The world goes Green

[Zoe Phin 0]

"No, you showed data that proves that there is less longwave radiation leaving the Earth these days.  You have proven the basics of AGW."

WTF? There is no warmup and hence more radiation from the surface, hence I debunked AGW.

"I said conservation of ENERGY. ENERGY not heat flow."

What you say now and what you described before is not the same thing.

"A reduction in braking does indeed increase acceleration in the example."

You're tapping into energy you didn't have before. You can't look at the gas tank, that's like asking for more sun. All you're given is the gas you used to accelerate.

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, Zoe Phin said:

 But if a planet had GHGs, then THAT must be why it's hot. Gimme a break.

Wait a minute.  You don't believe in the greenhouse effect AT ALL?  If the Earth didn't have any greenhouse gases, the entire planet would average around 0F and be covered with ice.  You owe your life to the role that water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane have in regulating the Earth's temperature.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

 

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

Don't run away from the basic question. Why is the patty currently 140F?

a) Stove

b) Heat lamp

c) Heat lamp + GHGs

[billvon 2,400]

3 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

"No, you showed data that proves that there is less longwave radiation leaving the Earth these days.  You have proven the basics of AGW."

WTF? There is no warmup and hence more radiation from the surface, hence I debunked AGW.

There is warmup.  We have instrumental records that show the Earth is warming.  Hopefully you are not denying the actual instrumental temperature record.

If there were no greenhouse effect, longwave radiation would be increasing too, due to increase in blackbody radiation.  Instead it is decreasing - because greenhouse gases are blocking those wavelengths.

Quote

You're tapping into energy you didn't have before. You can't look at the gas tank, that's like asking for more sun. All you're given is the gas you used to accelerate.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

[Zoe Phin 0]

"You don't believe in the greenhouse effect AT ALL? "

No. I believe in solar and geothermal. Do you read what I write.

"If the Earth didn't have any greenhouse gases, the entire planet would average around 0F and be covered with ice."

Based on an erroneous equation that means nothing. 

Read my material!

[tonyhays 86]

1 minute ago, Zoe Phin said:

"You don't believe in the greenhouse effect AT ALL? "

No. I believe in solar and geothermal. Do you read what I write.

"If the Earth didn't have any greenhouse gases, the entire planet would average around 0F and be covered with ice."

Based on an erroneous equation that means nothing. 

Read my material!

Hello Rhys

[billvon 2,400]

14 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

"You don't believe in the greenhouse effect AT ALL? "

No. 

OK so you don't "believe in" the greenhouse effect at all.  That's like arguing with someone about inverter efficiency who doesn't believe that electrons exist.

I would suggest that your classes in economics and your experiences cooking burgers are insufficient to understand radiative energy transfer and basic thermodynamics.  I would recommend some classes in those areas if you want to understand it.

 

[Zoe Phin 0]

Billvon,

"There is warmup."

Not due to GHGs.

 

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_up 397.445

all_sfc_lw_up 398.167

pristine_sfc_lw_up 397.387

allnoaero_sfc_lw_up 398.129

 

Look how clouds block outgoing longwave radiation! Tis true, and yet makes no difference at the surface.

Where's the 25 W/m^2 that clouds "blocked" showing up at the surface?

[billvon 2,400]

3 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Billvon,

"There is warmup."

Not due to GHGs.

Here's a good overview of how they work:

https://www.livescience.com/37821-greenhouse-gases.html#:~:text=A greenhouse gas is any,ultimately leads to global warming.

Again, if the planet was warming (which you admit) long wave radiation would go UP.  It is in fact going DOWN.  That's the proof that it is an atmospheric effect that's trapping more radiation.

[Zoe Phin 0]

Billvon,

I just showed you that clouds reduce outgoing longwave radiation and this causes nonsurface warming.

But you still believe GHGs reduce OLR and this causes warming. Amazing.

"long wave radiation would go UP.  It is in fact going DOWN.  That's the proof that it is an atmospheric effect that's trapping more radiation."

What planet are you on?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327874661_Decadal_Changes_of_Earth's_Outgoing_Longwave_Radiation

"The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature. "

[mistercwood 287]

If this isn't a sock-puppet/troll, then it's just a painfully transparent attempt at boosting SEO by posting links to their own site in new locations and having people engage with it.

And hoo boy is it working...

[Zoe Phin 0]

* no surface warming.

olof, how's the answer coming?

[mistercwood 287]

[wmw999 2,123]

The real meta-question is: did Brent tell her she had fresh fodder here, or does she have bots scouring the web for mentions so she can boost her reputation?

Wendy P. 

[Zoe Phin 0]

"Which case will end up with a hotter patty?"

Temperature is an intensive property. 1C + 3C will never give you more than 3C.

"If you block 100% of the radiation going to space via an actively cooled collector (so that its surface temperature is 3K, same as deep space) the temperature won't change one bit compared to radiating to free space.  The radiator doesn't care."

Space is not a heat sink. It also has no temperature.

Remember your basic chemistry?

Q = mc dT

total Q = mcT

You can use it to find final temperature of one solution mixed into another.

But what happens in space, where m = 0 and c = infinity?

"In the real world, the absorber warms up from all that radiation, and it re-radiates it back to the surface.  Then the NEW radiation INCREASES the radiation incoming.  More radiation = more warming."

No, in the real world there is only ONE radiative heat transfer equation:

Q = esT_hot^4 - esT_cold^4

As hot warms cold, Q is reduced. There is no energy flow from cold to hot at all.

Again, since clouds blocked 25 W/m^2 from leaving where did the energy go?

It didn't show up at the surface. Where is it?

Sorry, NEW radiation doesn't cut it.

[olofscience 422]

1 hour ago, mistercwood said:

If this isn't a sock-puppet/troll, then it's just a painfully transparent attempt at boosting SEO by posting links to their own site in new locations and having people engage with it.

And hoo boy is it working...

Good thing I run very strong adblockers, but yes it's a waste of time engaging. @billvon there's really no reason to continue with this crackpot.

[Zoe Phin 0]

Hi Wendy,

Marxists also claim I don't understand economics.

The greenhouse effect is in many ways like the labor theory of value. Stupid. No evidence. But it gives the pretense to have something to complain about.

[olofscience 422]

38 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

The real meta-question is: did Brent tell her she had fresh fodder here, or does she have bots scouring the web for mentions so she can boost her reputation?

Wendy P. 

Well she's now asking about patty cooking advice, but I really do have better things to do than teach people who have slept through science class.

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof,

I love being called a crackpot by geothermal deniers. The irony is too rich.

How'd you get so confident with zero evidence?

Remember, post-hoc fallacy and affirming-the-consequent fallacy is not evidence.

[olofscience 422]

5 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

How'd you get so confident with zero evidence?

Maybe it's how I just shut you up about your idiotic claim that Neptune and Uranus have hardly any greenhouse gases? Evidence enough for me.

6 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

I love being called a crackpot by geothermal deniers.

Glad you're used to it.

[Zoe Phin 0]

olof, 

Since you didn't sleep through science class, you should have no problem answering:

Skydiver Wendy jumped out of a plane. Her body is 37C. The Earth's surface is 15C. Emissivity is close to 1, so let's say it's one.

The Earth is blocking Wendy's radiation from reaching the space behind Earth. How much should she warm up?

Clearly, her final temperature must be above 37C using standard greenhouse pseudophysics. In fact it should be at least 49C.

Wendy, have you observed your skin at 49C when you're falling?

Don't even get me started on airplane engine temperatures!

olof,

2.3% methane for Uranus, is too small to explain base tropospheric temperatures and pressure. So no self-respecting scientist claims a GH effect on Uranus.

[olofscience 422]

2 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Since you didn't sleep through science class, you should have no problem answering:

I can, but you're mistaking me for someone who cares.

To be fair, I also mistook you for someone who actually knew how to calculate things.

[Zoe Phin 0]

"Good thing I run very strong adblockers"

Never gonna find ads on my site.

Do google "average moon temperature". I'm ahead of NASA's site on this one. I come up 2nd, AFAI can tell here.

NASA will tell you a theoretical blackbody temperature that corresponds NIL with reality. 

And you're telling me I can't calculate? lol, ok.

[olofscience 422]

3 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Do google "average moon temperature". I'm ahead of NASA's site on this one. I come up 2nd, AFAI can tell here.

Wow, you're insecure. Don't dislocate your shoulder trying to pat yourself on the back alright?

[olofscience 422]

21 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

2.3% methane for Uranus, is too small to explain base tropospheric temperatures and pressure. So no self-respecting scientist claims a GH effect on Uranus.

2.3% is actually a lot - earth has 0.04% CO2, and since methane has stronger IR absorption bands it's the equivalent of around 5000 times the greenhouse effect. But you said "hardly any", and that 2.3% weighs almost as much as the earth, and enough to colour the entire planet blue/green.

And by the way, you're also wrong about what self-respecting scientists claim, but that's so far over your head I'll leave it.

You sure you want to keep getting owned?