The world goes Green

[Zoe Phin 0]

Billvon,

Your plants' temperature is set by the environment. If it's cold, they cool. If it's warm, they don't. This has nothing to do with plants radiating out to space. Put on a cold cover set to -5C, they will freeze. 

I don't know how you think less negative is positive.

Let's say your plants are constantly heated underneath to 5C. Without a cover, you may get a gradient from 5C to -5C on a cold night. With a cover, you'll get 5C to 4C. There no extra temperature due to the cover at the source. All you're doing is trapping warmed air from convecting up.

I just linked you to official data showing barely any increase in upwelling radiation from the presence of clouds. You can see different amount of radiation going to space and it makes no practical difference to surface upwelling radiation.

"So there are no clouds in Antarctica? "

There's an inversion. It gets hotter as you move up the atmosphere. That's where the clouds are.

"you could not use a room temperature laser"

The container may seem to be room-temperature, but the thermochemical process driving it is certainly not.

[yoink 321]

1 hour ago, Zoe Phin said:

I'm just a stupid stay-at-home mom with a degree from an Ivy League that manages over $100 million dollars, employs 23 people, and has taken 7 semesters of physics and astronomy courses (while earning her degrees). Why would I know anything about science?

I don't credit my success to the type of economics I learned in school. And if that was a lie, what else can be?

It's funny to watch climate alarmists believe they have a basis in science. They don't. They have zero experimental evidence and zero thermodynamical basis. All they have is post-hoc and affirming-the-consequent logical fallacies.

Do you have any questions?

A whole 7 semesters, huh?

 

Wow. Truly. Your expertise on science is unparalleled.

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

You think absorption of infrared radiation makes the source of that radiation warmer?

What experimental evidence do you have?

Why didn't Tyndall notice that?

[olofscience 420]

Just now, Zoe Phin said:

olof,

You think absorption of infrared radiation makes the source of that radiation warmer?

No, what?

What I mean is absorption of that infrared radiation makes the ABSORBER warmer. Not the source.

Did you really pass basic thermodynamics?

[Phil1111 910]

1 minute ago, yoink said:

A whole 7 semesters, huh?

 

Wow. Truly. Your expertise on science is unparalleled.

My thoughts, 1/2 a year and she knows more than the collection of EU, NASA, Chinese and Russian scientists that have all concluded global warming is real. Some of that astronomy.

[billvon 2,394]

11 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Billvon,

Your plants' temperature is set by the environment. If it's cold, they cool. If it's warm, they don't. This has nothing to do with plants radiating out to space. Put on a cold cover set to -5C, they will freeze. 

?? So you are saying hat if the air is 35F, and the ground is 40F, plants can never, ever see frost damage?  You would be incorrect there.  From UW-Madison:

"At night, a blade of grass loses energy by emitting radiation (a non-lethal kind) while it gains energy by absorbing the energy emitted from surrounding objects. Under clear nighttime skies, objects near the ground emit more radiation than they receive from the sky, and so a blade of grass cools as its energy losses are greater than its energy gains. If the temperature of a grass blade gets cold enough and there is sufficient water vapor in the environment, frost will form on the grass. . . .

You may notice that frost forms in an open field but not under a tree. Trees emit more radiation toward the ground than does the clear sky. Energy losses at the ground under the tree are therefore less than those of the grass in the open field. The grass in the open field cools faster and reaches the frost point before the grass blades under the tree."

From CNY Central:

"Now let's think about this. Frost is essentially ice that forms on objects. But how can there be frost on your lawn if you check your thermometer and see temperatures above freezing? Shouldn't it be liquid and not ice? . . . .Often times our coldest nights are just like last night. Clear skies, light winds, the lower levels of the atmosphere are dry and the air mass is chilly. Once the sun goes down, under these conditions, the temperature drops like a rock as any heat of the day escapes back out into space. The technical term for this is radiational cooling."

Quote

I don't know how you think less negative is positive.

?? Uh, you said you took math and science courses, right?  Changing temperature from -20C to -19C is a positive change in temperature, even though it is also "less negative."  You understand that, right?

And in terms of climate change, we have always been radiating energy away from the planet.  That has to equal the amount of energy we take in plus energy from radioactive decay in the core plus latent heat.  With more greenhouse gases, we radiate less.  Or, to put it another way, the average temperature of the planet has to be higher to radiate the same amount of blackbody radiation.

Quote

Let's say your plants are constantly heated underneath to 5C. Without a cover, you may get a gradient from 5C to -5C on a cold night. With a cover, you'll get 5C to 4C.

Where does the -5C come from?  In my example, the air is 2C.  How do you get to -5C?

Quote

There's an inversion. It gets hotter as you move up the atmosphere. That's where the clouds are.

So you are claiming that the only way clouds can form in Antarctica is when there's an inversion and the air is warmer than the ground?  Again, just to be clear.

[olofscience 420]

9 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

There's an inversion. It gets hotter as you move up the atmosphere. That's where the clouds are.

This is really funny you do know this is a skydiver's forum right?

We know about thermal inversions, and no they're not required for all clouds.

Not to mention that some of us are actual scientists and engineers. Who did quite a bit more than 7 semesters of science courses...

[Zoe Phin 0]

"What I mean is absorption of that infrared radiation makes the ABSORBER warmer. Not the source.

Did you really pass basic thermodynamics?"

That's not the greenhouse effect theory. That theory states the source warms ... by ~33 degrees C. No evidence for 170 years since Tyndall.

[billvon 2,394]

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

That's not the greenhouse effect theory. That theory states the source warms ... by ~33 degrees C. No evidence for 170 years since Tyndall.

No the source is not warming due to radiation - the ABSORBER is warming.  In this case the emitter is the CO2 in the atmosphere.  The absorber is the planet.  More CO2 = more energy absorbed by the CO2 = more emission by the CO2 = more energy absorbed by the planet.

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

That's not the greenhouse effect theory. That theory states the source warms ... by ~33 degrees C. No evidence for 170 years since Tyndall.

Oh, so the theory is what you say it is?

FYI, you got the theory wrong. Get it right first.

PS. Name-dropping Tyndall to impress doesn't really work, only actual arguments will - name-dropping is actually a sign you don't really have good arguments.

[Zoe Phin 0]

Billvon,

"Changing temperature from -20C to -19C is a positive change in temperature, even though it is also "less negative."  You understand that, right?"

That's cute. You know I was talking about the delta (change), not absolute. The change here is not less negative.

What you're suggesting is that, on a flat road, less breaking = more accelerating.

---

I see you're still taking cloudiness/clearness as a magical given, without concerning yourself with the cause. Bad science. I guess all those clouds in the tropics are there just because.

---

I provided you with a link that provided the relevant data. Let's go through it. Shall we?

clr_toa_lw_up 262.503
all_toa_lw_up 237.889
pristine_toa_lw_up 262.979
allnoaero_toa_lw_up 238.168

clr_sfc_lw_dn 317.924
all_sfc_lw_dn 347.329
pristine_sfc_lw_dn 316.207
allnoaero_sfc_lw_dn 346.359

clr_sfc_lw_up 397.445
all_sfc_lw_up 398.167
pristine_sfc_lw_up 397.387
allnoaero_sfc_lw_up 398.129

 

As you can see cloudy skies reduce outgoing longwave radiation. No disagreement there. And what about surface radiation? Barely any difference. I would argue 0, even though they show 0.722 (all minus clr) - because the can't capture cloudy and clear at the same place at the same time.

This 0.722 W/m^2 is still just 0.13 degrees C difference. Nothing, really.

Summary: outgoing longwave radiation to a satellite has no effect on surface radiation. The greenhouse effect hypothesis is incorrect.

 

[Zoe Phin 0]

Billvon,

"No the source is not warming due to radiation - the ABSORBER is warming.  In this case the emitter is the CO2 in the atmosphere.  The absorber is the planet.  More CO2 = more energy absorbed by the CO2 = more emission by the CO2 = more energy absorbed by the planet."

More energy is absorbed by the planet, which sent the longwave radiation to the CO2 to begin with?

If planet is absorbing more, then it's temperature should go up and it should emit more.

So when are you going to present a single experiment to prove it?

Tyndall should have seen the source of his radiation warm up as you claim. Never happened. Never will.

[olofscience 420]

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

I provided you with a link that provided the relevant data. Let's go through it. Shall we?

Why don't you provide the link here?

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

As you can see cloudy skies reduce outgoing longwave radiation. No disagreement there. And what about surface radiation? Barely any difference. I would argue 0, even though they show 0.722 (all minus clr) - because the can't capture cloudy and clear at the same place at the same time.

Is english your first language? This paragraph is so disjointed. Is surface radiation longwave radiation too? What wavelength in nanometers?

4 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

This 0.722 W/m^2 is still just 0.13 degrees C difference. Nothing, really.

Where's your working?

5 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Summary: outgoing longwave radiation to a satellite has no effect on surface radiation. The greenhouse effect hypothesis is incorrect.

Garbage in, garbage out - this is the garbage out.

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

I did provide a link, search this thread for "effect-of-clouds-on-global-upwelling-radiation"

Links get autoblocked till moderator intervenes.

"Is english your first language?"

3rd and best.

"Is surface radiation longwave radiation too?"

[Zoe Phin 0]

I recommend you guys read:

http://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/

[olofscience 420]

10 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Billvon,

"No the source is not warming due to radiation - the ABSORBER is warming.  In this case the emitter is the CO2 in the atmosphere.  The absorber is the planet.  More CO2 = more energy absorbed by the CO2 = more emission by the CO2 = more energy absorbed by the planet."

More energy is absorbed by the planet, which sent the longwave radiation to the CO2 to begin with?

If planet is absorbing more, then it's temperature should go up and it should emit more.

So when are you going to present a single experiment to prove it?

Tyndall should have seen the source of his radiation warm up as you claim. Never happened. Never will.

You don't seem to have the slightest clue about what greenhouse effect theory is.

Sun ===(short wavelengths)===> earth ==(gets converted to longer wavelengths)====> space

Now if you add CO2, a strong IR absorber, in the atmosphere, it lets the short wavelengths through, absorbs the longer wavelengths and keeps it in the atmosphere. (It re-emits in all directions, so overall the atmosphere gets warmer).

That didn't even take 5 sentences to explain...

[Zoe Phin 0]

Oh no more blocks? cool!

http://phzoe.com/2021/02/12/effect-of-clouds-on-global-upwelling-radiation/

 

The standard greenhouse effect narrative is that infrared absorbing gases prevent radiation from reaching space and this causes warming at the surface (thus more radiation). Well we clearly see that's not case. If clouds (water vapor + aerosols) hardly changes outgoing surface radiation, then the whole hypothesis is in error.

Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn't cause surface heating and thus more radiation from the surface.

mmmkay? It's very simple.

[olofscience 420]

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

I recommend you guys read:

http://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/

And I recommend you read up on basic thermodynamics.

[billvon 2,394]

21 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

What you're suggesting is that, on a flat road, less breaking = more accelerating.

That's absolutely true.  Put your foot on the gas pedal and brake pedal at the same time.  Measure the acceleration.  Now take your foot of the brake pedal.  Acceleration will increase.

Quote

I see you're still taking cloudiness/clearness as a magical given, without concerning yourself with the cause. Bad science. I guess all those clouds in the tropics are there just because.

Not at all.  Why do you think clouds are magic?  And why do you think that clouds cannot occur when it's cold?

Quote

As you can see cloudy skies reduce outgoing longwave radiation. No disagreement there.

Yes.  They reduce total outgoing longwave radiation from the planet as a whole - AT A GIVEN PLANETARY TEMPERATURE.  (Important caveat)

Now, energy in must equal energy out for steady state conditions.  Which means that when there's an imbalance (i.e. less longwave radiation is emitted) then the planet will start warming.  As it does, longwave radiation goes up again.  Once the two balance again, then the system stops changing and is in equilibrium again.  That's the basis of AGW.

[olofscience 420]

5 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

If clouds (water vapor + aerosols) hardly changes outgoing surface radiation, then the whole hypothesis is in error.

As usual, oversimplifying since you can't do basic thermodynamics.

You fail to classify between daytime and nighttime. You didn't understand the NASA data that you're trying so hard to impress with.

[Zoe Phin 0]

Olof,

First of all, the atmosphere is in physical contact with the surface. It can get warmed by conduction and convection. The surface will be as warm as solar and geothermal makes it, wirhout colder CO2 molcules above having any say.

Second, not all photons act as heat. Photons only act as heat when going from hot to cold. Photons will either warm a colder objects and die, or fail to warm a warmer object and die.

What you call "thermodynamics" is actually just mere rhetoric. Please get that through your head.

The cart pushes the horse. The cart pushes the horse. Keep repeating that ad naseum until you start to believe it. You will then be as wise as the politically funded scientists that are foolong you.

[olofscience 420]

3 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

First of all, the atmosphere is in physical contact with the surface. It can get warmed by conduction and convection. The surface will be as warm as solar and geothermal makes it, wirhout colder CO2 molcules above having any say.

If cold CO2 molecules are in physical contact with the surface of the earth, they can of course have a say. They'll absorb heat. Try holding a piece of dry ice in your hand - it's solid CO2, and I can assure you it will absorb heat from your hand. You don't seem to grasp the basics of heat transfer.

4 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Second, not all photons act as heat. Photons only act as heat when going from hot to cold. Photons will either warm a colder objects and die, or fail to warm a warmer object and die.

If photons "die" without creating heat, that's a violation of the law of conservation of energy.

And no, photons don't act that way, what a silly oversimplified explanation.

5 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

What you call "thermodynamics" is actually just mere rhetoric. Please get that through your head.

Well of course you'll say that, you don't understand it.

6 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

You will then be as wise as the politically funded scientists that are foolong you.

If someone was only interested in money, the easiest place to go would be the finance industry.

And please, spell and grammar check.

[Zoe Phin 0]

"Now, energy in must equal energy out for steady state conditions.  Which means that when there's an imbalance (i.e. less longwave radiation is emitted) then the planet will start warming.  As it does, longwave radiation goes up again.  Once the two balance again, then the system stops changing and is in equilibrium again.  That's the basis of AGW."

That's all just rhetoric. Zero evidence. Zero science. There's no such thing as conservation of heat flow. Look at the radiative heat equation for crying out loud. Heat flow is REDUCED as objects get closer to equilibrium. But you want to pretend it stays the same. And to do that you raise the source radiation. It's all mathemagic, but you don't see it that way.

I just showed data that debunks the rhetoric, and you ignore it.

"You fail to classify between daytime and nighttime."

That's a stupid distinction. I show cloudy versus clear. I show a change in TOA radiation having near zero effect on SFC radiation (and hence temperature).

"Put your foot on the gas pedal and brake pedal at the same time."

Cute, but you ran out of gas as you were driving 75 mph. You don't get to invoke more energy out of nowhere.

[Phil1111 910]

1 hour ago, Zoe Phin said:

"What I mean is absorption of that infrared radiation makes the ABSORBER warmer. Not the source.

Did you really pass basic thermodynamics?"

That's not the greenhouse effect theory. That theory states the source warms ... by ~33 degrees C. No evidence for 170 years since Tyndall.

This is a Russian or Chinese robo-troll testing software. It mixes theory with mish-mash scientific ideas. But they aren't connected in a logical fashion.

[olofscience 420]

8 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

You don't get to invoke more energy out of nowhere.

And yet your photon's energy goes nowhere:

21 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Photons will either warm a colder objects and die, or fail to warm a warmer object and die.

Nice how you choose when the law of conservation of energy applies, huh?

8 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

This is a Russian or Chinese robo-troll testing software. It mixes theory with mish-mash scientific ideas. But they aren't connected in a logical fashion.

Yeah, looks like it. Or just another conspiracy nutjob.