Remember me
▼ Content

Actual Measurements


Actual Measurements08-05-2017 02:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

There is a careful dissertation of how these measurements were made and near the end a graph that shows plainly that CO2 achieves NO WARMING. Instead, it, as I've insisted since I got on these groups, is a coolant.
08-05-2017 13:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

There is a careful dissertation of how these measurements were made and near the end a graph that shows plainly that CO2 achieves NO WARMING. Instead, it, as I've insisted since I got on these groups, is a coolant.

That's a good explanation of radiative balance in the atmosphere, though the material is perhaps a little dated. It doesn't say what you think it does though. It certainly doesn't dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect. See, for example, this paragraph from your source:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3. In the case of H2O the concentration may increase with increasing temperature (through evaporation) and thus creating positive feedback for the greenhouse effect. This effect is very noticeable on Venus, which exhibits "runaway greenhouse effect."

In fact, the effect of greenhouse gases is to couple IR radiation to the atmosphere, thus allowing the atmosphere to both absorb and emit IR. This means that the lower parts of the atmosphere are warmed by absorbing radiation emitted from the ground, while the upper parts are cooled by emission into space.

This is exactly what we observe as the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises: further warming of the lower atmosphere and further cooling of the upper atmosphere. This cooling of the upper atmosphere is particularly difficult to explain by any mechanism other than the greenhouse effect.
08-05-2017 15:58
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1795)
The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3. In the case of H2O the concentration may increase with increasing temperature


.....and what is the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?
08-05-2017 17:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

There is a careful dissertation of how these measurements were made and near the end a graph that shows plainly that CO2 achieves NO WARMING. Instead, it, as I've insisted since I got on these groups, is a coolant.

That's a good explanation of radiative balance in the atmosphere, though the material is perhaps a little dated. It doesn't say what you think it does though. It certainly doesn't dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect. See, for example, this paragraph from your source:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3. In the case of H2O the concentration may increase with increasing temperature (through evaporation) and thus creating positive feedback for the greenhouse effect. This effect is very noticeable on Venus, which exhibits "runaway greenhouse effect."

In fact, the effect of greenhouse gases is to couple IR radiation to the atmosphere, thus allowing the atmosphere to both absorb and emit IR. This means that the lower parts of the atmosphere are warmed by absorbing radiation emitted from the ground, while the upper parts are cooled by emission into space.

This is exactly what we observe as the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises: further warming of the lower atmosphere and further cooling of the upper atmosphere. This cooling of the upper atmosphere is particularly difficult to explain by any mechanism other than the greenhouse effect.


How is it that you cannot understand not only what is being said but the calculations and the charts. The DIRECT measurements show CO2 cooling and not warming. But of course that's against your religion.
08-05-2017 18:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

There is a careful dissertation of how these measurements were made and near the end a graph that shows plainly that CO2 achieves NO WARMING. Instead, it, as I've insisted since I got on these groups, is a coolant.

That's a good explanation of radiative balance in the atmosphere, though the material is perhaps a little dated. It doesn't say what you think it does though. It certainly doesn't dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect. See, for example, this paragraph from your source:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3. In the case of H2O the concentration may increase with increasing temperature (through evaporation) and thus creating positive feedback for the greenhouse effect. This effect is very noticeable on Venus, which exhibits "runaway greenhouse effect."

In fact, the effect of greenhouse gases is to couple IR radiation to the atmosphere, thus allowing the atmosphere to both absorb and emit IR. This means that the lower parts of the atmosphere are warmed by absorbing radiation emitted from the ground, while the upper parts are cooled by emission into space.

This is exactly what we observe as the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises: further warming of the lower atmosphere and further cooling of the upper atmosphere. This cooling of the upper atmosphere is particularly difficult to explain by any mechanism other than the greenhouse effect.


How is it that you cannot understand not only what is being said but the calculations and the charts. The DIRECT measurements show CO2 cooling and not warming. But of course that's against your religion.

It's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that I am able to read and understand scientific writing, whereas you appear to simply pick out words and build your own story round them. The direct measurements DO NOT show CO2 cooling the Earth's surface. Stratosphere, yes; surface, no.

How, for example, can you not understand this:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

In other words, the optical depth (for IR radiation) increases with increasing GHGs, and increasing the optical depth raises the surface temperature. It really isn't difficult to understand if you put your mind to it.
08-05-2017 18:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

There is a careful dissertation of how these measurements were made and near the end a graph that shows plainly that CO2 achieves NO WARMING. Instead, it, as I've insisted since I got on these groups, is a coolant.

That's a good explanation of radiative balance in the atmosphere, though the material is perhaps a little dated. It doesn't say what you think it does though. It certainly doesn't dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect. See, for example, this paragraph from your source:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3. In the case of H2O the concentration may increase with increasing temperature (through evaporation) and thus creating positive feedback for the greenhouse effect. This effect is very noticeable on Venus, which exhibits "runaway greenhouse effect."

In fact, the effect of greenhouse gases is to couple IR radiation to the atmosphere, thus allowing the atmosphere to both absorb and emit IR. This means that the lower parts of the atmosphere are warmed by absorbing radiation emitted from the ground, while the upper parts are cooled by emission into space.

This is exactly what we observe as the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises: further warming of the lower atmosphere and further cooling of the upper atmosphere. This cooling of the upper atmosphere is particularly difficult to explain by any mechanism other than the greenhouse effect.


How is it that you cannot understand not only what is being said but the calculations and the charts. The DIRECT measurements show CO2 cooling and not warming. But of course that's against your religion.

It's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that I am able to read and understand scientific writing, whereas you appear to simply pick out words and build your own story round them. The direct measurements DO NOT show CO2 cooling the Earth's surface. Stratosphere, yes; surface, no.

How, for example, can you not understand this:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

In other words, the optical depth (for IR radiation) increases with increasing GHGs, and increasing the optical depth raises the surface temperature. It really isn't difficult to understand if you put your mind to it.


As I have said elsewhere, you are ready, willing and able to misrepresent anything and everything to support your religion.

Optical depth is just that OPTICAL DEPTH. It is not a matter of CO2 or O3 which are both transparent to optical and the IR wavelengths of the Sun.

Only H2O interferes with these wavelengths and changes the "optical depth".

So why do you misrepresent this? Why are you dancing around trying ANYTHING to avoid what the paper has said - that H2O is the only gas that has any measurable effect? The GRAPH shows it. The written statements in the paper say it and the math shows HOW it was measured.
08-05-2017 19:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

There is a careful dissertation of how these measurements were made and near the end a graph that shows plainly that CO2 achieves NO WARMING. Instead, it, as I've insisted since I got on these groups, is a coolant.

That's a good explanation of radiative balance in the atmosphere, though the material is perhaps a little dated. It doesn't say what you think it does though. It certainly doesn't dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect. See, for example, this paragraph from your source:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3. In the case of H2O the concentration may increase with increasing temperature (through evaporation) and thus creating positive feedback for the greenhouse effect. This effect is very noticeable on Venus, which exhibits "runaway greenhouse effect."

In fact, the effect of greenhouse gases is to couple IR radiation to the atmosphere, thus allowing the atmosphere to both absorb and emit IR. This means that the lower parts of the atmosphere are warmed by absorbing radiation emitted from the ground, while the upper parts are cooled by emission into space.

This is exactly what we observe as the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises: further warming of the lower atmosphere and further cooling of the upper atmosphere. This cooling of the upper atmosphere is particularly difficult to explain by any mechanism other than the greenhouse effect.


How is it that you cannot understand not only what is being said but the calculations and the charts. The DIRECT measurements show CO2 cooling and not warming. But of course that's against your religion.

It's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that I am able to read and understand scientific writing, whereas you appear to simply pick out words and build your own story round them. The direct measurements DO NOT show CO2 cooling the Earth's surface. Stratosphere, yes; surface, no.

How, for example, can you not understand this:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

In other words, the optical depth (for IR radiation) increases with increasing GHGs, and increasing the optical depth raises the surface temperature. It really isn't difficult to understand if you put your mind to it.


As I have said elsewhere, you are ready, willing and able to misrepresent anything and everything to support your religion.

Optical depth is just that OPTICAL DEPTH. It is not a matter of CO2 or O3 which are both transparent to optical and the IR wavelengths of the Sun.

Only H2O interferes with these wavelengths and changes the "optical depth".

So why do you misrepresent this? Why are you dancing around trying ANYTHING to avoid what the paper has said - that H2O is the only gas that has any measurable effect? The GRAPH shows it. The written statements in the paper say it and the math shows HOW it was measured.

Which part of

"The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3."

don't you understand?
08-05-2017 19:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

There is a careful dissertation of how these measurements were made and near the end a graph that shows plainly that CO2 achieves NO WARMING. Instead, it, as I've insisted since I got on these groups, is a coolant.

That's a good explanation of radiative balance in the atmosphere, though the material is perhaps a little dated. It doesn't say what you think it does though. It certainly doesn't dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect. See, for example, this paragraph from your source:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3. In the case of H2O the concentration may increase with increasing temperature (through evaporation) and thus creating positive feedback for the greenhouse effect. This effect is very noticeable on Venus, which exhibits "runaway greenhouse effect."

In fact, the effect of greenhouse gases is to couple IR radiation to the atmosphere, thus allowing the atmosphere to both absorb and emit IR. This means that the lower parts of the atmosphere are warmed by absorbing radiation emitted from the ground, while the upper parts are cooled by emission into space.

This is exactly what we observe as the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises: further warming of the lower atmosphere and further cooling of the upper atmosphere. This cooling of the upper atmosphere is particularly difficult to explain by any mechanism other than the greenhouse effect.


How is it that you cannot understand not only what is being said but the calculations and the charts. The DIRECT measurements show CO2 cooling and not warming. But of course that's against your religion.

It's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that I am able to read and understand scientific writing, whereas you appear to simply pick out words and build your own story round them. The direct measurements DO NOT show CO2 cooling the Earth's surface. Stratosphere, yes; surface, no.

How, for example, can you not understand this:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

In other words, the optical depth (for IR radiation) increases with increasing GHGs, and increasing the optical depth raises the surface temperature. It really isn't difficult to understand if you put your mind to it.


As I have said elsewhere, you are ready, willing and able to misrepresent anything and everything to support your religion.

Optical depth is just that OPTICAL DEPTH. It is not a matter of CO2 or O3 which are both transparent to optical and the IR wavelengths of the Sun.

Only H2O interferes with these wavelengths and changes the "optical depth".

So why do you misrepresent this? Why are you dancing around trying ANYTHING to avoid what the paper has said - that H2O is the only gas that has any measurable effect? The GRAPH shows it. The written statements in the paper say it and the math shows HOW it was measured.

Which part of

"The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3."

don't you understand?


Which part of absorption and emission don't you understand? The "optical depth" for each is different. And CO2 as shown has an almost non-existant effect on emissions from the Earth though it does effect the optical depth to a limited and almost immeasurable amount.

But no one is expecting someone hoping to become a Bishop in the Religion of Global Warming to do anything but argue with direct measurements.
08-05-2017 19:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf

There is a careful dissertation of how these measurements were made and near the end a graph that shows plainly that CO2 achieves NO WARMING. Instead, it, as I've insisted since I got on these groups, is a coolant.

That's a good explanation of radiative balance in the atmosphere, though the material is perhaps a little dated. It doesn't say what you think it does though. It certainly doesn't dispute the existence of the greenhouse effect. See, for example, this paragraph from your source:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3. In the case of H2O the concentration may increase with increasing temperature (through evaporation) and thus creating positive feedback for the greenhouse effect. This effect is very noticeable on Venus, which exhibits "runaway greenhouse effect."

In fact, the effect of greenhouse gases is to couple IR radiation to the atmosphere, thus allowing the atmosphere to both absorb and emit IR. This means that the lower parts of the atmosphere are warmed by absorbing radiation emitted from the ground, while the upper parts are cooled by emission into space.

This is exactly what we observe as the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises: further warming of the lower atmosphere and further cooling of the upper atmosphere. This cooling of the upper atmosphere is particularly difficult to explain by any mechanism other than the greenhouse effect.


How is it that you cannot understand not only what is being said but the calculations and the charts. The DIRECT measurements show CO2 cooling and not warming. But of course that's against your religion.

It's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that I am able to read and understand scientific writing, whereas you appear to simply pick out words and build your own story round them. The direct measurements DO NOT show CO2 cooling the Earth's surface. Stratosphere, yes; surface, no.

How, for example, can you not understand this:

When the atmosphere effective optical depth is large, the surface temperature is enhanced, as expected by the greenhouse effect. The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

In other words, the optical depth (for IR radiation) increases with increasing GHGs, and increasing the optical depth raises the surface temperature. It really isn't difficult to understand if you put your mind to it.


As I have said elsewhere, you are ready, willing and able to misrepresent anything and everything to support your religion.

Optical depth is just that OPTICAL DEPTH. It is not a matter of CO2 or O3 which are both transparent to optical and the IR wavelengths of the Sun.

Only H2O interferes with these wavelengths and changes the "optical depth".

So why do you misrepresent this? Why are you dancing around trying ANYTHING to avoid what the paper has said - that H2O is the only gas that has any measurable effect? The GRAPH shows it. The written statements in the paper say it and the math shows HOW it was measured.

Which part of

"The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3."

don't you understand?


Which part of absorption and emission don't you understand? The "optical depth" for each is different.

Your question makes no sense. How can emission have an optical depth?
08-05-2017 22:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote: Your question makes no sense. How can emission have an optical depth?


There you go with your clown costume again. The article is about the atmosphere isn't it. The optical depth of the atmosphere is different from space to the earth than from the earth to space.

But don't let that stop you from making any stupid statement and time wasting argument you can come up with.
08-05-2017 23:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Your question makes no sense. How can emission have an optical depth?


There you go with your clown costume again. The article is about the atmosphere isn't it. The optical depth of the atmosphere is different from space to the earth than from the earth to space.

But don't let that stop you from making any stupid statement and time wasting argument you can come up with.

Wake, you are blathering. The optical depth of the atmosphere is dependent on the wavelength of the radiation concerned, not the direction it is travelling. Optical depth is simply a measure of how rapidly radiation is attenuated with distance. Emission cannot have an optical depth.

While you are to be commended for providing reliable sources, they hardly support your arguments if they contradict what they say. For example, your source says:

The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

while you say:

Only H2O interferes with these wavelengths and changes the "optical depth".

Both of these statements about IR cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive. Either CO2 and O3 affect the IR optical depth, or they don't. Of course, it is your source that is correct, while you, as usual, are wrong. You really need to read and understand the sources that you quote.
08-05-2017 23:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Your question makes no sense. How can emission have an optical depth?


There you go with your clown costume again. The article is about the atmosphere isn't it. The optical depth of the atmosphere is different from space to the earth than from the earth to space.

But don't let that stop you from making any stupid statement and time wasting argument you can come up with.

Wake, you are blathering. The optical depth of the atmosphere is dependent on the wavelength of the radiation concerned, not the direction it is travelling. Optical depth is simply a measure of how rapidly radiation is attenuated with distance. Emission cannot have an optical depth.

While you are to be commended for providing reliable sources, they hardly support your arguments if they contradict what they say. For example, your source says:

The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

while you say:

Only H2O interferes with these wavelengths and changes the "optical depth".

Both of these statements about IR cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive. Either CO2 and O3 affect the IR optical depth, or they don't. Of course, it is your source that is correct, while you, as usual, are wrong. You really need to read and understand the sources that you quote.


The depth to which you will since is almost unbelievable.

The emissions from the Sun are almost entirely in the UV, Visual and upper IR. The emissions from the surface of the Earth are entirely in the mid to lower IR. So the visual depths of the atmosphere are different in or out.

Since you so plainly don't understand the most basic premises of science why are you making any comments at all?
08-05-2017 23:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Your question makes no sense. How can emission have an optical depth?


There you go with your clown costume again. The article is about the atmosphere isn't it. The optical depth of the atmosphere is different from space to the earth than from the earth to space.

But don't let that stop you from making any stupid statement and time wasting argument you can come up with.

Wake, you are blathering. The optical depth of the atmosphere is dependent on the wavelength of the radiation concerned, not the direction it is travelling. Optical depth is simply a measure of how rapidly radiation is attenuated with distance. Emission cannot have an optical depth.

While you are to be commended for providing reliable sources, they hardly support your arguments if they contradict what they say. For example, your source says:

The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

while you say:

Only H2O interferes with these wavelengths and changes the "optical depth".

Both of these statements about IR cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive. Either CO2 and O3 affect the IR optical depth, or they don't. Of course, it is your source that is correct, while you, as usual, are wrong. You really need to read and understand the sources that you quote.

The emissions from the Sun are almost entirely in the UV, Visual and upper IR. The emissions from the surface of the Earth are entirely in the mid to lower IR. So the visual depths of the atmosphere are different in or out.
[usual abuse snipped]

Yes, Wake, we all know that, but that's not the point. You're evading. Both your statement and that of the source are referring to the optical depth for the absorption of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth. Your source is correct; you are wrong.
09-05-2017 00:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Your question makes no sense. How can emission have an optical depth?


There you go with your clown costume again. The article is about the atmosphere isn't it. The optical depth of the atmosphere is different from space to the earth than from the earth to space.

But don't let that stop you from making any stupid statement and time wasting argument you can come up with.

Wake, you are blathering. The optical depth of the atmosphere is dependent on the wavelength of the radiation concerned, not the direction it is travelling. Optical depth is simply a measure of how rapidly radiation is attenuated with distance. Emission cannot have an optical depth.

While you are to be commended for providing reliable sources, they hardly support your arguments if they contradict what they say. For example, your source says:

The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

while you say:

Only H2O interferes with these wavelengths and changes the "optical depth".

Both of these statements about IR cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive. Either CO2 and O3 affect the IR optical depth, or they don't. Of course, it is your source that is correct, while you, as usual, are wrong. You really need to read and understand the sources that you quote.

The emissions from the Sun are almost entirely in the UV, Visual and upper IR. The emissions from the surface of the Earth are entirely in the mid to lower IR. So the visual depths of the atmosphere are different in or out.
[usual abuse snipped]

Yes, Wake, we all know that, but that's not the point. You're evading. Both your statement and that of the source are referring to the optical depth for the absorption of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth. Your source is correct; you are wrong.


Too bad you continue to demonstrate nothing more than argument since you haven't anything else to stand upon. Goodbye.
09-05-2017 00:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Your question makes no sense. How can emission have an optical depth?


There you go with your clown costume again. The article is about the atmosphere isn't it. The optical depth of the atmosphere is different from space to the earth than from the earth to space.

But don't let that stop you from making any stupid statement and time wasting argument you can come up with.

Wake, you are blathering. The optical depth of the atmosphere is dependent on the wavelength of the radiation concerned, not the direction it is travelling. Optical depth is simply a measure of how rapidly radiation is attenuated with distance. Emission cannot have an optical depth.

While you are to be commended for providing reliable sources, they hardly support your arguments if they contradict what they say. For example, your source says:

The optical depth of an atmosphere depends on the concentration of H2O, CO2, and O3.

while you say:

Only H2O interferes with these wavelengths and changes the "optical depth".

Both of these statements about IR cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive. Either CO2 and O3 affect the IR optical depth, or they don't. Of course, it is your source that is correct, while you, as usual, are wrong. You really need to read and understand the sources that you quote.

The emissions from the Sun are almost entirely in the UV, Visual and upper IR. The emissions from the surface of the Earth are entirely in the mid to lower IR. So the visual depths of the atmosphere are different in or out.
[usual abuse snipped]

Yes, Wake, we all know that, but that's not the point. You're evading. Both your statement and that of the source are referring to the optical depth for the absorption of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth. Your source is correct; you are wrong.


Too bad you continue to demonstrate nothing more than argument since you haven't anything else to stand upon. Goodbye.

I'm quoting the source you provided. It says one thing; you say another. Lesson for you to learn: read and understand your sources!




Join the debate Actual Measurements:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The ACTUAL Percentage of Atmospheric CO26403-09-2020 05:12
Earth surface temperature measurements9325-09-2019 19:46
Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise920-11-2018 19:56
based on the satellite measurements of the world, the Earth seems to be colder than normal2704-01-2016 08:25
How to create actual solutions to global warming1707-10-2015 23:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact