The greenhouse effect denier Enceladus

Leitwolf wrote:
.....The GHE is totally based on the formula that suggests earth should have a surface temperature of 255°K......

Leitwolf wrote:
Well it is certainly true that emissions run low at these temperatures. Compared to earth it would only be like (75 / 288) ^4 = 0.46%.
But for surface temperatures inner heat is really playing a negligible role, and we are not talking about "heat" as such at all, so mainting these 0.46% just from geothermia would be an awefull lot. Then Enceladus has much colder temperatures at the poles, like only 33°K, which is a clear indication, that its temperature is driven by the sun, and nothing else.

still learning wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
.....The GHE is totally based on the formula that suggests earth should have a surface temperature of 255°K......

Not so.

That result of 255 K caused folks to search for a reason why things are warmer than that.

Eventually the greenhouse effect was figured out.

Encaladus' warmth is apparently a mystery, true. Doesn't prove or disprove anything else, near as I can tell.

Leitwolf wrote:
Well it is only a mystery when you assume that it is perfectly reasonable to insinuate an absorptivity of 0.01 (1-0.99) while holding emissivity still at 1

)) It does not work for Enceladus, it does not work anywhere else. In fact there is a natural tendency for absorptivity and emissivity to be about equal. So the flaw in this formula, or rather the assumptions it is based on are quite obvious.

And well .. I guess in this respect Enceladus is just as irrelevant as a black swan to the theory that all swans were white..

And most importantly, and I brought this issue up in my other post, with regard to water surface emissivity seems to be lower than absorptivity. And that relation yields an "interesting" result, because (0.93 / 0.84) ^0.25 * 280 = 287°K (!!!).

Into the Night wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
Well it is only a mystery when you assume that it is perfectly reasonable to insinuate an absorptivity of 0.01 (1-0.99) while holding emissivity still at 1

)) It does not work for Enceladus, it does not work anywhere else. In fact there is a natural tendency for absorptivity and emissivity to be about equal. So the flaw in this formula, or rather the assumptions it is based on are quite obvious.

And well .. I guess in this respect Enceladus is just as irrelevant as a black swan to the theory that all swans were white..

And most importantly, and I brought this issue up in my other post, with regard to water surface emissivity seems to be lower than absorptivity. And that relation yields an "interesting" result, because (0.93 / 0.84) ^0.25 * 280 = 287°K (!!!).

You don't know the emissivity of Earth. Emissivity changes dramatically every few inches.

It is not possible to calculate what the temperature of the Earth 'should' be.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
Well it is only a mystery when you assume that it is perfectly reasonable to insinuate an absorptivity of 0.01 (1-0.99) while holding emissivity still at 1

)) It does not work for Enceladus, it does not work anywhere else. In fact there is a natural tendency for absorptivity and emissivity to be about equal. So the flaw in this formula, or rather the assumptions it is based on are quite obvious.

And well .. I guess in this respect Enceladus is just as irrelevant as a black swan to the theory that all swans were white..

And most importantly, and I brought this issue up in my other post, with regard to water surface emissivity seems to be lower than absorptivity. And that relation yields an "interesting" result, because (0.93 / 0.84) ^0.25 * 280 = 287°K (!!!).

You don't know the emissivity of Earth. Emissivity changes dramatically every few inches.

It is not possible to calculate what the temperature of the Earth 'should' be.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Where are you getting this? Why do you quote the laws of thermodynamics and then make statements like this as if these laws do not exist?

Wake wrote:
We calculate the amount of energy that strikes and is absorbed by the Earth and so we can then use the laws to calculate what the Earth emits.

Wake wrote:
Are you playing some sort of game that we have to have any knowledge at all of the specific emissivity of every cm^2 in order to make any assumptions at all?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
Well it is only a mystery when you assume that it is perfectly reasonable to insinuate an absorptivity of 0.01 (1-0.99) while holding emissivity still at 1

)) It does not work for Enceladus, it does not work anywhere else. In fact there is a natural tendency for absorptivity and emissivity to be about equal. So the flaw in this formula, or rather the assumptions it is based on are quite obvious.

And well .. I guess in this respect Enceladus is just as irrelevant as a black swan to the theory that all swans were white..

And most importantly, and I brought this issue up in my other post, with regard to water surface emissivity seems to be lower than absorptivity. And that relation yields an "interesting" result, because (0.93 / 0.84) ^0.25 * 280 = 287°K (!!!).

You don't know the emissivity of Earth. Emissivity changes dramatically every few inches.

It is not possible to calculate what the temperature of the Earth 'should' be.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Where are you getting this? Why do you quote the laws of thermodynamics and then make statements like this as if these laws do not exist?

Nothing I have said violates or ignores any law of thermodynamics.

The problem is not a science problem. It is a math problem. Statistical analysis has a very rigid set of rules for how sampling is to occur before the analysis begins. For sampling something like a temperature, the population is not the available thermometers, but the possible temperature gradient. While we don't know what that is, we have observed gradients as high as 20 deg F in a single mile.

We do not have enough thermometers to produce a usable analysis.

Emissivity is even worse. It changes dramatically every few inches. The way you measure emissivity is by using contact thermometers and working backwards against the ideal references. We don't know the emissivity of Earth. We don't know the temperature of the Earth to any useful accuracy.

Wake wrote:
We calculate the amount of energy that strikes and is absorbed by the Earth and so we can then use the laws to calculate what the Earth emits.

You can't. You need to have a value for emissivity to do that. You don't know what it is.

Wake wrote:
Are you playing some sort of game that we have to have any knowledge at all of the specific emissivity of every cm^2 in order to make any assumptions at all?

Math doesn't 'assume'. Math is math. The margin of error is too great to calculate the emissivity or temperature with available instrumentation to an accuracy that makes any sense. The only assumptions that math makes are the founding axioms.

Now you can calculate how much wattage of sunlight hits a square (pick a unit) of Earth, but you don't know what happens to it. Some is reflected, some is absorbed and converted into thermal energy, some is absorbed and converted into chemical reactions, some is scattered, etc.

All your work calculating the wattage per square (pick a unit) really is a lot of work for very little.

Wake wrote:
And the plain test of the absorption theory you have is to measure the absolute temperature of the moon when it is in Saturn's shadow.

Into the night wrote:
It is not possible to calculate what the temperature of the Earth 'should' be.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Leitwolf wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Given so many impossibilities, we should all rather stay in bed, all day, all time. Me however, I love to do the impossible.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
Well it is only a mystery when you assume that it is perfectly reasonable to insinuate an absorptivity of 0.01 (1-0.99) while holding emissivity still at 1

)) It does not work for Enceladus, it does not work anywhere else. In fact there is a natural tendency for absorptivity and emissivity to be about equal. So the flaw in this formula, or rather the assumptions it is based on are quite obvious.

And well .. I guess in this respect Enceladus is just as irrelevant as a black swan to the theory that all swans were white..

And most importantly, and I brought this issue up in my other post, with regard to water surface emissivity seems to be lower than absorptivity. And that relation yields an "interesting" result, because (0.93 / 0.84) ^0.25 * 280 = 287°K (!!!).

You don't know the emissivity of Earth. Emissivity changes dramatically every few inches.

It is not possible to calculate what the temperature of the Earth 'should' be.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

Where are you getting this? Why do you quote the laws of thermodynamics and then make statements like this as if these laws do not exist?

Nothing I have said violates or ignores any law of thermodynamics.

The problem is not a science problem. It is a math problem. Statistical analysis has a very rigid set of rules for how sampling is to occur before the analysis begins. For sampling something like a temperature, the population is not the available thermometers, but the possible temperature gradient. While we don't know what that is, we have observed gradients as high as 20 deg F in a single mile.

We do not have enough thermometers to produce a usable analysis.

Emissivity is even worse. It changes dramatically every few inches. The way you measure emissivity is by using contact thermometers and working backwards against the ideal references. We don't know the emissivity of Earth. We don't know the temperature of the Earth to any useful accuracy.

Wake wrote:
We calculate the amount of energy that strikes and is absorbed by the Earth and so we can then use the laws to calculate what the Earth emits.

You can't. You need to have a value for emissivity to do that. You don't know what it is.

Wake wrote:
Are you playing some sort of game that we have to have any knowledge at all of the specific emissivity of every cm^2 in order to make any assumptions at all?

Math doesn't 'assume'. Math is math. The margin of error is too great to calculate the emissivity or temperature with available instrumentation to an accuracy that makes any sense. The only assumptions that math makes are the founding axioms.

Now you can calculate how much wattage of sunlight hits a square (pick a unit) of Earth, but you don't know what happens to it. Some is reflected, some is absorbed and converted into thermal energy, some is absorbed and converted into chemical reactions, some is scattered, etc.

All your work calculating the wattage per square (pick a unit) really is a lot of work for very little.

It isn't statistical analysis and it doesn't matter what happens to it - whether it is reflect, absorbed, radiated, moved about by conduction and convention or waved about by hand - the energy from the Sun is lost totally by the Earth or the Earth would have been nothing but a charred ball before life ever began.

This amount of energy from the Sun is calculable without resorting to any statistical analysis and Leitwolf was demonstrating how it is done though a bit out of synch yet.

You have the diameter of the Sun and it's surface temperature; with that you can calculate the energy emitted.

Wake wrote:
At what point in those calculations offer any requirement for statistical analysis?

Leitwolf wrote:
I do not know why that is, but apparently there is little to talk about the probably most significant evidence falsifying climate change, or rather its foundation, the assumed "greenhouse effect" (GHE).

The story is simple and straight forward. The GHE is totally based on the formula that suggests earth should have a surface temperature of 255°K. That again is derived from a perfect black body (PB

, which would have in earths position 280°K. Then if you take albedo into account this results in (1 - 0.31) ^0.25 * 280 = 255.2 or so..

Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, has an extremely high albedo of 0.99, which is why it puts this approach to the test. Saturn is 9.58 AU from the sun, so a PBB should have 280 / 9.58^0.5 = 90.5°K. Now if we allow for the albedo, we get to (1 - 0.99)^0.25 *90.5 = 28.6°K.

So while Enceladus should be only 28.6°K cold in theory, it actually has like 75°K, or 2 1/2 times as much. There is a "greenhouse effect" of over 45°K on this moon. Of course, Enceladus does not hold any atmosphere, and GHE is definitely impossible. Rather this case prooves that the formula and the assumptions it is based on, will not give us the right results, ie. it is falsified.

As the existence of the GHE itself is falsified, it is rather pointless to discuss the conclusions (most notable greenhouse gases, climate change, etc..) based solely on it.

Leitwolf wrote:
Well it is certainly true that emissions run low at these temperatures. Compared to earth it would only be like (75 / 288) ^4 = 0.46%.
But for surface temperatures inner heat is really playing a negligible role, and we are not talking about "heat" as such at all, so mainting these 0.46% just from geothermia would be an awefull lot. Then Enceladus has much colder temperatures at the poles, like only 33°K, which is a clear indication, that its temperature is driven by the sun, and nothing else.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Not at all.

The tidal effects and magnetic effects may well be concentrated at the equator of the moon.

The power of the sunshine is very very low and almost all of it (99%) is reflected so there can be no justification for such a wide temperature difference from sunshine. That bit is easy to work out.

Leitwolf wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Not at all.

The tidal effects and magnetic effects may well be concentrated at the equator of the moon.

The power of the sunshine is very very low and almost all of it (99%) is reflected so there can be no justification for such a wide temperature difference from sunshine. That bit is easy to work out.

Your argument is blue eyed. First, there is not a single indication that tidal forces and furthermore geothermia is responsible for Enceladus' surface temperature. The only reason you "invent" this idea is to hold on to a theory that has been falsified on many other occasions.
The case of Enceladus serves to outline the absurdity of putting absorptivity to 0.01, while holding emissivity to 1. As stated before, both A and E are loosly correlated, and unless we have specific information on which of the two is bigger, we should be assume they are about equal. In other words completely ignore the albedo, and assume the behaviour of a perfect black body. In this way we get much better approximations of surface temperatures for almost all objects in the solar system.

Indeed and in reality, we have surface types, where E is smaller than A, which means they become warmer than a PBB. Notoriously important examples would be water, or sand. Both play a major role in earth's climate.
Of course I brought up the case water, which is pivotal for earths temperature, here:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/emissivity-of-the-ocean-d6-e1342.php

Are you German?

Leitwolf wrote:

Are you German?

No, but Germans are not the only ones to speak German.

You do not see how your argument is working against you. True, Enceladus has these "warm" water plumes on the south pole, which are said to reach up to 157K. The problem with that: otherwise temperatures are spread quite evenly over the surface, with typical cold polar regions.

If geothermia was generally responsible for E. temperature, it would not be evenly spread. Rather you have tectonic structures resulting in warm and cold spots. Also, the argument brought forward, that geothermia would most of all affect the equatorial regions, is falsified by these plumes.

So you are trying to flick something which does not work, by something else, which works even less. It pointless beyond absurdity.

Leitwolf wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Not at all.

The tidal effects and magnetic effects may well be concentrated at the equator of the moon.

The power of the sunshine is very very low and almost all of it (99%) is reflected so there can be no justification for such a wide temperature difference from sunshine. That bit is easy to work out.

Your argument is blue eyed. First, there is not a single indication that tidal forces and furthermore geothermia is responsible for Enceladus' surface temperature. The only reason you "invent" this idea is to hold on to a theory that has been falsified on many other occasions.
The case of Enceladus serves to outline the absurdity of putting absorptivity to 0.01, while holding emissivity to 1. As stated before, both A and E are loosly correlated, and unless we have specific information on which of the two is bigger, we should be assume they are about equal. In other words completely ignore the albedo, and assume the behaviour of a perfect black body. In this way we get much better approximations of surface temperatures for almost all objects in the solar system.

Indeed and in reality, we have surface types, where E is smaller than A, which means they become warmer than a PBB. Notoriously important examples would be water, or sand. Both play a major role in earth's climate.
Of course I brought up the case water, which is pivotal for earths temperature, here:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/emissivity-of-the-ocean-d6-e1342.php