There is no greenhouse effect

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > There is no greenhouse effect

There is no greenhouse effect10-08-2019 18:36
olyz ★☆☆☆☆ (87)	The wavelength of the earth's black body radiation which is reflected back to earth by a greenhouse gas is reemitted as full spectrum black body radiation which passes through. More precisely, a tiny amount of radiation energy is reflected back to earth by greenhouse gases and a tiny amount of that is reemitted and so the amount which doesn't pass out rapidly goes to zero, ie, radiation is not trapped by green house gases. There is no greenhouse effect, but don't tell Al.
10-08-2019 18:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14477)	olyz wrote:The wavelength of the earth's black body radiation which is reflected back to earth by a greenhouse gas is reemitted as full spectrum black body radiation which passes through. There is no nice way to say it: this is nonsensical gibberish. I'm sure there was a concept that you wanted to express but unfortunately you are going to have to try again. olyz wrote:More precisely, a tiny amount of radiation energy is reflected back to earth by greenhouse gases and a tiny amount of that is reemitted and so the amount which doesn't pass out rapidly goes to zero, ie, radiation is not trapped by green house gases. There is no greenhouse effect, but don't tell Al. ? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-08-2019 19:09
olyz ★☆☆☆☆ (87)	Just to reinforce the basic idea: Single wavelength radiation reflected back to earth is reemitted as full spectrum black body radiation. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's gibberish. EDIT Another way of putting it is, no matter how you add heat to a black body the emitted radiation is always full spectrum black body radiation. Edited on 10-08-2019 19:37
10-08-2019 20:11
olyz ★☆☆☆☆ (87)	Actually it's nice to know there is no contradiction with the first law. At steady state, radiation in equals radiation out. W'=0 and U'=0. Radiation in is suns radiation which is constant. Radiation out is Stefan-Bolzmann law Q'=kT^4. And that determines T, which is therefore constant no matter what transpired between states of equilibrium, say generation of "greenhouse" gases. If the earth weren'r an ideal black body, there would be an added factor to SB, say .9, and the temperature would be slightly higher. That leaves only the question does CO2 change the earths emissivity? By my previous post, no. EDIT The OP shows that whatever isn't directly emitted as black body radiation is absorbed by the earth and reemitted as black body radiation. So CO2 doesn't change emissivity. Edited on 10-08-2019 20:41
10-08-2019 21:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14477)	olyz, I am really trying to figure out what you are trying to say. Sadly, I am failing. olyz wrote:If the earth weren'r an ideal black body, ... and it's not olyz wrote: ... there would be an added factor to SB, say .9, and the temperature would be slightly higher. ... so there definitely needs to be an emissivity factor, say, we don't know what it is, but the temperature will definitely be lower. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

11-08-2019 00:54
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	olyz wrote:reemitted as full spectrum black body radiation Are you trying to say that what the ground surface is struck by the solar radiation, that is then converted to thermal energy and re-emitted and that the re-emitted light is "full spectrum" as in an even mix from infra-red to ultra-violet? If so then that's incorrect. The emission of radiation is based on the temperature. So the surface of the Earth is emitting infra-red radiation. It's not nearly hot enough to emit the higher wavelengths of white light or ultra-violet for example.
11-08-2019 07:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21701)	olyz wrote: Just to reinforce the basic idea: Single wavelength radiation reflected back to earth is reemitted as full spectrum black body radiation. Nonsense statement. Try English. It works better. olyz wrote: Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's gibberish. No, it's gibberish. Try English. It works better. olyz wrote: EDIT Another way of putting it is, no matter how you add heat to a black body the emitted radiation is always full spectrum black body radiation. Are you attempting to ignore Wien's law? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-08-2019 08:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21701)	olyz wrote: Actually it's nice to know there is no contradiction with the first law. At steady state, radiation in equals radiation out. W'=0 and U'=0. Radiation in is suns radiation which is constant. Radiation out is Stefan-Bolzmann law Q'=kT^4. WRONG. * The Sun's radiance is not constant. It's unusually constant for a star of this type, but it is not absolutely constant. * Not all of the Sun's energy is absorbed by the Earth. You don't know how much of it is absorbed by the Earth. olyz wrote: And that determines T, which is therefore constant no matter what transpired between states of equilibrium, say generation of "greenhouse" gases. Nope. You are attempting to remove the emissivity constant from the equation. You can't just change the equation. olyz wrote: If the earth weren'r an ideal black body, there would be an added factor to SB, say .9, and the temperature would be slightly higher. The emissivity is Earth is unknown. It is not an ideal black body. No actual body is. olyz wrote: That leaves only the question does CO2 change the earths emissivity? By my previous post, no. No. olyz wrote: EDIT The OP shows that whatever isn't directly emitted as black body radiation is absorbed by the earth and reemitted as black body radiation. So CO2 doesn't change emissivity. WRONG. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Not all energy from the Sun is absorbed. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-08-2019 17:32
olyz ★☆☆☆☆ (87)	The emmisivity of the earth is close to 1: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/amp/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html Suppose the CO2 layer reflected/radiated back to earth all the energy in it's absorption wavelength. That energy would in term be reemmited across the full black body spectrum. The CO2 in effect acts like a filter. The net result is that outside the atmosphere the radiation spectrum from earth would be missing the CO2 wavelengths but the same energy would be radiated out as if the CO2 wasn't there. There is no "greenhouse" effect.
12-08-2019 19:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21701)	olyz wrote: The emmisivity of the earth is close to 1: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/amp/radiation-heat-emissivity-d_432.html Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. olyz wrote: Suppose the CO2 layer reflected/radiated back to earth all the energy in it's absorption wavelength. That energy would in term be reemmited across the full black body spectrum. The CO2 in effect acts like a filter. WRONG. CO2 is mass. It is above absolute zero. It emits its own radiance according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. olyz wrote: The net result is that outside the atmosphere the radiation spectrum from earth would be missing the CO2 wavelengths but the same energy would be radiated out as if the CO2 wasn't there. Those wavelengths are reduced in strength, true, due to CO2 absorption. These are narrow notches in frequencies. ALL of the energy is emitted as light. olyz wrote: There is no "greenhouse" effect. Correct. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-08-2019 13:52
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	olyz wrote:That energy would in term be reemmited across the full black body spectrum. Olyz I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding. The emission of radiation is based on the temperature and would not be across the full black body spectrum. Regardless of a bodies emissivity, absorptivity or anything else it will only emit the wavelength corresponding to it's temperature (though there may be various temperatures). In fact it doesn't matter what the body is or what it's emissivity it can and will radiate the wavelength corresponding to it's temperature, but nothing other than that. For example the Earth will be hit by ultraviolet and white light from the sun. It will not though emit these wavelengths without some portion of the surface reaching those actual temperatures. 5000K, white light means 4726C, 8500 Fahrenheit. So the only way that white or ultra violet light will come from earth is if they are reflected away. A "perfect black body" will absorb all frequencies it does not mean it will emit all frequencies all the time. The ENERGY in will match the ENERGY out. The wavelengths in/out don't have to match at all. So the fact that CO2 is reactive to 15 microbars infra red range is what the "greenhouse effect" theory would hang it's hat on. Edited on 13-08-2019 14:01
13-08-2019 17:17
olyz ★☆☆☆☆ (87)	Tmiddles No matter how I heat a black body it always emits a black body radiation spectrum appropriate to it's temperature. If the CO2 reflects it's wavelengths back to earth, those wavelenghts won't get through but instead their energy emerges distributed over other wavelengths, which is exactly what your graph shows: All the energy reflected back to the earth at CO2 wavelenghts re-emerges at other wavelengths so there is no "trapped" heat, just dips in the black body radiation as shown in your graph. The energy loss at CO2 wavelengths is made up by energy gain at the other wavelengths. Imagine a sheet of wavelength filter placed over a black body. Then the black body radiation would be missing that wavelength. The question is, what happens to the energy absorbed by the filter. It depends on the filter- it is either absorbed and the filter heats up or reflected and remitted at the other black body wavelengths transparent to the filter and the temperature of the filter doesn't change, with the net result that the same amount of black body radiation emerges as before but with the filter wavelength missing.
13-08-2019 18:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21701)	olyz wrote: Tmiddles No matter how I heat a black body it always emits a black body radiation spectrum appropriate to it's temperature. There is no such thing as a 'blackbody spectrum'. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. olyz wrote: If the CO2 reflects it's wavelengths back to earth, those wavelenghts won't get through but instead their energy emerges distributed over other wavelengths, which is exactly what your graph shows: WRONG. Absorption of light does not cause a reflection. The photon is destroyed...utterly. olyz wrote: All the energy reflected back to the earth at CO2 wavelenghts re-emerges at other wavelengths so there is no "trapped" heat, just dips in the black body radiation as shown in your graph. The energy loss at CO2 wavelengths is made up by energy gain at the other wavelengths. WRONG. CO2 does not amplify any frequency. olyz wrote: Imagine a sheet of wavelength filter placed over a black body. Then the black body radiation would be missing that wavelength. The question is, what happens to the energy absorbed by the filter. It depends on the filter- it is either absorbed and the filter heats up or reflected and remitted at the other black body wavelengths transparent to the filter and the temperature of the filter doesn't change, with the net result that the same amount of black body radiation emerges as before but with the filter wavelength missing. Not how a light filter works. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-08-2019 19:14
olyz ★☆☆☆☆ (87)	The black body radiation spectrum is given as a function of frequency and temperature by Planck's law. Integrating over frequency gives the total radiation of the spectrum as a function of T, which is Stefan-Boltzmann's law. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Equations in the section "Equations."
13-08-2019 20:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14477)	olyz wrote: The black body radiation spectrum is given as a function of frequency and temperature by Planck's law. It gives us a lot more information than just that. olyz wrote: Integrating over frequency gives the total radiation of the spectrum as a function of T, which is Stefan-Boltzmann's law. Well, integrating over the wavelength domain, yes. Taking the derivative of Planck's gives us Wein's identification of the max_wavelength. olyz wrote:See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation#Equations in the section "Equations." Nope. Wikipedia is summarily dismissed. I won't even check the link. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-08-2019 23:33
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	olyz wrote:It depends on the filter- it is either absorbed and the filter heats up or reflected and remitted at the other black body wavelengths transparent to the filter Or at the same frequency in part. Bottom line is that you have a partial obstacle to a straight line exit for infra red radiation. That simple. How that plays out I'm very fuzzy on personally (getting help with the fundamentals in another thread). In an actual greenhouse, windows open, you have the absorptivity of glass interfering with the straight line exit of some of the infra red radiation (my words) from the interior of the greenhouse as the sun hits it. High frequency light from the sun passes right through the glass, turns into thermal energy in the plants, floor and solid matter of the greenhouse below the glass, and then is re-radiated upward toward the glass but this time it's no longer high frequency but infra-red which glass will partially be reactive to. (I say windows open as there are two ways a greenhouse keeps the interior warmer, one is by preventing convection if the windows are closed, so ignoring that aspect here). Edited on 13-08-2019 23:36

Join the debate There is no greenhouse effect:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	145	24-04-2024 02:48
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	291	05-11-2023 22:46
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity	102	05-06-2023 13:19
Greenhouse gases cool better and cause lower surface temperature of earth than non greenhouse gases	3	10-05-2023 08:27