Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?

Greg wrote: However, I do need to point out, there is only one model of the greenhouse effect.

Ceist wrote:
And yet another Sky Dragon Slayer wacky pseudoscience thread by those suffering from extreme ideologically induced

Surface Detail wrote:
There is, of course, just the one greenhouse effect.

Surface Detail wrote: It refers to the process by which certain gases in a planet's atmosphere absorb and re-emit some of the infrared radiation leaving the planet's surface, thus reducing the net rate at energy is emitted from the planet for a given temperature.

Surface Detail wrote: The upshot is that the temperature of the planet needs to be higher in order for the rate of energy emission to equal the rate of energy absorbtion and thus achieve thermal equilibrium.

trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - denialist trolls like IBdaAsshole like to do that sort of thing to create confusion. It doesn't matter what you say to them, they deny it anyways.

trafn wrote: Personally, I don't even waste my time trying to reason with them anymore. I just shove their nonsense back in their faces!

IBdaMann wrote:
Sure, of course there is...and it happens to be your version, right?

Please correct me if I am mistaken. Your version has it that planetary radiation is a function of both temperature and atmospheric composition, i.e. quantity of "greenhouse gases", yes?

You claim that for a given planet E, if the temperature remains the same but the amount of "greenhouse gases" increases then E's radiation will decrease, yes?

Your version quite clearly states that "greenhouse gases" reduce planetary thermal radiation independently from temperature, rendering Planck's Law false were it true.

...and no, not all versions of "greenhouse effect" make this claim.

IBdaMann wrote: Not once did you ever engage in any discussion involving science.

Surface Detail wrote: It's not my version; it's my explanation.

Surface Detail wrote: There is a well-defined greenhouse effect ...

Surface Detail wrote: arising from selective absorption of infrared radiation, and that's my, albeit imperfect, explanation of it. You can find better explanations by following the links you provided. One effect, various explanations.

Surface Detail wrote: However, the temperature of the surface of the planet is indeed dependent on the composition of the planet's atmosphere. The more greenhouse gases there are, the more the atmosphere will hinder the passage of IR radiation, and the hotter the surface needs to be to maintain the same rate of IR transmission out through the atmosphere.

Surface Detail wrote: No, Planck's Law is fine. The effect of increasing GHGs is to reduce the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere.

trafn wrote: How could I when you stopped reading about science in the 1980's? Let me know when you catch up!

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: It's not my version; it's my explanation.

I read otherwise. I am not of the Global Warming religion so I don't buy into the dogma of the one true "greenhouse effect," creater of all forcings, seen and unseen. I read all the differing accounts and I see how different versions violate different laws of physics in different ways.

Surface Detail wrote: There is a well-defined greenhouse effect ...

If there were, all accounts would either violate the same law(s) of physics in the exact same way, or they would actually be science and not violate the laws of physics at all. However, that is not the case. The accounts vary wildly.

I recognize that every member of the Global Warming religion uses the same terminology, to which each person assigns his/her own personal meaning, as you have done, and recites the required dogma that there is somehow only one true creator of "greenhouse effect." I got it. You understand it that way. It just doesn't jive at all with what I read.

Surface Detail wrote: arising from selective absorption of infrared radiation, and that's my, albeit imperfect, explanation of it. You can find better explanations by following the links you provided. One effect, various explanations.

You might notice that I grouped them all according to the primary violation of science.

...but between you and me, we can simplify even further. We can partition them into two categories: 1) violating Planck's Law or 2) violating the 1st LoT.

The one common requirement to be a "greenhouse effect" is to claim that there is an increase in temperature caused by the mere existence of "greenhouse gases."

Planck's law clarifies that temperature is the independent variable thus temperature cannot be affected/controlled by anything affecting thermal radiation. The only way temperature can be increased is by increasing thermal energy. The only way any substance could itself increase thermal energy is to create it.

The 1st LoT negates the idea that any substance can somehow create energy which therefore negates the idea that any substance can, by its mere existence, increase temperature.

So let's run through it. We are observers watching the sun radiate onto planet earth with a constant solar output. We see that 10% of the earth's nitrogen is about to be transformed into an equivalent mass of CO2.

I tell you that I predict no change in the earth's average surface/atmospheric temperature nor any change in earth's thermal radiation.

You, however, beg to disagree, correct?. You claim the earth's average surface/atmospheric temperature will increase, yes? ...and what do you claim will happen with regard to earth's thermal radiation?

Surface Detail wrote: However, the temperature of the surface of the planet is indeed dependent on the composition of the planet's atmosphere. The more greenhouse gases there are, the more the atmosphere will hinder the passage of IR radiation, and the hotter the surface needs to be to maintain the same rate of IR transmission out through the atmosphere.

OK, you have now created an entirely different "greenhouse effect." You apparently claim that increases in atmospheric "greenhouse gases" will create an "Othello chip" (which is black on one side and white on the other) atmosphere that gets hotter and hotter and hotter below while making the top half of the atmosphere colder and colder and colder...yes?

Surface Detail wrote: No, Planck's Law is fine. The effect of increasing GHGs is to reduce the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere.

You wrote two sentences here. The first says Planck's Law is fine. The second sentence essentially says Planck's Law is false.

Planck's Law states that thermal radiation is based entirely on temperature and that the particular substance is simply not a factor. Those two sentences of yours are incompatible. The second sentence is a violation of physics.

.

Surface Detail wrote: It's really hard to see how you're failing to understand this.

Surface Detail wrote: [The "greenhouse effect"] is relatively simple and widely accepted science that fits into and agrees with the wider framework of radiative physics.

Surface Detail wrote: There is no violation of any laws of thermodynamics that all the scientists have somehow misssed;

Surface Detail wrote: Described at the simplest level, GHGs have an insulating effect (due to their absorption and re-emission of IR radiation from the Earth).

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: It's really hard to see how you're failing to understand this.

The issue is that I understand them all well and I see how they each violate physics. I would say that I don't see how you're not understanding the science I am laying right in front of you, but I actually do understand why you are selectively "not understanding."

Surface Detail wrote: [The "greenhouse effect"] is relatively simple and widely accepted science that fits into and agrees with the wider framework of radiative physics.

It's clearly not science. Yes, "greenhouse effect" is widely accepted dogma just as is the "resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Surface Detail wrote: There is no violation of any laws of thermodynamics that all the scientists have somehow misssed;

You completely undermine your argument when you claim to speak for countless, unnamed others.

I ran you through an example that you EVADED, presumably because it was inconvenient. Tell me what you believe would happen to the earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature and earth's thermal radiation given a constant solar radiation and a swap of 10% atmospheric nitrogen for an equivalent mass of CO2?

Surface Detail wrote: Described at the simplest level, GHGs have an insulating effect (due to their absorption and re-emission of IR radiation from the Earth).

Neither Planck's Law nor Stefan-Boltzmann recognize any such thermal radiation "insulating effect" by any substance. Temperature is the only independent variable in every case.

What is it you don't understand about that? I'm happy to explain any point that has you stuck.


.

Surface Detail wrote: Aha, I think I see your problem!

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law apply in the case of ideal black bodies.

Surface Detail wrote:Switching 10% of the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere for CO2 would give rise to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Surface Detail wrote: I'm not speaking for others, by the way. I'm simply pointing out the fact that your point of view disagrees with that of the vast majority of physicists.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Aha, I think I see your problem!

As we shall see, the problem is not mine.

Your problem is that you need for atmospheric composition to become a factor for your "greenhouse effect" to adhere to physics, but you realize you cannot get that, you are going to attempt the only option you have available, i.e. try to show that Planck's Law "does not apply."

I am overly familiar with this tactic, but I credit you for knowing enough to get this far...but the flip side is that you should already understand why all those "greenhouse effect" versions are bunk. But let's proceed.

The correct approach is to realize that the earth is not a black body, and so we must use grey body model. It accounts for bodies with emissivity; temperature remains the independent variable.

Do you have a grey body model that considers substance as an independent variable?

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law apply in the case of ideal black bodies.

Absolutely. Let's use the grey body model.

Surface Detail wrote:Switching 10% of the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere for CO2 would give rise to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Let's try this again, you and I are observing planet earth when the nitrogen is swapped.

A) What do you predict will happen to the earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature?

What do you predict will happen to earth's thermal radiation?

Surface Detail wrote: I'm not speaking for others, by the way. I'm simply pointing out the fact that your point of view disagrees with that of the vast majority of physicists.

You clearly and mistakenly believe you speak for the vast majority of physicists.

I have yet to encounter a single physicist who believes in violations of the laws of physics.


.

Surface Detail wrote:Sorry, but you seem awfully confused about this.

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law concern the emission of radiation from and absorption of radiation by ideal black (or grey) bodies, not the selective transmission of radiation by gases.

Surface Detail wrote:If you want to consider the effect of changing the composition of the atmosphere on the transmission of radiation, you need to consider the radiative transfer characteristics of the gases that make up the atmosphere.

Surface Detail wrote: A) The Earth's surface and lower atmosphere will warm until their temperature stabilises at a higher temperature.

The Earth's thermal radiation, as observed from space, will drop sharply as the upper atmosphere cools, and then gradually rise back to its former level as the Earth and its atmosphere warm until the outgoing thermal radiation again balances the amount of incoming radiation.

Surface Detail wrote: No, physicists don't believe in violations of the laws of physics, but they do accept the reality of the greenhouse effect.

IBdaMann wrote:
It all seems pretty straightforward, but I'm game. Show me I'm mistaken.

Absolutely correct. That's why I told you that you aren't going to be able to get atmospheric composition into this. That's why there are no independent variables for "substance material." You have to treat the body as a body, hence my example of you and I observing the earth as it is warmed by the sun.

The short answer is that swapping out some quantity of a transparent atmospheric gas for an equivalent mass of another transparent atmospheric gas can have no effect on the body's temperature or thermal radiation.

No, that is not needed. If the earth is increasing in thermal energy then a violation is occurring. Either the gas is creating the energy (violating the 1st LoT) or Planck's Law is being violated by the earth's temperature not driving the earth's thermal radiation.

So in yours, which one is it?

I'm going to have to ask you to go through this a third time because you didn't really answer the question. I only want the final result, not what you claim will transpire leading up to the final result.

After the atmospheric gas swap and everything settles,

1) will the earth's average atmospheric temperature have increased, decreased or remained the same?

2) will the earth's thermal radiation have increased, decreased or remained the same?

Not a single one believes in either violations of the 1st LoT or violations of Planck's Law.

I admit that scientists can be religious. Some are Christians who believe a dead guy came back to life. Some are Global Warmers who believe, nay, insist that "climate" performs temperature miracles involving the violation of the laws of physics.

None, however, are able to explain any version of "greenhouse effect" that has "greenhouse gases" increasing temperature while adhering to the laws of physics. They simply profess their faith in "The Science."

Surface Detail wrote:You should be more specific with your questions.

IBdaMann wrote:Let's try again. Please don't divide up the atmosphere into sections. In this question we are talking about the one global unified atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:You should be more specific with your questions.

I have to be because you don't want to answer. Let's try again. Please don't divide up the atmosphere into sections. In this question we are talking about the one global unified atmosphere. Also, regarding thermal radiation, we are talking about just earth, as in the body orbiting the sun. We neither need, nor want, to break it down as to the surface, upper atmosphere, etc...just the earth.

So we swap the gas, wait for things to settle and we observe planet earth.

1. The unified atmospheric temperature has increased overall, decreased overall or has remained the same?

2. The planet's thermal radiation has increased, decreased or remained the same?

All other issues we discussed follow from your answers to the above.


.

Surface Detail wrote:
1) Please define what you mean by "unified atmospheric temperature".

Surface Detail wrote: 2) Remained the same.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
1) Please define what you mean by "unified atmospheric temperature".

The average temperature of the atmosphere as a whole.

Surface Detail wrote: 2) Remained the same.

Good.

Surface Detail wrote:It really depends how you define "average".

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:It really depends how you define "average".

Before we begin the experiment, we define the average atmospheric temperature, AT, to be the average temperature of all points within the volume of the atmosphere.

You and I take our positions as outside observers for this experiment. We record AT's initial value before we swap the gases as AT(initial).

We swap the gases and wait for everything to settle. Then we record AT's final temperature as AT(final).



QUESTION: The result of the experiment shows that AT(final) is greater than, less than or equal to AT(initial)?

I am guessing that you are saying that your version of "greenhouse effect" holds that earth's average atmospheric temperature decreases, yes?

You have repeated that earth's thermal radiation will remain the same.


.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:It really depends how you define "average".

Before we begin the experiment, we define the average atmospheric temperature, AT, to be the average temperature of all points within the volume of the atmosphere.

You and I take our positions as outside observers for this experiment. We record AT's initial value before we swap the gases as AT(initial).

We swap the gases and wait for everything to settle. Then we record AT's final temperature as AT(final).



QUESTION: The result of the experiment shows that AT(final) is greater than, less than or equal to AT(initial)?

I am guessing that you are saying that your version of "greenhouse effect" holds that earth's average atmospheric temperature decreases, yes?

You have repeated that earth's thermal radiation will remain the same.


.

Yes, if you define the average temperature of the atmosphere in that way (seems an odd thing to do to me though), then its average temperature will decrease. However, because the denser parts of the atmosphere will be hotter, the total heat content of the atmosphere will be higher.

Surface Detail wrote:
Yes, if you define the average temperature of the atmosphere in that way (seems an odd thing to do to me though), then its average temperature will decrease. However, because the denser parts of the atmosphere will be hotter, the total heat content of the atmosphere will be higher.

IBdaMann wrote:
Now you are contradicting yourself, saying it will have more "heat content" while it will be "cooler".

You are clearly EVADING the question, trying to have it both ways, hotter and colder at the same time. Let's just understand that you realize the corner into which you backed yourself and you now don't want to give a straight answer.

We can leave it at that.

Surface Detail wrote:No, I didn't say hotter; I said colder but with a higher heat content.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:No, I didn't say hotter; I said colder but with a higher heat content.

What do you mean by "heat content"? Are you stating that the same mass of atmosphere has more thermal energy and a lower temperature?


.

Surface Detail wrote:
By "heat content", I mean the internal kinetic energy (or thermal energy) of the atmosphere. I am indeed saying that the same mass of atmosphere can have more thermal energy and a lower average temperature if that average temperature is defined as a simple spatial average as you suggest. This is due to its non-uniform density - see the example I gave in my previous post.

Surface Detail wrote: Of course, it's not particularly useful to define an average atmospheric temperature in this way. We normally talk about a temperature profile, that is, the temperature as a function of height.

IBdaMann wrote:
First, no. For a given mass, if you increase the thermal energy (as you indicate will happen) then the average temperature, as we have defined it, must increase. "Density" variability is irrelevant.

Second, I believe you have successfully created a unique version of "greenhouse effect." I am unaware of any other version in which "greenhouse gases" cause a given mass to lower in temperature by increasing its thermal energy. You might very well be the first and only.

Of course, for any particular religion it is "useful" to speak in convoluted terminology because it hides the contradictions. It is, as you say, "not particularly useful" to speak in the fundamental terminology of the scientific principles. If you do, the contradictions are readily exposed.

I truly believe that you truly believe that your version of "greenhouse effect" is the one true, correct, version. You deceive yourself, however, when you allow yourself to be convinced that all other warmizombies are operating under your version as well.

Surface Detail wrote:
If you are defining the average temperature in this way, then you need to know the density distribution in order to calculate the total thermal energy.

Surface Detail wrote: No, any other scientist would agree with what I've said.

Surface Detail wrote: What convoluted terminology have I used?

Surface Detail wrote: My understanding of the greenhouse effect is in accordance with the theory that has been set out in physics textbooks for the past 50 years or so.

Surface Detail wrote: In a nutshell, this states that greenhouse gases have the effect of hindering the emission of IR radiation from a planet, thus raising the temperature of the surface of the planet and the lower layers of its atmosphere while cooling the higher layers.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:No, I didn't say hotter; I said colder but with a higher heat content.

What do you mean by "heat content"? Are you stating that the same mass of atmosphere has more thermal energy and a lower temperature?


.

By "heat content", I mean the internal kinetic energy (or thermal energy) of the atmosphere. I am indeed saying that the same mass of atmosphere can have more thermal energy and a lower average temperature if that average temperature is defined as a simple spatial average as you suggest. This is due to its non-uniform density - see the example I gave in my previous post.

Of course, it's not particularly useful to define an average atmospheric temperature in this way. We normally talk about a temperature profile, that is, the temperature as a function of height. As the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, we would expect to see this profile change such that the lower atmospheric layers become warmer while the higher layers cool, and this is in fact what we have observed over the last few decades. A warming upper atmosphere would falsify the greenhouse theory and indicate some external cause or warming, e.g. an increase in solar output.

Surface Detail wrote: Well, it's clear that you are lacking either the will or the ability to comprehend the basic concepts of physics that underpin the greenhouse effect.

Surface Detail wrote: I doubt that there are many modern textbooks on atmospheric physics that don't include a section on the greenhouse effect.

Surface Detail wrote: As I said, it's textbook stuff. You might try reading some of them.

Surface Detail wrote: Emissivity depends on composition.

Surface Detail wrote: If you change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, then you change the Earth's emissivity,

Surface Detail wrote: so here it is the emissivity, not the temperature, that is the independent variable. The temperature is then the dependent variable.

The 1st LoT is not being violated. The gas is not creating energy; it is hindering the outward flow of energy. This is why the Earth is warming - more energy coming in than going out means a net input of energy

One Punch Man wrote: This is essentially what is happening by my understanding too.

One Punch Man wrote:

The 1st LoT is not being violated. The gas is not creating energy; it is hindering the outward flow of energy. This is why the Earth is warming - more energy coming in than going out means a net input of energy

This is essentially what is happening by my understanding too. However I do think the claim that greenhouse gases increase the mean surface temperature by 33C may not be true. Here is a good example of the greenhouse effect that anyone can understand. The average temperature of a desert (according to Google) is 22.5C (i.e. 20-25) and the average temperature of a tropical rainforest is around 27C (i.e. 20C-34C). The tropical rainforest has a warmer average temperature despite the fact that it receives less sunlight at the surface because of clouds (which have a net-cooling effect). Both environments have similar emissivites but the main difference between these two environements is water vapour. It is the water vapour in the atmosphere that acts as an insulator during the night. Because of this insulating effect the day-time and night-time temperatures in a tropical rainforest shift by only a few degrees C. Meanwhile the temperature in the desert (which is warmer in the day) that has no water vapour drops by some 20C during the night. Because of water vapour and clouds 'trapping heat' at night like a blanket the tropical rainforest has the higher average temperature.