ADVERTISEMENT

For all of you tree hugging leftists.....

You're still assuming that the back radiation is possible. Again, according to the law of thermodynamics, you cannot have heat from a cooler source (the air) heating a warmer object (the surface).
All greenhouse gasses do is scatter radiation. Earth with no atmosphere means all the radiation emitted from the earth goes into space. Earth with some atmosphere means some of the radiation is scattered back to the earth. Earth with even more atmosphere (or greenhouse gasses) means more of the radiation is scattered back.

Do you not believe that gasses scatter radiation?
 
All greenhouse gasses do is scatter radiation. Earth with no atmosphere means all the radiation emitted from the earth goes into space. Earth with some atmosphere means some of the radiation is scattered back to the earth. Earth with even more atmosphere (or greenhouse gasses) means more of the radiation is scattered back.

Do you not believe that gasses scatter radiation?
Yes you are correct, but when that radiation scatters back to Earth, it CANNOT heat the Earth more. It's not physically possible. Radiation that leaves the Earth and comes back cannot physically heat even MORE. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

An object gives off heat, and that heat gets reflected back to the object. The object doesn't become hotter...
 
Agreed. The fact that the Earth has an atmosphere makes it warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere. You have just acknowledged an observed effect of the atmosphere on the surface that has been labeled the "greenhouse effect" by scientists.

Now that we can move on from that, next question. In what direction(s) does an object (a single object that is hotter than absolute zero) radiate heat? Again, a single sentence should suffice for your answer.
Wrong, I acknowledged that we have an atmosphere. Not that there is a greenhouse effect.

First of all, an object that radiates heat does so in all directions, that doesn't mean it can further heat an object of the same or higher temp.

Now that I answered that bear with me here.

Venus is super hot right? Supposedly because of a runaway greenhouse effect. But how that can be the case when only 20% of sunlight penetrates the atmosphere and less than 10% of sunlight even reaches the surface. Not only that, it takes 56 days for Venus to rotate. 56 days of no light and the surface only cools by ~20 degrees. On top of that, because of the high temps and massive atmospheric pressure, the lower 4 km of Venus is a super critical fluid. So how is there a greenhouse effect if there's no gas at the surface?

Now then there's Mars. Mars is actually cooler than what the solar irradiance would suggest. Mars has an albedo of 15%. That taken into account Mars surface temp should be -56 C. However it's actually -62 C. So it's COLDER than you'd expect from just a black body.

Why am I bringing these two planets up and comparing them? Both atmospheres are 96% C02. I've been led to believe that there is no greenhouse effect. That the greenhouse effect we think we are seeing are false positives for a completely different system at work. GHG's are known to have a cooling effect and have been proven so in experiment. I believe that GHG's actually cool more than anything. That would explain why our atmosphere isn't super hot like the Sun lit area of the Moon (I know it's WAY more complicated than that, but I'm trying to explain things in a simplistic manner). That would also explain why Mars is COLDER than it should be. C02 is actually cooling the atmosphere more than the Sun heats it.

I believe that there is a adiabatic autocompression method of heating the atmosphere with a thermal enhancement, while the GHG's cool through convection. That explains the thermal gradient, that explains why it's hotter down in a canyon than at the surface. That explains why Mars is colder than expected. Though the atmosphere is 96% C02, it's a very thin atmosphere and has a pressure of 0.095 that of Earths.

Venus has a VERY high atmospheric pressure. Roughly 95 times that of Earth. That would explain the super high temps even though there is almost NO sunlight that enters the atmosphere.

The fact of the matter is that ANY planet's temps can be calculated very accurately with a few simple parameters and almost none of those have anything to do with a greenhouse effect.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Boiler Buck
You're making the mistake of taking the average. Of course the average will be less. First of all the moon doesn't have an atmosphere. Second, the moon doesn't rotate so the dark side of the moon never sees sunlight, thus it's very cold. You're missing the point that I was making, and that point is that the Sun has MORE than enough energy given to us to account for any amount of warming, especially if the Earth's albedo goes down.
So, that heat spread over the entire surface of the moon results in a lower temperature than that of earth. If the earth didn't have an atmosphere or oceans it would be much hotter on the sunny side and colder on the dark side but a lower average temperature than it has now.

Your coat doesn't warm you by transferring heat to you, it just doesn't allow heat to escape as easily. Similar thing with the earth's atmosphere.
 
So, that heat spread over the entire surface of the moon results in a lower temperature than that of earth. If the earth didn't have an atmosphere or oceans it would be much hotter on the sunny side and colder on the dark side but a lower average temperature than it has now.

Your coat doesn't warm you by transferring heat to you, it just doesn't allow heat to escape as easily. Similar thing with the earth's atmosphere.
Actually, we don't know what the average temp would be with no atmosphere on the Earth because the Earth rotates. The moon doesn't and that's why the dark side is so cold.
 
Yes you are correct, but when that radiation scatters back to Earth, it CANNOT heat the Earth more. It's not physically possible. Radiation that leaves the Earth and comes back cannot physically heat even MORE. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

An object gives off heat, and that heat gets reflected back to the object. The object doesn't become hotter...
So, what happens to that radiation that is scattered to and absorbed by the earth? Energy just dissapears?
 
So, what happens to that radiation that is scattered to and absorbed by the earth? Energy just dissapears?
I don't know what answer you're looking for. I made it as simple as I could for you. Maybe you can answer it for me.

An object gives off heat. Some of that heat is reflected back to the object. Does the object become hotter than it was before?

I don't think the energy disappears. It just lingers longer.
 
Wrong, I acknowledged that we have an atmosphere. Not that there is a greenhouse effect.
I asked why is the Earth hotter than the moon and you responded "We have an atmosphere of a certain density."

With that answer, you acknowledged the atmosphere as the reason the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be. "Greenhouse effect" is just a name. Call it the "Boilermaker03 atmospheric radiative effect" if you want to, the name doesn't matter.
Venus is super hot right? Supposedly because of a runaway greenhouse effect. But how that can be the case when only 20% of sunlight penetrates the atmosphere and less than 10% of sunlight even reaches the surface. Not only that, it takes 56 days for Venus to rotate. 56 days of no light and the surface only cools by ~20 degrees.
This is LITERALLY evidence for the greenhouse effect. If you're correct that only 10% of sunlight makes it to Venus' surface and yet it's as hot as it is (ie, hotter than the sun can make it on it's own), there must necessarily be a mechanism that prevents that energy from escaping the system as quickly as it otherwise might, raising the overall temperature of the system.

Greenhouse gasses don't have to only exist at the surface. This super critical fluid at the surface must, necessarily, radiate heat into the atmosphere above it, where the CO2 is, right?
That taken into account Mars surface temp should be -56 C. However it's actually -62 C. So it's COLDER than you'd expect from just a black body.
Mars is -28 C. Try again.
Actually, we don't know what the average temp would be with no atmosphere on the Earth because the Earth rotates. The moon doesn't and that's why the dark side is so cold.
You claim to be this bastion of scientific understanding but you think the moon doesn't rotate?

picard-face-palm.gif


I'll leave this to @mdthornb, now, as he brings up a good point. You acknowledge that the atmosphere can radiate energy back towards the surface. Where does that radiation go?

Edit: Regarding the study you posted: I won't pretend to understand everything it says, I'm no expert, but I know you're not either (see above about the supposedly non-rotating moon), so you're just taking their word for it that they're right and that their study was conducted properly, etc. As usual, you've chosen a scientific outlier to try to prove your point. The fact that they are outliers, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong; but, the fact that you can find a few scientists who believe what you believe doesn't necessarily mean that they or you are right, either. For every study you post that supports your position, I could post 5 (or whatever, it's arbitrary) that refute it.

Aside from that, those scientists don't seem to be particularly reputable (publishing under pseudonyms and, in the case of Nikolov, listing his PhD incorrectly on his CV), and their work has been widely discredited.


But I guess that's just more evidence of the conspiracy perpetuated by the government so they can destroy the American economy in the name of climate change, because.....reasons.....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PurdueFan1
I don't know what answer you're looking for. I made it as simple as I could for you. Maybe you can answer it for me.

An object gives off heat. Some of that heat is reflected back to the object. Does the object become hotter than it was before?

I don't think the energy disappears. It just lingers longer.
A photon is emitted by the earth and the earth cools by the amount of energy that the photon is carrying. It is reflected back to and absorbed by the earth thus returning that same energy to the earth and heating it up by the amount it cooled it.

Alternative scenario is there is no atmosphere and all the photons emitted by the earth take energy with them and cool the earth. No photons are scattered back to earth to warm it. Thus with no atmosphere the earth will be colder.
 
I asked why is the Earth hotter than the moon and you responded "We have an atmosphere of a certain density."

With that answer, you acknowledged the atmosphere as the reason the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be. "Greenhouse effect" is just a name. Call it the "Boilermaker03 atmospheric radiative effect" if you want to, the name doesn't matter.

This is LITERALLY evidence for the greenhouse effect. If you're correct that only 10% of sunlight makes it to Venus' surface and yet it's as hot as it is (ie, hotter than the sun can make it on it's own), there must necessarily be a mechanism that prevents that energy from escaping the system as quickly as it otherwise might, raising the overall temperature of the system.

Greenhouse gasses don't have to only exist at the surface. This super critical fluid at the surface must, necessarily, radiate heat into the atmosphere above it, where the CO2 is, right?

Mars is -28 C. Try again.

You claim to be this bastion of scientific understanding but you think the moon doesn't rotate?

picard-face-palm.gif


I'll leave this to @mdthornb, now, as he brings up a good point. You acknowledge that the atmosphere can radiate energy back towards the surface. Where does that radiation go?

Don't know what else we can do. Seems like pretty basic stuff to me. I'm just gonna keep trying to use my Purdue Engineering degree to improve the world.
 
I asked why is the Earth hotter than the moon and you responded "We have an atmosphere of a certain density."

With that answer, you acknowledged the atmosphere as the reason the Earth is warmer than it otherwise would be. "Greenhouse effect" is just a name. Call it the "Boilermaker03 atmospheric radiative effect" if you want to, the name doesn't matter.

This is LITERALLY evidence for the greenhouse effect. If you're correct that only 10% of sunlight makes it to Venus' surface and yet it's as hot as it is (ie, hotter than the sun can make it on it's own), there must necessarily be a mechanism that prevents that energy from escaping the system as quickly as it otherwise might, raising the overall temperature of the system.

Greenhouse gasses don't have to only exist at the surface. This super critical fluid at the surface must, necessarily, radiate heat into the atmosphere above it, where the CO2 is, right?

Wrong. That isn't proof of a greenhouse effect. In fact, the greenhouse effect has never really been proven. There are other mechanisms that can cause heat. GHG's are more like insulators. They can prevent heat from exiting faster, but they do not cause temps to rise above the incoming energy. Venus OTOH is interesting because it's heat is generated more from the atmospheric pressure than from the Sun's input. It's gravity that is causing the heat. Not some mythical greenhouse effect.



You claim to be this bastion of scientific understanding but you think the moon doesn't rotate?
Yes I conflated two things. I conflated the idea that we here on Earth always see the same side of the Moon with the Moon not rotating. Still, the Moon rotates so slow that you couldn't infer that the temps on the Moon would be the same as the Earth.

I'll leave this to @mdthornb, now, as he brings up a good point. You acknowledge that the atmosphere can radiate energy back towards the surface. Where does that radiation go?

Edit: Regarding the study you posted: I won't pretend to understand everything it says, I'm no expert, but I know you're not either (see above about the supposedly non-rotating moon), so you're just taking their word for it that they're right and that their study was conducted properly, etc. As usual, you've chosen a scientific outlier to try to prove your point. The fact that they are outliers, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong; but, the fact that you can find a few scientists who believe what you believe doesn't necessarily mean that they or you are right, either. For every study you post that supports your position, I could post 5 (or whatever, it's arbitrary) that refute it.

Aside from that, those scientists don't seem to be particularly reputable (publishing under pseudonyms and, in the case of Nikolov, listing his PhD incorrectly on his CV), and their work has been widely discredited.

I'm pretty sure I answered mdthornb quite well. You cannot radiate the same heat back at an object and make it hotter. You can make that heat stick around longer (insulation) but it will eventually leave. You can ONLY get hotter with higher heat input. You cannot get hotter than 80 degrees if you're only pumping in 80 degrees.


But I guess that's just more evidence of the conspiracy perpetuated by the government so they can destroy the American economy in the name of climate change, because.....reasons.....
Sorry, I saw the link for desmog and I immediately ignored it. You don't have to character assassinate someone to prove them wrong. Typically character assassination is done because they are afraid of what they have to say. They are a threat.

As far as them submitting papers under pseudonyms. The funny thing is that their paper was published until it was revealed who had written the paper. After that was known, the paper was removed. You explain to me how a paper is good enough for publication until the author of it is known. If that's not direct proof of gatekeeping in the peer review process then I don't know what is.

Lastly, science advances 99.999% of the time from the fringe, not the mainstream. That has ALWAYS been the case.
 
Last edited:
A photon is emitted by the earth and the earth cools by the amount of energy that the photon is carrying. It is reflected back to and absorbed by the earth thus returning that same energy to the earth and heating it up by the amount it cooled it.

Alternative scenario is there is no atmosphere and all the photons emitted by the earth take energy with them and cool the earth. No photons are scattered back to earth to warm it. Thus with no atmosphere the earth will be colder.
Yes exactly. The energy that comes back sticks around longer. It does not heat it up more. That's the basis of climate science. They are claiming that the GHG's cause back radiation that is heating the Earth more than the incoming energy. That is impossible.
 
Don't know what else we can do. Seems like pretty basic stuff to me. I'm just gonna keep trying to use my Purdue Engineering degree to improve the world.
I don't know what else to do either. It's actually pretty basic stuff. You cannot heat something beyond the energy that is coming in. You just can't, but you guys seem to believe that you can.
 
Here's another thing of note. I'm basing a large part of my argument off of the diagram I linked for you. Climate alarm is based off of the idea that there is such little heat (Sunlight at 341 w/m ^2) with only 161 of that reaching the surface. It's off of these numbers that they claim that C02 is so potent of a GHG. So here's my question. We know that top of the atmosphere the Sun is giving us 1360 w/m ^2. We also know that the albedo of the Earth is 31%. So 31% of 1360 is 938.4. So if they are claiming that only 341 is coming in, then where does the other ~600 w/m ^2 go??? The Albedo is already accounted for. Where do they put that massive amount of energy?
 
Yes exactly. The energy that comes back sticks around longer. It does not heat it up more. That's the basis of climate science. They are claiming that the GHG's cause back radiation that is heating the Earth more than the incoming energy. That is impossible.

If an object has a constant input of energy and then you insulate it to slow heat from leaving it, then the object will have a higher temperature than if you didn't insulate it. Works whether it is putting a coat on in the winter or putting an atmosphere on a planet.
 
I'm pretty sure I answered mdthornb quite well. You cannot radiate the same heat back at an object and make it hotter. You can make that heat stick around longer (insulation) but it will eventually leave. You can ONLY get hotter with higher heat input. You cannot get hotter than 80 degrees if you're only pumping in 80 degrees.
You don't pump in a temperature. You pump in energy. The photons emitted by an object as radiation don't have a temperature...they cause a temperature in matter that eventually absorbs them.
 
If an object has a constant input of energy and then you insulate it to slow heat from leaving it, then the object will have a higher temperature than if you didn't insulate it. Works whether it is putting a coat on in the winter or putting an atmosphere on a planet.
Depends on the temp you're giving it. If the object is 80 F and you're giving it 80 F. Doesn't matter how much you insulate it. It's not going to get hotter.
 
You don't pump in a temperature. You pump in energy. The photons emitted by an object as radiation don't have a temperature...they cause a temperature in matter that eventually absorbs them.
Yes, but energy converts to heat. A specific amount of energy can only convert to a specific amount of heat.
 
Depends on the temp you're giving it. If the object is 80 F and you're giving it 80 F. Doesn't matter how much you insulate it. It's not going to get hotter.
So, what is the temperature of the radiation from the sun that is heating the earth?
 
Yes, but energy converts to heat. A specific amount of energy can only convert to a specific amount of heat.

That's true, and if you trap that heat without giving it a method to dissipate, the temperature will keep going up. Just like a car sitting out on a hot day.
 
That's true, and if you trap that heat without giving it a method to dissipate, the temperature will keep going up. Just like a car sitting out on a hot day.
No it won't, at least not above the input temperature of the heat. The car sitting in the Sun on a hot day is literally a greenhouse, but the temp inside only gets as hot as the solar input allows, which I believe that solar input is much higher than they claim it is.
 
Last edited:
If that is the case why is the average temperature of the Earth 15C?
Well, number one, I think the method of calculating the solar input is incorrect. I have a hard time believing that the solar irradiance hitting the Earth is only 161 w/m^2. Especially since the top of atmosphere irradiance is 1360 and we calculate the Earth's albedo at .31. Keep in mind that the albedo is supposed to take everything into account that is reflecting sunlight. NASA even says the albedo is calculated to .31 and then they go on and try to claim that 74% of the incoming sunlight is being blocked. That's some serious double think. Anyway, with an albedo of .31 and top of atmosphere irradiance of 1360 then the solar irradiance coming in should be 938.4. That comes to an average Earth temperature of -19.5 C.

Now, that's because they are averaging the irradiance over the entire surface of the Earth. IF they only divided it by 2 vs by 4 (the amount of Earth that is hit by the Sun at any one time) then the Sun is heating the surface to 28.4 C (remember that's not the average temp of the Earth, that would be the average temp of the half of the Earth that is in the Sun). This is much more plausible. Then there is a small amount of heating from gravitational pull on our atmosphere. That is why there is a temperature gradient and why canyons are hotter than at sea level. Obviously, the closer to direct sunlight you are (equator), the hotter it is and the further from that direct sunlight the cooler it is (of course how hot or cool it is at a given place will also depend on clouds). This is why we have seasons and why the poles are frozen. As the Earth tilts away from the Sun and the days are shorter, we have winter and vice versa.

I just bought a solar irradiance meter so I'm going to see how much we are receiving. Should be an interesting experiment.

There are two primary methods of heating the Earth. Solar and gravitational. The GHG's (primarily H2O) are insulators, both in and out. That's why the heat on the opposite side of the Earth doesn't go away quite as fast.

Again, this is very simplified. There is a lot more going on in our climate system than this but this is a very simple look at how it works. Funny thing is that what I just described is WAY more complicated than the alarmist version that C02 is the temperature knob.
 
Last edited:
I agree if you are adding heat by adding a substance to the system but that is not the case here.

If you add water or air or whatever to a vessel the temperature you can heat that vessel to is indeed limited to the temperature of what you are adding ignoring the kinetic energy of what you are adding.

If you are adding heat with an exothermic chemical reaction, by performing work on the contents, or bombarding the vessel with radiation the temperature of the vessel is determined by the rate of heat input, the rate of heat loss, and the heat capacity of the contents of the vessel. The rate of heat loss depends on how well the vessel is insulated. More insulated means a higher temperature for the vessel. There is not a temperature associated with the heat addition.

You are going to have to come up with some extraordinary evidence to overturn hundreds of years of scientific and applied knowledge of this principle.
 
I agree if you are adding heat by adding a substance to the system but that is not the case here.

If you add water or air or whatever to a vessel the temperature you can heat that vessel to is indeed limited to the temperature of what you are adding ignoring the kinetic energy of what you are adding.

If you are adding heat with an exothermic chemical reaction, by performing work on the contents, or bombarding the vessel with radiation the temperature of the vessel is determined by the rate of heat input, the rate of heat loss, and the heat capacity of the contents of the vessel. The rate of heat loss depends on how well the vessel is insulated. More insulated means a higher temperature for the vessel. There is not a temperature associated with the heat addition.

You are going to have to come up with some extraordinary evidence to overturn hundreds of years of scientific and applied knowledge of this principle.
That's not correct. you're acting as if radiation has an infinite heating potential if you box it in. That's just not the case.

Did you read my post just above explaining how I believe our system works? Don't you think it's pretty compelling how accurate I can calculate the temp of the Earth by taking a more real world approach?
 
Well, number one, I think the method of calculating the solar input is incorrect. I have a hard time believing that the solar irradiance hitting the Earth is only 161 w/m^2. Especially since the top of atmosphere irradiance is 1360 and we calculate the Earth's albedo at .31. Keep in mind that the albedo is supposed to take everything into account that is reflecting sunlight. NASA even says the albedo is calculated to .31 and then they go on and try to claim that 74% of the incoming sunlight is being blocked. That's some serious double think. Anyway, with an albedo of .31 and top of atmosphere irradiance of 1360 then the solar irradiance coming in should be 938.4. That comes to an average Earth temperature of -19.5 C.

Now, that's because they are averaging the irradiance over the entire surface of the Earth. IF they only divided it by 2 vs by 4 (the amount of Earth that is hit by the Sun at any one time) then the Sun is heating the surface to 28.4 C (remember that's not the average temp of the Earth, that would be the average temp of the half of the Earth that is in the Sun). This is much more plausible. Then there is a small amount of heating from gravitational pull on our atmosphere. That is why there is a temperature gradient and why canyons are hotter than at sea level. Obviously, the closer to direct sunlight you are (equator), the hotter it is and the further from that direct sunlight the cooler it is (of course how hot or cool it is at a given place will also depend on clouds). This is why we have seasons and why the poles are frozen. As the Earth tilts away from the Sun and the days are shorter, we have winter and vice versa.

I just bought a solar irradiance meter so I'm going to see how much we are receiving. Should be an interesting experiment.

There are two primary methods of heating the Earth. Solar and gravitational. The GHG's (primarily H2O) are insulators, both in and out. That's why the heat on the opposite side of the Earth doesn't go away quite as fast.

Again, this is very simplified. There is a lot more going on in our climate system than this but this is a very simple look at how it works. Funny thing is that what I just described is WAY more complicated than the alarmist version that C02 is the temperature knob.
 
Well, number one, I think the method of calculating the solar input is incorrect. I have a hard time believing that the solar irradiance hitting the Earth is only 161 w/m^2. Especially since the top of atmosphere irradiance is 1360 and we calculate the Earth's albedo at .31. Keep in mind that the albedo is supposed to take everything into account that is reflecting sunlight. NASA even says the albedo is calculated to .31 and then they go on and try to claim that 74% of the incoming sunlight is being blocked. That's some serious double think. Anyway, with an albedo of .31 and top of atmosphere irradiance of 1360 then the solar irradiance coming in should be 938.4. That comes to an average Earth temperature of -19.5 C.

Now, that's because they are averaging the irradiance over the entire surface of the Earth. IF they only divided it by 2 vs by 4 (the amount of Earth that is hit by the Sun at any one time) then the Sun is heating the surface to 28.4 C (remember that's not the average temp of the Earth, that would be the average temp of the half of the Earth that is in the Sun). This is much more plausible. Then there is a small amount of heating from gravitational pull on our atmosphere. That is why there is a temperature gradient and why canyons are hotter than at sea level. Obviously, the closer to direct sunlight you are (equator), the hotter it is and the further from that direct sunlight the cooler it is (of course how hot or cool it is at a given place will also depend on clouds). This is why we have seasons and why the poles are frozen. As the Earth tilts away from the Sun and the days are shorter, we have winter and vice versa.

I just bought a solar irradiance meter so I'm going to see how much we are receiving. Should be an interesting experiment.

There are two primary methods of heating the Earth. Solar and gravitational. The GHG's (primarily H2O) are insulators, both in and out. That's why the heat on the opposite side of the Earth doesn't go away quite as fast.

Again, this is very simplified. There is a lot more going on in our climate system than this but this is a very simple look at how it works. Funny thing is that what I just described is WAY more complicated than the alarmist version that C02 is the temperature knob.


I’ll have to look into the irradiance issue later.

The people that study climate know that the climate is a complicated system with many many variables that impact it and it is insincere to pretend that they don’t. Millions of man hours of study has been put into this issue by physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, etc who know that there are many factors impacting the climate of earth and they have concluded the major cause of the warming of the globe since the start of the industrial revolution is the human emission of greenhouse gasses.
 
That's not correct. you're acting as if radiation has an infinite heating potential if you box it in. That's just not the case.

Did you read my post just above explaining how I believe our system works? Don't you think it's pretty compelling how accurate I can calculate the temp of the Earth by taking a more real world approach?


Not an infinite heating potential. Eventually the system will come into equilibrium when the radiate emitted by the vessel equals the radiate input into the vessel. More insulation will shift this equilibrium. Not to mix my metaphors but I mean greenhouse gassses when I say insulation regarding the earth sun system.
 
Well, number one, I think the method of calculating the solar input is incorrect. I have a hard time believing that the solar irradiance hitting the Earth is only 161 w/m^2. Especially since the top of atmosphere irradiance is 1360 and we calculate the Earth's albedo at .31. Keep in mind that the albedo is supposed to take everything into account that is reflecting sunlight. NASA even says the albedo is calculated to .31 and then they go on and try to claim that 74% of the incoming sunlight is being blocked. That's some serious double think. Anyway, with an albedo of .31 and top of atmosphere irradiance of 1360 then the solar irradiance coming in should be 938.4. That comes to an average Earth temperature of -19.5 C.
Just popping in here for a clarification. Solar irradiance at 1360 (and 938.4 after accounting for albedo) is only correct when measured at a right angle to the direction of the incoming radiation. If you are anywhere on the planet where the radiation arrives at a different angle (which is, necessarily, almost everywhere in the case of parallel lines of radiation meeting a spherical shape) the same amount of solar radiation is spread over a wider area, so you get a lower value. 161 accounts for the average solar irradiance over the entire planet (over time, so it must also account for 50% of the planet being in the dark at any given time), whereas 938.4 accounts only for how much would arrive to a particular square meter of the surface that happens to be at a right angle and in sunlight at that moment. 938.4 also ignores how much of the original 1360 is absorbed by the atmosphere itself, rather than the surface, as albedo only accounts for reflection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdthornb
Not an infinite heating potential. Eventually the system will come into equilibrium when the radiate emitted by the vessel equals the radiate input into the vessel. More insulation will shift this equilibrium. Not to mix my metaphors but I mean greenhouse gassses when I say insulation regarding the earth sun system.
The reason why it will come to equalibrium is because it hits the point where the object equals the incoming heat. Just as I've been saying all along.

Earth Cannot Be Warmed by Its Own Radiation


Greenhouse-warming theory posits that average global surface temperatures rise when increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere absorb increasing amounts of infrared radiation from Earth. In other words, the surface of Earth is warmed when Earth’s lower atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation emitted at Earth’s surface. This rise in temperature is estimated to be between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C. when the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is doubled.


But we observe clearly in Nature that no body of matter can be warmed in any way by absorbing its own radiation. Such warming is not physically possible. If it were possible, bodies of matter could, under the right circumstances, spontaneously heat up—something we all know does not happen. We would have an inexhaustible source of free energy—something too good to be true.


Imagine two bodies of solid matter positioned next to each other. Each at the same temperature. Each potentially absorbing identical radiation from the other. Neither can become hotter. Neither will get hotter, no matter how long you wait. Both bodies can lose heat to cooler surroundings, but neither can absorb heat from the other body as long as both bodies are at the same temperature.


The reason a body of matter cannot be heated by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature.
 
The reason why it will come to equalibrium is because it hits the point where the object equals the incoming heat. Just as I've been saying all along.

Earth Cannot Be Warmed by Its Own Radiation


Greenhouse-warming theory posits that average global surface temperatures rise when increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere absorb increasing amounts of infrared radiation from Earth. In other words, the surface of Earth is warmed when Earth’s lower atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation emitted at Earth’s surface. This rise in temperature is estimated to be between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C. when the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is doubled.


But we observe clearly in Nature that no body of matter can be warmed in any way by absorbing its own radiation. Such warming is not physically possible. If it were possible, bodies of matter could, under the right circumstances, spontaneously heat up—something we all know does not happen. We would have an inexhaustible source of free energy—something too good to be true.


Imagine two bodies of solid matter positioned next to each other. Each at the same temperature. Each potentially absorbing identical radiation from the other. Neither can become hotter. Neither will get hotter, no matter how long you wait. Both bodies can lose heat to cooler surroundings, but neither can absorb heat from the other body as long as both bodies are at the same temperature.


The reason a body of matter cannot be heated by its own radiation is because its own radiation does not contain the higher amplitudes of oscillation at every frequency of oscillation that must be absorbed to physically increase the body’s temperature.

I will be warmer outside with a coat than without knowing full well the coat is not heating me.
 
Just popping in here for a clarification. Solar irradiance at 1360 (and 938.4 after accounting for albedo) is only correct when measured at a right angle to the direction of the incoming radiation. If you are anywhere on the planet where the radiation arrives at a different angle (which is, necessarily, almost everywhere in the case of parallel lines of radiation meeting a spherical shape) the same amount of solar radiation is spread over a wider area, so you get a lower value. 161 accounts for the average solar irradiance over the entire planet (over time, so it must also account for 50% of the planet being in the dark at any given time), whereas 938.4 accounts only for how much would arrive to a particular square meter of the surface that happens to be at a right angle and in sunlight at that moment. 938.4 also ignores how much of the original 1360 is absorbed by the atmosphere itself, rather than the surface, as albedo only accounts for reflection.
You are correct about the different angles and getting lower solar input, I was accounting for that in my calculations, hence why you divide by 2 vs by 4.

No, that 161 number is a very watered down irradiance in which, honestly, I have no idea why they get there.

The Earths albedo being .31 gets us to 938.4 right? Well they don't do that. They take 1360 and divide that by 4 to get the 341 (340, but the TOA irradiance is probably slightly higher than 1360) of input. Then they take off the albedo. Problem is that .31 of 341 is 234.6. They show only 161 hitting the surface. So instead of only lowering the input by .31, they lower it by .53 AND they divide it over the entire surface! They are taking an extra ~60% more away from the solar input and then spreading it around!

Now, again it doesn't make sense to spread the light out over the entire surface of the Earth at once, which is what they do. The real world doesn't do that, AND when you calculate by the real world (as I did) it explains everything without some mystical demon molecule. Especially if you think of our atmosphere as a porous insulation, which is why the dark side cools at a certain rate. Spin the planet slower and the side not in the Sun would get even colder.
 
Last edited:
You are correct about the different angles and getting lower solar input, I was accounting for that in my calculations, hence why you divide by 2 vs by 4.

No, that 161 number is a very watered down irradiance in which, honestly, I have no idea why they get there.

The Earths albedo being .31 gets us to 938.4 right? Well they don't do that. They take 1360 and divide that by 4 to get the 341 (340, but the TOA irradiance is probably slightly higher than 1360) of input. Then they take off the albedo. Problem is that .31 of 341 is 234.6. They show only 161 hitting the surface. So instead of only lowering the input by .31, they lower it by .53 AND they divide it over the entire surface! They are taking an extra ~60% more away from the solar input and then spreading it around!
The Earth has the surface area of a sphere, so to determine how much solar energy hits hypothetical square meter of the Earth's surface on average, you have to account for how that energy would be spread over the surface of a sphere.

There's a couple ways to think about this:

1. Time is included in the unit W/m2, so to determine how much energy the average square meter of the planet gets, you have to account for the time in which it receives energy and the time in which it doesn't.

2. Alternatively, you can consider that for every square meter of the surface that is in sunlight, there is a partner square meter at the same latitude but 180 degrees different longitude that is in darkness. The sun can only heat one of them at a time. At all times, one is warming and one is cooling. So, you can't calculate the average temperature of the planet by only looking at the square meter that's in the sun.

Your "divide by 2" version of the formula works just fine to calculate the average temperature of the sunny side of the Earth. But that's only half the planet. You have to account for the side that's cooling in order to determine an average temperature of the WHOLE plant.

234.6 is after albedo. 161 is after albedo AND atmospheric absorption.
Spin the planet slower and the side not in the Sun would get even colder.
And the side in the sun would get hotter. The AVERAGE temperature would not change.

I can't understand why you're willing to concede that the temperature of the Earth can be averaged over the entire planet, but not the energy it receives from the sun. You say "real world" a lot because the sun only hits half the planet at any given time. Yes, that is what happens in the real world. But, almost nowhere on the planet is actually 15 C at any given time, and certainly not ALL of it. It's not a "real world" number, either. You're inconsistent in what you will allow to be averaged and what you won't.
 
You're heating you... You will FEEL warmer because there is no moving air to conduct your own body heat away.
You're heating you... You will FEEL warmer because there is no moving air to conduct your own body heat away.

You can die of hypothermia without a coat and not die with a coat. Don’t think biological processes are operating on how they feel but on their actual temperature.
 
You can die of hypothermia without a coat and not die with a coat. Don’t think biological processes are operating on how they feel but on their actual temperature.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make there. You die of hypothermia BECAUSE your body temp lowers well beyond it's 98.6 F. You can raise your body temp with a coat because your body is generating more heat than what we generally run at. We stay at 98.6 because our system is well regulated and heat is released through our skin cooling us off. Wear a coat in the summer and you will get hotter, but that is because your body is producing the heat to get there. You cannot get hotter than what your body can produce.

I don't know why you keep going to these types of arguments. Go read the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat an item with an item of the same temp. Heat only flows one way.

"

Work and energy​


One thing the Second Law explains is that it is impossible to convert heat energy to mechanical energy with 100 percent efficiency. After the process of heating a gas to increase its pressure to drive a piston, there is always some leftover heat in the gas that cannot be used to do any additional work. This waste heat must be discarded by transferring it to a heat sink. In the case of a car engine, this is done by exhausting the spent fuel and air mixture to the atmosphere. Additionally, any device with movable parts produces friction that converts mechanical energy to heat that is generally unusable and must be removed from the system by transferring it to a heat sink. This is why claims for perpetual motion machines are summarily rejected by the U.S. Patent Office.

When a hot and a cold body are brought into contact with each other, heat energy will flow from the hot body to the cold body until they reach thermal equilibrium, i.e., the same temperature. However, the heat will never move back the other way; the difference in the temperatures of the two bodies will never spontaneously increase. Moving heat from a cold body to a hot body requires work to be done by an external energy source such as a heat pump.
 
You're heating you... You will FEEL warmer because there is no moving air to conduct your own body heat away.

If you measure the temperature on the surface of your skin, won't it go up while wearing a jacket? For exactly the reason you said, heat dispersion is being limited and "you are heating you".

The temperature on the surface of the Earth (skin) is partly due to the atmosphere (coat) trapping heat being released from the Earth (you).
 
ADVERTISEMENT