Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 1 of 212>
Why does greenhouse effect make Earth's surface so cool compared to what it would otherwise be?02-01-2016 01:45
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
A metal bar in space heats to 260 C when sunlight shines on it. On a cloudless sunny summer day, a dark pavement outside only heats to about 28 C, hardly distinguishable from the air temperature. Is this proof that greenhouse gases cool the world?

I quote.

A piece of bare metal in space, under constant sunlight can get as hot as two-hundred-sixty (260) degrees Celsius. This is dangerous to astronauts who have to work outside the station.


http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/

This is greenhouse effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzCA60WnoMk
Edited on 02-01-2016 01:58
02-01-2016 01:54
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
On the average, solar intensity is 30% higher at the top of the atmosphere compared to the surface, although on a cloudless sunny summer day that % could very well be less than 10%. But this does not seem to be enough to account for the much cooler temperature at the surface, where temperature is about 28 C instead of 260 C if there were no atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
Edited on 02-01-2016 02:31
02-01-2016 02:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Is this proof that greenhouse gases cool the world?

Nope.

1) Clearly list the defining physical properties of "greenhouse gas."

2) Explain how these physical properties supposedly lead to a reduction in thermal energy.


...otherwise you might as well have written:

A metal bar in space heats to 260 C when sunlight shines on it. On a cloudless sunny summer day, a dark pavement outside only heats to about 28 C, hardly distinguishable from the air temperature. Is this proof that God cools the world? This is God's effect.



.


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
02-01-2016 02:49
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen, I'm starting to suspect that you are only pretending to be this scientifically illiterate and stupid, and posting all your ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense threads is to try to make climate science deniers look even stupider, more ridiculous and more scientifically illiterate than they already are.

Keep it up. This forum already became a joke because of the efforts of a couple of climate science denier trolls. You might as well make it a complete farce.



Edited on 02-01-2016 03:14
02-01-2016 03:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen, I'm starting to suspect that you are only pretending to be this scientifically illiterate and stupid, and posting all your ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense threads is to try to make climate science deniers look even stupider, more ridiculous and more scientifically illiterate than they already are.

Keep it up. This forum already became a joke because of the efforts of a couple of climate science denier trolls. You might as well make it a complete farce.


How about you take a trip to the space station, float in space for a while, and see how hot you get under the sunlight, compared to how cool you get on Earth
Be grateful of the atmosphere, without which you wouldn't be existing today.
Edited on 02-01-2016 03:22
02-01-2016 03:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:How about you take a trip to the space station, float in space for a while, and see how hot you get under the sunlight, compared to how cool you get on Earth

You have to forgive Ceist. He left for a while and the average post quality shot up drastically. His return was that painful mind-drain you felt.

He joined in October and still hasn't contributed anything but ad hominems in his 200+ posts. He really doesn't know anything but he's confident in the Global Warming gibberbabble he's been ordered to believe.


.


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
02-01-2016 04:15
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen, I'm starting to suspect that you are only pretending to be this scientifically illiterate and stupid, and posting all your ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense threads is to try to make climate science deniers look even stupider, more ridiculous and more scientifically illiterate than they already are.

Keep it up. This forum already became a joke because of the efforts of a couple of climate science denier trolls. You might as well make it a complete farce.


How about you take a trip to the space station, float in space for a while, and see how hot you get under the sunlight, compared to how cool you get on Earth
Be grateful of the atmosphere, without which you wouldn't be existing today.


So you really aren't just pretending to be that stupid and scientifically illiterate? Like IBdaMann, you really believe the ridiculous crap you post?

Yikes.



Edited on 02-01-2016 04:16
02-01-2016 06:38
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen, I'm starting to suspect that you are only pretending to be this scientifically illiterate and stupid, and posting all your ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense threads is to try to make climate science deniers look even stupider, more ridiculous and more scientifically illiterate than they already are.

Keep it up. This forum already became a joke because of the efforts of a couple of climate science denier trolls. You might as well make it a complete farce.


How about you take a trip to the space station, float in space for a while, and see how hot you get under the sunlight, compared to how cool you get on Earth
Be grateful of the atmosphere, without which you wouldn't be existing today.


So you really aren't just pretending to be that stupid and scientifically illiterate? Like IBdaMann, you really believe the ridiculous crap you post?

Yikes.


Correct me if I'm wrong, Earth's surface temperature would be a staggering 260 C under sunlight had there been no atmosphere. This is a stat from a reliable source.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/
02-01-2016 13:29
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Earth's surface temperature would be a staggering 260 C under sunlight had there been no atmosphere. This is a stat from a reliable source.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/


Your source isn't wrong, but you are. The 260 C figure they used was referring to a small metal bar in constant sunlight in a vacuum, not the earth's surface.
Try again.

By the way, what makes you think Universe Today is a 'reliable source'? Because it sounds sciencey and looks glitzy?


They are just a couple of laymen running an online mag, not a science institution or an educational source or a science Journal. Looking at some of their other videos and articles, they seem to do a reasonable job of putting some simple science concepts into fun simplistic terms for lay people.
They even answer your question on the temperature of the earth without an atmosphere in the link below. It's not exactly scientifically correct because they don't take other variables into account, like different length of time the earth and moon rotate on their axis etc and they use simplistic analogies, but they are not too far off:

http://www.universetoday.com/48328/earth-surface-temperature/

But apparently even that website is too confusing for you if you came away thinking that the earth is the same as a small metal bar and the earth's surface could be 260 C without an atmosphere.

Did it ever cross your mind to read a science textbook to get the basics right?

Here's one on an Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry you can read that has been made freely available online for undergrad students:

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/

But then again, maybe you should try NASA's climate kids website to start with. It's aimed at about the 3rd to 5th grade level.

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/



Edited on 02-01-2016 14:03
02-01-2016 18:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote:
By the way, what makes you think Universe Today is a 'reliable source'? Because it sounds sciencey and looks glitzy?

He just took a page out of your playbook.

Ceist wrote:
Did it ever cross your mind to read a science textbook to get the basics right?

Why would you demand of him something that you would never do yourself?


.


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
03-01-2016 05:08
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Earth's surface temperature would be a staggering 260 C under sunlight had there been no atmosphere. This is a stat from a reliable source.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/


Your source isn't wrong, but you are. The 260 C figure they used was referring to a small metal bar in constant sunlight in a vacuum, not the earth's surface.


Earth without an atmosphere would be floating in vacuum, just like that metal bar. Why wouldn't Earth heat to 260 C under sunlight, just like that metal bar?
Edited on 03-01-2016 05:24
03-01-2016 08:40
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Earth's surface temperature would be a staggering 260 C under sunlight had there been no atmosphere. This is a stat from a reliable source.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/


Your source isn't wrong, but you are. The 260 C figure they used was referring to a small metal bar in constant sunlight in a vacuum, not the earth's surface.


Earth without an atmosphere would be floating in vacuum, just like that metal bar. Why wouldn't Earth heat to 260 C under sunlight, just like that metal bar?


Surely you're kidding? Is your scientific knowledge even less than a 3rd grader's?

Maybe you could start with this fun interactive children's story about Night and Day:

http://www.glasgowsciencecentre.org/play-games-online/dark-and-light-day-and-night.html Make sure you click on the "Next" button. It's exciting!

Lot's more for you to learn once the concept of night and day sinks in.... but that might take you a few weeks.



Edited on 03-01-2016 08:42
03-01-2016 19:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote:
Your source isn't wrong, but you are. The 260 C figure they used was referring to a small metal bar in constant sunlight in a vacuum, not the earth's surface.

Tai Hai Chen is correct. Without its atmosphere the earth's surface would reach the same daytime and nighttime temperature extremes as the moon. This means that oceans would boil in the sunlight and would deep-freeze at night like currently can only be accomplished with industrial refrigeration equipment.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: Earth without an atmosphere would be floating in vacuum, just like that metal bar. Why wouldn't Earth heat to 260 C under sunlight, just like that metal bar?

I don't think it would reach 260degC but it would certainly reach 240degF.


.


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
03-01-2016 19:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote:
So you really aren't just pretending to be that stupid and scientifically illiterate? Like IBdaMann, you really believe the ridiculous crap you post?

This coming from a person who is so insecure in his beliefs that he denigrates forums/websites for allowing opposing viewpoints.

Shouldn't you be tucking your tail between your legs and rushing back to the safety of the congregation that tells you what to believe?


.


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
03-01-2016 23:30
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
I quote.

Consider, for example, the International Space Station (ISS). Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F (-157 C).


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/

This means Earth's atmosphere regulates Earth's temperature. Without Earth's atmosphere, Earth would be extremely hot during the day and extremely cold during the night.

What I do not agree with NASA is that convection does very little in regulating day and night temperature differences. It is mainly greenhouse gases that do that because they retain the heat they absorb during the day and slowly release that heat at night.
Edited on 04-01-2016 00:17
04-01-2016 01:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen incorrectly asserts the earth would be 260 C without an atmosphere.

IbdaMann tells Tai Hai Chen he is correct.

IbdaMann then says it wouldn't be 260 C, it would be 240 degrees Fahrenheit - which is 115 C

Then Tai Hai posts a quote from NASA about the space station's sun facing side getting as hot as 121 C

You guys are hilarious.



Edited on 04-01-2016 01:31
04-01-2016 01:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I quote.

Consider, for example, the International Space Station (ISS). Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F (-157 C).


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/

This means Earth's atmosphere regulates Earth's temperature. Without Earth's atmosphere, Earth would be extremely hot during the day and extremely cold during the night.

What I do not agree with NASA is that convection does very little in regulating day and night temperature differences. It is mainly greenhouse gases that do that because they retain the heat they absorb during the day and slowly release that heat at night.


So which is it Tai Hai? 260 C or 121 C. That's a huge difference. You also didn't get the hint that the earth rotates on it's axis every 24 hrs (the moon every 27.3 days)- a small piece of metal in space does not. There is also the issue of the size and composition of the earth compared to a small piece of metal.

You've been posting rubbish that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, now you are saying that it does, yet then you 'disagree with NASA' but then show you don't even know how greenhouse gases work.

Seriously, you look like a complete idiot making all these all-over-the-place often contradictory assertions and pretending to be an 'expert' when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The Dunning Kruger effect is strong in you.

All you are doing is making this forum even more of farce than it already became after IB trolled it to death.



Edited on 04-01-2016 01:27
04-01-2016 01:28
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Ceist wrote:
So which is it Tai Hai? 260 C or 121 C. That's a huge difference. You also didn't get the hint that the earth rotates on it's axis every 24 hrs (the moon every 27.3 days)- a small piece of metal in space does not. There is also the issue of the size and composition of the earth compared to a small piece of metal.

You've been posting rubbish that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, now you are saying that it does, yet then you 'disagree with NASA' but then show you don't even know how greenhouse gases work.

Seriously, you look like a complete idiot making all these all-over-the-place assertions and pretending to be an 'expert' when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The Dunning Kruger effect is strong in you.

All you are doing is making this forum even more of farce than it already became after IB trolled it to death.


The ISS is white colored. It reflects light a lot. So it only goes to 121 C. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth would be a dead planet like the Moon, more than 100 C at day and less than -100 C at night. This is experimentally proven.

NASA is not always right. NASA is a governmental organization. NASA is a mouthpiece of the American president.

This is a BS from NASA saying without the greenhouse effect Earth would be about 30 C cooler than now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzCA60WnoMk

The Earth itself is a heat source. Below the crust reaches thousands of C. Below the ocean reaches thousands of C. Even without the Sun, Earth would be warm enough to sustain life.
Edited on 04-01-2016 01:36
04-01-2016 01:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote:Seriously, you look like a complete idiot making all these all-over-the-place often contradictory assertions and pretending to be an 'expert' when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You seem to become greatly worried about "how others look" when you have lost all hope at making a valid point. At such a point you begin erroneously "summarizing" the preceding discussion in a desperate attempt to rewrite history and maybe get a do-over.

The only blemish on this forum at present is you and your trolling. You still have not contributed anything of value to any discussion.


.


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
04-01-2016 02:01
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Ceist wrote:
So which is it Tai Hai? 260 C or 121 C. That's a huge difference. You also didn't get the hint that the earth rotates on it's axis every 24 hrs (the moon every 27.3 days)- a small piece of metal in space does not. There is also the issue of the size and composition of the earth compared to a small piece of metal.

You've been posting rubbish that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, now you are saying that it does, yet then you 'disagree with NASA' but then show you don't even know how greenhouse gases work.

Seriously, you look like a complete idiot making all these all-over-the-place assertions and pretending to be an 'expert' when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The Dunning Kruger effect is strong in you.

All you are doing is making this forum even more of farce than it already became after IB trolled it to death.


The ISS is white colored. It reflects light a lot. So it only goes to 121 C. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth would be a dead planet like the Moon, more than 100 C at day and less than -100 C at night. This is experimentally proven.

NASA is not always right. NASA is a governmental organization. NASA is a mouthpiece of the American president.

This is a BS from NASA saying without the greenhouse effect Earth would be about 30 C cooler than now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzCA60WnoMk


There you go again, contradicting your own 'expert' assertions.

And there you go again not having a clue what you're posting from NASA.

Who are you trying to convince? There is no-one left on these forums since it got trolled to death by IBdaMann, except for the odd new person who quickly realises what a farce this forum is and leaves. You and IBdaMann plastering the place with endless nonsensical threads and laughable scientifically illiterate assertions will keep most rational people away.

I just stopped by again for a laugh. So thanks for the entertainment.



Edited on 04-01-2016 02:59
04-01-2016 02:03
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Ceist wrote:
So which is it Tai Hai? 260 C or 121 C. That's a huge difference. You also didn't get the hint that the earth rotates on it's axis every 24 hrs (the moon every 27.3 days)- a small piece of metal in space does not. There is also the issue of the size and composition of the earth compared to a small piece of metal.

You've been posting rubbish that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, now you are saying that it does, yet then you 'disagree with NASA' but then show you don't even know how greenhouse gases work.

Seriously, you look like a complete idiot making all these all-over-the-place assertions and pretending to be an 'expert' when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The Dunning Kruger effect is strong in you.

All you are doing is making this forum even more of farce than it already became after IB trolled it to death.


The ISS is white colored. It reflects light a lot. So it only goes to 121 C. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth would be a dead planet like the Moon, more than 100 C at day and less than -100 C at night. This is experimentally proven.

NASA is not always right. NASA is a governmental organization. NASA is a mouthpiece of the American president.

This is a BS from NASA saying without the greenhouse effect Earth would be about 30 C cooler than now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzCA60WnoMk


There you go again, contradicting your own 'expert' assertions.

And there you go again not having a clue what you're posting from NASA.

Who are you trying to convince? There is no-one left on these forums since it got trolled to death except for the odd new person who quickly realises what a farce this forum is and leaves. You plastering the place with endless nonsensical posts will keep any rational people away.

I just stopped by again for a laugh. So thanks for the entertainment.


There is no CAGW. You alarmists scare no one. Obama is going to be fired by Trump, and that will be that. The future will be bright.
Edited on 04-01-2016 02:03
04-01-2016 02:10
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:There is no CAGW. You alarmists scare no one. Obama is going to be fired by Trump, and that will be that. The future will be bright.


Yes that's all the world needs. Trump as President of the US. Perhaps you can apply for a position as his science advisor.



Edited on 04-01-2016 02:42
04-01-2016 04:17
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:There is no CAGW. You alarmists scare no one. Obama is going to be fired by Trump, and that will be that. The future will be bright.


Yes that's all the world needs. Trump as President of the US. Perhaps you can apply for a position as his science advisor.


I'm not an American
This man is far more qualified for that position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
04-01-2016 09:32
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:There is no CAGW. You alarmists scare no one. Obama is going to be fired by Trump, and that will be that. The future will be bright.


Yes that's all the world needs. Trump as President of the US. Perhaps you can apply for a position as his science advisor.


I'm not an American
This man is far more qualified for that position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs


If anyone pays Happer enough, he'll say whatever they want him to say:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tULDE_gYmuc

If you want someone who reflects your personal science views as Trump's science advisor, I would suggest someone like Sarah Palin, or Bozo the Clown (not sure if I can tell the difference)



Edited on 04-01-2016 10:03
04-01-2016 14:30
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Ceist wrote:If anyone pays Happer enough, he'll say whatever they want him to say:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tULDE_gYmuc

If you want someone who reflects your personal science views as Trump's science advisor, I would suggest someone like Sarah Palin, or Bozo the Clown (not sure if I can tell the difference)


Happer has not being paid a dime by the Big Oil industry. He said so himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tULDE_gYmuc

Innocence unless proven guilty. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere. Indeed, land and ocean biomass have already increased 25% since pre industrial times.
CAGW alarmists will never get the catastrophes they scare people with. CAGW alarmists might try to deprive Earth of this God given gift known as CO2 but they will fail. Human WILL burn more fossil fuels and there's nothing they can do about it. CAGW alarmists, including the Catholic Pope, are trying to go up against God, so they will fail and they will lose, BIG.

Edited on 04-01-2016 14:34
04-01-2016 15:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?


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
04-01-2016 18:37
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?


You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.
04-01-2016 20:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?


You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.


There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.


The Parrot Killer
04-01-2016 20:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?


You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.


No. It doesn't work that way. You need to get away from the bogus mental imagery you have been sold.

Why won't you review this thread and save yourself a lot of time?
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/just-how-many-greenhouse-effects-are-there-d6-e811.php


.


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
04-01-2016 22:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?


You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.


There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Tai Hai Chen is right about one thing at least - the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature. Look at this spectrum of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth as measured from above the atmosphere by satellite instruments. Note the deviations from a pure blackbody spectrum in the form of large dips corresponding to the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases.

04-01-2016 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?


You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.


There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Tai Hai Chen is right about one thing at least - the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature. Look at this spectrum of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth as measured from above the atmosphere by satellite instruments. Note the deviations from a pure blackbody spectrum in the form of large dips corresponding to the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases.



Back to the old notches thing again eh?

As previously described, notches mean nothing. All it means is that CO2 absorbed some of the outgoing radiation and distributed heat to surrounding molecules.

The heat loss rate is still the same.


The Parrot Killer
04-01-2016 23:09
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?


You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.


There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Tai Hai Chen is right about one thing at least - the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature. Look at this spectrum of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth as measured from above the atmosphere by satellite instruments. Note the deviations from a pure blackbody spectrum in the form of large dips corresponding to the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases.



Back to the old notches thing again eh?

As previously described, notches mean nothing. All it means is that CO2 absorbed some of the outgoing radiation and distributed heat to surrounding molecules.

The heat loss rate is still the same.


CO2 acts like a mirror. Since CO2 is above the ground, some of the IR from the ground get reflected back towards the ground.
04-01-2016 23:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?


You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.


There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Tai Hai Chen is right about one thing at least - the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature. Look at this spectrum of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth as measured from above the atmosphere by satellite instruments. Note the deviations from a pure blackbody spectrum in the form of large dips corresponding to the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases.



Back to the old notches thing again eh?

As previously described, notches mean nothing. All it means is that CO2 absorbed some of the outgoing radiation and distributed heat to surrounding molecules.

The heat loss rate is still the same.

How can the (rather substantial) "notches" mean nothing? Energy that is not emitted from one part of the spectrum must be emitted elsewhere in order to maintain energy balance. The blackbody temperature must therefore increase in order to compensate for the energy absorbed in the "notches". This is the greenhouse effect in action.
05-01-2016 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Back to the old notches thing again eh?

As previously described, notches mean nothing. All it means is that CO2 absorbed some of the outgoing radiation and distributed heat to surrounding molecules.

The heat loss rate is still the same.


CO2 acts like a mirror. Since CO2 is above the ground, some of the IR from the ground get reflected back towards the ground.


Nope. It simply distributes any energy absorbed to surrounding molecules. It is the same temperature as everything else. It therefore emits the same as everything else. This is Planck's law.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2016 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is wholly beneficial. It causes Earth to warm and become more hospitable and it is very good for plants and by extension the entire biosphere.

So you're saying that CO2 violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?


You can think of it as a mirror that reflects some of the IR light back to the ground.


There is no magick mirror. CO2 is like any other gas. Anything emitted is the same as any other gas because it's the same temperature.

You are attempting to describe an energy trap. Such traps are effectively perpetual motion machines of the 1st order. If such a trap existed, it would destroy itself catastrophically, taking the Earth with it.

Tai Hai Chen is right about one thing at least - the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature. Look at this spectrum of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth as measured from above the atmosphere by satellite instruments. Note the deviations from a pure blackbody spectrum in the form of large dips corresponding to the absorption bands of various greenhouse gases.



Back to the old notches thing again eh?

As previously described, notches mean nothing. All it means is that CO2 absorbed some of the outgoing radiation and distributed heat to surrounding molecules.

The heat loss rate is still the same.

How can the (rather substantial) "notches" mean nothing? Energy that is not emitted from one part of the spectrum must be emitted elsewhere in order to maintain energy balance. The blackbody temperature must therefore increase in order to compensate for the energy absorbed in the "notches". This is the greenhouse effect in action.


No greenhouse effect. All this is relative. The energy not emitted in one part of the spectrum is indeed emitted somewhere else, depending on the temperature only, not on the substance at all.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2016 00:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
05-01-2016 03:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
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.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2016 06:33
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
Do we all agree that, without the atmosphere, if you stand on the surface of Earth and hold something out under the sunlight, that thing will, within a short time, say within minutes, heat to well over 100 C?
05-01-2016 10:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
05-01-2016 13:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
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.


It does show up in the emission spectrum, just not at the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide. The atmosphere is a uniform temperature for any practical purpose around that molecule, including the molecule itself. The emission produced by the atmosphere is uniform and dependent only on the temperature of the atmosphere as a whole. If the CO2 is in the troposphere, heat is lost primarily by conduction and convection rather than emission. Emission takes place both day and night.

Like water and the other gases of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide only moderates temperature extremes from day to night. It doesn't raise the mean temperature at all.

If you build any kind of energy trap, then any amount of additional energy must necessarily add to that trap. Over time the trap will destroy itself. By claiming that CO2 or any other gas is causing warming is just such a trap.

Such a trap is not possible. It would be creating energy out of nothing, since it would be storing energy indefinitely. This is effectively a perpetual motion machine, powering emissions from the planet yet storing energy indefinitely. Any amount of energy added to the trap will result in a feed forward loop that causes hotter and hotter temperatures over time until the trap is destroyed catastrophically. The Earth would be utterly destroyed.

Since CO2 has been in the atmosphere at higher concentrations than now in the past, this should already have happened if it were possible.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





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
Earth surface temperature measurements9325-09-2019 19:46
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law64813-09-2019 05:55
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
▲ 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