. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.

3. Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height.

4. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.

5. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.

Definition courtesy of IPCC AR4.

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.​

I've divided it up into five sections and added enumeration, so as to facilitate reference to the respective portions of the text. What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

 

[jc456]

Only humiliation here is looking you in the mirror.

Ok then Mr 'trained physicist '.

Roughly 1360 w/m2 of solar radiation reaches the Earth orbit distance. The amount intercepted by the Earth would be equal to a disk with the same diameter as the Earth. The Earths surface has four times the area as that disk. 1360 divided by four is 340w/m2.

The Earth has an albedo of 0.3. That means it reflects 30 percent of the solar radiation back into space. That drops the solar insolation to 240w/m2. If you are complaining that I subtracted all of the albedo at once rather than cumulatively through the different layers, then I plead quilty. Tell you what. You can have the whole 340w outside the atmosphere figure to calculate tha amount of solar produced CO2 IR reaching the Earth. It is still insignificant.

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

the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating, it's where you loose your argument, you attempt to stabilize it which isn't what's happening. anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this.

the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating,

Would that make the number more than 340w/m2 or less than 340w/m2?

anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this

Irony is ironic.

The Spherical Shape of the Earth

"Because the Earth is a sphere, the surface gets much more intense sunlight, hence heat, at the equator than at the poles. On the equinox, the Sun passes directly overhead at noon on the equator and a square centimeter of ground receives about 1 calorie of heat energy (see solar constant). On the same day, at 60°N, the latitude of Anchorage, Alaska, or Oslo, Norway, or St. Petersburg, Russia, the Sun rises no higher than 30° above the horizon at noon and heats a given parcel of ground with only a half the intensity as at the equator. At the poles, the Sun appears to sit on the horizon for periods upwards of 24 hours, and its rays skim horizontally over the surface."

You tell me, it's your crazy equation made up as if the earth was a disk fully exposed to the sun flat side? hahahahaha, you crack me up dude.

Answer Todd's question. Does a spinning spheroid collect more incoming solar radiation than a flat disk pointed at the Sun.

If you answer is anything but 'they are equal' then explain.

make me

 

[jc456]

Yeah, I guess I'm being sucked into the spirit of things here. It's too bad this thread is disintegrating beyond repair.

So, let's try to get it back on track. Here's what I found to be a good explanation of the GHE (as provided earlier):

Greenhouse effect

1. Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds.

2. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.

3. Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height.

4. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.

5. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.

Definition courtesy of IPCC AR4.

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.​

I've divided it up into five sections and added enumeration, so as to facilitate reference to the respective portions of the text. What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

all bullshit

 

[jc456]

Never said it was. Ask your OP. He is the one who brought up distant stars, color temperature, collimated light and so much more totally unrelated to greenhouse theories! ALL of this extraneous dialog was generated by several of YOU simply because I gave a very simple definition as asked for by the OP and qualified my background as being in the physics sciences.

I've yet to hear that any of you even have a high school diploma.

That doesn't matter anymore. Sunsetommy finally understood what I was talking about. It's the vibration mode that is important in 15 micron absorption and emission.

But his animation is wrong in one important aspect. The CO2 that is excited by an incoming photon most likely will NOT emit a photon as the animation suggests. A collision with another gas molecule is much more likely to happen. In that way the capture of a photon by CO2 will transfer it's energy to linear kinetic energy of a different molecule and go to it's ground state without emission. The gain in the other molecule of course is random and manifests as local heat.

.

Actually, no. If a CO2 atom is excited by a photon, it has taken some part of that photon and converted it to heat, the source of the excitation. It will then re-radiate that heat in the form of another photon returning to its ground state. Gas molecules OTOH are rather far apart and collisions comparatively less likely.

Your trying to teach a person about the atmosphere and the fact that energy in the troposphere is primarily through conduction and convection. CO2 collides 30,000 times with other molecules in our atmosphere during the time a photon resides in a

The entire climate thing is a fraud.

Entire climate thing? Are you thinking the physical basis of the GHE is fraudulent? If so, can you be more specific?

.

sure, 99% of the CO2 absorbed IR is handed off on collisions resulting in a conduction. If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does downward IR from CO2 occur?

If 99% hand their energy off, then how does spaceward IR from CO2 occur?

CO2 very rarely re-emits near surface due to the mass of the atmosphere and collision energy transfer at ground level.

At altitude the mass is such that LWIR CAN EASILY ESCAPE as N2 and water vapor are non existent and collisions are rare above cloud boundary where re-nucleation of water vapor releases its energy.

CO2 very rarely re-emits near surface due to the mass of the atmosphere and collision energy transfer at ground level.

The mass of the atmosphere restricts the emission of CO2 near the surface?
Tell me more.

no, the fact that the CO2 molecules collide with N molecules is why.

 

[Wuwei]

So, let's try to get it back on track. Here's what I found to be a good explanation of the GHE (as provided earlier):

I agree, let's get back on track. I was on the verge of leaving this forum.

There will be objections raised; what about feedback; what about clouds blocking some of the sun, etc. but I think it's very worthwhile to separate out the understanding of just the GHG part of the whole system as a beginning, as you are suggesting.

The list might be prefaced by a sort of preamble - item zero (or renumbering)
0. The major source of energy warming the earth is the short wave radiation from the sun which penetrates the atmosphere and strikes the surface.

2. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect.

This could be reworded by replacing "to all sides" with the phrase "in all directions" (The scientific jargon is "isotropically")

Items 3 and 4 jump to the output radiation balance and skip how the energy makes it's way upwards. This is controversial in this thread because of those who say radiation has no part in the upward movement.

In my post #159 I'm beginning an exploration of just what part radiation plays. In the atmosphere the mean distance radiation can travel is larger in the up direction because of the exponential decrease in density. It has a shorter mean distance downward for the same reason. This leads to an overall upward flux. But let's leave that for now.

Your step 5 is of course the crux of the energy balance coupling back to the surface energy absorption.

There is more I can say, but I will leave it at that for now.


.

 

[cnm]

What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

3) What is the coupling/relationship of IR radiation with temperature?
4) What has the given temperature of the earth to do with anything, it is left hanging like an irrelevant factoid.
5) How does an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere lead to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature?

 

[Wuwei]

What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

3) What is the coupling/relationship of IR radiation with temperature?
4) What has the given temperature of the earth to do with anything, it is left hanging like an irrelevant factoid.
5) How does an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere lead to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature?

I agree; those are important points at some level. I think part of this whole exercise is what is the target audience. High school level? General college level? Basic college physics level. My interest is involved in the down and dirty math, but I think that's beyond the scope of this forum.

My problem is that as IanC said in his OP there is a dearth of information. I tried looking at the general level of the OP, but it's buried in references that are impossible to get unless you pay $10 to $30 for a reprint of one paper that may not be what you thought it was. The IPCC only lightly summarizes the theory behind GHG's in what I could find.


.