Remember me
▼ Content

Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Just How Many "Greenhouse Effects" Are There?15-11-2015 03:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Greg wrote: However, I do need to point out, there is only one model of the greenhouse effect.


I realize Global Warming dogma mandates the belief in the existence of only one "greenhouse effect," the forcing almightly, shaper of climate and earth, of all that is seen and unseen, etc... I realize that one's personal version is necessarily believed to be the only version of "greenhouse effect" irrespective of the multitudes of warmizombies that are out there preaching their own personal versions of "greenhouse effect" that they firmly believe are the single, lone version of "greenhouse effect." Versions might have only subtle differences while others vary greatly in concept of mechanism, but there are MANY.

Christians similarly have a dogma that there is only one unfalsifiable "God" and that their personal version of what "God" means to them is what everyone else universally understands "God" to be.

The term "God" carries a unique, personal meaning for each Christian, and the unfalsifiable term "Greenhouse Effect" carries a unique, personal meaning for each warmizombie and climate lemming.

The idea that there is only one "greenhouse effect" is patently absurd. Let's lay this crazy notion to rest.


1. Greenhouse Gases Create Heat (in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics (1st LoT)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.livescience.com/32691-what-are-greenhouse-gases-and-how-do-they-warm-the-earth.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

2. Temperature as the Dependent Variable (in violation of Planck's Law).
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/today/greenhouse-effect.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/
http://www.livescience.com/37743-greenhouse-effect.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect/


3. The Convoluted Invisible Mirror Layer (unfalsifiable).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php
https://books.google.com/books?id=DwPoY_HM_UQC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=greenhouse+effect+thermal+forcing&source=bl&ots=ATKDBtu_98&sig=GLvg1fYjb71zBql8PKHX-XbTFzo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFQQ6AEwB2oVChMIoNSD05aRyQIVA0AUCh2VnAmI#v=onepage&q=greenhouse%20effect%20thermal%20forcing&f=false
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

4. Thermal Forcing (in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_02.pdf
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
http://grist.org/article/greenhouse-theory-violates-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/

A very quick search for "greenhouse effect" instantly revealed many different versions, again, some only subtly different than some of the others, and it took less time than it took to copy the URLs into this post.

More are available upon request.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
15-11-2015 03:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Again, well summarized, IBdaMann. You have grouped these links beautifully.
15-11-2015 04:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
And yet another Sky Dragon Slayer wacky pseudoscience thread by those suffering from extreme ideologically induced 'motivated reasoning' combined with a severe case of the 'Dunning Kruger effect

Let's see our 2 resident Sky Dragon Slayers try to explain their imaginary pseudoscience version of the earth's atmosphere and imaginary pseudoscience versions of the laws of physics. It should be entertaining when they realise they probably have different versions as there are several different versions (usually contradictory) floating around the internet on conspiracy blogs and crank pseudoscience websites.



Edited on 15-11-2015 05:03
19-11-2015 03:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote:
And yet another Sky Dragon Slayer wacky pseudoscience thread by those suffering from extreme ideologically induced


Well then, what is the correct, true version of "greenhouse effect."


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-11-2015 14:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
There is, of course, just the one greenhouse effect. It refers to the process by which certain gases in a planet's atmosphere absorb and re-emit some of the infrared radiation leaving the planet's surface, thus reducing the net rate at energy is emitted from the planet for a given temperature. The upshot is that the temperature of the planet needs to be higher in order for the rate of energy emission to equal the rate of energy absorbtion and thus achieve thermal equilibrium.

The links you've given are all describing this single effect, albeit using different language in each case.
20-11-2015 15:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:
There is, of course, just the one greenhouse effect.

Sure, of course there is...and it happens to be your version, right?

Surface Detail wrote: It refers to the process by which certain gases in a planet's atmosphere absorb and re-emit some of the infrared radiation leaving the planet's surface, thus reducing the net rate at energy is emitted from the planet for a given temperature.


Please correct me if I am mistaken. Your version has it that planetary radiation is a function of both temperature and atmospheric composition, i.e. quantity of "greenhouse gases", yes?

You claim that for a given planet E, if the temperature remains the same but the amount of "greenhouse gases" increases then E's radiation will decrease, yes?

Surface Detail wrote: The upshot is that the temperature of the planet needs to be higher in order for the rate of energy emission to equal the rate of energy absorbtion and thus achieve thermal equilibrium.


Your version quite clearly states that "greenhouse gases" reduce planetary thermal radiation independently from temperature, rendering Planck's Law false were it true.

...and no, not all versions of "greenhouse effect" make this claim.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-11-2015 16:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
trafn wrote:
@Surface Detail - denialist trolls like IBdaAsshole like to do that sort of thing to create confusion. It doesn't matter what you say to them, they deny it anyways.

Oh what fun it is to offend a religion one denies holding. You and your fanatical faith provide endless hours of entertainment.

trafn wrote: Personally, I don't even waste my time trying to reason with them anymore. I just shove their nonsense back in their faces!

You never tried to reason with anyone. You were a bull charging into the china shop, intent on stomping out all dissenting views. Not once did you ever engage in any discussion involving science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-11-2015 16:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Sure, of course there is...and it happens to be your version, right?

It's not my version; it's my explanation. There is a well-defined greenhouse effect arising from selective absorption of infrared radiation, and that's my, albeit imperfect, explanation of it. You can find better explanations by following the links you provided. One effect, various explanations.

Please correct me if I am mistaken. Your version has it that planetary radiation is a function of both temperature and atmospheric composition, i.e. quantity of "greenhouse gases", yes?

You claim that for a given planet E, if the temperature remains the same but the amount of "greenhouse gases" increases then E's radiation will decrease, yes?

At thermal equilibrium, the amount of energy radiated from the upper layers of a planet's atmosphere is, of course, equal to the amount of solar energy entering it. However, the temperature of the surface of the planet is indeed dependent on the composition of the planet's atmosphere. The more greenhouse gases there are, the more the atmosphere will hinder the passage of IR radiation, and the hotter the surface needs to be to maintain the same rate of IR transmission out through the atmosphere.

Your version quite clearly states that "greenhouse gases" reduce planetary thermal radiation independently from temperature, rendering Planck's Law false were it true.

No, Planck's Law is fine. The effect of increasing GHGs is to reduce the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere. This has the effect of cooling the upper layers of the atmosphere and hence reducing the amount of radiated energy as per Planck's Law.

...and no, not all versions of "greenhouse effect" make this claim.

There is just one greenhouse effect, and this is one of its predictions - which is, incidentally, borne out: the stratosphere is indeed cooling.
20-11-2015 17:12
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
IBdaMann wrote: Not once did you ever engage in any discussion involving science.

How could I when you stopped reading about science in the 1980's? Let me know when you catch up!



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 17:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote: It's not my version; it's my explanation.

I read otherwise. I am not of the Global Warming religion so I don't buy into the dogma of the one true "greenhouse effect," creater of all forcings, seen and unseen. I read all the differing accounts and I see how different versions violate different laws of physics in different ways.

Surface Detail wrote: There is a well-defined greenhouse effect ...

If there were, all accounts would either violate the same law(s) of physics in the exact same way, or they would actually be science and not violate the laws of physics at all. However, that is not the case. The accounts vary wildly.

I recognize that every member of the Global Warming religion uses the same terminology, to which each person assigns his/her own personal meaning, as you have done, and recites the required dogma that there is somehow only one true creator of "greenhouse effect." I got it. You understand it that way. It just doesn't jive at all with what I read.

Surface Detail wrote: arising from selective absorption of infrared radiation, and that's my, albeit imperfect, explanation of it. You can find better explanations by following the links you provided. One effect, various explanations.

You might notice that I grouped them all according to the primary violation of science.

...but between you and me, we can simplify even further. We can partition them into two categories: 1) violating Planck's Law or 2) violating the 1st LoT.

The one common requirement to be a "greenhouse effect" is to claim that there is an increase in temperature caused by the mere existence of "greenhouse gases."

Planck's law clarifies that temperature is the independent variable thus temperature cannot be affected/controlled by anything affecting thermal radiation. The only way temperature can be increased is by increasing thermal energy. The only way any substance could itself increase thermal energy is to create it.

The 1st LoT negates the idea that any substance can somehow create energy which therefore negates the idea that any substance can, by its mere existence, increase temperature.

So let's run through it. We are observers watching the sun radiate onto planet earth with a constant solar output. We see that 10% of the earth's nitrogen is about to be transformed into an equivalent mass of CO2.

I tell you that I predict no change in the earth's average surface/atmospheric temperature nor any change in earth's thermal radiation.

You, however, beg to disagree, correct?. You claim the earth's average surface/atmospheric temperature will increase, yes? ...and what do you claim will happen with regard to earth's thermal radiation?

Surface Detail wrote: However, the temperature of the surface of the planet is indeed dependent on the composition of the planet's atmosphere. The more greenhouse gases there are, the more the atmosphere will hinder the passage of IR radiation, and the hotter the surface needs to be to maintain the same rate of IR transmission out through the atmosphere.


OK, you have now created an entirely different "greenhouse effect." You apparently claim that increases in atmospheric "greenhouse gases" will create an "Othello chip" (which is black on one side and white on the other) atmosphere that gets hotter and hotter and hotter below while making the top half of the atmosphere colder and colder and colder...yes?

Surface Detail wrote: No, Planck's Law is fine. The effect of increasing GHGs is to reduce the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere.

You wrote two sentences here. The first says Planck's Law is fine. The second sentence essentially says Planck's Law is false.

Planck's Law states that thermal radiation is based entirely on temperature and that the particular substance is simply not a factor. Those two sentences of yours are incompatible. The second sentence is a violation of physics.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-11-2015 17:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
trafn wrote: How could I when you stopped reading about science in the 1980's? Let me know when you catch up!

I'm caught up. Let's talk.

What science have you reviewed and understand that convinced you Global Warming is real and is going to destroy the world in a few decades?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-11-2015 18:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: It's not my version; it's my explanation.

I read otherwise. I am not of the Global Warming religion so I don't buy into the dogma of the one true "greenhouse effect," creater of all forcings, seen and unseen. I read all the differing accounts and I see how different versions violate different laws of physics in different ways.

Surface Detail wrote: There is a well-defined greenhouse effect ...

If there were, all accounts would either violate the same law(s) of physics in the exact same way, or they would actually be science and not violate the laws of physics at all. However, that is not the case. The accounts vary wildly.

I recognize that every member of the Global Warming religion uses the same terminology, to which each person assigns his/her own personal meaning, as you have done, and recites the required dogma that there is somehow only one true creator of "greenhouse effect." I got it. You understand it that way. It just doesn't jive at all with what I read.

Surface Detail wrote: arising from selective absorption of infrared radiation, and that's my, albeit imperfect, explanation of it. You can find better explanations by following the links you provided. One effect, various explanations.

You might notice that I grouped them all according to the primary violation of science.

...but between you and me, we can simplify even further. We can partition them into two categories: 1) violating Planck's Law or 2) violating the 1st LoT.

The one common requirement to be a "greenhouse effect" is to claim that there is an increase in temperature caused by the mere existence of "greenhouse gases."

Planck's law clarifies that temperature is the independent variable thus temperature cannot be affected/controlled by anything affecting thermal radiation. The only way temperature can be increased is by increasing thermal energy. The only way any substance could itself increase thermal energy is to create it.

The 1st LoT negates the idea that any substance can somehow create energy which therefore negates the idea that any substance can, by its mere existence, increase temperature.

So let's run through it. We are observers watching the sun radiate onto planet earth with a constant solar output. We see that 10% of the earth's nitrogen is about to be transformed into an equivalent mass of CO2.

I tell you that I predict no change in the earth's average surface/atmospheric temperature nor any change in earth's thermal radiation.

You, however, beg to disagree, correct?. You claim the earth's average surface/atmospheric temperature will increase, yes? ...and what do you claim will happen with regard to earth's thermal radiation?

Surface Detail wrote: However, the temperature of the surface of the planet is indeed dependent on the composition of the planet's atmosphere. The more greenhouse gases there are, the more the atmosphere will hinder the passage of IR radiation, and the hotter the surface needs to be to maintain the same rate of IR transmission out through the atmosphere.


OK, you have now created an entirely different "greenhouse effect." You apparently claim that increases in atmospheric "greenhouse gases" will create an "Othello chip" (which is black on one side and white on the other) atmosphere that gets hotter and hotter and hotter below while making the top half of the atmosphere colder and colder and colder...yes?

Surface Detail wrote: No, Planck's Law is fine. The effect of increasing GHGs is to reduce the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere.

You wrote two sentences here. The first says Planck's Law is fine. The second sentence essentially says Planck's Law is false.

Planck's Law states that thermal radiation is based entirely on temperature and that the particular substance is simply not a factor. Those two sentences of yours are incompatible. The second sentence is a violation of physics.

.

It's really hard to see how you're failing to understand this. The greenhouse effect is described in multiple scientific textbooks and websites, some of which you've listed yourself. It's relatively simple and widely accepted science that fits into and agrees with the wider framework of radiative physics.

There is no violation of any laws of thermodynamics that all the scientists have somehow misssed; you are simply misunderstanding the situation. Described at the simplest level, GHGs have an insulating effect (due to their absorption and re-emission of IR radiation from the Earth). Hence, as their concentration increases, the insulating effect increases, and so the temperature of the Earth's surface must increase in order to rebalance the outgoing and incoming energy fluxes.
20-11-2015 19:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote: It's really hard to see how you're failing to understand this.

The issue is that I understand them all well and I see how they each violate physics. I would say that I don't see how you're not understanding the science I am laying right in front of you, but I actually do understand why you are selectively "not understanding."

Surface Detail wrote: [The "greenhouse effect"] is relatively simple and widely accepted science that fits into and agrees with the wider framework of radiative physics.

It's clearly not science. Yes, "greenhouse effect" is widely accepted dogma just as is the "resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Surface Detail wrote: There is no violation of any laws of thermodynamics that all the scientists have somehow misssed;

You completely undermine your argument when you claim to speak for countless, unnamed others.

I ran you through an example that you EVADED, presumably because it was inconvenient. Tell me what you believe would happen to the earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature and earth's thermal radiation given a constant solar radiation and a swap of 10% atmospheric nitrogen for an equivalent mass of CO2?


Surface Detail wrote: Described at the simplest level, GHGs have an insulating effect (due to their absorption and re-emission of IR radiation from the Earth).

Neither Planck's Law nor Stefan-Boltzmann recognize any such thermal radiation "insulating effect" by any substance. Temperature is the only independent variable in every case.

What is it you don't understand about that? I'm happy to explain any point that has you stuck.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-11-2015 19:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: It's really hard to see how you're failing to understand this.

The issue is that I understand them all well and I see how they each violate physics. I would say that I don't see how you're not understanding the science I am laying right in front of you, but I actually do understand why you are selectively "not understanding."

Surface Detail wrote: [The "greenhouse effect"] is relatively simple and widely accepted science that fits into and agrees with the wider framework of radiative physics.

It's clearly not science. Yes, "greenhouse effect" is widely accepted dogma just as is the "resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Surface Detail wrote: There is no violation of any laws of thermodynamics that all the scientists have somehow misssed;

You completely undermine your argument when you claim to speak for countless, unnamed others.

I ran you through an example that you EVADED, presumably because it was inconvenient. Tell me what you believe would happen to the earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature and earth's thermal radiation given a constant solar radiation and a swap of 10% atmospheric nitrogen for an equivalent mass of CO2?


Surface Detail wrote: Described at the simplest level, GHGs have an insulating effect (due to their absorption and re-emission of IR radiation from the Earth).

Neither Planck's Law nor Stefan-Boltzmann recognize any such thermal radiation "insulating effect" by any substance. Temperature is the only independent variable in every case.

What is it you don't understand about that? I'm happy to explain any point that has you stuck.


.

Aha, I think I see your problem!

Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law apply in the case of ideal black bodies. While the surface of the Earth can be approximated as a black body, the layers of its atmosphere most certainly cannot. A black body absorbs all the radiation that falls on it; this is obviously not true for air. You are mistakenly assuming that Planck's Law and the S-B Law apply in a situation that is outside their scope of validity.

Switching 10% of the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere for CO2 would give rise to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Less of the IR radiation from the Earth surface would be able to penetrate the lower layers of the atmosphere; this would result in warming of the lower atmosphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere. The lower atmosphere and the surface of the Earth would then continue to warm thus increasing the IR flux until radiative balance is achieved again.

I'm not speaking for others, by the way. I'm simply pointing out the fact that your point of view disagrees with that of the vast majority of physicists.
20-11-2015 20:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote: Aha, I think I see your problem!

As we shall see, the problem is not mine.

Your problem is that you need for atmospheric composition to become a factor for your "greenhouse effect" to adhere to physics, but you realize you cannot get that, you are going to attempt the only option you have available, i.e. try to show that Planck's Law "does not apply."

I am overly familiar with this tactic, but I credit you for knowing enough to get this far...but the flip side is that you should already understand why all those "greenhouse effect" versions are bunk. But let's proceed.

The correct approach is to realize that the earth is not a black body, and so we must use grey body model. It accounts for bodies with emissivity; temperature remains the independent variable.

Do you have a grey body model that considers substance as an independent variable?

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law apply in the case of ideal black bodies.

Absolutely. Let's use the grey body model.

Surface Detail wrote:Switching 10% of the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere for CO2 would give rise to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Let's try this again, you and I are observing planet earth when the nitrogen is swapped.

A) What do you predict will happen to the earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature?
What do you predict will happen to earth's thermal radiation?


Surface Detail wrote: I'm not speaking for others, by the way. I'm simply pointing out the fact that your point of view disagrees with that of the vast majority of physicists.

You clearly and mistakenly believe you speak for the vast majority of physicists.

I have yet to encounter a single physicist who believes in violations of the laws of physics.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-11-2015 00:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Aha, I think I see your problem!

As we shall see, the problem is not mine.

Your problem is that you need for atmospheric composition to become a factor for your "greenhouse effect" to adhere to physics, but you realize you cannot get that, you are going to attempt the only option you have available, i.e. try to show that Planck's Law "does not apply."

I am overly familiar with this tactic, but I credit you for knowing enough to get this far...but the flip side is that you should already understand why all those "greenhouse effect" versions are bunk. But let's proceed.

The correct approach is to realize that the earth is not a black body, and so we must use grey body model. It accounts for bodies with emissivity; temperature remains the independent variable.

Do you have a grey body model that considers substance as an independent variable?

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law apply in the case of ideal black bodies.

Absolutely. Let's use the grey body model.

Surface Detail wrote:Switching 10% of the nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere for CO2 would give rise to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Let's try this again, you and I are observing planet earth when the nitrogen is swapped.

A) What do you predict will happen to the earth's average atmospheric/surface temperature?
What do you predict will happen to earth's thermal radiation?


Surface Detail wrote: I'm not speaking for others, by the way. I'm simply pointing out the fact that your point of view disagrees with that of the vast majority of physicists.

You clearly and mistakenly believe you speak for the vast majority of physicists.

I have yet to encounter a single physicist who believes in violations of the laws of physics.


.

Sorry, but you seem awfully confused about this.

Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law concern the emission of radiation from and absorption of radiation by ideal black (or grey) bodies, not the selective transmission of radiation by gases. If you want to consider the effect of changing the composition of the atmosphere on the transmission of radiation, you need to consider the radiative transfer characteristics of the gases that make up the atmosphere. See, for example, this introduction to the topic:

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

A) The Earth's surface and lower atmosphere will warm until their temperature stabilises at a higher temperature.
The Earth's thermal radiation, as observed from space, will drop sharply as the upper atmosphere cools, and then gradually rise back to its former level as the Earth and its atmosphere warm until the outgoing thermal radiation again balances the amount of incoming radiation.

No, physicists don't believe in violations of the laws of physics, but they do accept the reality of the greenhouse effect. That's because the greenhouse effect doesn't violate the laws of physics; it is a consequence of the laws of physics.
21-11-2015 01:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:Sorry, but you seem awfully confused about this.

It all seems pretty straightforward, but I'm game. Show me I'm mistaken.

Surface Detail wrote: Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law concern the emission of radiation from and absorption of radiation by ideal black (or grey) bodies, not the selective transmission of radiation by gases.

Absolutely correct. That's why I told you that you aren't going to be able to get atmospheric composition into this. That's why there are no independent variables for "substance material." You have to treat the body as a body, hence my example of you and I observing the earth as it is warmed by the sun.

The short answer is that swapping out some quantity of a transparent atmospheric gas for an equivalent mass of another transparent atmospheric gas can have no effect on the body's temperature or thermal radiation.

Surface Detail wrote:If you want to consider the effect of changing the composition of the atmosphere on the transmission of radiation, you need to consider the radiative transfer characteristics of the gases that make up the atmosphere.

No, that is not needed. If the earth is increasing in thermal energy then a violation is occurring. Either the gas is creating the energy (violating the 1st LoT) or Planck's Law is being violated by the earth's temperature not driving the earth's thermal radiation.

So in yours, which one is it?

Surface Detail wrote: A) The Earth's surface and lower atmosphere will warm until their temperature stabilises at a higher temperature.
The Earth's thermal radiation, as observed from space, will drop sharply as the upper atmosphere cools, and then gradually rise back to its former level as the Earth and its atmosphere warm until the outgoing thermal radiation again balances the amount of incoming radiation.

I'm going to have to ask you to go through this a third time because you didn't really answer the question. I only want the final result, not what you claim will transpire leading up to the final result.

After the atmospheric gas swap and everything settles,

1) will the earth's average atmospheric temperature have increased, decreased or remained the same?

2) will the earth's thermal radiation have increased, decreased or remained the same?

Surface Detail wrote: No, physicists don't believe in violations of the laws of physics, but they do accept the reality of the greenhouse effect.

Not a single one believes in either violations of the 1st LoT or violations of Planck's Law.

I admit that scientists can be religious. Some are Christians who believe a dead guy came back to life. Some are Global Warmers who believe, nay, insist that "climate" performs temperature miracles involving the violation of the laws of physics.

None, however, are able to explain any version of "greenhouse effect" that has "greenhouse gases" increasing temperature while adhering to the laws of physics. They simply profess their faith in "The Science."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-11-2015 14:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
It all seems pretty straightforward, but I'm game. Show me I'm mistaken.

I keep showing you why you're mistaken, but you seem unable or unwilling to grasp what I'm telling you. Try reading some of the links you've given if you can't follow my explanations.

Absolutely correct. That's why I told you that you aren't going to be able to get atmospheric composition into this. That's why there are no independent variables for "substance material." You have to treat the body as a body, hence my example of you and I observing the earth as it is warmed by the sun.

What sort of convoluted logic is that? We are considering the effect of the atmosphere on the transmission of radiation, which does indeed depend on the composition of the atmosphere. Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law are not relevant to this. It is the laws of radiative transmission laws that apply - see the link I gave.

The short answer is that swapping out some quantity of a transparent atmospheric gas for an equivalent mass of another transparent atmospheric gas can have no effect on the body's temperature or thermal radiation.

But some atmospheric gases aren't completely transparent at IR wavelengths. That's the whole point!

No, that is not needed. If the earth is increasing in thermal energy then a violation is occurring. Either the gas is creating the energy (violating the 1st LoT) or Planck's Law is being violated by the earth's temperature not driving the earth's thermal radiation.

So in yours, which one is it?

The 1st LoT is not being violated. The gas is not creating energy; it is hindering the outward flow of energy. This is why the Earth is warming - more energy coming in than going out means a net input of energy. Planck's Law is not being violated - the emission of thermal radiation from the Earth's surface does indeed increase with temperature, but we are concerned with the amount of energy that manages to pass through the atmosphere.

I'm going to have to ask you to go through this a third time because you didn't really answer the question. I only want the final result, not what you claim will transpire leading up to the final result.

After the atmospheric gas swap and everything settles,

1) will the earth's average atmospheric temperature have increased, decreased or remained the same?

2) will the earth's thermal radiation have increased, decreased or remained the same?

You should be more specific with your questions.
1) It's difficult to define an average atmospheric temperature, but the lower atmosphere and surface of the Earth will be hotter, while the upper atmosphere will be roughly the same as it is now.
2) Emission from the Earth's surface will be greater (in accordance with Planck's Law), but the emission from the upper atmosphere will be the same as today.

Not a single one believes in either violations of the 1st LoT or violations of Planck's Law.

Quite right. And the greenhouse effect violates no laws of physics, despite your unfounded claims to the contrary.

I admit that scientists can be religious. Some are Christians who believe a dead guy came back to life. Some are Global Warmers who believe, nay, insist that "climate" performs temperature miracles involving the violation of the laws of physics.

None, however, are able to explain any version of "greenhouse effect" that has "greenhouse gases" increasing temperature while adhering to the laws of physics. They simply profess their faith in "The Science."

Right, so anyone (i.e. virtually everybody with any scientific expertise) who disagrees with your opinions must be suffering from a religious delusion. Is there not the slightest possibility that they simply understand the physics a lot better then you do?
21-11-2015 16:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:You should be more specific with your questions.

I have to be because you don't want to answer. Let's try again. Please don't divide up the atmosphere into sections. In this question we are talking about the one global unified atmosphere. Also, regarding thermal radiation, we are talking about just earth, as in the body orbiting the sun. We neither need, nor want, to break it down as to the surface, upper atmosphere, etc...just the earth.

So we swap the gas, wait for things to settle and we observe planet earth.

1. The unified atmospheric temperature has increased overall, decreased overall or has remained the same?

2. The planet's thermal radiation has increased, decreased or remained the same?

All other issues we discussed follow from your answers to the above.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
RE: IBdaCryBaby does it still again!21-11-2015 17:05
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
IBdaMann wrote:Let's try again. Please don't divide up the atmosphere into sections. In this question we are talking about the one global unified atmosphere.

The one global unified atmosphere? So it's science fiction for you, huh?



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
21-11-2015 17:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You should be more specific with your questions.

I have to be because you don't want to answer. Let's try again. Please don't divide up the atmosphere into sections. In this question we are talking about the one global unified atmosphere. Also, regarding thermal radiation, we are talking about just earth, as in the body orbiting the sun. We neither need, nor want, to break it down as to the surface, upper atmosphere, etc...just the earth.

So we swap the gas, wait for things to settle and we observe planet earth.

1. The unified atmospheric temperature has increased overall, decreased overall or has remained the same?

2. The planet's thermal radiation has increased, decreased or remained the same?

All other issues we discussed follow from your answers to the above.


.

1) Please define what you mean by "unified atmospheric temperature".

2) Remained the same.
22-11-2015 06:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:
1) Please define what you mean by "unified atmospheric temperature".

The average temperature of the atmosphere as a whole.

Surface Detail wrote: 2) Remained the same.

Good.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-11-2015 23:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
1) Please define what you mean by "unified atmospheric temperature".

The average temperature of the atmosphere as a whole.

Surface Detail wrote: 2) Remained the same.

Good.

It really depends how you define "average". If you mean a spatial average, then it would most likely be cooler due to the larger volume of the cooler upper atmosphere. If you mean a density-adjusted average, then warmer due to the higher density of the warmer lower atmosphere. In any case, the net IR emission from the new atmosphere (warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top) will obviously be the same as that from the current atmosphere once equilibrium has been achieved.
23-11-2015 01:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:It really depends how you define "average".


Before we begin the experiment, we define the average atmospheric temperature, AT, to be the average temperature of all points within the volume of the atmosphere.

You and I take our positions as outside observers for this experiment. We record AT's initial value before we swap the gases as AT(initial).

We swap the gases and wait for everything to settle. Then we record AT's final temperature as AT(final).


QUESTION: The result of the experiment shows that AT(final) is greater than, less than or equal to AT(initial)?

I am guessing that you are saying that your version of "greenhouse effect" holds that earth's average atmospheric temperature decreases, yes?

You have repeated that earth's thermal radiation will remain the same.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
23-11-2015 02:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It really depends how you define "average".


Before we begin the experiment, we define the average atmospheric temperature, AT, to be the average temperature of all points within the volume of the atmosphere.

You and I take our positions as outside observers for this experiment. We record AT's initial value before we swap the gases as AT(initial).

We swap the gases and wait for everything to settle. Then we record AT's final temperature as AT(final).



QUESTION: The result of the experiment shows that AT(final) is greater than, less than or equal to AT(initial)?

I am guessing that you are saying that your version of "greenhouse effect" holds that earth's average atmospheric temperature decreases, yes?

You have repeated that earth's thermal radiation will remain the same.


.

Yes, if you define the average temperature of the atmosphere in that way (seems an odd thing to do to me though), then its average temperature will decrease. However, because the denser parts of the atmosphere will be hotter, the total heat content of the atmosphere will be higher.
23-11-2015 03:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It really depends how you define "average".


Before we begin the experiment, we define the average atmospheric temperature, AT, to be the average temperature of all points within the volume of the atmosphere.

You and I take our positions as outside observers for this experiment. We record AT's initial value before we swap the gases as AT(initial).

We swap the gases and wait for everything to settle. Then we record AT's final temperature as AT(final).



QUESTION: The result of the experiment shows that AT(final) is greater than, less than or equal to AT(initial)?

I am guessing that you are saying that your version of "greenhouse effect" holds that earth's average atmospheric temperature decreases, yes?

You have repeated that earth's thermal radiation will remain the same.


.

Yes, if you define the average temperature of the atmosphere in that way (seems an odd thing to do to me though), then its average temperature will decrease. However, because the denser parts of the atmosphere will be hotter, the total heat content of the atmosphere will be higher.


And how do explain the increased energy in the atmosphere despite the source of energy has not changed? This seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics. The 1st law, by creating energy out of a non-energy source, and the 2nd law, by decreasing entropy in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-11-2015 03:44
23-11-2015 05:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:
Yes, if you define the average temperature of the atmosphere in that way (seems an odd thing to do to me though), then its average temperature will decrease. However, because the denser parts of the atmosphere will be hotter, the total heat content of the atmosphere will be higher.


Now you are contradicting yourself, saying it will have more "heat content" while it will be "cooler".

You are clearly EVADING the question, trying to have it both ways, hotter and colder at the same time. Let's just understand that you realize the corner into which you backed yourself and you now don't want to give a straight answer.

We can leave it at that.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
23-11-2015 14:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Now you are contradicting yourself, saying it will have more "heat content" while it will be "cooler".

No, that's not a contradiction. Remember: heat content depends on both the temperature and the quantity of substance.

Consider, for example, a situation in which the lower third of the atmosphere warmed by 1°C while the upper two thirds cooled by 1°C. Taking the simple spatial average that you suggest, you'd find that the average temperature was lower (since a greater volume is cooler). However, because the lower part of the atmosphere is much denser (and hence contains more substance), the total heat content of the atmosphere is higher.

You are clearly EVADING the question, trying to have it both ways, hotter and colder at the same time. Let's just understand that you realize the corner into which you backed yourself and you now don't want to give a straight answer.

No, I didn't say hotter; I said colder but with a higher heat content. The problem seems you be your equating of temperature and heat content. You're not alone though - it's a common misconception among high school physics students.

We can leave it at that.

Why leave it just when we're starting to get on to some real science!
23-11-2015 16:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:No, I didn't say hotter; I said colder but with a higher heat content.

What do you mean by "heat content"? Are you stating that the same mass of atmosphere has more thermal energy and a lower temperature?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
24-11-2015 11:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:No, I didn't say hotter; I said colder but with a higher heat content.

What do you mean by "heat content"? Are you stating that the same mass of atmosphere has more thermal energy and a lower temperature?


.

By "heat content", I mean the internal kinetic energy (or thermal energy) of the atmosphere. I am indeed saying that the same mass of atmosphere can have more thermal energy and a lower average temperature if that average temperature is defined as a simple spatial average as you suggest. This is due to its non-uniform density - see the example I gave in my previous post.

Of course, it's not particularly useful to define an average atmospheric temperature in this way. We normally talk about a temperature profile, that is, the temperature as a function of height. As the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, we would expect to see this profile change such that the lower atmospheric layers become warmer while the higher layers cool, and this is in fact what we have observed over the last few decades. A warming upper atmosphere would falsify the greenhouse theory and indicate some external cause or warming, e.g. an increase in solar output.
24-11-2015 15:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:
By "heat content", I mean the internal kinetic energy (or thermal energy) of the atmosphere. I am indeed saying that the same mass of atmosphere can have more thermal energy and a lower average temperature if that average temperature is defined as a simple spatial average as you suggest. This is due to its non-uniform density - see the example I gave in my previous post.


First, no. For a given mass, if you increase the thermal energy (as you indicate will happen) then the average temperature, as we have defined it, must increase. "Density" variability is irrelevant.

Second, I believe you have successfully created a unique version of "greenhouse effect." I am unaware of any other version in which "greenhouse gases" cause a given mass to lower in temperature by increasing its thermal energy. You might very well be the first and only.

Surface Detail wrote: Of course, it's not particularly useful to define an average atmospheric temperature in this way. We normally talk about a temperature profile, that is, the temperature as a function of height.

Of course, for any particular religion it is "useful" to speak in convoluted terminology because it hides the contradictions. It is, as you say, "not particularly useful" to speak in the fundamental terminology of the scientific principles. If you do, the contradictions are readily exposed.

I truly believe that you truly believe that your version of "greenhouse effect" is the one true, correct, version. You deceive yourself, however, when you allow yourself to be convinced that all other warmizombies are operating under your version as well.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
24-11-2015 16:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
First, no. For a given mass, if you increase the thermal energy (as you indicate will happen) then the average temperature, as we have defined it, must increase. "Density" variability is irrelevant.

Let me remind you of your definition of the average atmospheric temperature:

"Before we begin the experiment, we define the average atmospheric temperature, AT, to be the average temperature of all points within the volume of the atmosphere."

If you are defining the average temperature in this way, then you need to know the density distribution in order to calculate the total thermal energy. Changes in the temperature of the dense parts will affect the total thermal energy more than changes in the temperature of the less dense parts. Hence it is possible to have an increase in thermal energy with a decrease in average temperature (if you define the average temperature as you suggested).

Second, I believe you have successfully created a unique version of "greenhouse effect." I am unaware of any other version in which "greenhouse gases" cause a given mass to lower in temperature by increasing its thermal energy. You might very well be the first and only.

No, any other scientist would agree with what I've said. The problem lies with the way in which you have defined the temperature of the mass as being an average over all points within a volume regardless of its non-uniform density.

Of course, for any particular religion it is "useful" to speak in convoluted terminology because it hides the contradictions. It is, as you say, "not particularly useful" to speak in the fundamental terminology of the scientific principles. If you do, the contradictions are readily exposed.

What convoluted terminology have I used? I don't think I've used any terminology that a reasonably smart high school physics student wouldn't understand. It's not particularly useful to calculate a temperature averaged over the volume of the atmosphere in the way you suggest simply because it has no physical significance.

I truly believe that you truly believe that your version of "greenhouse effect" is the one true, correct, version. You deceive yourself, however, when you allow yourself to be convinced that all other warmizombies are operating under your version as well.

My understanding of the greenhouse effect is in accordance with the theory that has been set out in physics textbooks for the past 50 years or so. In a nutshell, this states that greenhouse gases have the effect of hindering the emission of IR radiation from a planet, thus raising the temperature of the surface of the planet and the lower layers of its atmosphere while cooling the higher layers.
24-11-2015 19:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote:
If you are defining the average temperature in this way, then you need to know the density distribution in order to calculate the total thermal energy.

All I need to know is the initial temperature AT(initial) and the final temperature AT(final), and that I measured/calculated both equally, in the exact same way.

Surface Detail wrote: No, any other scientist would agree with what I've said.

I'll buy that when you, in fact, speak for all other scientists. I'm waiting to see what other self-proclaimed climate experts say about your proposal on other boards. I'll be sure to let you know if every single one of THEM agrees with you.

Surface Detail wrote: What convoluted terminology have I used?

I don't recall ever seeing Planck's Temperature Profile or Stefann-Boltzmann Temperature Profile or any laws of temperature profiles.


Any person who paid reasonable attention in school should understand the idea of an average of a given domain.

Surface Detail wrote: My understanding of the greenhouse effect is in accordance with the theory that has been set out in physics textbooks for the past 50 years or so.

The fact that "greenhouse effect" is WACKY religious dogma is why there are so many versions and why it just isn't for physics textbooks.

(Note: None of my physics textbooks make any mention of it).

Surface Detail wrote: In a nutshell, this states that greenhouse gases have the effect of hindering the emission of IR radiation from a planet, thus raising the temperature of the surface of the planet and the lower layers of its atmosphere while cooling the higher layers.


I don't want your nutshell. Just cite a few physics textbooks (and reference the author, publisher, publishing date) for starters, and then we can see if your book belongs in the trash.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
24-11-2015 20:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Well, it's clear that you are lacking either the will or the ability to comprehend the basic concepts of physics that underpin the greenhouse effect. Never mind, hopefully a few lurkers have found our discussion worth following and will make up their own minds.

I doubt that there are many modern textbooks on atmospheric physics that don't include a section on the greenhouse effect. Here are a few examples of the those that do:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Atmospheric-Physics-Second/dp/0521693187
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fundamentals-Atmospheric-Physics-International-Geophysics/dp/0126151601
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atmospheric-Science-Introductory-International-Geophysics/dp/012732951X

As I said, it's textbook stuff. You might try reading some of them.
24-11-2015 20:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:No, I didn't say hotter; I said colder but with a higher heat content.

What do you mean by "heat content"? Are you stating that the same mass of atmosphere has more thermal energy and a lower temperature?


.

By "heat content", I mean the internal kinetic energy (or thermal energy) of the atmosphere. I am indeed saying that the same mass of atmosphere can have more thermal energy and a lower average temperature if that average temperature is defined as a simple spatial average as you suggest. This is due to its non-uniform density - see the example I gave in my previous post.

Of course, it's not particularly useful to define an average atmospheric temperature in this way. We normally talk about a temperature profile, that is, the temperature as a function of height. As the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, we would expect to see this profile change such that the lower atmospheric layers become warmer while the higher layers cool, and this is in fact what we have observed over the last few decades. A warming upper atmosphere would falsify the greenhouse theory and indicate some external cause or warming, e.g. an increase in solar output.


It would be interesting to see how you would explain the ideal gas law with this model of yours. It would also be interesting to see how you would explain ice or the temperature gradient of ocean water, which leaves warm water at the top, and ice (if any) on top of that.

It would also be interesting how you would explain the temperature gradient into the stratosphere from the tropopause.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-11-2015 20:52
24-11-2015 21:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Surface Detail wrote: Well, it's clear that you are lacking either the will or the ability to comprehend the basic concepts of physics that underpin the greenhouse effect.

Let's review this thread. Yep, I am the one adhering to the basic concepts of physics. You are the one clinging to convoluted techno-babble and requiring questions be asked multiple times.

I'm glad we got that straight.

Surface Detail wrote: I doubt that there are many modern textbooks on atmospheric physics that don't include a section on the greenhouse effect.


Physics. We are talking about physics textbooks. We are talking about basic physics fundamentals. Weren't you going to cite a few physics textbooks used in accredited university programs, since all of them since 1960 supposedly "explain" the one, single "greenhouse effect" theory?

I acknowledge that many religious people can write about their dogma and delude themselves into calling it "The Science."

Surface Detail wrote: As I said, it's textbook stuff. You might try reading some of them.

I'll read the citations you post into this thread.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
20-01-2016 22:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
We have a new angle on "greenhouse effect" courtesy of Surface Detail.

Surface Detail submits that emissivity is the independent variable and that temperature is the dependent variable. Thus, as the story goes, adding "greenhouse gas" changes emissivity which drives temperature.

Surface Detail wrote: Emissivity depends on composition.

Sure.

Surface Detail wrote: If you change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, then you change the Earth's emissivity,

Not necessarily. If you change the composition, you might change the emissivity. CO2 doesn't seem to be able to change emissivity.



Surface Detail wrote: so here it is the emissivity, not the temperature, that is the independent variable. The temperature is then the dependent variable.

Not even close, but I am going to give you credit for this different approach to "greenhouse effect."

The correct answer is that emissivity is a constant, not a variable. Temperature is the only driver (the independent variable).

It would be possible to affect earth's emissivity with a nuclear winter or something similar, but atmospheric gases that are transparent to visible light and radiate well in the infrared spectrum simply aren't going to alter earth's emissivity.


.
21-01-2016 12:47
One Punch Man
★☆☆☆☆
(116)
The 1st LoT is not being violated. The gas is not creating energy; it is hindering the outward flow of energy. This is why the Earth is warming - more energy coming in than going out means a net input of energy

This is essentially what is happening by my understanding too. However I do think the claim that greenhouse gases increase the mean surface temperature by 33C may not be true. Here is a good example of the greenhouse effect that anyone can understand. The average temperature of a desert (according to Google) is 22.5C (i.e. 20-25) and the average temperature of a tropical rainforest is around 27C (i.e. 20C-34C). The tropical rainforest has a warmer average temperature despite the fact that it receives less sunlight at the surface because of clouds (which have a net-cooling effect). Both environments have similar emissivites but the main difference between these two environements is water vapour. It is the water vapour in the atmosphere that acts as an insulator during the night. Because of this insulating effect the day-time and night-time temperatures in a tropical rainforest shift by only a few degrees C. Meanwhile the temperature in the desert (which is warmer in the day) that has no water vapour drops by some 20C during the night. Because of water vapour and clouds 'trapping heat' at night like a blanket the tropical rainforest has the higher average temperature.
Edited on 21-01-2016 13:04
21-01-2016 13:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
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]


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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 18:17
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1031)
One Punch Man wrote:
The 1st LoT is not being violated. The gas is not creating energy; it is hindering the outward flow of energy. This is why the Earth is warming - more energy coming in than going out means a net input of energy

This is essentially what is happening by my understanding too. However I do think the claim that greenhouse gases increase the mean surface temperature by 33C may not be true. Here is a good example of the greenhouse effect that anyone can understand. The average temperature of a desert (according to Google) is 22.5C (i.e. 20-25) and the average temperature of a tropical rainforest is around 27C (i.e. 20C-34C). The tropical rainforest has a warmer average temperature despite the fact that it receives less sunlight at the surface because of clouds (which have a net-cooling effect). Both environments have similar emissivites but the main difference between these two environements is water vapour. It is the water vapour in the atmosphere that acts as an insulator during the night. Because of this insulating effect the day-time and night-time temperatures in a tropical rainforest shift by only a few degrees C. Meanwhile the temperature in the desert (which is warmer in the day) that has no water vapour drops by some 20C during the night. Because of water vapour and clouds 'trapping heat' at night like a blanket the tropical rainforest has the higher average temperature.


I beg to differ. Tropical rainforest is very moist. There are literally drops of water in the air. Water is good at retaining heat. It has nothing to do with so called greenhouse effect.

CO2 does not condense at normal Earth temperatures. It does not function like clouds or drops of water in the air, which retain heat at night.

Water vapor itself does not trap heat. Only drops of water in the air and clouds retain heat and release heat at night.
Edited on 21-01-2016 18:21
Page 1 of 5123>>>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
City of Toronto staff to explore cost of climate change, legal options for compensation from greenhouse g026-04-2019 15:37
What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann815-04-2019 00:43
What effects global temperature2825-03-2019 03:41
Greenhouse gases, explained224-03-2019 04:43
Report: Great Lakes feeling effects of rapid climate warming (Update)122-03-2019 17:37
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact