Why does greenhouse effect make Earth's surface so cool compared to what it would otherwise be?

A piece of bare metal in space, under constant sunlight can get as hot as two-hundred-sixty (260) degrees Celsius. This is dangerous to astronauts who have to work outside the station.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: Is this proof that greenhouse gases cool the world?

A metal bar in space heats to 260 C when sunlight shines on it. On a cloudless sunny summer day, a dark pavement outside only heats to about 28 C, hardly distinguishable from the air temperature. Is this proof that God cools the world? This is God's effect.

Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen, I'm starting to suspect that you are only pretending to be this scientifically illiterate and stupid, and posting all your ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense threads is to try to make climate science deniers look even stupider, more ridiculous and more scientifically illiterate than they already are.

Keep it up. This forum already became a joke because of the efforts of a couple of climate science denier trolls. You might as well make it a complete farce.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:How about you take a trip to the space station, float in space for a while, and see how hot you get under the sunlight, compared to how cool you get on Earth

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen, I'm starting to suspect that you are only pretending to be this scientifically illiterate and stupid, and posting all your ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense threads is to try to make climate science deniers look even stupider, more ridiculous and more scientifically illiterate than they already are.

Keep it up. This forum already became a joke because of the efforts of a couple of climate science denier trolls. You might as well make it a complete farce.

How about you take a trip to the space station, float in space for a while, and see how hot you get under the sunlight, compared to how cool you get on Earth

Be grateful of the atmosphere, without which you wouldn't be existing today.

Ceist wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen, I'm starting to suspect that you are only pretending to be this scientifically illiterate and stupid, and posting all your ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense threads is to try to make climate science deniers look even stupider, more ridiculous and more scientifically illiterate than they already are.

Keep it up. This forum already became a joke because of the efforts of a couple of climate science denier trolls. You might as well make it a complete farce.

How about you take a trip to the space station, float in space for a while, and see how hot you get under the sunlight, compared to how cool you get on Earth

Be grateful of the atmosphere, without which you wouldn't be existing today.

So you really aren't just pretending to be that stupid and scientifically illiterate? Like IBdaMann, you really believe the ridiculous crap you post?

Yikes.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Earth's surface temperature would be a staggering 260 C under sunlight had there been no atmosphere. This is a stat from a reliable source.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/

Ceist wrote:
By the way, what makes you think Universe Today is a 'reliable source'? Because it sounds sciencey and looks glitzy?

Ceist wrote:
Did it ever cross your mind to read a science textbook to get the basics right?

Ceist wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Earth's surface temperature would be a staggering 260 C under sunlight had there been no atmosphere. This is a stat from a reliable source.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/

Your source isn't wrong, but you are. The 260 C figure they used was referring to a small metal bar in constant sunlight in a vacuum, not the earth's surface.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Earth's surface temperature would be a staggering 260 C under sunlight had there been no atmosphere. This is a stat from a reliable source.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/

Your source isn't wrong, but you are. The 260 C figure they used was referring to a small metal bar in constant sunlight in a vacuum, not the earth's surface.

Earth without an atmosphere would be floating in vacuum, just like that metal bar. Why wouldn't Earth heat to 260 C under sunlight, just like that metal bar?

Ceist wrote:
Your source isn't wrong, but you are. The 260 C figure they used was referring to a small metal bar in constant sunlight in a vacuum, not the earth's surface.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: Earth without an atmosphere would be floating in vacuum, just like that metal bar. Why wouldn't Earth heat to 260 C under sunlight, just like that metal bar?

Ceist wrote:
So you really aren't just pretending to be that stupid and scientifically illiterate? Like IBdaMann, you really believe the ridiculous crap you post?

Consider, for example, the International Space Station (ISS). Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F (-157 C).

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I quote.

Consider, for example, the International Space Station (ISS). Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F (-157 C).

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/

This means Earth's atmosphere regulates Earth's temperature. Without Earth's atmosphere, Earth would be extremely hot during the day and extremely cold during the night.

What I do not agree with NASA is that convection does very little in regulating day and night temperature differences. It is mainly greenhouse gases that do that because they retain the heat they absorb during the day and slowly release that heat at night.

Ceist wrote:
So which is it Tai Hai? 260 C or 121 C. That's a huge difference. You also didn't get the hint that the earth rotates on it's axis every 24 hrs (the moon every 27.3 days)- a small piece of metal in space does not. There is also the issue of the size and composition of the earth compared to a small piece of metal.

You've been posting rubbish that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, now you are saying that it does, yet then you 'disagree with NASA' but then show you don't even know how greenhouse gases work.

Seriously, you look like a complete idiot making all these all-over-the-place assertions and pretending to be an 'expert' when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The Dunning Kruger effect is strong in you.

All you are doing is making this forum even more of farce than it already became after IB trolled it to death.

Ceist wrote:Seriously, you look like a complete idiot making all these all-over-the-place often contradictory assertions and pretending to be an 'expert' when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Ceist wrote:
So which is it Tai Hai? 260 C or 121 C. That's a huge difference. You also didn't get the hint that the earth rotates on it's axis every 24 hrs (the moon every 27.3 days)- a small piece of metal in space does not. There is also the issue of the size and composition of the earth compared to a small piece of metal.

You've been posting rubbish that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, now you are saying that it does, yet then you 'disagree with NASA' but then show you don't even know how greenhouse gases work.

Seriously, you look like a complete idiot making all these all-over-the-place assertions and pretending to be an 'expert' when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The Dunning Kruger effect is strong in you.

All you are doing is making this forum even more of farce than it already became after IB trolled it to death.

The ISS is white colored. It reflects light a lot. So it only goes to 121 C. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth would be a dead planet like the Moon, more than 100 C at day and less than -100 C at night. This is experimentally proven.

NASA is not always right. NASA is a governmental organization. NASA is a mouthpiece of the American president.

This is a BS from NASA saying without the greenhouse effect Earth would be about 30 C cooler than now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzCA60WnoMk

Ceist wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Ceist wrote:
So which is it Tai Hai? 260 C or 121 C. That's a huge difference. You also didn't get the hint that the earth rotates on it's axis every 24 hrs (the moon every 27.3 days)- a small piece of metal in space does not. There is also the issue of the size and composition of the earth compared to a small piece of metal.

You've been posting rubbish that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, now you are saying that it does, yet then you 'disagree with NASA' but then show you don't even know how greenhouse gases work.

Seriously, you look like a complete idiot making all these all-over-the-place assertions and pretending to be an 'expert' when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The Dunning Kruger effect is strong in you.

All you are doing is making this forum even more of farce than it already became after IB trolled it to death.

The ISS is white colored. It reflects light a lot. So it only goes to 121 C. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth would be a dead planet like the Moon, more than 100 C at day and less than -100 C at night. This is experimentally proven.

NASA is not always right. NASA is a governmental organization. NASA is a mouthpiece of the American president.

This is a BS from NASA saying without the greenhouse effect Earth would be about 30 C cooler than now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzCA60WnoMk

There you go again, contradicting your own 'expert' assertions.

And there you go again not having a clue what you're posting from NASA.

Who are you trying to convince? There is no-one left on these forums since it got trolled to death except for the odd new person who quickly realises what a farce this forum is and leaves. You plastering the place with endless nonsensical posts will keep any rational people away.

I just stopped by again for a laugh. So thanks for the entertainment.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:There is no CAGW. You alarmists scare no one. Obama is going to be fired by Trump, and that will be that. The future will be bright.

Ceist wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:There is no CAGW. You alarmists scare no one. Obama is going to be fired by Trump, and that will be that. The future will be bright.

Yes that's all the world needs. Trump as President of the US. Perhaps you can apply for a position as his science advisor.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:There is no CAGW. You alarmists scare no one. Obama is going to be fired by Trump, and that will be that. The future will be bright.

Yes that's all the world needs. Trump as President of the US. Perhaps you can apply for a position as his science advisor.

I'm not an American

This man is far more qualified for that position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs

Ceist wrote:If anyone pays Happer enough, he'll say whatever they want him to say:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tULDE_gYmuc

If you want someone who reflects your personal science views as Trump's science advisor, I would suggest someone like Sarah Palin, or Bozo the Clown (not sure if I can tell the difference)

Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.

There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.

There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Tai Hai Chen is right about one thing at least - the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature. Look at this spectrum of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth as measured from above the atmosphere by satellite instruments. Note the deviations from a pure blackbody spectrum in the form of large dips corresponding to the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.

There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Tai Hai Chen is right about one thing at least - the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature. Look at this spectrum of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth as measured from above the atmosphere by satellite instruments. Note the deviations from a pure blackbody spectrum in the form of large dips corresponding to the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases.

Back to the old notches thing again eh?

As previously described, notches mean nothing. All it means is that CO2 absorbed some of the outgoing radiation and distributed heat to surrounding molecules.

The heat loss rate is still the same.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.

There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Tai Hai Chen is right about one thing at least - the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature. Look at this spectrum of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth as measured from above the atmosphere by satellite instruments. Note the deviations from a pure blackbody spectrum in the form of large dips corresponding to the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases.

Back to the old notches thing again eh?

As previously described, notches mean nothing. All it means is that CO2 absorbed some of the outgoing radiation and distributed heat to surrounding molecules.

The heat loss rate is still the same.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Back to the old notches thing again eh?

As previously described, notches mean nothing. All it means is that CO2 absorbed some of the outgoing radiation and distributed heat to surrounding molecules.

The heat loss rate is still the same.

CO2 acts like a mirror. Since CO2 is above the ground, some of the IR from the ground get reflected back towards the ground.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?

You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.

There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Tai Hai Chen is right about one thing at least - the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature. Look at this spectrum of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth as measured from above the atmosphere by satellite instruments. Note the deviations from a pure blackbody spectrum in the form of large dips corresponding to the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases.

Back to the old notches thing again eh?

As previously described, notches mean nothing. All it means is that CO2 absorbed some of the outgoing radiation and distributed heat to surrounding molecules.

The heat loss rate is still the same.

How can the (rather substantial) "notches" mean nothing? Energy that is not emitted from one part of the spectrum must be emitted elsewhere in order to maintain energy balance. The blackbody temperature must therefore increase in order to compensate for the energy absorbed in the "notches". This is the greenhouse effect in action.

Surface Detail wrote:
The location and depth of the "notches" does indeed depend on the composition of the atmosphere. Indeed, we can determine the composition of the atmospheres of other planets (and even stars) by examining the "notches". It's called spectroscopy.

In turn, the amount of blackbody radiation removed from the emission spectrum depends on the size of the "notches". This radiation that doesn't make it out into space causes the temperature of the planet and its lower atmosphere to rise until equilibrium is re-established. Hence the temperature of a planet is indeed partly dependent on the composition of the atmosphere, in particular, the concentration of greenhouse gases (those that absorb IR radiation).

We've known this since the late 1800s.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The location and depth of the "notches" does indeed depend on the composition of the atmosphere. Indeed, we can determine the composition of the atmospheres of other planets (and even stars) by examining the "notches". It's called spectroscopy.

In turn, the amount of blackbody radiation removed from the emission spectrum depends on the size of the "notches". This radiation that doesn't make it out into space causes the temperature of the planet and its lower atmosphere to rise until equilibrium is re-established. Hence the temperature of a planet is indeed partly dependent on the composition of the atmosphere, in particular, the concentration of greenhouse gases (those that absorb IR radiation).

We've known this since the late 1800s.

Right start, wrong conclusion.

The notches do depend on what is in the atmosphere, but the radiation still makes it out into space via the general temperature of materials surrounding the one that absorbed energy. The temperature of the atmosphere is not dependent on any particular substance in the atmosphere. The notches make no difference.

You are trying to argue the energy trap again. As I've stated before, that effectively produces a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The location and depth of the "notches" does indeed depend on the composition of the atmosphere. Indeed, we can determine the composition of the atmospheres of other planets (and even stars) by examining the "notches". It's called spectroscopy.

In turn, the amount of blackbody radiation removed from the emission spectrum depends on the size of the "notches". This radiation that doesn't make it out into space causes the temperature of the planet and its lower atmosphere to rise until equilibrium is re-established. Hence the temperature of a planet is indeed partly dependent on the composition of the atmosphere, in particular, the concentration of greenhouse gases (those that absorb IR radiation).

We've known this since the late 1800s.

Right start, wrong conclusion.

The notches do depend on what is in the atmosphere, but the radiation still makes it out into space via the general temperature of materials surrounding the one that absorbed energy. The temperature of the atmosphere is not dependent on any particular substance in the atmosphere. The notches make no difference.

You are trying to argue the energy trap again. As I've stated before, that effectively produces a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.

Your argument doesn't make sense. How can the materials surrounding the one that absorbed energy emit additional radiation without becoming warmer? Why doesn't this emitted energy show up in the emission spectrum?

As for the perpetual motion machine, I've no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you've misunderstood something.