Why does greenhouse effect make Earth's surface so cool compared to what it would otherwise be?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The location and depth of the "notches" does indeed depend on the composition of the atmosphere. Indeed, we can determine the composition of the atmospheres of other planets (and even stars) by examining the "notches". It's called spectroscopy.

In turn, the amount of blackbody radiation removed from the emission spectrum depends on the size of the "notches". This radiation that doesn't make it out into space causes the temperature of the planet and its lower atmosphere to rise until equilibrium is re-established. Hence the temperature of a planet is indeed partly dependent on the composition of the atmosphere, in particular, the concentration of greenhouse gases (those that absorb IR radiation).

We've known this since the late 1800s.

Right start, wrong conclusion.

The notches do depend on what is in the atmosphere, but the radiation still makes it out into space via the general temperature of materials surrounding the one that absorbed energy. The temperature of the atmosphere is not dependent on any particular substance in the atmosphere. The notches make no difference.

You are trying to argue the energy trap again. As I've stated before, that effectively produces a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.

Your argument doesn't make sense. How can the materials surrounding the one that absorbed energy emit additional radiation without becoming warmer? Why doesn't this emitted energy show up in the emission spectrum?

As for the perpetual motion machine, I've no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you've misunderstood something.

Ceist wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The location and depth of the "notches" does indeed depend on the composition of the atmosphere. Indeed, we can determine the composition of the atmospheres of other planets (and even stars) by examining the "notches". It's called spectroscopy.

In turn, the amount of blackbody radiation removed from the emission spectrum depends on the size of the "notches". This radiation that doesn't make it out into space causes the temperature of the planet and its lower atmosphere to rise until equilibrium is re-established. Hence the temperature of a planet is indeed partly dependent on the composition of the atmosphere, in particular, the concentration of greenhouse gases (those that absorb IR radiation).

We've known this since the late 1800s.

Right start, wrong conclusion.

The notches do depend on what is in the atmosphere, but the radiation still makes it out into space via the general temperature of materials surrounding the one that absorbed energy. The temperature of the atmosphere is not dependent on any particular substance in the atmosphere. The notches make no difference.

You are trying to argue the energy trap again. As I've stated before, that effectively produces a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order.

Your argument doesn't make sense. How can the materials surrounding the one that absorbed energy emit additional radiation without becoming warmer? Why doesn't this emitted energy show up in the emission spectrum?

As for the perpetual motion machine, I've no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you've misunderstood something.

To get some insight into what these Sky Dragon Slayer cultists believe it helps to read up on some of their pseudoscience claims.

This cultsite will enlighten you about their wacky fringe beliefs:

http://principia-scientific.org/

Some background:

http://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international

simlify wrote:
Am I wrong to reduce the global warming debate to this? All the carbon gases are just being put back to where they were when the dinosaurs were here, so how can that be bad?

simlify wrote:
Seriously? Doesn't every school science textbook teach that fossil fuels are largely decayed plants and animals?

simlify wrote:
Seriously? Doesn't every school science textbook teach that fossil fuels are largely decayed plants and animals?

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they do. Unfortunately, they can't account for most of the oil reserves found far below any fossil layers.

I don't think oil is from decayed plants and animals at all. I still have not decided on coal. So far I think it probably is.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they do. Unfortunately, they can't account for most of the oil reserves found far below any fossil layers.

I don't think oil is from decayed plants and animals at all. I still have not decided on coal. So far I think it probably is.

There are MOUNTAINS filled with coal. No way coal is organically sourced.

You know, hydrogen and carbon are the first and fourth most abundant elements in the universe. It is not surprising there is a lot of hydrocarbons on Earth and on most other planets.

Ceist wrote: To get some insight into what these Sky Dragon Slayer cultists believe it helps to read up on some of their pseudoscience claims.

simlify wrote:
So, scientists are all wrong on fossil fuels coming from dead organic matter, but they know the exact proportion and amounts of elements in the universe...ok. gotcha.

simlify wrote:
I speak for the voice of reason, logic, and popular consensus of scientific thought.

simlify wrote: So, scientists are all wrong on fossil fuels coming from dead organic matter, but they know the exact proportion and amounts of elements in the universe...ok. gotcha.

simlify wrote: Wow, do you where a tin helmet? Maybe, you can send me links to any legitimate science to show fossil fuels are not decayed organic matter, because all google is bringing up says otherwise.

simlify wrote:
Wow, do you where a tin helmet? Maybe, you can send me links to any legitimate science to show fossil fuels are not decayed organic matter, because all google is bringing up says otherwise.

simlify wrote: Exactly, countless. ...still waiting for any links to believe your opinion.... Too hard to find those links? Keep in mind I want legitimate science.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

simlify wrote:
Wow, do you where a tin helmet? Maybe, you can send me links to any legitimate science to show fossil fuels are not decayed organic matter, because all google is bringing up says otherwise.

because

http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/could-there-be-life-titans-methane-sea

simlify wrote:
The second link actually says on Earth "90% of its methane comes from microbes".

Ceist wrote:
Jesus H Christ on a stick. Looks like we have us some Creation 'science' proponents.

simlify wrote:
Wow, do you where a tin helmet? Maybe, you can send me links to any legitimate science to show fossil fuels are not decayed organic matter, because all google is bringing up says otherwise.

Into the Night wrote:

simlify wrote:
Wow, do you where a tin helmet? Maybe, you can send me links to any legitimate science to show fossil fuels are not decayed organic matter, because all google is bringing up says otherwise.

Look up the Fischer-Tropsche process. It produces oil synthetically. A variation of this process can also use carbon dioxide.

We are also finding oil well below any fossil layers. Coal has never been found that deep however.

I believe what we categorize as a 'fossil' fuel needs to be re-examined.

simlify wrote: I think we should all be able to agree that liquids easily travel through the Earth's crust due to gravitational pull.

simlify wrote: I have a water well at my home.

simlify wrote: I think I am exiting this thread. I have not found any of you intellectually stimulating. You all sound like my crazy neighbor.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]simlify wrote: I think we should all be able to agree that liquids easily travel through the Earth's crust due to gravitational pull.

simlify wrote: I have a water well at my home.

simlify wrote: I think I am exiting this thread. I have not found any of you intellectually stimulating. You all sound like my crazy neighbor.

simlify wrote:

Let me get this straight. You believe the oil stopped seeping when it hit impermeable rock hence creating the well. Correct? So, we agree that the oil can seep through layers of Earth's crust. Exactly what I said. That's how the oil got below the fossil layers. Duh! Or do you mean the fossil layer is a complete impenetrable, impermeable layer without a crack to be found?

Into the Night wrote:
Oil comes near the surface generally near plate edges, especially where spreading action is taking place.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Oil comes near the surface generally near plate edges, especially where spreading action is taking place.

This is simply wrong.

The great oil fields of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, for example, are nowhere near plate edges. On the other hand, many countries close to plate edges, such as Iceland and Japan, have virtually no oil resources.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Mark Mills of the Heartland institute says oil is really inorganic stuff that's originally inside shale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j0RDf4GMYY