Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Physics Basis for Greenhouse Effect

  1. #1 Physics Basis for Greenhouse Effect 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    2
    What is the formally specified null hypothesis for "greenhouse effect"?

    Since addition energy is required for any temperature increase, the idea that CO2 or any substance somehow increases temperature violates the 1st LoT.

    The idea that earth's radiance is somehow reduced by "greenhouse gas" which increases the earth's temperature is nixed by Stefan-Boltzmann which clearly shows that radiance and temperature MUST move in the same direction.

    Does that sum it up or have I missed something?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,306
    Quote Originally Posted by IBdaMann View Post
    Since addition energy is required for any temperature increase
    Or retention of incoming energy/ heat.

    the idea that CO2 or any substance somehow increases temperature violates the 1st LoT.
    False.

    The idea that earth's radiance is somehow reduced by "greenhouse gas" which increases the earth's temperature is nixed by Stefan-Boltzmann which clearly shows that radiance and temperature MUST move in the same direction.
    On the other hand, an actual check on what Wiki (for example) says about S-B, provides us with this: However, long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is partially absorbed and re-radiated back down by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane.[7][8] Since the emissivity with greenhouse effect (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates) is reduced more than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun's radiation) is reduced, the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates.

    Does that sum it up or have I missed something?
    Evidently the latter...


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,306
    NB: after looking at your posting history this thread now moved to Pseudoscience (since that appears to be your forte).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    2
    Thank you for not wasting my time. This site is not a science site. My post was legitimate. You are obviously just a bunch of leftist censors. I won't bother you any more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,306
    Given that you have - consistently - shown that don't understand science (i.e. your posts elsewhere AND the decidedly-not-legitimate [as shown] claims in the OP of this thread) then you're not really qualified to comment.
    Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; June 30th, 2017 at 11:09 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,264
    Quote Originally Posted by IBdaMann View Post
    Thank you for not wasting my time. This site is not a science site. My post was legitimate. You are obviously just a bunch of leftist censors. I won't bother you any more.
    We don't suffer fools here well--such as those making bold claims that century old and very well established science is somehow wrong.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by IBdaMann View Post
    What is the formally specified null hypothesis for "greenhouse effect"?
    People are sometimes too harsh with their rejections. I concur. If you answer a question with yes or no, people will not learn. It is impossible to know all.. however google makes it easier, but then again, it is easy to get lost in bias and mis/malinformation.

    Since addition energy is required for any temperature increase, the idea that CO2 or any substance somehow increases temperature violates the 1st LoT.
    1st law of thermodynamics.. lemme google...
    - The internal energy of an isolated system is constant.

    Well.. IF the earth would be a closed system, you would be correct. But the earth is in a system with the rest of the universe.

    The idea that earth's radiance is somehow reduced by "greenhouse gas" which increases the earth's temperature is nixed by Stefan-Boltzmann which clearly shows that radiance and temperature MUST move in the same direction.
    Again, you would be correct, IF you assume that the radiance would increase because temperature difference is higher. Which is true.

    But this effect is worked against by the greenhouse gasses. That keep in this radiance, so the new equilibrium (where the radiance of the earth is equal to the amount absorbed by the sun) is at a higher temperature. CO2 is less transparent for IR rays, which are the ones that reflect from the earth when sunlight hits it and the wavelength decreases.

    Not to mention the runaway greenhouse effect, where more water can be held in the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse gas, plus there would also be methane evaporation from the ocean depths and the arctic. Plus putrification from the mires etc, that put even more CO2 and methane in the air.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,036
    Quote Originally Posted by IBdaMann View Post
    What is the formally specified null hypothesis for "greenhouse effect"?

    Since addition energy is required for any temperature increase, the idea that CO2 or any substance somehow increases temperature violates the 1st LoT.

    The idea that earth's radiance is somehow reduced by "greenhouse gas" which increases the earth's temperature is nixed by Stefan-Boltzmann which clearly shows that radiance and temperature MUST move in the same direction.

    Does that sum it up or have I missed something?
    For one thing, you missed the fact that Stefan-Boltzmann applies to black bodies, which neither the Earth or its atmosphere are.
    Another thing you missed is that the facts belie your argument. It is quite easy to work out what the Earth's effective black body temp should be based of the solar radiation it receives. It works out to be 279 K or (~6 C). However, the Earth reflects rather than absorbs a certain portion of that it gets, and this would drop the effective temp down to 255 K (-18C).
    The actual measured average surface temp works out to be 288 k (15 C), 33 degrees warmer than the effective temp and 9 degrees warmer than even the black body temp.
    The green house gases work like a "one-way" insulating blanket. They are transparent to visible light coming from the Sun. This visible light then strikes the surface and a portion is absorbed, heating the surface. The surface re-radiates in the infra-red, to which the greenhouses gasses are opaque. The gasses absorb and re-radiate that infra-red, some of it back to the ground. The effect is to raise the overall equilibrium temperature (the temperature the Earth needs to be in order to lose energy as fast as absorbs it from the Sun), and we get higher surface temps than we would otherwise.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    For one thing, you missed the fact that Stefan-Boltzmann applies to black bodies, which neither the Earth or its atmosphere are.
    Should have also googled the definition of this. I thought it was about the same.

    But hereby the difference between black bodies and anything else.

    Black body heat radiation is calculated by...

    Biggest impact is the temperature. Capital T means Kelvin as unit.


    Anything else is calculated by...


    Epsilon is the emission factor for this specific substance.
    P is the energy that is irradiated.

    You could make it so that you include the greenhouse effect factor. And stabilize P to the same level.

    P*(greenhouse effect multiplyer)= * * A * T^4

    If P is to be the same number, the greenhouse effect multiplyer should be 1.. which means it does not apply.. A doubling of the greenhouse effect means a GeM of 2.. If P needs to be the same, the formula has to be corrected. This is done by correcting the T on the other side of the formula.

    Hope this makes it more understandable.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 15th, 2013, 01:36 AM
  2. Greenhouse effect, the bigger the better....
    By tjdavila in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 19th, 2011, 06:51 PM
  3. Idea for countering the greenhouse effect.
    By karel vdr in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 6th, 2010, 02:00 PM
  4. Runaway Greenhouse Effect
    By Monkey.Man in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 4th, 2010, 02:06 AM
  5. Photoelectric effect and absurdities in modern physics
    By sorincosofret in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 6th, 2009, 07:51 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •