Climate Change experiments

[Droid12345]

I'm not changing the subject. It's related because it shows that if C02 cools then the gh effect as stated is false and my proposed method of calculating the atmospheric heat the Sun gives us is more likely to be correct.

Even if it were correct that the greenhouse effect is not real, that doesn't tell us anything about the sun. You don't get to change the way sunlight interacts with planets just because of a changed understanding of how that planet's atmosphere works. You would need a different explanation for the observed temperature being higher than solar energy, that's all.

So, until we can agree on the sun (which clearly isn't going to happen), talking specifically about the greenhouse effect is useless. That said, I've grown exhausted of this conversation, now across three different threads, that I'm done with it. You're so desperate to prove that climate change isn't real that you're ignoring basic things, like the fact that nighttime exists, which necessarily lowers your location's average temperature, and the fact that the Earth is a sphere, rather than a hemisphere.

Have a good one.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Even if it were correct that the greenhouse effect is not real, that doesn't tell us anything about the sun. You don't get to change the way sunlight interacts with planets just because of a changed understanding of how that planet's atmosphere works. You would need a different explanation for the observed temperature being higher than solar energy, that's all.

The temperature isn't higher than the solar energy. That's what you aren't getting. As I stated before, solar energy input is at 950 or 88 C. Diluting the sunlight over the entire surface brings it down to -18 C. A difference of 106 C. How can solar energy of -18 C create water vapor and cumulonimbus clouds? Answer is, it can't, but the real world input of 88 C absolutely can. If you can't see the folly in that, then you're lost.

So, until we can agree on the sun (which clearly isn't going to happen), talking specifically about the greenhouse effect is useless. That said, I've grown exhausted of this conversation, now across three different threads, that I'm done with it. You're so desperate to prove that climate change isn't real that you're ignoring basic things, like the fact that nighttime exists, which necessarily lowers your location's average temperature, and the fact that the Earth is a sphere, rather than a hemisphere.

Have a good one.

I'm not ignoring nighttime. You just can't see the fact that I'm not because you're stuck on a method that is faulty. I admit that I don't have a great answer for nighttime, but that doesn't automatically mean that the methodology I'm putting forth isn't correct.

-18 C solar input cannot create the climate. Solar energy cannot recycle and have several goes at heating the planet (violates thermodynamics). Until you can come to the realization here, you're going to believe in fairy tales.

 

[mdthornb]

The temperature isn't higher than the solar energy. That's what you aren't getting. As I stated before, solar energy input is at 950 or 88 C. Diluting the sunlight over the entire surface brings it down to -18 C. A difference of 106 C. How can solar energy of -18 C create water vapor and cumulonimbus clouds? Answer is, it can't, but the real world input of 88 C absolutely can. If you can't see the folly in that, then you're lost.

I'm not ignoring nighttime. You just can't see the fact that I'm not because you're stuck on a method that is faulty. I admit that I don't have a great answer for nighttime, but that doesn't automatically mean that the methodology I'm putting forth isn't correct.

-18 C solar input cannot create the climate. Solar energy cannot recycle and have several goes at heating the planet (violates thermodynamics). Until you can come to the realization here, you're going to believe in fairy tales.

What do you mean by the temperature of the radiation. Radiation comes from objects with temperature and can heat objects but does not have temperature itself…at least not in the traditional meaning of temperature

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

What do you mean by the temperature of the radiation. Radiation comes from objects with temperature and can heat objects but does not have temperature itself…at least not in the traditional meaning of temperature

I think he's slightly misusing stefan boltzmann. I would also like to see this math.

 

[Boilermaker03]

What do you mean by the temperature of the radiation. Radiation comes from objects with temperature and can heat objects but does not have temperature itself…at least not in the traditional meaning of temperature

Where in my quoted statement did I say temperature of radiation?

 

[Boilermaker03]

I think he's slightly misusing stefan boltzmann. I would also like to see this math.

I didn't say temperature of the radiation so I'm not sure what he's referring to. I am happy to show you any math you would like to see.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I didn't say temperature of the radiation so I'm not sure what he's referring to. I am happy to show you any math you would like to see.

Show me your equation converting solar irradiance to surface temperature.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Show me your equation converting solar irradiance to surface temperature.

T = fourth root ((K x (1 - albedo)) / (4 * 5.6704 ^-8))

Not sure how to type the fourth root part but I think you should get it.

T is temperature in Kelvin
K is the solar constant

By multiplying the Stefan Boltzmann constant by 4, it's dividing solar energy to the entire planet, so to find direct solar input, you remove that multiplier.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

T = fourth root ((K x (1 - albedo)) / (4 * 5.6704 ^-8))

Not sure how to type the fourth root part but I think you should get it.

T is temperature in Kelvin
K is the solar constant

By multiplying the Stefan Boltzmann constant by 4, it's dividing solar energy to the entire planet, so to find direct solar input, you remove that multiplier.

lol. damn I'm good. So you need to research this equation and it's terms and assumptions.

 

[Boilermaker03]

lol. damn I'm good. So you need to research this equation and it's terms and assumptions.

Damn you're good? Care to elaborate? I'm familiar with the equation and it's assumptions. I gave a short explanation above. Care to explain what you believe I have wrong?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Damn you're good? Care to elaborate? I'm familiar with the equation and it's assumptions. I gave a short explanation above. Care to explain what you believe I have wrong?

Do you even know what you just attempted to calculate? I do, but I'm guessing you don't. Let's go back to basic black body theory so we can make sure we agree on the basics. What does stefan boltzmann say the average temperature of earth should be for idealized black body physics and no atmosphere? Show your work. It's in wikipedia if you get stuck.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Do you even know what you just attempted to calculate? I do, but I'm guessing you don't. Let's go back to basic black body theory so we can make sure we agree on the basics. What does stefan boltzmann say the average temperature of earth should be for idealized black body physics and no atmosphere? Show your work. It's in wikipedia if you get stuck.

No no, since you seem to know something I don't, please explain.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

No no, since you seem to know something I don't, please explain.

You attempted to calculate the "subsolar point" of the earth. The literal maximum possible temperature by solar flux. Now, go back and do the theoretical black body temperature.

 

[Boilermaker03]

You attempted to calculate the "subsolar point" of the earth. The literal maximum possible temperature by solar flux. Now, go back and do the theoretical black body temperature.

Yes, that's what I intended to do... The zenith of solar input happens in reality. Sunlight income lowers as the angle from the Sun increases. That's why it's very cold at the poles.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Yes, that's what I intended to do... The zenith of solar input happens in reality. Sunlight income lowers as the angle from the Sun increases. That's why it's very cold at the poles.

Ok, we can compute that value as we refine our model since it interests you. So let's go back to black body assumptions. What does stefan boltzmann predict for black body earth effective temperature given a 5780K sun?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Ok, we can compute that value as we refine our model since it interests you. So let's go back to black body assumptions. What does stefan boltzmann predict for black body earth effective temperature given a 5780K sun?

Sorry want to make sure I don't miss read your question. You're saying the Sun is 5780 K or the solar input is 5780 w/m^2? I'm assuming you meant the latter so it would be 400 K

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

One sec. Sorry miss read your question. You're saying the Sun is 5780 K or the solar input is 5780 w/m^2? I'm assuming you meant the latter so it would be 400 K

The sun is roughly 5780K. Are you disputing this?

 

[Boilermaker03]

The sun is roughly 5780K. Are you disputing this?

No, but I haven't looked into that a lot. Generally I use the values given to us for top of atmosphere irradiance.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

No, but I haven't looked into that a lot. Generally I use the values given to us for top of atmosphere irradiance.

Well the law you are using says the amount of radiation emitted by an object depends on it temperature. So it's fine to use flux. Is 1360 w/m^2 ok?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Well the law you are using says the amount of radiation emitted by an object depends on it temperature. So it's fine to use flux. Is 1360 w/m^2 ok?

Yes, but distance will matter as well. Also, the site I got the formula from does not necessarily talk about the temperature of the Sun.

Calculating Planetary Energy Balance & Temperature | UCAR Center for Science Education

Use conservation of energy and the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate the theoretical temperature of a planet.

scied.ucar.edu

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Yes, but distance will matter as well. Also, the site I got the formula from does not necessarily talk about the temperature of the Sun.

Calculating Planetary Energy Balance & Temperature | UCAR Center for Science Education

Use conservation of energy and the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate the theoretical temperature of a planet.

scied.ucar.edu

We aren't running a live time model here. Just an idealized calculation. So we need to agree on a solar constant. Your link is using 1361. You ok with that?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Here's how the math works between temperature and flux. R=1AU=150x10^9m and sigma=5.67x10^-8w/m^2*K and T is sun surface temp in Kelvin.
Solar constant = sigma*T^4(RADIUSsun/R)^2
I tried to get that right. Hard on these forums.

 

[Boilermaker03]

We aren't running a live time model here. Just an idealized calculation. So we need to agree on a solar constant. Your link is using 1361. You ok with that?

Yes, that's fine with me.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Yes, that's fine with me.

Ok, now we need to find the average energy deposited on our ideal Earth sphere. So we need to decide on Earth's surface area which we know from geometry is 4*pi*r^2. We can recall from your youtube friend that at any given moment, his diagram represents the average hitting the earth. For the half of the sphere being irradiated, the average would be 1361/2 = 681 due to the spherical shape and for the other half of the Earth it would be 0 as it is in darkness. Thus the global average comes out to about 340. At this point we haven't considered the atmosphere yet. You good so far?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Ok, now we need to find the average energy deposited on our ideal Earth sphere. So we need to decide on Earth's surface area which we know from geometry is 4*pi*r^2. We can recall from your youtube friend that at any given moment, his diagram represents the average hitting the earth. For the half of the sphere being irradiated, the average would be 1361/2 = 681 due to the spherical shape and for the other half of the Earth it would be 0 as it is in darkness. Thus the global average comes out to about 340. At this point we haven't considered the atmosphere yet. You good so far?

Nope. You just halved the sunlight so the entire surface is being hit.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Nope. You just halved the sunlight so the entire surface is being hit.

I didn't make the entire surface get hit. I took a global average of the energy deposited. Half the planet gets zero. Half the planet gets irradiated. That is undeniable fact. Even your youtube friend agrees. Your subsolar point is still 1361.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I didn't make the entire surface get hit. I took a global average of the energy deposited. Half the planet gets zero. Half the planet gets irradiated. That is undeniable fact. Even your youtube friend agrees. Your subsolar point is still 1361.

As soon as you divided 681 in half, you just irradiated the entire surface of the Earth. My YouTube friend as you call him does not agree with your quoted statement here. Yes he agrees half gets 681 and the other 0 but he is adamantly against averaging that out to the entire surface.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I didn't make the entire surface get hit. I took a global average of the energy deposited. Half the planet gets zero. Half the planet gets irradiated. That is undeniable fact. Even your youtube friend agrees. Your subsolar point is still 1361.

If you take the 681 that is irradiating half of the Earth, as it empirically does, and take away albedo you get an average heat input of 28 C or 82 F. If you take the 681 and divide it by 2 again as you wanted to to get 340, then take away albedo you get -19 C or -2 F. You go from the Sun being able to create a beautiful 80 F day to can't even melt ice.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

If you take the 681 that is irradiating half of the Earth, as it empirically does, and take away albedo you get an average heat input of 28 C or 82 F. If you take the 681 and divide it by 2 again as you wanted to to get 340, then take away albedo you get -19 C or -2 F. You go from the Sun being able to create a beautiful 80 F day to can't even melt ice.

You're a lost cause. You completely ignore night. And you are misusing the subsolar point calculation to make an absurd claim that is not REMOTELY close to reality.

 

[Boilermaker03]

You're a lost cause. You completely ignore night. And you are misusing the subsolar point calculation to make an absurd claim that is not REMOTELY close to reality.

No I don't. I just don't have a function for night yet. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the night. The night as it empirically is.

My claim is much closer to reality than the current climate science because my method is empirical and theirs isn't.

I don't understand how you can see the power of solar energy as it hits a hemisphere empirically and then see how weak it becomes when you average it over the entire surface to then go on and to think that it's a good calculation. It's absurd. I know you think it's right because that's what is taught, but it's not.

 

[Droid12345]

You're a lost cause. You completely ignore night. And you are misusing the subsolar point calculation to make an absurd claim that is not REMOTELY close to reality.

Admirable effort.

 

[pcboiler]

Yes, but distance will matter as well. Also, the site I got the formula from does not necessarily talk about the temperature of the Sun.

Calculating Planetary Energy Balance & Temperature | UCAR Center for Science Education

Use conservation of energy and the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate the theoretical temperature of a planet.

scied.ucar.edu

That site says without an atmosphere, the avg global temperature of Earth would be -3 F. It attributes the difference between that and actual temps to the greenhouse effect. If you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, what's the reason for actual temps to be so different?

 

[Boilermaker03]

That site says without an atmosphere, the avg global temperature of Earth would be -3 F. It attributes the difference between that and actual temps to the greenhouse effect. If you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, what's the reason for actual temps to be so different?

I don't believe in calculating the solar energy of the Sun by dividing it over the entire surface of the Earth. That's literally the difference between a greenhouse effect and not. Empirically the Sun does not shine on the entire Earth at once, so why do we calculate it that way?

 

[pcboiler]

I don't believe in calculating the solar energy of the Sun by dividing it over the entire surface of the Earth. That's literally the difference between a greenhouse effect and not. Empirically the Sun does not shine on the entire Earth at once, so why do we calculate it that way?

Which makes sense to me. No reason to include the side of the Earth not receiving sunlight when trying to calculate the amount of energy the Earth receives from the sun. In the link you shared, it doesn't sound like they did that.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Which makes sense to me. No reason to include the side of the Earth not receiving sunlight when trying to calculate the amount of energy the Earth receives from the sun. In the link you shared, it doesn't sound like they did that.

The link doesn't. The video I shared with the AMS does.

 

[pcboiler]

The link doesn't. The video I shared with the AMS does.

So then back to my original Q...

That site says without an atmosphere, the avg global temperature of Earth would be -3 F, which you agree with. It attributes the difference between that and actual temps to the greenhouse effect. If you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, what's the reason for actual temps to be so different?

 

[Boilermaker03]

So then back to my original Q...

That site says without an atmosphere, the avg global temperature of Earth would be -3 F, which you agree with. It attributes the difference between that and actual temps to the greenhouse effect. If you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, what's the reason for actual temps to be so different?

I don't know if I ever said I agree with the -3 F if we don't have an atmosphere. However, there are a few people that suggest that some of our climate warmth is from adiabatic auto compression. I just don't know how much.