Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 2 of 2<12
05-01-2016 14:33
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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



Edited on 05-01-2016 14:35
05-01-2016 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
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


I was unaware of these sites, but at least know I know where you got the Sky Dragon Slayer term.


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2016 23:12
simlify
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
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?
06-01-2016 23:28
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
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?


On the contrary, Earth is quite abnormal compared to almost all other planets. Unlike Venus and Mars which have a high CO2 content in the air, Earth has a very low CO2 content in the air, and this is precisely why Earth is able to support life. No life can exist if CO2 reaches 5000 ppm or 0.5%. Fossil fuels, at least the vast majority of it, are not derived from organic sources. On Jupiter's moon Titan, for instance, there are huge amounts of hydrocarbons.
RE: Fossil fuels dont come from organic matter?07-01-2016 00:28
simlify
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Seriously? Doesn't every school science textbook teach that fossil fuels are largely decayed plants and animals?
07-01-2016 00:32
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
simlify wrote:
Seriously? Doesn't every school science textbook teach that fossil fuels are largely decayed plants and animals?


Well then they are wrong
The biosphere is a very tiny part of Earth. No way decayed organic matter that were not decomposed can make the huge amount of hydrocarbons under the ground.
Edited on 07-01-2016 00:33
07-01-2016 01:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
simlify wrote:
Seriously? Doesn't every school science textbook teach that fossil fuels are largely decayed plants and animals?


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.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 01:17
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
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.
Edited on 07-01-2016 01:52
07-01-2016 02:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
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.


Perhaps. Size is not a strong determining factor of the source. I believe it may still have an organic source. No coal has been found below the deepest fossil layers.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 08:51
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Jesus H Christ on a stick. Looks like we have us some Creation 'science' proponents.
07-01-2016 13:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
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.

Entertainingly absurd. You are suggesting that someone review a particular website to learn about, say, my position instead of asking me and/or gleaning from my posts.

If only you could contribute substantially to the topic of discussion as opposed to contributing unintended humor, that would certainly be a bonus. I was hoping you'd make it a new year's resolution or something.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
RE: There are MOUNTAINS filled with coal. No way coal is organically sourced. You know, hydrogen and carbon a07-01-2016 15:12
simlify
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
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.
07-01-2016 16:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
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.

Do you claim to speak for all scientists? The last I checked, some of the earth's scientists had not come to this forum to express their thoughts on the matter.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-01-2016 17:00
simlify
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
I speak for the voice of reason, logic, and popular consensus of scientific thought.
07-01-2016 17:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
simlify wrote:
I speak for the voice of reason, logic, and popular consensus of scientific thought.

No, you most certainly do not. Would you care to try again?

[hint] The correct answer is that you speak for yourself only[/hint]


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.


Your wording should have been: "So, I'm all wrong on fossil fuels coming from dead organic matter?"



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-01-2016 17:45
simlify
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
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.
07-01-2016 18:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
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.

In other words, you insist that you speak for countless, unnamed others and not just for yourself?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-01-2016 18:10
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
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
Edited on 07-01-2016 18:12
07-01-2016 18:12
simlify
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Exactly, countless. ...still waiting for any links to believe your opinion.... Too hard to find those links? Keep in mind I want legitimate science.
07-01-2016 18:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
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.

No one has developed any science, as far as I am aware, that explains how you speak only for yourself.

All I can tell you is that I don't accept anything you claim is asserted by others who are not present in this discussion to be cross-examined.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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 07-01-2016 18:51
07-01-2016 18:43
simlify
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
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


These links talk of HCs existing outside of Earth, not Earth's HCs originated from anything other than organic matter. The second link actually says on Earth "90% of its methane comes from microbes". Thanks for providing proof for my side.
07-01-2016 19:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
simlify wrote:
The second link actually says on Earth "90% of its methane comes from microbes".


There is no proof of their claim.
Edited on 07-01-2016 19:06
07-01-2016 21:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
Ceist wrote:
Jesus H Christ on a stick. Looks like we have us some Creation 'science' proponents.


?? What makes you say this?


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 21:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
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.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2016 22:02
simlify
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
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.


I think we should all be able to agree that liquids easily travel through the Earth's crust due to gravitational pull. These pockets of liquids are sometimes called wells. I have a water well at my home.

I think I am exiting this thread. I have not found any of you intellectually stimulating. You all sound like my crazy neighbor.
07-01-2016 22:18
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
simlify, you will very soon realise that this forum has become like a mental health facility where the occasional sane person drops by for a visit, tries to have a rational discussion with one of the Sky Dragon Slayer inmates, and leaves again fairly quickly.

Unless you're a psychiatrist, it'll do your head in trying to discuss science with the inmates.
Edited on 07-01-2016 22:56
07-01-2016 22:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
simlify wrote: I think we should all be able to agree that liquids easily travel through the Earth's crust due to gravitational pull.

Nope. I think we can all agree that liquids cannot pass through impermeable rock, hence the qualifier "impermeable."

Oil wells are there because they were contained in impermeable rock through which the oil was unable to seep. Where oil was able to seep/escape, there's no oil.

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

I bet your water well is roughly 2km above impermeable rock, yes?

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.

Thank you. You had been getting all your facts wrong and bringing them here.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-01-2016 23:05
simlify
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
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.

Nope. I think we can all agree that liquids cannot pass through impermeable rock, hence the qualifier "impermeable."

Oil wells are there because they were contained in impermeable rock through which the oil was unable to seep. Where oil was able to seep/escape, there's no oil.

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

I bet your water well is roughly 2km above impermeable rock, yes?

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.

Thank you. You had been getting all your facts wrong and bringing them here.


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?
08-01-2016 00:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
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?


Fossil layers have no correlation with permeability. Some fossil layers are quite permeable, others not so much. Most fossil layers are more or less permeable. Often just under that is impermeable rock. Below that may be found oil, trapped by much deeper layers of impermeable rock.

Oil comes near the surface generally near plate edges, especially where spreading action is taking place. It can, however, be found anywhere, if you are willing to go deep enough. It is also possible to find oil fairly near the surface away from a plate edge, such as the shale fields of North America. These are typically found near volcanic activity (such as the nearby Yellowstone Caldera).


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2016 01:03
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Mark Mills of the Heartland institute says oil is really inorganic stuff that's originally inside shale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j0RDf4GMYY
08-01-2016 03:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
08-01-2016 05:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
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.


The great oil fields of Saudi Arabia and Iran are near plate edges. The Red Sea gulf and the Persian gulf are both at spreading plate edges. So is the Gulf of Mexico. So is the North Sea. Iceland should have oil nearby too, but it will probably be deep in the sea and it's easier to use geothermal power directly. Japan is near a plate edge, but that edge is in compression.

The Caribbean Plate action produces oil fields that no only are at sea, but also extend upwards through Texas and Pennsylvania. There are wells in Georgia through Louisiana too.
The shale fields in the northern states are near areas that have passed over the Yellowstone Plume, which also formed the Yellowstone Caldera, now quiet at the surface and only forms geysers and the like. The North Slopes of Alaska are also near a spreading plate edge. The offshore wells and California are along a sliding plate edge, which at one time was a spreading edge.

It is possible to find oil anywhere if you are willing to go deep enough, but these areas are where it is most convenient to find.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2016 05:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
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


I doubt shale actually created the oil though. How did it get into the shale?


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law36622-08-2019 15:35
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
Blanket does not warm an object underneath it. So why would air warm surface?524-05-2019 19:44
▲ 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