What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[SSDD]

What do you know...yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model. What a surprise.

The atmosphere, and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable...how about a hypothesis that deals in observables, and measurables rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...

Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?

 

[toobfreak]

What do you know...yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model. What a surprise.

The atmosphere, and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable...how about a hypothesis that deals in observables, and measurables rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...

Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?

If a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation, then a starving person can gain weight by feeding off his own fat!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do you know...yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model. What a surprise.

The atmosphere, and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable...how about a hypothesis that deals in observables, and measurables rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...

Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?

rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...

Who ever claimed that? Where?

Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?

Which physical law is it that says that a body stops radiating at equilibrium?
Yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.

 

[SSDD]

What do you know...yet another unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model. What a surprise.

The atmosphere, and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable...how about a hypothesis that deals in observables, and measurables rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...

Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?

If a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation, then a starving person can gain weight by feeding off his own fat!

I would be very interested in hearing a explanation from one of the local warmers detailing the mechanism by which the frequency of the earth's own radiation is bumped up to higher frequencies at every frequency as is required by Planck's law in order to cause an increase in temperature.

 

[cnm]

Even though I'm hiding from it I observe in this thread what must be the result of the same old shit.

 

[Olde Europe]

The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached. What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy. It is at that point the system stops heating.

Where is the link to your source? Or is that just your personal interpretation of what the GHE is?

I'm not trying to harass you. I want to look at 'official' explanations.

That's my definition as a trained physicist. You don't find it "reasonably scientific?" You did not ask for "official" explanations in your OP, in fact, the word "official" never even appears in your OP. Anything about my definition you disagree with?

A 'trained physicist' wouldn't have called it a closed system.

Yep. Neither would he, having called it a "closed system", have then gone on to describe the greenhouse effect as "more infrared energy is trapped than released". Let's just say, that attempt at a definition is in serious need of thought, and a clean-up.

 

[SSDD]

Even though I'm hiding from it I observe in this thread what must be the result of the same old shit.

And every time you speak, we observe that you can't even begin to defend your position...or offer up any rational rebuttal to the positions in opposition to your own....same old shit.

 

[IanC]

The atmosphere, and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable...how about a hypothesis that deals in observables, and measurables rather than the incessant claim that the earth is being warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation...

Which physical law is it that says that a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation?

Why does any atmosphere (GHGs or not) make the surface temperature warmer on average?

Surely even the most virulent GHE denier would agree that it does. But why? What is the mechanism?

Once you figure that out then it is easy to see why greenhouse gases enhance the rise in average surface temperature. It is also easy to see why adding a new type of GHG would further enhance the effect but not as easy to see why adding more of an already present gas would also result in higher average surface temp.

 

[IanC]

If a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation, then a starving person can gain weight by feeding off his own fat!

What an odd person you are for a 'trained physicist '.

Your analogy is actually pretty good. The atmosphere is like fat cells. Storing and releasing energy to smooth out times of excess surface energy (daylight) with times of no solar energy ( nighttime).

Edit- I suppose I should be specific in my disagreement with your actual statement. A person does not gain weight by consuming the contents of fat cells, they lose weight. People could gain weight with the same amount of outside food consumption if they used their muscles less or were in a warmer environment that requires less energy for internal heat control.

 

[SSDD]

Why does any atmosphere (GHGs or not) make the surface temperature warmer on average?

Autocompression...there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

Once you figure that out then it is easy to see why greenhouse gases enhance the rise in average surface temperature. It is also easy to see why adding a new type of GHG would further enhance the effect but not as easy to see why adding more of an already present gas would also result in higher average surface temp.

The only so called greenhouse gas that has any effect on global temperatures at all is water vapor..

The fact remains that a body can not be warmed by its own radiation...and no matter how much you like to claim that it is merely slowing down the escape of energy, slower cooling does not equal warming...and according to climate science, the earth is in fact, warming..

 

[SSDD]

If a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation, then a starving person can gain weight by feeding off his own fat!

What an odd person you are for a 'trained physicist '.

Your analogy is actually pretty good. The atmosphere is like fat cells. Storing and releasing energy to smooth out times of excess surface energy (daylight) with times of no solar energy ( nighttime).

CO2 has nothing to do with that "storing" and releasing of energy...That is entirely due to water vapor and the fact that convection is such a slow means of moving energy to the top of the troposphere...

 

[Wuwei]

I would be very interested in hearing a explanation from one of the local warmers detailing the mechanism by which the frequency of the earth's own radiation is bumped up to higher frequencies at every frequency as is required by Planck's law in order to cause an increase in temperature.

That tortured paragraph misses the mark. It's the sun that increases the temperature of the earth. The back radiation moderates the increase. This was said many times.


.

 

[IanC]

CO2 has nothing to do with that "storing" and releasing of energy...That is entirely due to water vapor and the fact that convection is such a slow means of moving energy to the top of the troposphere...

I know it is futile to ask you to explain yourself but there are others that read these threads as well. Excuse me if it seems like I am putting words into your mouth but I have to make guesses at what you mean because you never say.

I am assuming that you are saying that H2O as water vapour has no ability to warm the air by absorbing surface radiation that is then transferred to the other molecules by collision.

Further I am assuming that you think the only storage is the energy required to evaporate the water, which then triggers convection by its low molecular weight, leading to release of that energy when the water vapour condenses at cooler upper altitudes.

Is that roughly it? Do you want to modify something?

Once we clarify your basic stance we can move on to other issues like whether convection is slower than radiation at wavelengths that the atmosphere is opaque to.

 

[SSDD]

I would be very interested in hearing a explanation from one of the local warmers detailing the mechanism by which the frequency of the earth's own radiation is bumped up to higher frequencies at every frequency as is required by Planck's law in order to cause an increase in temperature.

That tortured paragraph misses the mark. It's the sun that increases the temperature of the earth. The back radiation moderates the increase. This was said many times.


.

So you are claiming that back radiation slows the warming of the earth?...you are saying that the earth would be warmer if not for so called greenhouse gasses?

That is what the word moderation means in that context...

Moderate: to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous.

Maybe if you tried to actually learn something rather than just making it all up as you go, your arguments....never mind...yo are what you are...

 

[toobfreak]

If a body can be warmed by absorbing and reradiating its own radiation, then a starving person can gain weight by feeding off his own fat!

What an odd person you are for a 'trained physicist '.

Your analogy is actually pretty good. The atmosphere is like fat cells. Storing and releasing energy to smooth out times of excess surface energy (daylight) with times of no solar energy ( nighttime).

Edit- I suppose I should be specific in my disagreement with your actual statement. A person does not gain weight by consuming the contents of fat cells, they lose weight. People could gain weight with the same amount of outside food consumption if they used their muscles less or were in a warmer environment that requires less energy for internal heat control.

What an idiot you seem to be. Do you have any formal education in the sciences? If so, what is it and have you asked them for a refund? The atmosphere serves as the MECHANISM by which the greenhouse takes effect. It first takes sunlight and converts it into IR radiation, then acts as an insulating layer to hold it in from escaping back out into space. The rest of your "fat cell diet theory" apparently went right over your head.

 

[Wuwei]

So you are claiming that back radiation slows the warming of the earth?...you are saying that the earth would be warmer if not for so called greenhouse gasses?

That is what the word moderation means in that context...

No. It slows the cooling of the earth.

 

[toobfreak]

"What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?"

We see another libtard thread in the making under the veil of "science." First we are asked what explanation we use. Then when they are offered, they are attacked unless they lead to the one irreconcilable conclusion supporting Climate Change as a function of man. Then we are attacked on our personal credentials by as person who gives nothing on his own.

This is just one more climate thread by a climate believer under the guise of science really intended only to sell climate change theory while attacking all and anything which does not agree with or support it. Nothing more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?"

We see another libtard thread in the making under the veil of "science." First we are asked what explanation we use. Then when they are offered, they are attacked unless they lead to the one irreconcilable conclusion supporting Climate Change as a function of man. Then we are attacked on our personal credentials by as person who gives nothing on his own.

This is just one more climate thread by a climate believer under the guise of science really intended only to sell climate change theory while attacking all and anything which does not agree with or support it. Nothing more.

I don't think IanC is an "AGW believer", more of a skeptic.

 

[Olde Europe]

I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.

More CO₂ makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation. I am guessing, that is well understood.

With more energy retained within the system, temperatures rising, there's the secondary effect of more water vapor, making the system even more opaque, pushing temperatures even higher. That also shouldn't be hard to understand.

As to "huge changes", that depends on what you find "huge".

The difference between the last ice age and pre-industrial temperature averages is just 4°C to 6°C. I would call that "huge". Some estimates for future average temperatures, contingent on emissions scenarios, put the temperature rise close to +5°C. I'd call that "huge".

Do you find any problem with any of the above?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.

More CO₂ makes the atmosphere more opaque to IR radiation. I am guessing, that is well understood.

With more energy retained within the system, temperatures rising, there's the secondary effect of more water vapor, making the system even more opaque, pushing temperatures even higher. That also shouldn't be hard to understand.

As to "huge changes", that depends on what you find "huge".

The difference between the last ice age and pre-industrial temperature averages is just 4°C to 6°C. I would call that "huge". Some estimates for future average temperatures, contingent on emissions scenarios, put the temperature rise close to +5°C. I'd call that "huge".

Do you find any problem with any of the above?

With more energy retained within the system, temperatures rising, there's the secondary effect of more water vapor, making the system even more opaque, pushing temperatures even higher. That also shouldn't be hard to understand.

Would more clouds trap more IR or cause more sun light to reflect into space?
Not a simple, warming only factor.

The difference between the last ice age and pre-industrial temperature averages is just 4°C to 6°C. I would call that "huge".

All without a huge increase in CO2.