This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of human-induced global warming

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Jeffvw wrote:
Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

Jeffvw wrote:
Water vapor has an even more profound moderating effect due to the heat of fusion since it is constantly changing states.

Jeffvw wrote:
During the day, any residual ice crystals or water droplets change to the vapor state,

Jeffvw wrote:
which uses lots of energy to keep the temperatures from increasing as much as they normally would without water.

Jeffvw wrote:
At night the opposite happens, water vapor condenses to liquid droplets and they in turn become ice crystals.

Jeffvw wrote:
This releases lots of energy and increases low temperatures more than they would be without water available.

Jeffvw wrote:
Consider the large temperature swings in a desert versus the extremely low temperature swings in a rain forest.

Jeffvw wrote:
Greenhouse gasses have some effect,

Jeffvw wrote:
mainly be slightly reducing outgoing radiation at certain wavelengths.

One Punch Man wrote:
The graphs below are good in helping to visualize how tiny human CO2 is compared to the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. The rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It becomes obvious that man-made global warming must be a very small quantity indeed.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Nothing 'moderates' temperatures. Gases and vapors are not intelligent.

Into the Night wrote:
Convection does NOT reduce radiance of the Earth. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:
Water vapor is not constantly changing state.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Water is simply part of the mass of the atmosphere. It has a higher specific heat than anything else in the atmosphere, but that's all. That is not 'moderating' anything.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Otherwise you would have no clear nights.

Into the Night wrote:
I see large temperature swings in both.

Jeffvw wrote:
What does 'moderating' have to do with intelligent?

noutopia wrote:
CO2 levels have been known to warm the Earth for 200 years nearly, CO2 warming raises water vaper levels, warm air holds more water, are these not facts.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Nothing 'moderates' temperatures. Gases and vapors are not intelligent.

What does 'moderating' have to do with intelligent?

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Convection does NOT reduce radiance of the Earth. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Convection reduces surface temperatures which effectively reduces the radiance of the Earth.

Jeffvw wrote:
With no atmosphere, the only source of heat transfer is by radiation.

Jeffvw wrote:
With an atmosphere, heat transfer can also occur by convection.

Jeffvw wrote:
Convection transfers much of the heat to the atmosphere instead of straight into space. The resulting lower surface temperature significantly reduce the amount of radiation that escapes into space. This is perfectly in line with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Water vapor is not constantly changing state.

Yes it is. Pure water vapor is gaseous H2O and is invisible to the naked eye. It will condense and form small water droplets which commonly manifests itself as clouds and sometimes rain. Water droplets can freeze and can also manifest as clouds and sometimes snow. The reverse can happen. For example, when you see clouds disappearing, it is because the water droplets are changing into water vapor. This is pretty basic stuff.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Water is simply part of the mass of the atmosphere. It has a higher specific heat than anything else in the atmosphere, but that's all. That is not 'moderating' anything.

Please look up the terms 'Latent Heat', 'Heat of Fusion', and 'Heat of Vaporization'. These are typically orders of magnitude higher than simple 'sensible heat', which is related to 'specific heat'.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Otherwise you would have no clear nights.

It's all related to humidity levels. On a clear night with high humidity you will see dew or frost.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I see large temperature swings in both.

Death Valley in June: Average high 110, average low 81. 29 degree delta.
Houston in June: Average high 91, average low 72. 19 degree delta. You will find that this trend is consistent.

spot wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:
What does 'moderating' have to do with intelligent?

I have often found common english words take up totally different meanings to what us mere mortals understand them to have when ITN is using them to support one of his arguments.

noutopia wrote:
CO2 levels have been known to warm the Earth for 200 years nearly, CO2 warming raises water vaper levels, warm air holds more water, are these not facts.

Jeffvw wrote:

noutopia wrote:
CO2 levels have been known to warm the Earth for 200 years nearly, CO2 warming raises water vaper levels, warm air holds more water, are these not facts.

And more water vapor forms more clouds, which cools the earth.

Jeffvw wrote:
In reality, we don't know if the water vapor feedback will be positive or negative, but we do know that if water vapor gets high enough, it will form clouds.

Jeffvw wrote:
A runaway warming is very unlikely.

Into the Night wrote:'Moderating' anything is an intelligent act. The atmosphere simply has mass. It takes time for it to warm up and cool down, like any mass.

Into the Night wrote:
Convection does not reduce surface temperatures. Convection only cools the air by dispersing energy over a wider area. The surface is cooled by conduction and by radiance.

Into the Night wrote:
The only type of heat that goes into space is radiance.

Into the Night wrote:
Convection does not go into space.

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law! You are not considering the radiance of the atmosphere itself.

Into the Night wrote:
Humidity itself is related to temperature, dude.

Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'trend' in temperature spread. Houston is cooler than Death Valley because it's higher in elevation than Death Valley. It tends to get more consistent temperatures from the Gulf as well. Land cools off and warms up faster than seawater does.

Houston has a generally wider temperature spread than Seattle, which has similar humidity, due to cloud cover blocking sunlight. We get a lot of stratus clouds here, you see, whereas Houston tends to get a lot of cumulus clouds instead.

I realize this particular theory is popular, but unfortunately, it has been falsified. All one needs is one exception. There are days in Death Valley where the temperature changes very little from day to night. There are days in Seattle where the temperature changes quite a lot, even though we have higher humidity than Death Valley.

Into the Night wrote:'Moderating' anything is an intelligent act. The atmosphere simply has mass. It takes time for it to warm up and cool down, like any mass.

Jeffvw wrote:
'Moderating' has multiple definitions. It is common for weather forecasters to look at humidity levels to help them in their predictions of temperatures. Higher humidity equates to lower highs and higher lows.

One Punch Man wrote:
The graphs below are good in helping to visualize how tiny human CO2 is compared to the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. The rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It becomes obvious that man-made global warming must be a very small quantity indeed.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

AK_User wrote:
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
The graphs below are good in helping to visualize how tiny human CO2 is compared to the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. The rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It becomes obvious that man-made global warming must be a very small quantity indeed.

You might want to read your graphic again. That is 0.04% atmospheric CO2, not 4%. It has not been 4% atmospheric CO2 on this planet for more than 600 million years, thankfully. Otherwise we would be having serious problems right now. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) puts atmospheric CO2 at 3% before it starts causing health problems in humans, which would be 30,000 ppm. We are currently at ~407 ppm.

The pie chart shows the 1% atmospheric water vapor in comparison to the 0.04% CO2. The human CO2 contribution is a very tiny portion of that 0.04%.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. We've had ice ages when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today, and we have had the hottest period on our planet in the last 600 million years when atmospheric CO2 levels were below what they are today.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of all the radiative forcing, where atmospheric CO2 only contributes 3%.

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:'Moderating' anything is an intelligent act. The atmosphere simply has mass. It takes time for it to warm up and cool down, like any mass.

'Moderating' has multiple definitions.

Jeffvw wrote:
It is common for weather forecasters to look at humidity levels to help them in their predictions of temperatures. Higher humidity equates to lower highs and higher lows.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Convection does not reduce surface temperatures. Convection only cools the air by dispersing energy over a wider area. The surface is cooled by conduction and by radiance.

The surface is cooled by conduction, radiance, and convection.

Jeffvw wrote:
Radiance has very little impact on air temperatures.

Jeffvw wrote:
Convection heats the air during the day which cools the surface.

Jeffvw wrote:
Since the surface is cooler, it radiates much less to space (proportional to T^4).

Jeffvw wrote:
A good example of convection in nature is a dust devil.

Jeffvw wrote:
Somehow I think you are confusing conduction with convection.

Jeffvw wrote:
Conduction mainly occurs is solids.

Jeffvw wrote:
Convection occurs in fluids (liquids and gasses), where the portion of the fluid that is in contact with the hot surface rises and is replaced by a cooler fluid, which gets heated and again replaced.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The only type of heat that goes into space is radiance.

True. That is why if the surface is cooled by the atmosphere, much less heat goes into space (again it is proportional to T^4).

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Convection does not go into space.

True, it goes into the atmosphere.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law! You are not considering the radiance of the atmosphere itself.

I don't think you understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Jeffvw wrote:
The atmosphere is mainly made of up N2 and O2. They are effectively invisible to nearly all of the electromagnetic spectrum that is of interest. They do not radiate heat to space.

Jeffvw wrote:
They are heated and cooled by convection or conduction.

Jeffvw wrote:
The trace amounts of H2O and CO2 can potentially heat or cool the N2 or O2 by collisions and then transfer that heat by radiance, but it would be negligible.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Humidity itself is related to temperature, dude.

Relative humidity is related to temperature. A better way to think about humidity is dew point. The higher the dew point, the more moisture is in the air. If air temperature drops below the dew point, the water vapor will condense and form dew (or clouds) and that transition will release a lot of latent heat. That is why you have higher low temperatures when it is humid.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'trend' in temperature spread. Houston is cooler than Death Valley because it's higher in elevation than Death Valley. It tends to get more consistent temperatures from the Gulf as well. Land cools off and warms up faster than seawater does.

Houston has a generally wider temperature spread than Seattle, which has similar humidity, due to cloud cover blocking sunlight. We get a lot of stratus clouds here, you see, whereas Houston tends to get a lot of cumulus clouds instead.

I realize this particular theory is popular, but unfortunately, it has been falsified. All one needs is one exception. There are days in Death Valley where the temperature changes very little from day to night. There are days in Seattle where the temperature changes quite a lot, even though we have higher humidity than Death Valley.

Of course there is variation due to weather conditions. Weather forecasters always take humidity into account when forecasting temperatures.

Jeffvw wrote:
Please take some time and study 'latent heat'. You clearly don't understand it.

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

One Punch Man wrote:

AK_User wrote:
[quote]One Punch Man wrote:
The graphs below are good in helping to visualize how tiny human CO2 is compared to the rest of the gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. The rest consists almost entirely of water-vapour and that water-vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It becomes obvious that man-made global warming must be a very small quantity indeed.

You might want to read your graphic again. That is 0.04% atmospheric CO2, not 4%. It has not been 4% atmospheric CO2 on this planet for more than 600 million years, thankfully. Otherwise we would be having serious problems right now. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) puts atmospheric CO2 at 3% before it starts causing health problems in humans, which would be 30,000 ppm. We are currently at ~407 ppm.

The pie chart shows the 1% atmospheric water vapor in comparison to the 0.04% CO2. The human CO2 contribution is a very tiny portion of that 0.04%.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. We've had ice ages when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today, and we have had the hottest period on our planet in the last 600 million years when atmospheric CO2 levels were below what they are today.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of all the radiative forcing, where atmospheric CO2 only contributes 3%.

I said that CO2 was about 4% of the total atmospheric greenhouse. Not 4% of the total atmosphere, just 4% of the atmospheric greenhouse.

Jeffvw wrote:

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct.

Jeffvw wrote:
That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body

Jeffvw wrote:
since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about.

Jeffvw wrote:
CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body.

Jeffvw wrote:
Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4.

Jeffvw wrote:
But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.

Heat does not 'transfer'.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.

Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.

Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...

Wikipedia is discarded on sight. It is not a valid reference. Too many articles in it are badly written, incomplete, or outright wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and its direction of flow. Wikipedia does not define 'heat'.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat does not 'transfer' anywhere. Heat IS transfer. It is the flow itself.


False authority fallacy.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.

Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...

Wikipedia is discarded on sight. It is not a valid reference. Too many articles in it are badly written, incomplete, or outright wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and its direction of flow. Wikipedia does not define 'heat'.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat does not 'transfer' anywhere. Heat IS transfer. It is the flow itself.


False authority fallacy.

Amazon search for 'Heat Transfer' textbooks
I would strongly suggesting purchasing one of these textbooks and reading it, or sign up for a university level 'Heat Transfer' course almost anywhere that has engineering courses.

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.

Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...

Wikipedia is discarded on sight. It is not a valid reference. Too many articles in it are badly written, incomplete, or outright wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and its direction of flow. Wikipedia does not define 'heat'.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat does not 'transfer' anywhere. Heat IS transfer. It is the flow itself.


False authority fallacy.

Amazon search for 'Heat Transfer' textbooks
I would strongly suggesting purchasing one of these textbooks and reading it, or sign up for a university level 'Heat Transfer' course almost anywhere that has engineering courses.

I would strongly suggest you learn what 'heat' is.

Into the Night wrote:

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

WRONG. It applies to solids, gases, liquids, and even plasmas. It applies to ALL bodies, not just ideally black ones. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing terms in the equation.

It DOES apply to the atmosphere.

Jeffvw wrote:

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

Not "mostly correct", entirely correct. I posted, verbatim, the definitions of both the Stefan–Boltzmann law and black bodies. Look it up. The Stefan-Boltzmann equations have absolutely nothing do with atmospheres, gases, or chemical combinations. To even try to draw some kind of inference that there may be a correlation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

Jeffvw wrote:

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

Not "mostly correct", entirely correct. I posted, verbatim, the definitions of both the Stefan–Boltzmann law and black bodies. Look it up. The Stefan-Boltzmann equations have absolutely nothing do with atmospheres, gases, or chemical combinations. To even try to draw some kind of inference that there may be a correlation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

To see if I am correct, take a spectrometer, point it into the sky (not the sun) and see if you can get a temperature of the CO2, O3, or H2O. You will be able to. The N2 and O2 are invisible. Here's an example:
Look at the wavelength around 667. You will see that the CO2 is warmer in the tropics. It can be measured. You can also estimate the temperature of the H2O and the ozone if you know what wavelengths to look at. You will also see that in Alaska, where there is very low humidity to interfere, that the O2 and N2 do not record a temperature.
The spectrometer uses the principles of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The dotted line represents an ideal black body temperature. The dotted line that the CO2 portion falls on will give you a good estimate of the temperature of the CO2 above you.

If your assertion is correct, a spectrometer would be a flat line if you were looking into space.

AK_User wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann equations only apply to an abstraction of a physical concept. There are no black bodies on Earth, nor is Earth or any chemical a black body. You are misapplying the law because you do not understand it.

Jeffvw wrote:

AK_User wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann equations only apply to an abstraction of a physical concept. There are no black bodies on Earth, nor is Earth or any chemical a black body. You are misapplying the law because you do not understand it.

As in all laws of science, it is applied in non-ideal conditions. It is still useful. You sound like ITN in your rigid adherence to a definition.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time j (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T.

Pay attention to the term proportional. That leaves room for gray bodies and elements that only emit a portion of the spectrum such as gasses.

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
WRONG.

You seriously need to study basic physics and heat transfer. I'm not sure you understand this subject at all.

Heat does not 'transfer'.

...deleted Holy Link...

Wikipedia is discarded on sight. It is not a valid reference. Too many articles in it are badly written, incomplete, or outright wrong.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines 'heat', what it is, and its direction of flow. Wikipedia does not define 'heat'.

Heat is the movement of thermal energy from one place to another. Heat does not 'transfer' anywhere. Heat IS transfer. It is the flow itself.


False authority fallacy.

Amazon search for 'Heat Transfer' textbooks
I would strongly suggesting purchasing one of these textbooks and reading it, or sign up for a university level 'Heat Transfer' course almost anywhere that has engineering courses.

I would strongly suggest you learn what 'heat' is.

I did in my heat transfer, physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, and other classes. I passed and have applied what I learned in my career.

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

Not "mostly correct", entirely correct. I posted, verbatim, the definitions of both the Stefan–Boltzmann law and black bodies. Look it up. The Stefan-Boltzmann equations have absolutely nothing do with atmospheres, gases, or chemical combinations. To even try to draw some kind of inference that there may be a correlation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.

AK_User wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

WRONG. It applies to solids, gases, liquids, and even plasmas. It applies to ALL bodies, not just ideally black ones. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law by removing terms in the equation.

It DOES apply to the atmosphere.

No, it does not. However, your post does demonstrate that you do not have an understanding of either the Stefan-Boltzmann equations or basic physics.

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:

AK_User wrote:

Jeffvw wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Yes it is. It does so in multiple ways.

The main thing it does is moderate temperatures. It reduces high temperatures and increases low temperatures.

Gases in general cool the surface by convection, which drastically reduces outgoing radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann Law).

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.

The Stefan–Boltzmann equations do not apply to atmospheres.

Mostly correct. That is why I referred to the 'surface' of the earth which though not an ideal black body, still emits radiation proportional to T^4.

Note that O2 and N2 do not act at all like a black body since they do not absorb and emit EM radiation in a range we care about. CO2 and H2O do absorb and emit EM radiation at certain narrow bands and have some characteristics of a black body. Radiation emitted at those ranges is still proportional to T^4. But they are trace gases. It is interesting to note that the CO2 in the atmosphere emits radiation in its narrow band at about 220 K (-53 C).

AK_User wrote:
I posted, verbatim, the definitions of both the Stefan–Boltzmann law and black bodies.

AK_User wrote:
Look it up.

AK_User wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann equations have absolutely nothing do with atmospheres, gases, or chemical combinations.

AK_User wrote:
To even try to draw some kind of inference that there may be a correlation demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding.