Remember me
▼ Content

The solar radiation


The solar radiation19-10-2015 10:17
The Humidity
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
Why increases more CO2 in the atmosphere, not the solar radiation if there is a greenhouse effect of CO2?
Attached image:

19-10-2015 11:10
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@The Humidity - thanks for joining in. Did you mean "What increases more CO2...", and, if so, would you explain your question further about "not the solar radiation if there is a greenhouse effect of CO2?"

Thanks!


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!
20-10-2015 02:44
The Humidity
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
trafn wrote:
@The Humidity - thanks for joining in. Did you mean "What increases more CO2...", and, if so, would you explain your question further about "not the solar radiation if there is a greenhouse effect of CO2?"

Thanks!


The solar radiation should be increased by an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If CO2 reflects earth's heat radiation, of practical importance.
20-10-2015 03:50
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@everyone:

1. First, my apologies to The Humidity, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

2. Can anyone help me understand what he means?


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!
20-10-2015 10:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
@everyone:

1. First, my apologies to The Humidity, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

2. Can anyone help me understand what he means?


No, I have no idea as well.
20-10-2015 11:28
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Okay, so I might be wrong, but I think the question that The Humidity is asking is: If CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, why do we not see a change in the solar irradiance observations from Mauna Loa?

The plot (similar to: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/mloapt.html) shows that the measured solar radiation decreases whenever there is a large volcanic eruption. I think that The Humidity is asking why we do not see a long-term decrease in the measured solar radiation that corresponds to the long-term increase in CO2.

The reason, is that the measurements are of incoming shortwave radiation from the sun. Although volcanic eruptions emit CO2, they also emit large quantities of sulphur dioxide and lots of particulate matter (ash). It is the particulate matter in the atmosphere that causes a reduction in incoming shortwave radiation, due to increased scattering.

GHGs on the other hand, have a negligible effect on incoming solar radiation (shortwave). Some of the shortwave radiation is absorbed by the Earth's surface, and some is reflected back to space. The Earth emits long-wave 'black body' radiation towards space. GHGs in the atmosphere absorb longwave radiation, and re-emit it in all directions (both upwards and downwards). The upwards component escapes to space. The downwards component warms the surface and lower atmosphere of the planet.

We can see that there has been decreases in the amount of longwave radiation leaving the planet for the absorption bands of all the major anthropogenic GHGs:

http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/outgoing-longwave-radiation.jpg

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

I hope this answers your question, The Humidity. If not, please let us know.
20-10-2015 17:32
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@everyone - thanks for taking a look. I'm still uncertain, so I'll defer to IBdaMann, above.

WAIT A MINUTE: IBdaMann, did you really type this:

The Earth emits long-wave 'black body' radiation towards space. GHGs in the atmosphere absorb longwave radiation, and re-emit it in all directions (both upwards and downwards). The upwards component escapes to space. The downwards component warms the surface and lower atmosphere of the planet.

Isn't this the exact mechanism you've been denying exists ever since I landed on this website?


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!
20-10-2015 18:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
trafn wrote:
@everyone - thanks for taking a look. I'm still uncertain, so I'll defer to IBdaMann, above.

WAIT A MINUTE: IBdaMann, did you really type this:

The Earth emits long-wave 'black body' radiation towards space. GHGs in the atmosphere absorb longwave radiation, and re-emit it in all directions (both upwards and downwards). The upwards component escapes to space. The downwards component warms the surface and lower atmosphere of the planet.

Isn't this the exact mechanism you've been denying exists ever since I landed on this website?


No, I did not type the above. It was Climate Scientist's post. There's something about his posts that causes people to cite someone else.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2015 18:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
climate scientist wrote: Although volcanic eruptions emit CO2, they also emit large quantities of sulphur dioxide and lots of particulate matter (ash). It is the particulate matter in the atmosphere that causes a reduction in incoming shortwave radiation, due to increased scattering.

The increase in particulate matter simply blocks incoming solar EM. If there were enough of it in the atmosphere we would go into a "nuclear winter."

climate scientist wrote: The Earth emits long-wave 'black body' radiation towards space.

Are you under the impression that the earth is a black body or are you under the impression that there is a type of radiation called "black body radiation" that can be emitted from non-black bodies?

climate scientist wrote: We can see that there has been decreases in the amount of longwave radiation leaving the planet for the absorption bands of all the major anthropogenic GHGs:

How do they cause a "greenhouse effect" differently from non-anthropogenic greenhouse gases or minor anthropogenic greenhouse gases?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2015 18:50
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - ahhhh, darn, you're right! Guess I got so excited at you having finally revealed yourself to be a Marxist incapable of providing any falsifiable models by which to substantiate your own claims that I got ahead of myself.

I'm sorry



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!
20-10-2015 19:37
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
The increase in particulate matter simply blocks incoming solar EM


I'm not sure if 'blocks' is really the correct term, but essentially yes.

Are you under the impression that the earth is a black body or are you under the impression that there is a type of radiation called "black body radiation" that can be emitted from non-black bodies?


http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html

How do they cause a "greenhouse effect" differently from non-anthropogenic greenhouse gases or minor anthropogenic greenhouse gases?


Non-anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause a greenhouse effect in the same way that anthropogenic greenhouses cause a greenhouse effect. The only difference is that greenhouse gases from anthropogenic sources have been increasing in the atmosphere recently, whereas in general, non-anthropogenic greenhouse gases have not been increasing. Hence, we see a decrease in the outgoing longwave radiation for some species, but not for others, since there has been no change. Of course some gases, such as CO2 and CH4 have anthropogenic and natural contributions.

Minor greenhouse gases are gases that either exist at a relatively high concentration in the atmosphere, but only absorb and re-emit a small amount of IR, or those that absorb and re-emit a large amount of IR, but only exist in the atmospheric at very low concentrations. Either way, minor greenhouse gases only contribute a very small amount to the total global greenhouse effect.
20-10-2015 20:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
climate scientist wrote: I'm not sure if 'blocks' is really the correct term, but essentially yes.

How would you describe something that provides shade? What would really be the correct term?

climate scientist wrote:Are you under the impression that the earth is a black body or are you under the impression that there is a type of radiation called "black body radiation" that can be emitted from non-black bodies?


climate scientist wrote:<a hyperlink>


So, are you under the under the impression that the earth is a black body or are you under the impression that there is a type of radiation called "black body radiation" that can be emitted from non-black bodies?

climate scientist wrote: Non-anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause a greenhouse effect in the same way that anthropogenic greenhouses cause a greenhouse effect.

Which is by violating the 1st LoT? Right? We've been over this.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2015 20:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - ahhhh, darn, you're right! Guess I got so excited at you having finally revealed yourself to be a Marxist incapable of providing any falsifiable models by which to substantiate your own claims[/url] that I got ahead of myself.

I'm sorry

No apology necessary. I guess I've just gotten so accustomed to you attempting to shift your burden of proof to be unable to discern religion from science that I anticipated your error and forgave you in advance.

Proceed.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2015 20:30
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
How would you describe something that provides shade? What would really be the correct term?


Volcanic dust particles in the atmosphere do not 'shade' the Earth. They scatter the incoming solar radiation, so that more is reflected back into space. Many plants actually grow better following small volcanic eruptions, because plants tend to prefer diffuse sunlight (e.g. from all directions, which arises from particle scattering) rather than direct sunlight. So I would say that the correct term is what I originally posted - volcanic dust particles scatter the incoming solar radiation. 'Block' implies that the dust particles 'stop' the solar radiation, so to speak, which is not true.

So, are you under the under the impression that the earth is a black body or are you under the impression that there is a type of radiation called "black body radiation" that can be emitted from non-black bodies?


Technically, the Earth is not a perfect black body, since it does not absorb all of the incoming radiation from the sun (since some is scattered). It is also, however, not a perfect white body, since it does not reflect all the sun's radiation either. It is in between the two. Some of the sun's radiation is reflected, and some is absorbed. The Earth is not in thermal equilibrium, since the temperature is increasing, therefore officially, it does not emit black body radiation. I was simply referring to the term as a way of differentiating between the incoming solar radiation, which has a relatively short-wave length, and the outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface, which has a relatively long wavelength, and happens to be in the infrared spectrum. But I am happy to refer to the energy emitted from the Earth's surface as IR radiation, instead of black body radiation, if you would prefer.

Which is by violating the 1st LoT? Right? We've been over this.


No, the greenhouse effect does not violate any of the Laws of Thermodynamics. You still have not provided any link or reference that shows how the greenhouse effect supposedly does violate the 1st LoT.
20-10-2015 21:01
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMarxistMann - shift the burden of proof? Mio? But how could I? I have nothing to prove. I'm not the one posting about how everyone else knows nothing of science and is, therefore, some kind of theo-politio-psuedo-science-warmazombie whacko (jeez, that's a good one).

I'm just sharing opinions and trying to understand those of others the best I can. After all, who is constantly demanding the proof of a falsifiable model for anyone else to have a scientific point of view?* Certainly not moi nor Gregor Johann Mendel!

* - a proof which, by the way, that person (who shall remain nameless) cannot provide either to back up even their own assertions.


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!

Edited on 20-10-2015 21:02
20-10-2015 21:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
climate scientist wrote:
Volcanic dust particles in the atmosphere do not 'shade' the Earth.

Yes they do. I think we can stop this right here. I take it you don't understand that a "nuclear winter" is not simply a greater scattering of solar radiation.

"Block" is the best word. Shade is a blocking of EM, not a scattering.

climate scientist wrote:
Many plants actually grow better following small volcanic eruptions, because plants tend to prefer diffuse sunlight (e.g. from all directions, which arises from particle scattering) rather than direct sunlight.

Plants grow better following small volcanic eruptions because of the new fertile earth they then have.

climate scientist wrote: Technically, the Earth is not a perfect black body,

It's not even close.

climate scientist wrote: It is also, however, not a perfect white body,

It's not even close.

climate scientist wrote: The Earth is not in thermal equilibrium, since the temperature is increasing,

The earth could be in equilibrium as far as you know. You like to delude yourself into believing that you know things you do not. I hate to break it to you but your religion does not grant you divine knowledge. No one knows the earth's average surface temperature. No one.

The only reason you make these really stupid assertions is because of your profound faith in Global Warming and not because of any science that you might have reviewed and understood.

At your Global Warming church gatherings, do they really preach that an elm tree provides shade by scattering sunlight and not by blocking it? I need to get some of these onto YouTube.

climate scientist wrote: therefore officially, it does not emit black body radiation.

Then why did you "officially" say that it does?

climate scientist wrote: I was simply referring to the term as a way of differentiating between the incoming solar radiation, which has a relatively short-wave length, and the outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface, which has a relatively long wavelength, and happens to be in the infrared spectrum.

If this is what you mean by "black body radiation" then you need to go back and read...well...pretty much everything on the topic. How could you have ever imagined that the person who taught you this was competent? Do you just believe whatever you are told? Oh, wait,...I think I just answered my own question.

climate scientist wrote: But I am happy to refer to the energy emitted from the Earth's surface as IR radiation, instead of black body radiation, if you would prefer.

Well, don't you think that you should say what you mean and mean what you say? Of course if you are talking about IR then you should say/write "IR." You don't get bonus points for being mistaken.

climate scientist wrote:No, the greenhouse effect does not violate any of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Yes, your personal version violates the 1st LoT. You have shown that you will deny any and all science necessary to keep from admitting that.

climate scientist wrote: You still have not provided any link or reference that shows how the greenhouse effect supposedly does violate the 1st LoT.

I pointed out your error here in this forum. Nothing else is required. Your personal version of the "greenhouse effect" is a comical fantasy that creates energy just by energy changing form...a direct and obvious violation of the 1st LoT. Like many other warmazombies you think your religious myth can carry scientific authority if you make it sufficiently confusing. Nowhere in your myth do you explain how overall energy increases. Energy being absorbed and being emitted, regardless of direction, is simply energy changing form and total energy remains constant. Yet total energy increases in your myth.

Do we need to review it again?

You keep mentioning how I have not provided any links. No one is required to provide any links at any time. Information is always allowed to be posted directly into the thread.

On a related point, I am not required to even provide any information. I am not the one making existential claims of anything. Ergo, if you are satisfied with the zero science supporting your silly "greenhouse effect" fantasy, well so am I. We can both agree to leave it as it is, i.e. not just completely unsupported but effectively falsified.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2015 21:51
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMarxistMann - shame on you, evoking presumptive falsification in your post to climate scientist above.

Now, I know it's hard having coming out of the Marxist closet as you did recently, but that's no reason to kick Popper in the nuts. Good old Karl presumed nothing and knew everything!

So there, there, settle down and stick to you guns, now. Perhaps we need to enroll you in a Kaplan's Test Prep course. I hear they have a Popperism 101 review class available online!


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!
20-10-2015 22:39
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
@ IBdaMann: Oh I'm sorry, but I don't think you've posted enough nonsense on this forum yet! Perhaps we can have some more please?

[climate scientist sits back and waits for inevitable predictable reply from IBdaMann, which will go along the lines of: it is you who is posting your Marxist religious nonsense, not me, I only present to true science, which needs no evidence or references!!! climate scientist sighs...]
21-10-2015 00:11
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)


(good one cs!)


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!




Join the debate The solar radiation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Economic criticality for solar energy330-09-2019 22:14
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.20113-09-2019 05:53
Black body radiation2919-08-2019 09:11
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
▲ 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