Remember me
▼ Content

Does the Earth Have a Natural Greenhouse Effect?



Page 2 of 2<12
04-05-2017 19:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.


Why do you suppose SD ignored the "Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself."?

He seems to miss the obvious whenever any chance permits.

Since he estimated the humidity and his heating apparatus only had to heat in the region of CO2 absorption which he was in no position to estimate these findings showed nothing more than water is the controlling factor and not CO2.

His own references show that he doesn't understand the very thing he's claiming he studies.

You clearly missed his main result, which was that air containing both water vapour and CO2 absorbed 15 times as well as dry air without CO2. To summarise for the hard of thinking:

Dry air, no CO2: 1
Humid air, no CO2: 13
Humid air, with CO2: 15

Tyndall demonstrated that water vapour is a strong absorber of IR radiation and that CO2 also absorbs IR radiation. He also mentions that hydrocarbons (such as methane) are strong absorbers, and he goes on to point out that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could have been responsible for changes in global climate since even small changes could have a powerful warming effect. He was one smart fellow.


And YOU clearly missed my posting in your rush to call me wrong. They had NO WAY of measuring humidity accurately in the mid-1800's. Furthermore since they did NOT have any manner of measuring the wavelength of IR they could have been using precisely the correct frequency of CO2.

Since this is an unusual frequency that has so little energy in it that it is totally absorbed by CO2 in the normal atmosphere you have nothing whatsoever to back up your stupid misunderstandings.

Tell you what - talk to the stars. I'm done having anything to do with you. You are nothing more than litesong on even stronger drugs.

If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.
04-05-2017 20:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.


Why do you suppose SD ignored the "Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself."?

He seems to miss the obvious whenever any chance permits.

Since he estimated the humidity and his heating apparatus only had to heat in the region of CO2 absorption which he was in no position to estimate these findings showed nothing more than water is the controlling factor and not CO2.

His own references show that he doesn't understand the very thing he's claiming he studies.

You clearly missed his main result, which was that air containing both water vapour and CO2 absorbed 15 times as well as dry air without CO2. To summarise for the hard of thinking:

Dry air, no CO2: 1
Humid air, no CO2: 13
Humid air, with CO2: 15

Tyndall demonstrated that water vapour is a strong absorber of IR radiation and that CO2 also absorbs IR radiation. He also mentions that hydrocarbons (such as methane) are strong absorbers, and he goes on to point out that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could have been responsible for changes in global climate since even small changes could have a powerful warming effect. He was one smart fellow.


And YOU clearly missed my posting in your rush to call me wrong. They had NO WAY of measuring humidity accurately in the mid-1800's. Furthermore since they did NOT have any manner of measuring the wavelength of IR they could have been using precisely the correct frequency of CO2.

Since this is an unusual frequency that has so little energy in it that it is totally absorbed by CO2 in the normal atmosphere you have nothing whatsoever to back up your stupid misunderstandings.

Tell you what - talk to the stars. I'm done having anything to do with you. You are nothing more than litesong on even stronger drugs.

If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.


You are a real dumbass that cannot even read something as simple as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. ITN has been arguing about this and you understand neither his position nor mine.

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about and the best thing you could do on this site is to go away.
04-05-2017 20:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.


I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.


That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.


Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.


Why do you suppose SD ignored the "Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself."?

He seems to miss the obvious whenever any chance permits.

Since he estimated the humidity and his heating apparatus only had to heat in the region of CO2 absorption which he was in no position to estimate these findings showed nothing more than water is the controlling factor and not CO2.

His own references show that he doesn't understand the very thing he's claiming he studies.

You clearly missed his main result, which was that air containing both water vapour and CO2 absorbed 15 times as well as dry air without CO2. To summarise for the hard of thinking:

Dry air, no CO2: 1
Humid air, no CO2: 13
Humid air, with CO2: 15

Tyndall demonstrated that water vapour is a strong absorber of IR radiation and that CO2 also absorbs IR radiation. He also mentions that hydrocarbons (such as methane) are strong absorbers, and he goes on to point out that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could have been responsible for changes in global climate since even small changes could have a powerful warming effect. He was one smart fellow.


And YOU clearly missed my posting in your rush to call me wrong. They had NO WAY of measuring humidity accurately in the mid-1800's. Furthermore since they did NOT have any manner of measuring the wavelength of IR they could have been using precisely the correct frequency of CO2.

Since this is an unusual frequency that has so little energy in it that it is totally absorbed by CO2 in the normal atmosphere you have nothing whatsoever to back up your stupid misunderstandings.

Tell you what - talk to the stars. I'm done having anything to do with you. You are nothing more than litesong on even stronger drugs.

If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.


You are a real dumbass that cannot even read something as simple as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. ITN has been arguing about this and you understand neither his position nor mine.

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about and the best thing you could do on this site is to go away.

I'm sure you would like me to go away and stop calling you out on your bullshit.

But I won't.
04-05-2017 20:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm sure you would like me to go away and stop calling you out on your bullshit.

But I won't.


Then we have no other option than to treat you like chief dumbass.
05-05-2017 21:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.


Let me try to explain this in a more rational manner. Pardon my growing anger at your inability to comprehend normal English.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is very simple:

j = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) x T^4

This also means that T^4 = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) / j.

So if you know the temperature (frequency of radiation) you can calculate the energy of visa versa.

So the frequency exuding from a black body is dependent upon the energy input.

In these sorts of experiments they used things like candle flames or Bunsen burners to supply the energy so the energy was low and could have been directly in the frequency range of CO2's absorption bands.

Neither you nor I know that.

But the numbers he provided strongly suggest that because we know that there is actually a 1000:1 ratio of energy absorption between H2O vapor and CO2.

Hopefully you can understand this explanation.
05-05-2017 22:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.


Let me try to explain this in a more rational manner. Pardon my growing anger at your inability to comprehend normal English.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is very simple:

j = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) x T^4

This is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It is:

j = ( StefanBoltzmann constant) * emissivity * T^4

In the reference known as the ideal black body the value for emissivity is 1 (or 100%). This also means albedo is zero and absorption is 100%.
Wake wrote:
This also means that T^4 = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) / j.
[quote]Wake wrote:
So if you know the temperature (frequency of radiation) you can calculate the energy of visa versa.

False equivalence. You equating the energy of an individual photon with the total energy. They are not the same thing.
Wake wrote:
So the frequency exuding from a black body is dependent upon the energy input.
Not quite. The range of frequencies emitting from an ideal black body follows Wien's law. For actual bodies, the range of frequencies is also over the domain of the emitting substance (the ideal black body is not a 'substance').
Wake wrote:
In these sorts of experiments they used things like candle flames or Bunsen burners to supply the energy so the energy was low and could have been directly in the frequency range of CO2's absorption bands.
No ideal black body 'box' or any other device has ever been constructed.
In the experiments conducted, CO2 absorption made no difference. It is simply another part of the 'box' absorbing and emitting.
Wake wrote:
Neither you nor I know that.

But the numbers he provided strongly suggest that because we know that there is actually a 1000:1 ratio of energy absorption between H2O vapor and CO2.
Absorption is not 'greenhouse effect'. It is simply another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, just like conduction and convection.
Wake wrote:
Hopefully you can understand this explanation.

I find a lot of holes in you explanation.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-05-2017 23:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Surface Detail wrote:
If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.


Let me try to explain this in a more rational manner. Pardon my growing anger at your inability to comprehend normal English.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is very simple:

j = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) x T^4

This is not the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It is:

j = ( StefanBoltzmann constant) * emissivity * T^4

In the reference known as the ideal black body the value for emissivity is 1 (or 100%). This also means albedo is zero and absorption is 100%.
Wake wrote:
This also means that T^4 = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) / j.
Wake wrote:
So if you know the temperature (frequency of radiation) you can calculate the energy of visa versa.

False equivalence. You equating the energy of an individual photon with the total energy. They are not the same thing.
Wake wrote:
So the frequency exuding from a black body is dependent upon the energy input.
Not quite. The range of frequencies emitting from an ideal black body follows Wien's law. For actual bodies, the range of frequencies is also over the domain of the emitting substance (the ideal black body is not a 'substance').
Wake wrote:
In these sorts of experiments they used things like candle flames or Bunsen burners to supply the energy so the energy was low and could have been directly in the frequency range of CO2's absorption bands.
No ideal black body 'box' or any other device has ever been constructed.
In the experiments conducted, CO2 absorption made no difference. It is simply another part of the 'box' absorbing and emitting.
Wake wrote:
Neither you nor I know that.

But the numbers he provided strongly suggest that because we know that there is actually a 1000:1 ratio of energy absorption between H2O vapor and CO2.
Absorption is not 'greenhouse effect'. It is simply another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, just like conduction and convection.
Wake wrote:
Hopefully you can understand this explanation.

I find a lot of holes in you explanation.


Where is your education? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU INCLUDE THE EMISSIVITY OF THE MATERIAL? THAT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CONSTANT. Is there some reason that a ratio would have anything to do with this subject? DID Tyndall specify an energy level? Or was his study of the RATIO of absorption between Dry Air, Normal Air (meaning room humidity) and CO2?

You find holes in the explanation because you are completely unaware of the real world. What in the hell does it matter in this particular case whether it was a true blackbody or a grey body? You have no connection with the actual problem. Reality isn't even peaking into your world.

I have worked in science forever. I actually did things. The first job out of the Air Force was in high energy nuclear research. I have worked in most of the best labs in this entire area. I worked in Lawrence Berkeley Labs increasing the power of the linear accelerator. I worked in Lawrence Livermore Labs on military projects. I worked at Sandia National Labs. I worked for so many companies I lost count long ago. If I had saved the awards I threw away I could probably buy a new car just with the gold plating from those awards.

The one important lab I never worked in was the IBM Research Center in San Jose.

The difference is that I can see the connection between a theoretical concept and the real world and you don't even know it exists.
05-05-2017 23:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Where is your education?
I find claims of credentials on forums are largely just points of contention and meaningless in the end. The usual result is Bulverism.
Wake wrote:
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU INCLUDE THE EMISSIVITY OF THE MATERIAL?
The difference between a body that exists and a reference point.
Wake wrote:
THAT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CONSTANT.
True. It is a measured value.
Wake wrote:
Is there some reason that a ratio would have anything to do with this subject?
Other than you completely ignoring it and stating a law that isn't the Stefan-Boltzmann law?
Wake wrote:
DID Tyndall specify an energy level? Or was his study of the RATIO of absorption between Dry Air, Normal Air (meaning room humidity) and CO2?
Fine. He catalogued the absorption of a variety of substances. So?
Wake wrote:
You find holes in the explanation because you are completely unaware of the real world.
Define 'real world'. Are you attempting to define the 'real world' as 'the world I agree with'?
Wake wrote:
What in the hell does it matter in this particular case whether it was a true blackbody or a grey body?
There are no true black bodies. There are only grey ones. The ideal black body is a reference point, not the equation itself.
Wake wrote:
You have no connection with the actual problem.
Define 'the problem'. You keep changing subjects.
Wake wrote:
Reality isn't even peaking into your world.
Define 'reality'.
Wake wrote:
I have worked in science forever.
Great. So have I. Credential dismissed (for both of us).
Wake wrote:
I actually did things.
Great. So have I. Credential dismissed. Same reason.
Wake wrote:
The first job out of the Air Force was in high energy nuclear research. I have worked in most of the best labs in this entire area. I worked in Lawrence Berkeley Labs increasing the power of the linear accelerator. I worked in Lawrence Livermore Labs on military projects. I worked at Sandia National Labs. I worked for so many companies I lost count long ago. If I had saved the awards I threw away I could probably buy a new car just with the gold plating from those awards.
Great. I build and design instrumentation for medical, industrial, and aerospace use. Credentials dismissed.
Wake wrote:
The one important lab I never worked in was the IBM Research Center in San Jose.
Meh. Why did you bring it up?
Wake wrote:
The difference is that I can see the connection between a theoretical concept and the real world and you don't even know it exists.
Define 'reality'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-05-2017 23:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: Define 'reality'.


What you have shown is that you have done nothing that you claim. So you find it easy to make statements like "what's reality". That is the statement of a college freshman in a debating team and not someone discussing a specific described experiment.

After having a real experiment like this described you STILL don't understand what I'm talking about when I say "bell curve" so don't try to tell me that you've ever done anything.
Edited on 06-05-2017 00:00
06-05-2017 00:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Define 'reality'.


What you have shown is that you have done nothing that you claim.
Fine. I don't believe any of your claims either, then. Happy?
Wake wrote:
So you find it easy to make statements like "what's reality".

Since you seem to base so much of your argument on 'reality', it's only right that you should try to define it. Can you?
Wake wrote:
That is the statement of a college freshman in a debating team and not someone discussing a specific described experiment.
Belittlement doesn't help. Can you define it or not?
Wake wrote:
After having a real experiment like this described you STILL don't understand what I'm talking about when I say "bell curve" so don't try to tell me that you've ever done anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not produce a 'bell curve' or any other kind of curve. It produces a scalar value. That means it produces a single number. There is nothing to graph.

I am curious what you think a bell curve is and how it's defined.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-05-2017 00:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Define 'reality'.


What you have shown is that you have done nothing that you claim.
Fine. I don't believe any of your claims either, then. Happy?
Wake wrote:
So you find it easy to make statements like "what's reality".

Since you seem to base so much of your argument on 'reality', it's only right that you should try to define it. Can you?
Wake wrote:
That is the statement of a college freshman in a debating team and not someone discussing a specific described experiment.
Belittlement doesn't help. Can you define it or not?
Wake wrote:
After having a real experiment like this described you STILL don't understand what I'm talking about when I say "bell curve" so don't try to tell me that you've ever done anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not produce a 'bell curve' or any other kind of curve. It produces a scalar value. That means it produces a single number. There is nothing to graph.

I am curious what you think a bell curve is and how it's defined.


And again you have proven my points. Case dismissed.
06-05-2017 00:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Define 'reality'.


What you have shown is that you have done nothing that you claim.
Fine. I don't believe any of your claims either, then. Happy?
Wake wrote:
So you find it easy to make statements like "what's reality".

Since you seem to base so much of your argument on 'reality', it's only right that you should try to define it. Can you?
Wake wrote:
That is the statement of a college freshman in a debating team and not someone discussing a specific described experiment.
Belittlement doesn't help. Can you define it or not?
Wake wrote:
After having a real experiment like this described you STILL don't understand what I'm talking about when I say "bell curve" so don't try to tell me that you've ever done anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not produce a 'bell curve' or any other kind of curve. It produces a scalar value. That means it produces a single number. There is nothing to graph.

I am curious what you think a bell curve is and how it's defined.


And again you have proven my points. Case dismissed.


So you would rather evade than answer these questions, eh? That's the sort of stunt the folks from the Church of Global Warming go for.

You've been contaminated!



The questions remain:

You use the word 'reality' heavily in your argument. Define 'reality'.

You seem to depend a lot on this Bell Curve of yours that supposedly comes out of a scalar value. Can you define what a Bell Curve is and how it's created?

You can choose to ignore these questions, but don't expect anyone to treat these terms you are using as any more than buzzwords.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 06-05-2017 00:57
06-05-2017 18:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU
06-05-2017 22:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU


2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.
06-05-2017 23:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that 2/3 of the 163 W/m^2 that makes it to the ground is transferred away by conduction?

The thermal conductivity of air is 0.024 W/(m K), and the vertical temperature gradient through the atmosphere is roughly 6.5 K/km i.e. 0.0065 K/m. This would give a heat transmission rate by conduction of

Rconduction = 0.024 * 0.0065 = 0.000156 W/m^2

which is absolutely miniscule in comparison with net rates of heat loss by radiation (58 W/m^2), convection (~19 W/m^2) and evaporation (~86 W/m^2).
07-05-2017 02:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that 2/3 of the 163 W/m^2 that makes it to the ground is transferred away by conduction?

The thermal conductivity of air is 0.024 W/(m K), and the vertical temperature gradient through the atmosphere is roughly 6.5 K/km i.e. 0.0065 K/m. This would give a heat transmission rate by conduction of

Rconduction = 0.024 * 0.0065 = 0.000156 W/m^2

which is absolutely miniscule in comparison with net rates of heat loss by radiation (58 W/m^2), convection (~19 W/m^2) and evaporation (~86 W/m^2).


I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about.
07-05-2017 03:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that 2/3 of the 163 W/m^2 that makes it to the ground is transferred away by conduction?

The thermal conductivity of air is 0.024 W/(m K), and the vertical temperature gradient through the atmosphere is roughly 6.5 K/km i.e. 0.0065 K/m. This would give a heat transmission rate by conduction of

Rconduction = 0.024 * 0.0065 = 0.000156 W/m^2

which is absolutely miniscule in comparison with net rates of heat loss by radiation (58 W/m^2), convection (~19 W/m^2) and evaporation (~86 W/m^2).


I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about.

I don't expect anyone understands what you're talking about.
07-05-2017 03:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that 2/3 of the 163 W/m^2 that makes it to the ground is transferred away by conduction?

The thermal conductivity of air is 0.024 W/(m K), and the vertical temperature gradient through the atmosphere is roughly 6.5 K/km i.e. 0.0065 K/m. This would give a heat transmission rate by conduction of

Rconduction = 0.024 * 0.0065 = 0.000156 W/m^2

which is absolutely miniscule in comparison with net rates of heat loss by radiation (58 W/m^2), convection (~19 W/m^2) and evaporation (~86 W/m^2).


I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about.

I don't expect anyone understands what you're talking about.


You forgot the "neener, neener, neener"
07-05-2017 20:15
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU


2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.


You missed it. with clouds they can and do absorb energy during the day and release it at night. our atmosphere is probably more active than what scientists give it credit for. And if 98% of the atmosphere is below the tropopause then why is the stratopause so warm for ? And you'll quote your text book yet once again even though you don't allow for atmospheric forcing.
07-05-2017 20:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU


2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.


You missed it. with clouds they can and do absorb energy during the day and release it at night. our atmosphere is probably more active than what scientists give it credit for. And if 98% of the atmosphere is below the tropopause then why is the stratopause so warm for ? And you'll quote your text book yet once again even though you don't allow for atmospheric forcing.


Let me explain this to you - scientists are the idiots you seem to think they are. Clouds release energy 24 hours a day.

If you think that the stratosphere is warm then by all means stick you hand out the window and see for yourself.

That is a peculiarity of PRESSURE that causes that. The extremely thin atmosphere above the troposphere is still 2% thick as ground level but wide open to solar radiation and so all of the gases receive warming.

This SAME effect occurs on ALL of the planets and satellites with atmosphere at this same pressure. And they have atmospheric compositions entirely different from everyplace else.

Above the stratopause there is essentially no atmosphere and while the individual molecules are equally receiving solar radiation it is immeasurable since it is open space.
07-05-2017 21:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU


2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.


You missed it. with clouds they can and do absorb energy during the day and release it at night. our atmosphere is probably more active than what scientists give it credit for. And if 98% of the atmosphere is below the tropopause then why is the stratopause so warm for ? And you'll quote your text book yet once again even though you don't allow for atmospheric forcing.


Actually, only about 80% of the mass is below the tropopause, not 98%.

Temperature isn't dependent on density of mass. It only depends on mass being there at all.

How WE feel temperature IS dependent on mass density. How the thermometer 'feels' temperature is not.

While the stratopause is quite a bit warmer than the tropopause, it doesn't feel warmer to us. That's because there simply isn't enough molecules around to transfer their energy into us. Despite the warmer measured temperature, to us it feels quite cold.

This gets worse the higher you go.

Total energy per, say, cubic meter, goes down in a continuous curve as you rise higher, again because of the loss of density in the atmosphere. There is no tropopause/stratopause type of bump in the curve.

It is energy that is being discussed here, not just temperature. Thermal energy is just one kind of energy. There is also electromagnetic energy (light).

It doesn't matter how the energy leaves the Earth. The simple fact here is that it does. The amount that leaves is the amount that comes in. The amount that leaves is the total radiance of the Earth, since by the time it leaves for space it is all light.

According to Stefan-Boltzmann, radiance is shown to be proportional to temperature of an object. The Earth is no exception. We can ignore the emissivity factor in the equation for this since it will be the same for incoming energy (absorption), and outgoing energy (emission).

If some Magick Holy Gas reduces the energy output, that is a reduction in radiance. To say that this causes the Earth to become warmer is to say that radiance is inversely proportional to temperature, in clear violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

To say that some Magick Holy Gas causes the emissivity of the Earth to decrease is to say that absorption must also be decreased, resulting in a COLDER Earth, not a warmer one.

Thus the Magick Bouncing Photon Theory of 'greenhouse effect' breaks down in the face of Stefan-Boltzmann. This is but one of the reasons that 'greenhouse effect' is not externally consistent.

It is also not a theory nor is it an observation. It builds a paradox to exist. It is a logical fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-05-2017 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU


2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.


You missed it. with clouds they can and do absorb energy during the day and release it at night. our atmosphere is probably more active than what scientists give it credit for. And if 98% of the atmosphere is below the tropopause then why is the stratopause so warm for ? And you'll quote your text book yet once again even though you don't allow for atmospheric forcing.


Let me explain this to you - scientists are the idiots you seem to think they are. Clouds release energy 24 hours a day.

You are both right. Clouds are heated during the day and can possibly heat the ground at night due to temperature inversions. Like any substance they are constantly releasing energy. One form of this energy release is 'radiance'.
Wake wrote:
If you think that the stratosphere is warm then by all means stick you hand out the window and see for yourself.
Thermometers measure differently than your hand. The stratosphere is warmer at the top than the bottom. The stratopause is much warmer than the tropopause. At the stratopause, temperature begins to fall again until the mesopause, then the temperature begins to climb again.

YOU feel continuously colder and colder air (assuming you aren't frozen solid when you stick your hand out the window!).

Wake wrote:
That is a peculiarity of PRESSURE that causes that. The extremely thin atmosphere above the troposphere is still 2% thick as ground level but wide open to solar radiation and so all of the gases receive warming.
Essentially correct except for the 2% number. If the number was that low, jets couldn't fly there. They do, however, and quite often. Jets tend to seek the tropopause to operate. It is the coldest air (best for engine use) combined with low drag, but sufficient to support the wings. The result is best fuel economy.
Wake wrote:
This SAME effect occurs on ALL of the planets and satellites with atmosphere at this same pressure. And they have atmospheric compositions entirely different from everyplace else.

This is wrong. Not all planets have a vertical temperature profile that looks like Earth. Some planets have no inversion layer at all. Earth has two of them (the stratosphere and the thermosphere).
Wake wrote:
Above the stratopause there is essentially no atmosphere and while the individual molecules are equally receiving solar radiation it is immeasurable since it is open space.

There is quite a lot of atmosphere at the stratopause. It is NOT open space. A satellite operating at this altitude will not be there long, as atmospheric drag will bring it down.

Solar radiation at any altitude is quite measurable. You simply do the same thing we do here on the surface. You measure the solar radiation per square (pick a unit).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-05-2017 00:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU


2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.


You missed it. with clouds they can and do absorb energy during the day and release it at night. our atmosphere is probably more active than what scientists give it credit for. And if 98% of the atmosphere is below the tropopause then why is the stratopause so warm for ? And you'll quote your text book yet once again even though you don't allow for atmospheric forcing.


Actually, only about 80% of the mass is below the tropopause, not 98%.

Temperature isn't dependent on density of mass. It only depends on mass being there at all.

How WE feel temperature IS dependent on mass density. How the thermometer 'feels' temperature is not.

While the stratopause is quite a bit warmer than the tropopause, it doesn't feel warmer to us. That's because there simply isn't enough molecules around to transfer their energy into us. Despite the warmer measured temperature, to us it feels quite cold.

This gets worse the higher you go.

Total energy per, say, cubic meter, goes down in a continuous curve as you rise higher, again because of the loss of density in the atmosphere. There is no tropopause/stratopause type of bump in the curve.

It is energy that is being discussed here, not just temperature. Thermal energy is just one kind of energy. There is also electromagnetic energy (light).

It doesn't matter how the energy leaves the Earth. The simple fact here is that it does. The amount that leaves is the amount that comes in. The amount that leaves is the total radiance of the Earth, since by the time it leaves for space it is all light.

According to Stefan-Boltzmann, radiance is shown to be proportional to temperature of an object. The Earth is no exception. We can ignore the emissivity factor in the equation for this since it will be the same for incoming energy (absorption), and outgoing energy (emission).

If some Magick Holy Gas reduces the energy output, that is a reduction in radiance. To say that this causes the Earth to become warmer is to say that radiance is inversely proportional to temperature, in clear violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

To say that some Magick Holy Gas causes the emissivity of the Earth to decrease is to say that absorption must also be decreased, resulting in a COLDER Earth, not a warmer one.

Thus the Magick Bouncing Photon Theory of 'greenhouse effect' breaks down in the face of Stefan-Boltzmann. This is but one of the reasons that 'greenhouse effect' is not externally consistent.

It is also not a theory nor is it an observation. It builds a paradox to exist. It is a logical fallacy.


90% of Earth's atmosphere is below 16 km (52,000 ft). This is the height of the equatorial daytime Tropopause.

99.99997% is below 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft), the Kármán line. By international convention, this marks the beginning of space where human travelers are considered astronauts.

This means that from the Tropopause up to space contains less the 10% of the atmosphere. And the majority of that is in only the bottom 1/4 of the stratosphere and that's why jet aircraft can't fly higher than that at subsonic speeds.

In fact there is another "bump" in the energy curve above the mesosphere for the same reason - there is no atmosphere above to absorb direct solar radiation. The individual molecules are heated from direct radiation.

ALL planets and satellites with an atmosphere exhibit these same effects regardless of atmospheric make-up at these pressure steps. ALL of them. Though the one on Venus is distorted probably from Solar pressure.

Exactly WHY are you trying to make an argument about this? You are incorrect on the pressures and about the reason that the temperature is higher in the Stratosphere.

NONE of the NOAA diagrams of the energy balance presented to the public make any sense as far as I've seen. They show that 340.4 W/m^2 hitting the outside of the Exosphere and 29% of the energy being reflected, 23% of it absorbed by the atmosphere and 48% of it absorbed by the Earth. They THEN start by saying that the Earth surface is emitting 398.2 W/m^2.

Exactly HOW is (energy in = energy out) if the Earth is emitting more energy than the Sun is inputting? How is the surface of the Earth receiving 163.3 W/m^2 (or if you prefer - Surface and atmosphere = 240.4 W/m^2) and emitting 398.2?

They then play some sort of game upon which energy is input from the atmospheric feedback that is just as stupidly perpetrated.

Instead of arguing about something you think you understand why are you not discussing something that is so plainly incorrect?

This idiotic pressing of the idea of man-made global warming is the villain and not minor details that you are willing to fight the world about no matter how often incorrect you are. And on such minor details.

If you want to argue about something calculate the maximum amount of energy in the absorption bands of CO2 because calculating emissivity of the Earth's surface does not get past the false claim that this emitted energy is trapped in the atmosphere.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Does the Earth Have a Natural Greenhouse Effect?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Understanding Why The Natural Disasters Come: Floods, Tsunami, Earthquake, Volcano Eruption009-08-2020 04:35
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist12812-03-2020 02:10
Greenhouse Gas and Warming11011-02-2020 17:48
Will Warm Winters Balance Out The Effects Of Greenhouse Gases?1410-02-2020 18:23
man made or natural31527-01-2020 21:32
▲ 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