Arctic hits record low

Denying the science that long ago completely verified the reality of the Greenhouse Effect, using only your unsupported "statement", is just pathetically crazy.

You really truly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.....and you are just embarrassing yourself with braindead hokum like this.

 

Still nothing but insults.

Ok. Let's make it simple. Before scientists came up with the idea that a planet can be warmed up by changing its atmosphere without applying any EXTRA heat/energy we had:
1. The Sun at temperature Tsun_hotter.
2. The Earth at temperature Tearth_colder.
3. Heat Q flowing from the Sun to the Earth, let's say 1000 units per hour, in a natural process.
4. The Earth was not warming even to a slight degree,Tearth_colder remained to be the same.
Where all that heat Q was going, disappearing? Can you or anybody find at least some part of it for me, uneducated?

 

Crying about insults while insulting people isn't going to impress anyone. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

According to your reality-defying physics, adding another blanket can't make a person warmer, because it's not applying extra energy.

That's effectively what the CO2 does to the earth, add another blanket.

You're just totally wrong at a very fundamental level. You don't understand heat flow at all.

 

Thank you for helping me to prove that scientists are total idiots who cannot answer a simple question but would rather go into all kind of idiotic diatribe in order to avoid it.
One more time:
Before scientists came up with the idea that a planet can be warmed up by changing its atmosphere without applying any EXTRA heat/energy we had:
1. The Sun at temperature Tsun_hotter.
2. The Earth at temperature Tearth_colder.
3. Heat Q flowing from the Sun to the Earth, let's say 1000 units per hour, in a natural process.
4. The Earth was not warming even to a slight degree,Tearth_colder remained to be the same.
Where all that heat Q was going, disappearing? Can you or anybody find at least some part of it for me, uneducated?
Anybody?
Skeptics are welcome too; I don't mind at all to be pointed to an error.
Anybody?

 

LOLOLOLOLOL........that is SOOOOO delusional and crackpot, it is just pathetic.

Just repeating your idiotic blather doesn't make it sound any less like crazy nonsense.

Educate yourself and look up 'the Earth's energy balance'.

Ha-ha-ha-ha....just joking....I know you would never do that.....so, for the benefit of the non-brainwashed people who may be reading this.....

The Atmosphere’s Energy Budget
NASA
Just as the incoming and outgoing energy at the Earth’s surface must balance, the flow of energy into the atmosphere must be balanced by an equal flow of energy out of the atmosphere and back to space. Satellite measurements indicate that the atmosphere radiates thermal infrared energy equivalent to 59 percent of the incoming solar energy. If the atmosphere is radiating this much, it must be absorbing that much. Where does that energy come from?

Clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and ozone directly absorb 23 percent of incoming solar energy. Evaporation and convection transfer 25 and 5 percent of incoming solar energy from the surface to the atmosphere. These three processes transfer the equivalent of 53 percent of the incoming solar energy to the atmosphere. If total inflow of energy must match the outgoing thermal infrared observed at the top of the atmosphere, where does the remaining fraction (about 5-6 percent) come from? The remaining energy comes from the Earth’s surface.

Natural Greenhouse Effect
Just as the major atmospheric gases (oxygen and nitrogen) are transparent to incoming sunlight, they are also transparent to outgoing thermal infrared. However, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases are opaque to many wavelengths of thermal infrared energy. Remember that the surface radiates the net equivalent of 17 percent of incoming solar energy as thermal infrared. However, the amount that directly escapes to space is only about 12 percent of incoming solar energy. The remaining fraction—a net 5-6 percent of incoming solar energy—is transferred to the atmosphere when greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy radiated by the surface.


The atmosphere radiates the equivalent of 59% of incoming sunlight back to space as thermal infrared energy, or heat. Where does the atmosphere get its energy? The atmosphere directly absorbs about 23% of incoming sunlight, and the remaining energy is transferred from the Earth’s surface by evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation (a net of 5-6%). The remaining thermal infrared energy from the surface (12%) passes through the atmosphere and escapes to space. (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Astronaut photograph ISS017-E-13859.)

When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules absorb the heat, their temperature rises, and the amount of heat they radiate increases. At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.

Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.

Effect on Surface Temperature
The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.


On average, 340 watts per square meter of solar energy arrives at the top of the atmosphere. Earth returns an equal amount of energy back to space by reflecting some incoming light and by radiating heat (thermal infrared energy). Most solar energy is absorbed at the surface, while most heat is radiated back to space by the atmosphere. Earth's average surface temperature is maintained by two large, opposing energy fluxes between the atmosphere and the ground (right)—the greenhouse effect. NASA illustration by Robert Simmon, adapted from Trenberth et al. 2009, using CERES flux estimates provided by Norman Loeb.)

Why doesn’t the natural greenhouse effect cause a runaway increase in surface temperature? Remember that the amount of energy a surface radiates always increases faster than its temperature rises—outgoing energy increases with the fourth power of temperature. As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat—equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow, then, is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight (117 percent up minus 100 percent down).

Some of the heat escapes directly to space, and the rest is transferred to higher and higher levels of the atmosphere, until the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the amount of incoming solar energy. Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant (which depends only on Earth’s distance from the Sun and very small variations during the solar cycle), the natural greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in surface temperature on Earth.

 

The amount of incoming solar insolation is balanced out largely by outgoing longwave radiation. The contribution of Q you speak of is mostly getting radiated back out to space. There are several things that can block outgoing radiation. Clouds for example are super efficient at reflecting the outgoing radiation back towards the surface. This is why clear nights are generally colder than cloudy nights. CO2 and methane also prevent outgoing radiation from escaping. Overall the incoming and outgoing energy is mostly in equilibrium. Adding more greenhouse gases disrupts the natural balance.

 

Very informative. But does not address my question. Let me re-post it:
Still nothing but insults.

Ok. Let's make it simple. Before scientists came up with the idea that a planet can be warmed up by changing its atmosphere without applying any EXTRA heat/energy we had:
1. The Sun at temperature Tsun_hotter.
2. The Earth at temperature Tearth_colder.
3. Heat Q flowing from the Sun to the Earth, let's say 1000 units per hour, in a natural process.
4. The Earth was not warming even to a slight degree,Tearth_colder remained to be the same.
Where all that heat Q was going, disappearing? Can you or anybody find it for me, uneducated?

 

What do you mean saying largely, generally, mostly, overall? Do you think you need these words?
When you say "Q you speak of is mostly getting radiated back out to space" do you mean it came from space? What is that space? I thought it came from the Sun, am I incorrect?

Here I am totally confused.
If Q I spoke of is radiation you spoke of, then
- would not several things equally block incoming radiation as they block outcoming?
I the laws says that Q always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process, and thus cannot be blocked, reflected back - don't you violate the law?

 

Yes, it is.

Too bad the rest of your post makes it crystal clear that you never bothered to read it

But it does, in fact, completely answer your ignorant bumfuddled question about what happens to the vast amounts of thermal energy the Earth receives from the sun every day.

So, either you failed to read the material from the scientists at NASA the way you just ignore all of the scientific evidence that is ever shown to you.........or, you are just plain mentally incapable of comprehending it.

That fact has been obvious ever since you started posting on this forum.

 

Another post with no content. You deserve "The most prolific troll of PF" medal.
I guess I have to re-post my question again:


Let's make it simple. Before scientists came up with the idea that a planet can be warmed up by changing its atmosphere without applying any EXTRA heat/energy we had:
1. The Sun at temperature Tsun_hotter.
2. The Earth at temperature Tearth_colder.
3. Heat Q flowing from the Sun to the Earth, let's say 1000 units per hour, in a natural process.
4. The Earth was not warming even to a slight degree,Tearth_colder remained to be the same.
Where all that heat Q was going, disappearing? Can you or anybody find it for me, uneducated?

 

WHY???

It was answered in detail by the scientists at NASA in post #255.

Nobody's fault but your own if you can't understand that simple explanation from the actual experts in that field of science.

 

For someone who whines so much about insults, you sure throw a lot of them.

Now, instead of crying and running, how about you address my takedown of your kook cult pseudoscience?

A blanket warms up a person, even though it's not adding energy.

Thus, your theory is proven to be astonishingly stupid. You're literally less capable at the science than any average 3-year-old, who can understand that a blanket warms up a person.

It doesn't get any less senseless with repetition, you know.

"Flow" means conduction, and there is no conduction in space. Photons from the sun are energy, not heat. There is energy flow from the sun to the earth, but not heat flow.

Yeah, it's a nitpick, but words mean things. Your terminology is all wrong.

Just as should have happened. Conditions were staying the same, therefore the equilibrium temperature point should have and did remain constant.

It was radiating to space as infrared energy.

This is basic stuff. If you don't understand it, you have no business being in the conversation.

 

Sorry for snipping insults, but they are very boring.
Your suggestions are very logical and self evident, but unfortunately Thermodynamics hjas no place for logical conclusions and empirical evidence.
It is not a theology of a personal beliefs system.
Blanket does not make a person warm. Thermodynamics does not have anything to do to your personal feelings.
A kettle with boiling water will freeze on the North poll under 5 blankets. Another 10 blankets will not warm it up.
Flow does not mean what you conclude using your logic and personal feelings.
Your logical conclusion that energy and heat a different things is also logical but:
"In physics, heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference, or by any means other than through work or the transfer of matter.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The transfer can be by contact between the source and the destination body, as in conduction; or by radiation between remote bodies; or by way of an intermediate fluid body, as in convective circulation; or by a combination of these."
What is "the equilibrium temperature point"? Never heard about such.
What are "Conditions"?
I will give you A for logic and efforts, A for the snipped insults, but I cannot give you even F for the content.

 

BECAUSE, I am not reading through NASA gibberish which does not address my post, which uses undefined terms, which cannot answer my questions, and reply to my objections. You are welcome to read through it, address my post and stand up for it.

 

Assuming Q represents the amount of energy coming from the Sun then Q is also the approximate amount of energy that gets radiated back to space...as in outer space. Q is approximately 340 w/m2. About 100 w/m2 gets reflected back to space immediately either by clouds or the surface. The remaining 240 w/m2 gets radiated back space after going through many different energy conversion processes. The mechanisms that trap outgoing radiation are not necessarily same as the ones acting on the incoming radiation. See the wikipedia article for more information. As others have pointed out Q is not delivered in the form of conducted heat nor does it escape that way either. Q is photons over a range of the EM spectrum encompassing more than just visible light.

 

Scientifically it is not possible to measure to that degree.

 

What, the atmospheric CO2 level?

 

The sum total of Carbon Dioxide as to where it went.

Satellites of today do a good job tracking CO2 in the atmosphere.

Would you enjoy a proof that it is not man's fault?

 

Translated from crackpot denier cult lingo that means that you are incapable of comprehending the very simply and clearly presented scientific explanation of the Earth's energy balance provided by the NASA scientists, which does, in fact, completely "address" your confused post using well defined terms and "answers" your ignorant "questions". You just can't stand to look at the truth that debunks your precious denier cult dogmas.

 

I am sorry to report this but when shallow posters tell me they saw all the evidence, or even enough they are now sure Man is the A-H of the globe since he deliberately wants it hotter and wants humans removed from the planet, please don't tell me you did your research but when I present more to you, you get to refuse to see mine but i am told by you I must accept yours. Too funny.

 

ROTFLMFAO.....

An unsourced YouTube video, made by a long-time denier cult nutjob with a degree in mechanical engineering, who worked in the fossil fuel industry as "Director, Technical Services and Field Engineering for the Reed Tool Company, studing methods to reduce costs of drilling for oil and gas, and provided “drilling bit applications technical support, oil and gas well drilling planning”", is supposedly "proof" of some supposed rebuttal to the scientifically confirmed fact that mankind's carbon dioxide emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, are what is responsible for the over 46% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels? You must be an incredibly gullible anti-science denier cult 'true believer" to swallow that garbage.

 

I have to report you were not able to refute him.

 

I don't have to refute him.

All of the climate scientists and atmospheric physicists, who are the scientific experts in this field, have long since thoroughly refuted his clueless, financially motivated, pseudo-science twaddle.....which you would have to be very gullible and ignorant and kind of a crackpot to swallow.

 

Actually you get no points. You are so wrong I call it a lie. But you may simply be ignorant

Watch the math. The view shows the math. Math that is not refuted.

 

OUCH That has to hurt.