|still confused, please help25-12-2015 02:06|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|I've been trying my best to understand, but the theory is, I must admit, extremely difficult to grasp by a layman. The link below says, incoming short wave radiation is strong, outgoing long wave radiation is weak. The link below says, the atmosphere is essentially transparent to incoming short wave radiation. If that is true, then how come when sunlight shines on the ground, the ground does not become boiling hot like what happens when sunlight shines on the Moon? I thought oxygen and nitrogen molecules absorb incoming short wave radiation.|
Edited on 25-12-2015 02:15
|Into the Night★★★★★
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The do, just like the water vapor does also, only to release it again at night. Sites like this are trying to propose a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order in the atmosphere.
The Parrot Killer
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Yes, transparent, or very nearly so, the air itself.
In this context, short wavelengths refer to visible light. You can see through air. It's transparent. Nearly so. Blue light is scattered a little, causes the sky to look blue on a clear day. If it were opaque to visible light you couldn't see through it.
Why Earth not as hot as the Moon? Peak temperature on the moon can get high compared to Earth (same distance from Sun, on average) mainly because of the slow rotation, once every 28 days. Illuminated rock, absorbing much of that 1366 watts per square meter of incoming ultraviolet and visible and infrared and longer wavelengths that can approach thermal equilibrium. Rocks are poor conductors of heat, so not much conduction of heat downward, no atmosphere to convect away heat away either. Long night allows accumulated heat to radiate away as infrared, rock gets cold. No atmosphere to absorb anything.
Average temperature on the moon is less than Earth.
Look at the table partway down.
|Tim the plumber★★★★☆
|The idea of greenhouse gasses as far as I understand it is that visable light and high energy IR get through the earth's air to the surface whilst the low energy IR that warm stuff on the surface gives off has a harder time getting out of the atmosphere. It is reasonable that gasses can interact differently with different types of light so as far as it goes it's resonable.|
The counter arguments are;
1, That the wavelengths that CO2 is effective in are also wher water vapor is effective and appart from a very few places the water vapor has already done all the absorbing that can be done.
2, I read a paper where the temperature of the surface was considered at the top of earth's atmosphere and this was the same as the moon's average. The rocky surface temperature was then worked out using basic gas laws and thermodynamics. It predicted the correct temperature of the earth's solid/liquid surface without the need for any greenhouse effects.
Edited on 25-12-2015 13:32
|Into the Night★★★★★
still learning wrote:
As far as visible light is concerned, the lower atmosphere IS somewhat opaque. It is best seen from the tropopause (where jets fly) as you look across to the horizon. This opaqueness is caused by water vapor in the air. It is more pronounced where humidity is greater, such as over the sea.
As for other bands of light, there are absorption notches in both infrared and ultraviolet bands that vary for different components of the atmosphere.
Primary heating of the stratosphere is by absorption, especially of oxygen, in the ultraviolet bands, which also produces ozone, especially near the top.
Primary heating of the troposphere is by conduction and convection, from heat rising from the surface. Yes, pressure makes a difference here.
Heating is also by absorption of a variety of frequencies by water vapor and other components, some of which do absorb some visible light, effectively shading the surface from that incoming energy.
The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-12-2015 20:49
Tai Hai Chen wrote: I've been trying my best to understand, but the theory is, I must admit, extremely difficult to grasp by a layman.
It is not a "difficult theory." It is an intentionally convoluted unfalsifiable dogma involving technical terms. The purpose is to beat the gullible and scientifically illiterate into submission with bogus techno-babble.
If you simply have a question about how something is in nature, just post the question. Don't be looking to decipher gibberish.
The primary problem with such religious fiction is that it is always an egregious oversimplification of a woefully incomplete model. That means that no matter how much you discuss it, countless factors will still remain omitted and the picture will remain incomplete.
"greenhouse effect" is the best example. Of all the photons moving around in the atmosphere, warmizombies try to explain how energy is created in violation of thermodynamics by limiting their model to a sliver of photons that are traveling towards the earth's surface.
You'll get more useful answers by just posting your questions directly.
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
Edited on 26-12-2015 02:42