Temperature and CO2 Jan 11, 2016 7:31:16 GMT
Post by icefisher on Jan 11, 2016 7:31:16 GMT
Your facts will always trump my imaginations.
I purposely used a heated surface in a cooling brick to avoid your dishonest twisting of reality to suit your agenda. I then had to endure months of you telling me the surface of the brick was not heated. Meanwhile you claimed you were so stupid you could not understand how the surface of an egg warmed up when insulated.
To this day I have no idea if you are really so stupid or you are just a sadist. How can it be that after 4 years of talking about the stefan boltzmann constant you still have absolutely no ability to talk intelligently about this topic?
Well the fact is Andrew I am pretty convinced that the greenhouse effect does not operate as you have described and that any greenhouse is limited in ways that nullify simplistic descriptions.
I went around with Steve on this issue. He claimed that if cooling was restricted the earth could heat to 6,000 degrees the same temperature of the sun. But Steve was probably just one of your many alter egos.
The inverse square distance law says otherwise. And its an easy proof. A greenhouse will only heat to the extent that cooling from convection is restricted. If you quadruple glaze the greenhouse with vacuum filled panels you can not get it to heat more than that, much less approach 6,000 degrees. A simple proof that the greenhouse effect is bogus as you have described (and Steve too if in unlikely event Steve is not also you).
Now there always is more ways to skin a cat but science does not know which way it is. So scientists accept a basic greenhouse calculation and then completely allow for it being completely wrong via the use of a sensitivity figure that can be positive or negative. Of course morons immediately assume that the feedback has to be positive over the long run and run around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming about the sky falling when in fact they have no idea what sensitivity is or how its physically manifested.
You say matter of factly that "Without radiative gases the atmosphere would be much hotter and the surface much colder. CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface."
I called poppycock on that because of the implication that the surface would be 33K cooler without greenhouse gases, not recognizing that it is almost certain that if you removed water vapor from the atmosphere it would NOT be 33k cooler or anywhere near that. At worst it would 9.5K cooler on average. But that assumes no other processes, like the sequesterization of heat in our low emissivity atmosphere would has no warming effect on our climate. But to make the statement more ridiculous it fails to recognize that without greenhouse gases we would instantly freeze every night and boil every day. Greenhouse gases moderate climate while all the morons run around claiming its going to destablize our climate by adding a trace gas.