Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There? > Page 2

Page 2 of 5

21-01-2016 19:48
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (140)	IBdaMann wrote: One Punch Man wrote: This is essentially what is happening by my understanding too. Just so we are clear, you believe that earth's atmospheric temperature is increased by earth's atmospheric radiance decreasing, yes? [hint: this violates Planck's Radiation Law] As a corollary, you believe that a transparent (to visible light) gas can affect the total thermal radiance of the atmosphere, yes? [hint: this violates Planck's Radiation Law] Yes, the atmospheric greenhouse is radiating more in all directions but at the same time less radiation emanating from the earth's surface is also escaping out to space. I explained this in an earlier comment on the other thread. Say the earth's surface is radiating at 100 W/m2 and we increase greenhouse gases by some amount and those gases then absorb 1W/m2. These gases will radiate energy in all directions. Therefore about 50% of that absorbed energy is radiated out to space and the other 50% is radiated back to the surface. As a consequence, more radiation is being radiated back to the surface and less is escaping into space. It's simple, and there has been no violation of Planck's law. Greenhouse gases are not adding any extra energy to the earth's system, of course they can't, other that would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. They are simply slowing the rate at which energy leaves, thereby making the surface warmer than it otherwise would be. It is no different than putting a jacket on when it's cold outside. The jacket does not add any extra energy to your body, it just slows the rate at which energy leaves and you become warmer as a result. Edited on 21-01-2016 19:49
21-01-2016 20:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	One Punch Man wrote: Yes, the atmospheric greenhouse is radiating more in all directions but at the same time less radiation emanating from the earth's surface is also escaping out to space. I explained this in an earlier comment on the other thread. Yes, you did explain this. It is a violation of physics. Adding the words "and there has been no violation of Planck's law" doesn't keep it from being a violation of Planck's Law. Temperature drives radiance, not the other way around. If the earth's atmospheric temperature increases then earth's atmospheric radiance (to space) increases. If you tell me that earth's atmospheric radiance (to space) has decreased then I know from physics that earth's atmospheric temperature has decreased. So when you say that CO2 somehow decreases earth's atmospheric radiance (to space) which then increases earth's atmospheric temperature, you are violating physics in more ways than just Planck's Law, including "cause/effect." One Punch Man wrote: Greenhouse gases are not adding any extra energy to the earth's system, of course they can't, other that would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. That does not alleviate your requirement to account for the additional energy that must enter the system to ultimately increase the temperature. From the above, you cannot account for this additional energy by claiming a reduction in thermal radiation from space. As it currently stands you have not accounted for any additional energy in a manner that adheres to physics. You're welcome to try again, though. You get unlimited attempts. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-01-2016 20:41
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (140)	Temperature drives radiance, not the other way around. Temperature drives radiance? Not sure what you mean by that. Temperature is simply kinetic energy and a molecule that does not absorb radiation will have no kinetic energy unless it gets it through intermolecular collisions. If you tell me that earth's atmospheric radiance (to space) has decreased then I know from physics that earth's atmospheric temperature has decreased. As I explained above, these gases intercepting energy emanating from the earth's surface and are radiating that energy in all directions, hence a portion of that energy that would otherwise escape into space is being radiated back to earth. That does not alleviate your requirement to account for the additional energy that must enter the system to ultimately increase the temperature. Well, perhaps you're right. I mean, I admit myself that even though I accept the greenhouse gas effect provisionally this is something that I have been struggling with too. The earth's surface is receiving 240 W/m2 from solar radiation and yet the earth is radiating at 390 W/m2. I suppose you're right. That extra energy has to be coming from somewhere, be it the greenhouse effect or adiabatic compression. The energy disparity is even more obvious on Venus. Venus' surface is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 even though it only receives 65 W/m2 at the surface.
21-01-2016 21:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	One Punch Man wrote: Temperature drives radiance, not the other way around. Temperature drives radiance? Not sure what you mean by that. Temperature is simply kinetic energy and a molecule that does not absorb radiation will have no kinetic energy unless it gets it through intermolecular collisions. Actually it does get a lot of it through intermolecular collisions. It also absorbs energy from light, which generally only adds to it's temperature. Absorption is not the same as emission. Temperature drives radiance. One Punch Man wrote: If you tell me that earth's atmospheric radiance (to space) has decreased then I know from physics that earth's atmospheric temperature has decreased. As I explained above, these gases intercepting energy emanating from the earth's surface and are radiating that energy in all directions, hence a portion of that energy that would otherwise escape into space is being radiated back to earth. Which would force everything else to cool, and builds an energy trap. This violates the 1st LOT, the 2nd LOT, Kirchoff's law, and Planck's law. The 1st LOT, is that all energy coming into a system must also leave. You cannot create energy, you cannot keep it from escaping. The amount that escapes is the same as the amount that enters. Trapping energy in any form violates this law. Kirchoff's law says the same thing must also occur in any subunit of the whole. It basically takes away any magick qualities CO2 might have at one altitude vs another. The 2nd LOT, says that all energy taken as a total flows in one direction, the direction of increasing entropy. In other words, a colder gas cannot warm a warmer surface. The warmer surface warms the colder gas. You cannot make hot coffee by putting ice in it. Saying that CO2 warms the surface is saying you can make hot coffee by putting ice in it. Planck's law says that all materials radiate according to their temperature, regardless of the material. It determines the overall color of light that is radiated, and therefore the energy of that light. The bluer the light, the more energetic it is. At Earth's surface temperature, this is IR light. At the temperatures of the atmosphere as you gain altitude, this becomes even lower IR. Saying that CO2 keeps energy from escaping is to say the light emitted from the Earth must therefore decrease, despite the increased energy at the surface. It is to say that Planck's law is backwards. One Punch Man wrote: That does not alleviate your requirement to account for the additional energy that must enter the system to ultimately increase the temperature. Well, perhaps you're right. I mean, I admit myself that even though I accept the greenhouse gas effect provisionally this is something that I have been struggling with too. The earth's surface is receiving 240 W/m2 from solar radiation and yet the earth is radiating at 390 W/m2. I suppose you're right. That extra energy has to be coming from somewhere, be it the greenhouse effect or adiabatic compression. The energy disparity is even more obvious on Venus. Venus' surface is radiating at 17,000 W/m2 even though it only receives 65 W/m2 at the surface. Where are you getting these numbers from? You cannot radiate more energy than what came in. You cannot radiate less energy than what came in. Energy is always conserved. You cannot create it, you cannot destroy it. At the very least these numbers sound like they are in different incompatible contexts, and therefore a false equivalence. It also sounds like you are counting the atmosphere in one case and only the surface in the other. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-01-2016 21:55
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	IBdaMned has created his own special version and application of Planck's Law. It's called 'IBdaMned's Thick as two short Plancks Law". In his special version, everything in the universe radiates like a theoretical perfect blackbody, even though he admits that a theoretical perfect blackbody, as described by Planck's Law, doesn't actually exist in nature. It's he only way he can pretend that the composition of the atmosphere doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how many times people explain to him why he is wrong, or refer him to textbooks that show him he is wrong, or show him graphs showing absorption and emission spectra from observations as compared to blackbody radiation curves which show him he is wrong, he will stick to his ideologically driven special version. He takes science denial to a new extreme. Edited on 21-01-2016 22:49

21-01-2016 23:50
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (140)	I'll just address this part. Where are you getting these numbers from? The standard equations used to determine the effective temperature and the Stefan-Boltzmann law to convert radiance to temperature. You cannot radiate more energy than what came in. Of course you can! Venus is proof! So are other planets in the solar system such as Jupiter which receives essentially hardly any solar radiation and has ridiculously high temperatures (from memory up to 24,000K) as you descent deeper into its atmosphere. Solar isolation for Venus is 2600 W/m2 (that is the maximum solar radiation at the-top-of-the-atmosphere) and after albeo is taken into account this reduces to around 65 W/m2 averaged out. The planet has a temperature of 737K and that corresponds to 17,000 W/m2 by the S-B law. So, why is Venus so you hot, you ask? Why is Jupiter so hot as you descent deeper into its atmosphere? There's an explanation propounded by the Sky Dragon Slayers inter alia that contends that the high temperatures on Venus and deep within Jupiter's atmosphere, and most other planets (and also the 33K of warming Earth gets above its effective temperature) is produced via gravitational compression. The same gravitational compression that allows stars to reach temperatures of 10 million K necessary for nuclear fusion. This is why Jupiter is dubbed "The Failed Star". It has an atmosphere consisting mainly of hydrogen and if it had 80 times more mass it currently does then it would be able to generate enough heat through gravitational compression for nuclear fusion. As gases are pulled together by gravity they are compacted and there are more collisions per-second which increases temperature. All you need is a planet with a sufficently large gravitational field and a sufficently large atmosphere and gravity does the rest. YouTube "The Formation of Stars". Edited on 22-01-2016 00:24
22-01-2016 02:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	One Punch Man wrote: I'll just address this part. [quote]Where are you getting these numbers from? The standard equations used to determine the effective temperature and the Stefan-Boltzmann law to convert radiance to temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is fine, but what are these 'standard equations to determine the effective temperature' based on? The same law, but applied in a non-uniform way. One Punch Man wrote: [quote]You cannot radiate more energy than what came in. Of course you can! Venus is proof! So are other planets in the solar system such as Jupiter which receives essentially hardly any solar radiation and has ridiculously high temperatures (from memory up to 24,000K) as you descent deeper into its atmosphere. Solar isolation for Venus is 2600 W/m2 (that is the maximum solar radiation at the-top-of-the-atmosphere) and after albeo is taken into account this reduces to around 65 W/m2 averaged out. The planet has a temperature of 737K and that corresponds to 17,000 W/m2 by the S-B law. You are confusing temperature with all the energy for one thing. Temperature isn't the only form of energy in play here. One Punch Man wrote: So, why is Venus so you hot, you ask? Why is Jupiter so hot as you descent deeper into its atmosphere? There's an explanation propounded by the Sky Dragon Slayers inter alia that contends that the high temperatures on Venus and deep within Jupiter's atmosphere, and most other planets (and also the 33K of warming Earth gets above its effective temperature) is produced via gravitational compression. The same gravitational compression that allows stars to reach temperatures of 10 million K necessary for nuclear fusion. As I've said before, there are problems with the 'effective temperature' equations. Albedo, for one thing, isn't a calculated product. Considering only surface absorption and ignoring anything in the way is also not handled by them. One Punch Man wrote: This is why Jupiter is dubbed "The Failed Star". It has an atmosphere consisting mainly of hydrogen and if it had 80 times more mass it currently does then it would be able to generate enough heat through gravitational compression for nuclear fusion. As gases are pulled together by gravity they are compacted and there are more collisions per-second which increases temperature. All you need is a planet with a sufficently large gravitational field and a sufficently large atmosphere and gravity does the rest. YouTube "The Formation of Stars". Jupiter has not ignited by fusion. There may be fission going on there though. Earth is internally heated by fission. Same with Venus. Temperature is an indication of only one form of energy. I do agree that greater density has greater temperature, everything else being equal. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-01-2016 13:41
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (140)	Into the Night wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann law is fine, but what are these 'standard equations to determine the effective temperature' based on? The same law, but applied in a non-uniform way. What are your issues with these equations specifically? Please explain. You are confusing temperature with all the energy for one thing. Temperature isn't the only form of energy in play here. What? As I've said before, there are problems with the 'effective temperature' equations. I hear you saying that, but you need to explain what these problems are. Albedo, for one thing, isn't a calculated product. Yes is it. Without factoring albedo into the equations Earth would be absorbing 340 W/m2, while factoring in albedo gives 240 W/m2, as mentioned above. Even without using those equations, Venus' maximum incoming solar radiation of 2600 W/m2 is simply calculated by applying the Inverse-Square law to the Sun's radiation and has also been measured instrumentally. Considering only surface absorption and ignoring anything in the way is also not handled by them. You mean albedo, again? Jupiter has not ignited by fusion. Where did I say it was ignited by fusion? I simply said that if you added more mass to Jupiter its temperature would increase. And if you added 80 times more mass it would be able to generate high enough temperatures through gravitational compression/pressure for nuclear fusion to occur. Earth is internally heated by fission. Same as Venus That may be so, who knows. But does this explain the extra 17,000 W/m2 of energy that Venus gets above the 2600 W/m2 of solar isolation? I do agree that greater density has greater temperature, everything else being equal. Venus' average surface temperature of 737K can actually be calculated rather straighforwardly with the Ideal Gas law, which governs the relationship between pressure, temperature, density/mass and volume. This would therefore suggest that its temperature is determined by its high atmospheric pressure/density. Edited on 22-01-2016 13:56
22-01-2016 14:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	One Punch Man wrote: Temperature drives radiance? Not sure what you mean by that. You have touched on one of your core problem areas. Before you are going to get anywhere in science, you must learn the concept of "cause/effect." If A causes B, you cannot base your argument on B causing A. Temperature determines/causes the level of radiance. You are trying to base your argument of "greenhouse effect" on radiance determining/causing temperature. Until you understand the concept of "cause/effect" there is nothing more I can really say to explain it more clearly. As far as the math goes, I recommend you also look up the terms "independent variable" (cause) and "dependent variable" (effect). That will help you to better understand the relevant equations involved. One Punch Man wrote: As I explained above, these gases intercepting energy emanating from the earth's surface and are radiating that energy in all directions, hence a portion of that energy that would otherwise escape into space is being radiated back to earth. As I have tried to explain to you many times, it does not matter in which direction any portion of a fixed amount of energy travels...you still have the same fixed amount of energy. There is no additional energy created/generated/added to increase temperature. I'll try again to explain with a very simple example. Imagine a box of pizza divided into eight equal slices, but we have nine guests. We want to increase the number of guests we can feed a slice of pizza from eight to nine so that every guest gets a slice of pizza. I tell you that I have a plan to accomplish this. I'll have eight guests each grab a slice and walk to the table but I will have one return his slice to the box where the ninth guest will grab it and join the other eight at the table. That's how I will feed each of our nine guests a slice ...by simply reducing the loss of pizza from the box. Would you go for that plan? One Punch Man wrote: Of course you can [radiate away more energy than that which was absorbed]! Venus is proof! The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. Your arguments are going to be summarily dismissed until you understand the laws of thermodynamics. They're easy and very interesting, well worth the time needed to understand them. Until you do, your posts won't rise above the level of comic relief. One Punch Man wrote: So, why is Venus so you hot, you ask? I haven't asked. I noted Venus' proximity to the sun as well as its insane atmospheric pressure? I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-01-2016 15:36
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (140)	Of course you can [radiate away more energy than that which was absorbed]! The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. Your arguments are going to be summarily dismissed until you understand the laws of thermodynamics. I DID NOT SAY that the atmosphere of Venus was absorbing radiation and then multiplying that radiation ten-fold. Greenhouse gases are inert bodies and cannot radiate more energy than they absorb. I am saying that it is gravity and pressure that allows Venus to radiate more energy than it receives from the Sun. One Punch Man wrote: So, why is Venus so you hot, you ask?I haven't asked. I noted Venus' proximity to the sun Doesn't matter. Solar isolation is still only 2600 W/m2 and when taking into account albedo that averages out as 65 W/m2 over the entire planet. as well as its insane atmospheric pressure? Congratulations, that's exactly what I've been saying. Temperature causes the level of radiance Yes. I understand that when a body's kinetic energy increases it radiates more energy. Thanks for that piece of enlightenment. Edited on 22-01-2016 15:49
22-01-2016 17:46
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (140)	As far as the math goes, I recommend you also look up the terms "independent variable" (cause) and "dependent variable" (effect). That will help you to better understand the relevant equations involved. I do understand the well-established conventional radiative transfer equations applied by scientists when calculating this. You say "There is no additional energy created/generated/added to increase temperature". No additional energy may be being created but according to the greenhouse theory the rate at which energy leaves the system is being reduced which apparently consequently can affect the surface temperature. If a body is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings then the net radiative heat-loss can be determined by the following equation: Where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, ε is emissivity, and T is the temperature raised to the 4th-power. Assuming an emissivity of 1.0 and assuming Ta is 300K and Tb is 250K then the net radiative heat-loss by Ta comes out to be: Assuming Tb increased in temperature by 10K from 250K to 260K then the net radiative heat-loss by Ta would be: Therefore Ta is now losing 37.8W/m2 less energy than before and no additional energy has been created. All that has occurred is that the surrounding temperature (i.e. Tb) has increased and Ta is losing less energy as a consequence. And the laws of thermodynamics have been followed to a tee. Edited on 22-01-2016 18:32
22-01-2016 21:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	One Punch Man wrote: Into the Night wrote:The Stefan-Boltzmann law is fine, but what are these 'standard equations to determine the effective temperature' based on? The same law, but applied in a non-uniform way. What are your issues with these equations specifically? Please explain. You are confusing temperature with all the energy for one thing. Temperature isn't the only form of energy in play here. What? As I've said before, there are problems with the 'effective temperature' equations. I hear you saying that, but you need to explain what these problems are. Albedo, for one thing, isn't a calculated product. Yes is it. Without factoring albedo into the equations Earth would be absorbing 340 W/m2, while factoring in albedo gives 240 W/m2, as mentioned above. Even without using those equations, Venus' maximum incoming solar radiation of 2600 W/m2 is simply calculated by applying the Inverse-Square law to the Sun's radiation and has also been measured instrumentally. Considering only surface absorption and ignoring anything in the way is also not handled by them. You mean albedo, again? Jupiter has not ignited by fusion. Where did I say it was ignited by fusion? I simply said that if you added more mass to Jupiter its temperature would increase. And if you added 80 times more mass it would be able to generate high enough temperatures through gravitational compression/pressure for nuclear fusion to occur. Earth is internally heated by fission. Same as Venus That may be so, who knows. But does this explain the extra 17,000 W/m2 of energy that Venus gets above the 2600 W/m2 of solar isolation? I do agree that greater density has greater temperature, everything else being equal. Venus' average surface temperature of 737K can actually be calculated rather straighforwardly with the Ideal Gas law, which governs the relationship between pressure, temperature, density/mass and volume. This would therefore suggest that its temperature is determined by its high atmospheric pressure/density. I have already mentioned the problem. Albedo. It is NOT a calculated value. It is NOT a calculable value. It's 'fudge factor' to make the equation work. Other than the heat generated internally on a planet by fission, you cannot get more energy out of a body than you put into it. It doesn't matter whether it's a planet or a molecule. Fission is an energy source. Fusion is an energy source. An atmosphere is not, despite the pressure that increases temperatures. Temperature and heat flow are only one form of energy. I question your radiance of a planet numbers. They sound to me like you are including the reflected energy as well as the absorbed energy in that figure. You also conveniently modified surface numbers to square law exposure numbers without mentioning it. You seem to be playing pretty fast and loose with these numbers, applying these equations improperly. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-01-2016 23:11
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Into the Night wrote:I have already mentioned the problem. Albedo. It is NOT a calculated value. It is NOT a calculable value. It's 'fudge factor' to make the equation work. Other than the heat generated internally on a planet by fission, you cannot get more energy out of a body than you put into it. It doesn't matter whether it's a planet or a molecule. Fission is an energy source. Fusion is an energy source. An atmosphere is not, despite the pressure that increases temperatures. Temperature and heat flow are only one form of energy. I question your radiance of a planet numbers. They sound to me like you are including the reflected energy as well as the absorbed energy in that figure. You also conveniently modified surface numbers to square law exposure numbers without mentioning it. You seem to be playing pretty fast and loose with these numbers, applying these equations improperly. The atmosphere does not increase temperature. It spreads the ground's temperature throughout the atmosphere. If there were no atmosphere, the ground would have nothing to conduct heat to and would radiate at 100% capacity, the ground would be very hot in the day and very cold at night. Because Earth has atmosphere, during the day the ground transfers heat to the atmosphere by conduction so the ground is cool and radiates at less than 10% capacity, during the night the atmosphere transfers heat to the ground by conduction and keeps the ground warm. This is why Earth has moderated temperatures rather than extreme temperatures like on the Moon. Edited on 22-01-2016 23:33
24-01-2016 05:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Tai Hai Chen wrote:The atmosphere does not increase temperature. It spreads the ground's temperature throughout the atmosphere. Correct. The atmosphere also spreads around energy it absorbs directly from the sun, as well as radiated energy that is absorbed from the aquasphere. The "spreading around" is performed through convection and thermal radiation. Tai Hai Chen wrote: If there were no atmosphere, the ground would have nothing to conduct heat to and would radiate at 100% capacity, the ground would be very hot in the day and very cold at night. If the earth had no atmosphere, the earth's surface temperature would be similar to the moon's. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2016 14:12
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	The Earth's temperature is a function of three energy transfer processes: Radiation, conduction, and convection. The incoming energy to the climate is primarily radiation from the Sun. Most of that (apart from the small proportion reflected back out - albedo) is absorbed by the oceans and land with a small amount warming the atmosphere directly. The air is warmed primarily by interaction with the oceans, the land playing a lesser role. Conduction plays a secondary role here compared to radiation. Gases are poor conductors. Convection redistributes the energy in both the atmosphere and oceans. The radiation the oceans and land emits is in the IR part of the spectrum. That is because the power emitted goes as the 4th power of the temperature but the wavelength emitted is inversely proportional to the temperature. The incoming radiation spectrum peaks at visible wavelengths (555 nm) typified by the photospheric temperature of the Sun. The Earth has an average temperature of +16C which corresponds to the IR part of the spectrum so that is where the bulk of the energy is emitted. But the earth has a range of temperatures from -80C to +50C so that corresponds to a wide spectrum of IR radiation. So the spectrum of the outgoing IR is the average of the temperatures multiplied by the area of the Earth at each specific temperature divided by the total area of the Earth. As the oceans make up most of the surface area it is their temperature that dominates. If the gases in the Earths atmosphere were transparent to IR (like N2, O2, Ar) the average surface temperature of the Earth would be the same as the Moon's or about -16C and we would not be here. But we have gases like CO2 and CH4 that do absorb IR. Water vapour increases with temperature so it amplifies (very effectively) the changes in the other GHGs as does the albedo effect (gain or loss of ice and snow cover). That warms the atmosphere but more importantly the absorbed IR can be reemitted in any direction, including down. That adds more heat energy to the air, land and ocean below. The more of these GHGs the more torturous the path that the IR has to take to escape (see "random walk" and "mean free path") and the warmer it gets. The temperature thus rises. So the atmosphere emits more energy (T^4 remember) but at a shorter wavelength (1/T remember). The temperature continues to rise until the radiation moves to wavelengths that are less inhibited to the escape of the IR radiation and higher emitted power levels until a new equilibrium is reached. None of this violates any of the physical laws, in fact it relies on them. So the answer to the original question as to how many GHG effects are there is: as many as there are different GHGs (the law of partial pressures).

24-01-2016 17:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	DRKTS wrote:The Earth's temperature is a function of three energy transfer processes: Radiation, conduction, and convection. The earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature is determined by the 1st LoT, i.e Total Energy = Initial Energy + Energy Absorbed - Energy Radiated. DRKTS wrote: The incoming energy to the climate is primarily radiation from the Sun. There is no "climate." The earth does all the absorbing and radiating. DRKTS wrote: Most of that (apart from the small proportion reflected back out - albedo) is absorbed by the oceans and land with a small amount warming the atmosphere directly Not "Most"...the correct word is "All." DRKTS wrote: If the gases in the Earths atmosphere were transparent to IR (like N2, O2, Ar) the average surface temperature of the Earth would be the same as the Moon's or about -16C and we would not be here. No, it would not. Let's say hypothetically that the earth's hypothetical N2/O2/Ar atmosphere were heated to 120 degC, would it ever cool? If so, how? DRKTS wrote:None of this violates any of the physical laws, Yes it does, especially where you write: DRKTS wrote:That warms the atmosphere but more importantly the absorbed IR can be reemitted in any direction, including down. That adds more heat energy to the air, land and ocean below. Clearly you believe that energ is created by having it radiate in many directions, and I bet you believe that you can create more pizza by cutting it into more slices. Your version of "greenhouse effect" relies on violating the 1st LoT. DRKTS wrote: in fact it relies on them. Yes, the Greenhouse Effect Fallacy theorem states that all varieties of "greenhouse effect" hypotheses rely on violations of physics, and yours is no exception. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2016 23:15
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: The earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature is determined by the 1st LoT, i.e Total Energy = Initial Energy + Energy Absorbed - Energy Radiated Indeed. And satellite measurements by e.g. the CERES experiment show that the Earth is currently absorbing about half a watt more energy per square metre than it is emitting. So the 1st LoT dictates that the Earth's temperature must be rising. http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ http://www.nceo.ac.uk/posters/2011_1climate_Richard_ALLAN_reading.pdf
25-01-2016 01:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature is determined by the 1st LoT, i.e Total Energy = Initial Energy + Energy Absorbed - Energy Radiated Indeed. And satellite measurements by e.g. the CERES experiment show that the Earth is currently absorbing about half a watt more energy per square metre than it is emitting. So the 1st LoT dictates that the Earth's temperature must be rising. http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ http://www.nceo.ac.uk/posters/2011_1climate_Richard_ALLAN_reading.pdf I'd love to see you provide the raw data and the instrumentation used that shows how much the Earth is currently absorbing. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2016 01:51
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature is determined by the 1st LoT, i.e Total Energy = Initial Energy + Energy Absorbed - Energy Radiated Indeed. And satellite measurements by e.g. the CERES experiment show that the Earth is currently absorbing about half a watt more energy per square metre than it is emitting. So the 1st LoT dictates that the Earth's temperature must be rising. http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ http://www.nceo.ac.uk/posters/2011_1climate_Richard_ALLAN_reading.pdf I'd love to see you provide the raw data and the instrumentation used that shows how much the Earth is currently absorbing. You could try following the links I provided.
25-01-2016 02:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature is determined by the 1st LoT, i.e Total Energy = Initial Energy + Energy Absorbed - Energy Radiated Indeed. And satellite measurements by e.g. the CERES experiment show that the Earth is currently absorbing about half a watt more energy per square metre than it is emitting. So the 1st LoT dictates that the Earth's temperature must be rising. http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ http://www.nceo.ac.uk/posters/2011_1climate_Richard_ALLAN_reading.pdf Why would you believe, without question, such an obviously absurd assertion? Did you ever ask yourself what satellite sensor can measure what the entire earth is absorbing? Are you under the impression that a government agency, overseen by a political appointee, is incapable of making an absurd announcement? I checked your link. The NASA site does what you do. Realizing they can't account for the fictitious "additional energy" to support their imaginary increase in temperature, they write an article claiming to have "confirmed" the increase in temperature and avoiding any valid accounting for the required additional energy..and like an obedient worshiper, you eat it up without question. You must be embarrassed by your falling for that whole "Oh yeah, we have confirmed that a few years back Global Warming transitioned to storing energy at the bottom of the ocean where there aren't any thermometers." Look, if any person or organization makes an assertion that amounts to a blatant violation of thermodynamics then I can assure you that they don't deserve your hero-worship and citing them does not augment your credibility. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-01-2016 02:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature is determined by the 1st LoT, i.e Total Energy = Initial Energy + Energy Absorbed - Energy Radiated Indeed. And satellite measurements by e.g. the CERES experiment show that the Earth is currently absorbing about half a watt more energy per square metre than it is emitting. So the 1st LoT dictates that the Earth's temperature must be rising. http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ http://www.nceo.ac.uk/posters/2011_1climate_Richard_ALLAN_reading.pdf I'd love to see you provide the raw data and the instrumentation used that shows how much the Earth is currently absorbing. You could try following the links I provided. Thought so. They can't provide that information either. You are just parroting them. Why don't learn to think for yourself? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2016 09:49
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Surface Detail wrote: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ http://www.nceo.ac.uk/posters/2011_1climate_Richard_ALLAN_reading.pdf And for a little bit of history: "The first meteorological satellite experiment flew prior to TIROS-I on the Explorer VII satellite in 1959. The experiment was devised by Suomi and Parent to provide this most basic meteorological measurement, the balance between the radiation input to the atmosphere from the sun and the radiation exiting from the atmosphere as a result of reflection and emission processes. The spatial distribution of the radiation imbalances between incoming and outgoing radiation (the net radiation) is the primary driving force of atmospheric circulation. The solar input had already been measured from ground-based and balloon borne platforms. Suomi's experiment was the first to measure the energy loss to space." Source: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf Edited on 25-01-2016 09:51
25-01-2016 11:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Ceist wrote: Surface Detail wrote: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ http://www.nceo.ac.uk/posters/2011_1climate_Richard_ALLAN_reading.pdf And for a little bit of history: "The first meteorological satellite experiment flew prior to TIROS-I on the Explorer VII satellite in 1959. The experiment was devised by Suomi and Parent to provide this most basic meteorological measurement, the balance between the radiation input to the atmosphere from the sun and the radiation exiting from the atmosphere as a result of reflection and emission processes. The spatial distribution of the radiation imbalances between incoming and outgoing radiation (the net radiation) is the primary driving force of atmospheric circulation. The solar input had already been measured from ground-based and balloon borne platforms. Suomi's experiment was the first to measure the energy loss to space." Source: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf And those solar input measurements are useless comparisons for two reasons. First, they do not represent any of the planet surface and it's variations, or the effects of energy absorbed by the atmosphere itself from incoming energy, and second, they have a different albedo. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2016 11:53
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Ceist wrote: Surface Detail wrote: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ http://www.nceo.ac.uk/posters/2011_1climate_Richard_ALLAN_reading.pdf And for a little bit of history: "The first meteorological satellite experiment flew prior to TIROS-I on the Explorer VII satellite in 1959. The experiment was devised by Suomi and Parent to provide this most basic meteorological measurement, the balance between the radiation input to the atmosphere from the sun and the radiation exiting from the atmosphere as a result of reflection and emission processes. The spatial distribution of the radiation imbalances between incoming and outgoing radiation (the net radiation) is the primary driving force of atmospheric circulation. The solar input had already been measured from ground-based and balloon borne platforms. Suomi's experiment was the first to measure the energy loss to space." Source: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf And those solar input measurements are useless comparisons for two reasons. First, they do not represent any of the planet surface and it's variations, or the effects of energy absorbed by the atmosphere itself from incoming energy, and second, they have a different albedo. The only useless thing is your ability to comprehend English. It doesn't matter what the earth's albedo is or how much is absorbed by the atmosphere. We know the total amount of energy hitting the Earth, so we just need to know the total amount exiting, regardless of whether it is reflected or emitted, and regardless of whether from the ground or atmosphere. If the energy coming out of a system is less then the energy going the system, then the temperature of the system must be rising.
25-01-2016 16:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote: It doesn't matter what the earth's albedo is or how much is absorbed by the atmosphere. We know the total amount of energy hitting the Earth, so we just need to know the total amount exiting, False. For the math to work out, we absolutely need to know how much incident solar energy is reflected away (never having been absorbed). Otherwise we end up making your error of overstating the amount absorbed, claiming the earth is radiating too little and erroneously concluding that the earth's temperature must somehow be increasing. The above error leads to false assumptions that lead to people asking stupid questions like "Where is all that extra energy going?" which leads to stupid answers becoming official warmizombie dogma, e.g. Global Warming is storing the extra energy at the bottom of the ocean where there aren't any thermometers." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-01-2016 17:04
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: It doesn't matter what the earth's albedo is or how much is absorbed by the atmosphere. We know the total amount of energy hitting the Earth, so we just need to know the total amount exiting, False. For the math to work out, we absolutely need to know how much incident solar energy is reflected away (never having been absorbed). Otherwise we end up making your error of overstating the amount absorbed, claiming the earth is radiating too little and erroneously concluding that the earth's temperature must somehow be increasing. The above error leads to false assumptions that lead to people asking stupid questions like "Where is all that extra energy going?" which leads to stupid answers becoming official warmizombie dogma, e.g. Global Warming is storing the extra energy at the bottom of the ocean where there aren't any thermometers." No, you're wrong of course. All we need to know in order to determine the radiation energy balance is the total amount of energy entering the top of the atmosphere from space and the total amount of energy exiting into space from the top of the atmosphere. The first figure minus the second figure gives the amount of energy remaining in the Earth and its atmosphere. It's a very simple application of the 1st LoT!
25-01-2016 19:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Ceist wrote: Surface Detail wrote: http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ http://www.nceo.ac.uk/posters/2011_1climate_Richard_ALLAN_reading.pdf And for a little bit of history: "The first meteorological satellite experiment flew prior to TIROS-I on the Explorer VII satellite in 1959. The experiment was devised by Suomi and Parent to provide this most basic meteorological measurement, the balance between the radiation input to the atmosphere from the sun and the radiation exiting from the atmosphere as a result of reflection and emission processes. The spatial distribution of the radiation imbalances between incoming and outgoing radiation (the net radiation) is the primary driving force of atmospheric circulation. The solar input had already been measured from ground-based and balloon borne platforms. Suomi's experiment was the first to measure the energy loss to space." Source: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/04_rad_budget.pdf And those solar input measurements are useless comparisons for two reasons. First, they do not represent any of the planet surface and it's variations, or the effects of energy absorbed by the atmosphere itself from incoming energy, and second, they have a different albedo. The only useless thing is your ability to comprehend English. It doesn't matter what the earth's albedo is or how much is absorbed by the atmosphere. We know the total amount of energy hitting the Earth, so we just need to know the total amount exiting, regardless of whether it is reflected or emitted, and regardless of whether from the ground or atmosphere. If the energy coming out of a system is less then the energy going the system, then the temperature of the system must be rising. An even more useless thing is your inability to comprehend the contents of your own link. You can't compare incoming solar radiation to outgoing infrared radiation and call it the same thing. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2016 19:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: It doesn't matter what the earth's albedo is or how much is absorbed by the atmosphere. We know the total amount of energy hitting the Earth, so we just need to know the total amount exiting, False. For the math to work out, we absolutely need to know how much incident solar energy is reflected away (never having been absorbed). Otherwise we end up making your error of overstating the amount absorbed, claiming the earth is radiating too little and erroneously concluding that the earth's temperature must somehow be increasing. The above error leads to false assumptions that lead to people asking stupid questions like "Where is all that extra energy going?" which leads to stupid answers becoming official warmizombie dogma, e.g. Global Warming is storing the extra energy at the bottom of the ocean where there aren't any thermometers." No, you're wrong of course. All we need to know in order to determine the radiation energy balance is the total amount of energy entering the top of the atmosphere from space and the total amount of energy exiting into space from the top of the atmosphere. The first figure minus the second figure gives the amount of energy remaining in the Earth and its atmosphere. It's a very simple application of the 1st LoT! But that's not what is being measured here. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2016 10:46
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Surface Detail wrote: It doesn't matter what the earth's albedo is or how much is absorbed by the atmosphere. We know the total amount of energy hitting the Earth, so we just need to know the total amount exiting, False. For the math to work out, we absolutely need to know how much incident solar energy is reflected away (never having been absorbed). Otherwise we end up making your error of overstating the amount absorbed, claiming the earth is radiating too little and erroneously concluding that the earth's temperature must somehow be increasing. The above error leads to false assumptions that lead to people asking stupid questions like "Where is all that extra energy going?" which leads to stupid answers becoming official warmizombie dogma, e.g. Global Warming is storing the extra energy at the bottom of the ocean where there aren't any thermometers." No, you're wrong of course. All we need to know in order to determine the radiation energy balance is the total amount of energy entering the top of the atmosphere from space and the total amount of energy exiting into space from the top of the atmosphere. The first figure minus the second figure gives the amount of energy remaining in the Earth and its atmosphere. It's a very simple application of the 1st LoT! But that's not what is being measured here. The determination of Earth's radiative balance is exactly what experiments like CERES are attempting to achieve. Granted, it's not easy to measure total average outgoing radiation due to variations with seasons, latitude, terrain and cloudiness. However, the results do suggest an imbalance of about 0.5 W/m-2 (rather then the perfect balance that IBdaMann has, for no apparent reason, assumed). Certainly, back in 2011 they were sure enough about their results to be wondering why the Earth's surface wasn't warming by as much as the radiation imbalance suggested, which is why they proposed that the deep oceans were warming more rapidly than assumed. The recent record-breaking warm years, with temperatures driven to new highs by heat released from the ocean, would appear to have vindicated their assumptions.
26-01-2016 22:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Surface Detail wrote: It doesn't matter what the earth's albedo is or how much is absorbed by the atmosphere. We know the total amount of energy hitting the Earth, so we just need to know the total amount exiting, False. For the math to work out, we absolutely need to know how much incident solar energy is reflected away (never having been absorbed). Otherwise we end up making your error of overstating the amount absorbed, claiming the earth is radiating too little and erroneously concluding that the earth's temperature must somehow be increasing. The above error leads to false assumptions that lead to people asking stupid questions like "Where is all that extra energy going?" which leads to stupid answers becoming official warmizombie dogma, e.g. Global Warming is storing the extra energy at the bottom of the ocean where there aren't any thermometers." No, you're wrong of course. All we need to know in order to determine the radiation energy balance is the total amount of energy entering the top of the atmosphere from space and the total amount of energy exiting into space from the top of the atmosphere. The first figure minus the second figure gives the amount of energy remaining in the Earth and its atmosphere. It's a very simple application of the 1st LoT! But that's not what is being measured here. The determination of Earth's radiative balance is exactly what experiments like CERES are attempting to achieve. Granted, it's not easy to measure total average outgoing radiation due to variations with seasons, latitude, terrain and cloudiness. However, the results do suggest an imbalance of about 0.5 W/m-2 (rather then the perfect balance that IBdaMann has, for no apparent reason, assumed). No, CERES is a NASA program to try to fabricate data showing an imbalance. The methods used by the CERES project are horribly flawed. The reason IBdaMann (and I) claim there is NO imbalance is because that would violate the 1st LOT. This isn't the first time, and likely won't be the last, that NASA will spend tons of money of something based on a preconceived conclusion. They have literally face planted into the problem of phenomenology. Consider other such 'gems' from NASA: * The ozone hole produces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even though there is no carbon in ozone. * Chlorine is somehow selectively inert and will not react with anything but ozone. * Using the same fabricated dataset developed by NOAA, despite data that says otherwise. * Deep ocean water is warming while surface ocean water is not, in direct violation of the 2nd LOT. * Deep atmosphere (where we are) is warming while the atmospheric surface (top) is actually cooling, in direct violation of the 2nd LOT. Neither the report that you linked to nor NASA, nor the CERES project are measuring the same thing at all. The report you linked to doesn't even mention measuring the incoming energy from the sun at all, except at the surface. That is NOT the same as measuring at the top of the atmosphere! Surface Detail wrote: Certainly, back in 2011 they were sure enough about their results to be wondering why the Earth's surface wasn't warming by as much as the radiation imbalance suggested, which is why they proposed that the deep oceans were warming more rapidly than assumed. The recent record-breaking warm years, with temperatures driven to new highs by heat released from the ocean, would appear to have vindicated their assumptions. Quoted right out of NASA with the exception of translation to third party form. Oddly, they put their own foot in their mouths with this statement. * It shows they have no data, historic or otherwise until only 4 years ago. * It shows they had to send out a ship to gather the data, using probes that last only 10 days at sea, which means all they have are a few points of data in a very large world that is 7/10ths ocean. * It shows they are willing to publish a conclusion, and couch it in words as solid as iron, and put the reputation of NASA behind it, on this amount of data. It is a crime what has happened to NASA. They are NOTHING like the agency they were 45 years ago when we went to the moon. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

27-01-2016 02:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Certainly, back in 2011 they were sure enough about their results to be wondering why the Earth's surface wasn't warming by as much as the radiation imbalance suggested, which is why they proposed that the deep oceans were warming more rapidly than assumed. The recent record-breaking warm years, with temperatures driven to new highs by heat released from the ocean, would appear to have vindicated their assumptions. Quoted right out of NASA with the exception of translation to third party form. Oddly, they put their own foot in their mouths with this statement. * It shows they have no data, historic or otherwise until only 4 years ago. * It shows they had to send out a ship to gather the data, using probes that last only 10 days at sea, which means all they have are a few points of data in a very large world that is 7/10ths ocean. * It shows they are willing to publish a conclusion, and couch it in words as solid as iron, and put the reputation of NASA behind it, on this amount of data. It is a crime what has happened to NASA. They are NOTHING like the agency they were 45 years ago when we went to the moon. You covered this well. I would emphasize that we are talking about NASA and others concluding what they had already invalidly presumed, i.e. that there was an "imbalance" whereby more energy was coming into the earth than was radiating away. If you allow such a false assumption then obviously one of the resulting conclusions is that temperatures must be increasing. False assumptions always lead to false conclusions. I would also point out that Surface Detail is making several false assumptions about earth's temperature being able to be accurately measured and that such accurate measurements have been made/computed...thus leading to the false conclusion that the false assumptions in the previous paragraph have somehow been "vindicated." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-01-2016 03:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Certainly, back in 2011 they were sure enough about their results to be wondering why the Earth's surface wasn't warming by as much as the radiation imbalance suggested, which is why they proposed that the deep oceans were warming more rapidly than assumed. The recent record-breaking warm years, with temperatures driven to new highs by heat released from the ocean, would appear to have vindicated their assumptions. Quoted right out of NASA with the exception of translation to third party form. Oddly, they put their own foot in their mouths with this statement. * It shows they have no data, historic or otherwise until only 4 years ago. * It shows they had to send out a ship to gather the data, using probes that last only 10 days at sea, which means all they have are a few points of data in a very large world that is 7/10ths ocean. * It shows they are willing to publish a conclusion, and couch it in words as solid as iron, and put the reputation of NASA behind it, on this amount of data. It is a crime what has happened to NASA. They are NOTHING like the agency they were 45 years ago when we went to the moon. You covered this well. I would emphasize that we are talking about NASA and others concluding what they had already invalidly presumed, i.e. that there was an "imbalance" whereby more energy was coming into the earth than was radiating away. If you allow such a false assumption then obviously one of the resulting conclusions is that temperatures must be increasing. False assumptions always lead to false conclusions. I would also point out that Surface Detail is making several false assumptions about earth's temperature being able to be accurately measured and that such accurate measurements have been made/computed...thus leading to the false conclusion that the false assumptions in the previous paragraph have somehow been "vindicated." . Yes. It's amazing how anyone can somehow think that we have a consistent set of accurately calibrated thermometers across every square meter of ocean, land from the highest mountains to the most remote desert, from concentrated cities to lonely regions, and from pole through equatorial regions, and to the other pole. It is even more amazing to assume we've had this capability for a hundred years. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2016 13:06
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You covered this well. I would emphasize that we are talking about NASA and others concluding what they had already invalidly presumed, i.e. that there was an "imbalance" whereby more energy was coming into the earth than was radiating away. If you allow such a false assumption then obviously one of the resulting conclusions is that temperatures must be increasing. False assumptions always lead to false conclusions. I would also point out that Surface Detail is making several false assumptions about earth's temperature being able to be accurately measured and that such accurate measurements have been made/computed...thus leading to the false conclusion that the false assumptions in the previous paragraph have somehow been "vindicated." Yes. It's amazing how anyone can somehow think that we have a consistent set of accurately calibrated thermometers across every square meter of ocean, land from the highest mountains to the most remote desert, from concentrated cities to lonely regions, and from pole through equatorial regions, and to the other pole. It is even more amazing to assume we've had this capability for a hundred years. LOL at you two loons attempting to find fault with NASA's work when you have such a tenuous grasp of reality yourselves. The imbalance in outgoing and incoming radiation that has been measured does not violate the 1st LoT. It is perfectly compatible with the increase in the Earth's surface temperature that has also been measured. You do not need thermometers over every square meter of the Earth do determine whether its temperature has changed! Whoever told you that? The more you have, the more accurate a result you'll get, but just a few hundred thermometers scattered around the Earth would be sufficient to determine, say, a one degree change in global temperature with reasonable accuracy.
27-01-2016 14:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote: LOL at you two loons attempting to find fault with NASA's work ... Not necessarily with NASA's work but with your poor logic aptitude and your bogus assumptions. You beg the question: "Why do you believe NASA can do things they cannot do?" Surface Detail wrote: The imbalance in outgoing and incoming radiation that has been measured does not violate the 1st LoT. No such imbalance has been validly measured. It is merely asserted. Surface Detail wrote: It is perfectly compatible with the increase in the Earth's surface temperature that has also been measured. This has also not been validly measured/computed. I know you firmly believe it has because you need to believe it. Surface Detail wrote: You do not need thermometers over every square meter of the Earth do determine whether its temperature has changed! Correct, you do not need a thermometer on every square meter, but you do need a thermometer on every square kilometer in order to get a margin of error to within a couple of degrees Celsius ... which is still larger than the amount of temperature change asserted, still leading to the conclusion that the earth might be warming and it might be cooling. Surface Detail wrote: Whoever told you that? The more you have, the more accurate a result you'll get, but just a few hundred thermometers scattered around the Earth would be sufficient to determine, say, a one degree change in global temperature with reasonable accuracy. Not at all. With only a few hundred thermometers you're looking at an interpolation margin of error in the 15-20 degC range. If you don't care about accuracy you might as well just pick one thermometer and declare that as the earth's temperature. Once you cease to concern yourself with accuracy it all becomes much easier. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-01-2016 16:19
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Correct, you do not need a thermometer on every square meter, but you do need a thermometer on every square kilometer in order to get a margin of error to within a couple of degrees Celsius ... which is still larger than the amount of temperature change asserted, still leading to the conclusion that the earth might be warming and it might be cooling. Total bullshit. You are apparently blissfully unaware that at least 10 reconstructions of the global surface temperature record have been carried out by different groups using different subsets of the temperature available data and different correction and interpolation algorithms and, surprise, surprise, they all give pretty much the same result: a rise of about a degree Celsius over the past 100 years or so. And then there are the natural indications such as retreating glaciers and rising sea levels. There is simply no rational way to explain the data and observations that doesn't involve a rise in global temperature. Pull your head out of the sand.
27-01-2016 20:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Correct, you do not need a thermometer on every square meter, but you do need a thermometer on every square kilometer in order to get a margin of error to within a couple of degrees Celsius ... which is still larger than the amount of temperature change asserted, still leading to the conclusion that the earth might be warming and it might be cooling. Total bullshit. You are apparently blissfully unaware that at least 10 reconstructions of the global surface temperature record have been carried out by different groups using different subsets of the temperature available data and different correction and interpolation algorithms and, surprise, surprise, they all give pretty much the same result: a rise of about a degree Celsius over the past 100 years or so. And then there are the natural indications such as retreating glaciers and rising sea levels. There is simply no rational way to explain the data and observations that doesn't involve a rise in global temperature. Pull your head out of the sand. False data produces false conclusions. You cannot say you fabricated the data 10 different times the same way and coming up with the same result means anything. There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close. You are FABRICATING data to claim a world temperature of any kind. Pull your head out of your Religion. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 27-01-2016 20:49
27-01-2016 22:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Surface Detail wrote: Total bullshit. Math is apparently not one of your strengths and I see that it threatens at least one strong belief of yours to which you are strongly attached. Surface Detail wrote: ... and different correction and interpolation algorithms and, surprise, surprise, they all give pretty much the same result: "Corrections" are invalid modifications/tweaks/adjustments/fudgings/cookings/butcherings of raw data to achieve a desired predetermined conclusion. Different "corrections" will naturally be required for different attempts to achieve the same desired predetermined conclusion via different datasets. If the same "correction" is applied to different datasets, or if different "corrections" are applied to the same dataset then different conclusions will be reached. Specially tailored "corrections" need to be applied to each unique datasets in order for it to render the same conclusion. Surface Detail wrote: a rise of about a degree Celsius over the past 100 years or so. That would be the predetermined conclusion that comes as no surprise. [quote]Surface Detail wrote: And then there are the natural indications such as retreating glaciers and rising sea levels. What do the growing glaciers indicate? We can't accurately measure sea level. Surface Detail wrote: There is simply no rational way to explain the data and observations that doesn't involve a rise in global temperature. Pull your head out of the sand. Yeah, you have to be pretty gullible to let someone convince you of this. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-01-2016 23:01
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Correct, you do not need a thermometer on every square meter, but you do need a thermometer on every square kilometer in order to get a margin of error to within a couple of degrees Celsius ... which is still larger than the amount of temperature change asserted, still leading to the conclusion that the earth might be warming and it might be cooling. Total bullshit. You are apparently blissfully unaware that at least 10 reconstructions of the global surface temperature record have been carried out by different groups using different subsets of the temperature available data and different correction and interpolation algorithms and, surprise, surprise, they all give pretty much the same result: a rise of about a degree Celsius over the past 100 years or so. And then there are the natural indications such as retreating glaciers and rising sea levels. There is simply no rational way to explain the data and observations that doesn't involve a rise in global temperature. Pull your head out of the sand. False data produces false conclusions. You cannot say you fabricated the data 10 different times the same way and coming up with the same result means anything. There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close. You are FABRICATING data to claim a world temperature of any kind. Pull your head out of your Religion. Sorry, but groundlessly claiming that most of the weather stations around the world are making up their data and/or that their thermometers don't work (and ignoring natural phenomena) is not a rational explanation. It is the explanation of a paranoid, ideologically-driven lunatic.
28-01-2016 03:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Correct, you do not need a thermometer on every square meter, but you do need a thermometer on every square kilometer in order to get a margin of error to within a couple of degrees Celsius ... which is still larger than the amount of temperature change asserted, still leading to the conclusion that the earth might be warming and it might be cooling. Total bullshit. You are apparently blissfully unaware that at least 10 reconstructions of the global surface temperature record have been carried out by different groups using different subsets of the temperature available data and different correction and interpolation algorithms and, surprise, surprise, they all give pretty much the same result: a rise of about a degree Celsius over the past 100 years or so. And then there are the natural indications such as retreating glaciers and rising sea levels. There is simply no rational way to explain the data and observations that doesn't involve a rise in global temperature. Pull your head out of the sand. False data produces false conclusions. You cannot say you fabricated the data 10 different times the same way and coming up with the same result means anything. There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close. You are FABRICATING data to claim a world temperature of any kind. Pull your head out of your Religion. Sorry, but groundlessly claiming that most of the weather stations around the world are making up their data and/or that their thermometers don't work (and ignoring natural phenomena) is not a rational explanation. It is the explanation of a paranoid, ideologically-driven lunatic. Sorry, but groundlessly claiming that most of the weather stations around the world somehow represent world temperature is not a rational description of global temperature. It is the explanation of the Religious, seeking to justify their Religion through the justification of the use of fabricated data. You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did. Pull your head out of your Religion. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 28-01-2016 03:11
28-01-2016 10:28
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: There are no thermometers with any kind of consistency. Not even close Into the Night wrote: You will note I am not challenging any thermometer or any other instrument any weather station is using. I never did. You're not making any kind of sense at all. It's like talking to one of those primitive ELIZA-type AI programs from the 80s. You just failed the Turing test.

Page 2 of 5

Join the debate Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	140	15-04-2024 19:43
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	291	05-11-2023 22:46
Climate change - effects, impact and solutions	34	17-08-2023 08:19
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity	102	05-06-2023 13:19