I don't think AGW deniers are nearly as cracked up as people who think the world was created 7000 years ago. Heckler is a smart guy and I'm interested in his reasons why. Thus far, he's disproved something nobody said and put forth a flawed equation that fit his mis-perception so I'm still waiting for something useful from him.
I disagree, denying the greenhouse gas effect on the atmosphere is just as flawed as denying each of those other examples. This is literally 2nd grade science;
So now you diverge from science. If you want to use your own made up stuff that's ok but its not science.Sorry, misty, but you messed up. I also expected that counter argument (I know your side better than you do).
It's not 4pi, and you can't argue otherwise.
That was the point of my analysis. There is no throughput for the incoming radiation (which is what the 4pi implies). The Earth is not a blackbody, and it certainly is not a perfect conductor (see the prior post for details if you can't remember that far).
Try again.
However, you are correct I took a shortcut by eliminating the cos(theta) dependence. But it is still more correct than what you are showing (and you also failed to incorporate the cos(theta) in your equation, eh). Try reducing the radius of your "disc" to an infinitesimal at the normal to incoming radiation and you will see that (you will get the same answer as I). Also, go look at the moon's temperature data via the LRO for reference on how wide the effect is on a hemisphere. Unless you think NASA is lying.
If you need me to draw a cartoon to explain it, I can oblige.
Also keep in mind, without an atmosphere, there is no optical path length to consider. In which case, subjects such as Rayleigh scattering come into play (that's why the sky is blue).
I do commend the fact you are making an effort, although grossly mistaken. That's certainly more than what anyone else here does.
PS Read the comments from the SkepSci articles you try to use. It might give you pause for merely regurgitating whatever they feed you.
There is little "re-radiation" (certainly nowhere near the ~300 W proposed by the GH hypothesis and even the source from measurements is not well-defined although the values I've seen dispute it, regardless), to which one must distinguish between spontaneous and induced emission. In the former, the idea is wrecked by the multiplicity of probabilities (cf. Markov chains and "mean free path" in Stat Mech), and the latter can only work with the vector of LWR from Sol (which is already accounted for by the surface absorption measurements). The concept of "back-radiation" to the surface is a gross tautology invented by the AGW faithful meant to account for their screw-up in calculating the initial radiative transfer from Sol (never mind their wispy grasp of the LoT).
Your definition appears to be a misunderstanding and the effect is certainly not "trivial".
Convection BEGINS with conduction at the interface (cf. "laminar flow"). Reduce it to an interfacial layer on the level of Angstroms in thickness, and you'll see it is there (remember, gases are considered a "liquid" in the aggregate). However, Salby sees it as less relevant than LWR:
Most of the energy transfer between the earth's surface and the atmosphere occurs through LW radiation. In addition, energy is transferred through thermal conduction, which is referred to as the transfer of sensible heat, and through the transfer of latent heat, when water vapor absorbed by the atmosphere condenses and precipitates back to the surface. (Atmospheric Physics, 1996, p.44)
So, no. I cannot agree with your synopsis as it stands. The fact is, water is part of this process. So even by your loose definition, it is happening as I implied: conduction, then convection. Unless you want to argue that gases are not matter with potential for phonon transport. To which, what happens when gas molecules collide? How is it they are able to pass energy sans radiation?
If you want to argue about the existence of phonons, you're welcome to give it a go. I will consider the argument with care and respect.
There is little "re-radiation" (certainly nowhere near the ~300 W proposed by the GH hypothesis and even the source from measurements is not well-defined although the values I've seen dispute it, regardless), to which one must distinguish between spontaneous and induced emission. In the former, the idea is wrecked by the multiplicity of probabilities (cf. Markov chains and "mean free path" in Stat Mech), and the latter can only work with the vector of LWR from Sol (which is already accounted for by the surface absorption measurements). The concept of "back-radiation" to the surface is a gross tautology invented by the AGW faithful meant to account for their screw-up in calculating the initial radiative transfer from Sol (never mind their wispy grasp of the LoT).
I've seen an argument where the only way for it to happen would be through quantum tunneling, and that definitely is not consistent with observations, never mind the hypothesis. I'm also confident the idea of quantum mechanics doesn't even touch the lips of AGW "scientists" outside of their cursory discussions of vibratory modes in poly-atomic molecules, so the thought can be dismissed outright.
If you are familiar with how "heatsinks" operate, and can analyze the boundary conditions (THAT is vital in this type of analysis), you'll understand how the attenuation functions. Engineers (oddly enough) understand this--dare I say it--better than Physicists, in general. That is why the night is warmer than what a pure radiative transfer would imply. There is not only convection but advection (i.e. horizontal diffusion). There is also the case of inversion to consider, although, that is rare (mainly from volcanic activity IIRC).
Just remember to keep the 2nd LoT in mind at all times. Entropy must increase or remain 0! The higher up you go, the lower the density state. The ozone layer at the Tropopause is the radiative transfer boundary in this case, the troposphere is the "Arctic Silver", and the ground is the LED baseplate. (You are a COB'er, right? Or am I confusing you with Guod?).
you don't even believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
lol.
then what is causing it, termite farts?
should i show the graphs, or do you just want to whimper away now before that embarrassment to you takes place?
Ok, I recant what I said. Heckler is about as fringe lunatic as bible thumpers. I didn't want to say it but he proved otherwise.
Reality?
not sure who you were talking to. so, walk me through your assumptions:Reality?
If you have something to say, just say it. I'm not interested in testing "psychic" powers. If you disagree with my prior response, then critique it at your leisure. Likewise, if you have something to add which would broaden the discussion--including my understanding-- please do so. I'm not claiming to be infallible, just the hypothesis of the GHE is seemingly unfounded with respect to first principles and experimental observations, in situ. I have demonstrated the former, and no one has offered a substantial rebuttal.
Ergo, the science is anything but settled. To that point, you seem to agree.
Could you support your claim with some valid argument?
At one point the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around that flat plane... 97% of scientists agreed!!!
Those weren't scientists. They were priests.
We are about due...
No it wasn't, that's a myth made up by retards and believed by idiots. Eratosthenes figured out the circumference of the Earth with decent accuracy in 200BC using science. Religious fundamentalists perpetuated the geocentric model until Copernicus again, using science, proved it wrong. Science always proves you idiots wrong, exactly as it's now doing with anthropogenic climate change.
How bright is the sun at night where you live? I thought you were in the contiguous US?
I never did that...if you read my post carefully regarding the thermal profile in comparison to a clock face, you'd comprehend that. If you don't understand the term instantaneous, that's not my problem. That's another reason why the application of the StefBo eqn by climastrologists is erroneous. They try to turn it into a time average; it's like they don't even understand what a Watt is.
You're making shit up now or don't know how to read equations. More proof you just regurgitated your erroneous math from SkepSci (or some other place of dubious merit), as I expected. If you don't feel it necessary to learn some basics (or have I moved onto a level beyond your definition of the word?), then there's little reason for me to respond, especially in light of your attempts to impugn my character in such a crass manner as you have done.
How do you define "atmosphereless"? You can't have a water-cycle under such conditions, either, because that would create an atmosphere.
Nice try at editing your post.
