Zoe Phin

"Which case will end up with a hotter patty?" Temperature is an intensive property. 1C + 3C will never give you more than 3C. "If you block 100% of the radiation going to space via an actively cooled collector (so that its surface temperature is 3K, same as deep space) the temperature won't change one bit compared to radiating to free space. The radiator doesn't care." Space is not a heat sink. It also has no temperature. Remember your basic chemistry? Q = mc dT total Q = mcT You can use it to find final temperature of one solution mixed into another. But what happens in space, where m = 0 and c = infinity? "In the real world, the absorber warms up from all that radiation, and it re-radiates it back to the surface. Then the NEW radiation INCREASES the radiation incoming. More radiation = more warming." No, in the real world there is only ONE radiative heat transfer equation: Q = esT_hot^4 - esT_cold^4 As hot warms cold, Q is reduced. There is no energy flow from cold to hot at all. Again, since clouds blocked 25 W/m^2 from leaving where did the energy go? It didn't show up at the surface. Where is it? Sorry, NEW radiation doesn't cut it.

* no surface warming. olof, how's the answer coming?

Billvon, I just showed you that clouds reduce outgoing longwave radiation and this causes nonsurface warming. But you still believe GHGs reduce OLR and this causes warming. Amazing. "long wave radiation would go UP. It is in fact going DOWN. That's the proof that it is an atmospheric effect that's trapping more radiation." What planet are you on? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327874661_Decadal_Changes_of_Earth's_Outgoing_Longwave_Radiation "The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature. "

Billvon, "There is warmup." Not due to GHGs. clr_toa_lw_up 262.503 all_toa_lw_up 237.889 pristine_toa_lw_up 262.979 allnoaero_toa_lw_up 238.168 clr_sfc_lw_up 397.445 all_sfc_lw_up 398.167 pristine_sfc_lw_up 397.387 allnoaero_sfc_lw_up 398.129 Look how clouds block outgoing longwave radiation! Tis true, and yet makes no difference at the surface. Where's the 25 W/m^2 that clouds "blocked" showing up at the surface?

"You don't believe in the greenhouse effect AT ALL? " No. I believe in solar and geothermal. Do you read what I write. "If the Earth didn't have any greenhouse gases, the entire planet would average around 0F and be covered with ice." Based on an erroneous equation that means nothing. Read my material!

olof, Don't run away from the basic question. Why is the patty currently 140F? a) Stove b) Heat lamp c) Heat lamp + GHGs

"No, you showed data that proves that there is less longwave radiation leaving the Earth these days. You have proven the basics of AGW." WTF? There is no warmup and hence more radiation from the surface, hence I debunked AGW. "I said conservation of ENERGY. ENERGY not heat flow." What you say now and what you described before is not the same thing. "A reduction in braking does indeed increase acceleration in the example." You're tapping into energy you didn't have before. You can't look at the gas tank, that's like asking for more sun. All you're given is the gas you used to accelerate.

olof, Just one last question. Imagine there's a hamburger patty in a pan. The stove is set to 350F. There's also a heat lamp above set to 100F. There's some water vapor and CO2 in between patty and heat lamp. The top of patty is currently 150F. What caused that temperature?

Olof, The ideal gas equation shows how temperature plus gases create atmospheric pressure. To find out how fast the atmosphere will fall without surface temperature and its pressure, you need to use Newton's equations. lol I'm not making anything up. You believe the sun-warmed surface can get warmer than the sun alone allows by blocking passage of radiation to space. That diagram is a perfect illustration of it. Why are you walking away from it? It's embarassing you? So stop believing it.

olof, Here's how heat transfer works: Here's how climate fools insist heat transfer works: "Neither have you shown any knowledge of the basics of heat transfer." What you're saying is: "Zoe, you simply don't understand how the cart pushes the horse. I read that carts push horses, and until you restate that back to me, I will presume you are ignorant when you tell me that horses pull carts."

So you think Jupiter is hot due to gravity compressing the atmosphere? So why is there still an atmosphere? Because atmospheric pressure runs in the opposite direction of gravitational pressure. And what controls atmo pressure? Temperature. And what controls that? Internal heat.

Okay, olof, but no scientist claims Neptune is hot due to the greenhouse effect. And as I've shown, reducing outgoing radiation doesn't warm the surface. Since there is no political gain from lying about Neptune, scientists can be honest.

"why Venus is hot is mainly about counting pixels on a photo rather than actual calculations." You mean I'm zooming in to an observation in a peer-reviewed journal article diagram hosted at NASA. What's your next argument? The magic of greenhouse gases just so happens to deliver what geothermal does? Ah yes, of course. http://phzoe.com/2019/12/24/hot-plate-heat-lamp-and-gases-in-between/ Common sense goes out the window when you need to virtue signal that you too are "saving the earth" (tm).

Oh they have a little GHGs and they're not hot due to them? lol. There's too little for any scientists to think they make it warm. And Jupiter and Saturn? "gravitational compression" I would dispute that. High Geothemally induced Temperature will cause compression. It doesn't work vice versa. Pressure can only cause a one time heat up. You see what you're doing? You're coming up with ad hoc excuses for other planets, and ignoring them for Earth. That's because you want GHGs to be the cause. You desire it. You are just fooling yourself. Planet temperature = Geothermal + Solar. It's as simple as that.

I skydived thrice. Italy, Japan, Dubai. It was awesome. The Earth prevented me from radiating to the space behind it. How much should I have warmed up? lol

And you think this heat flux gets recycled by the glass. More glass, more heat flux. lol Why do scientific experiments or observations when we can just assume the law of conservation of heat flow (not ENERGY, i.e. reality) is a thing? In fantasy land, equilibrium is not even possible! The colder object must return energy back to the hot object making it warmer. Let's just apply a little bit of reason... http://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/ The scientific consensus is that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are very HOT at the bases of their atmospheres for internal heat reasons. That's because they barely have any GHGs. But if a planet had GHGs, then THAT must be why it's hot. Gimme a break. Can't you see the ride you're being taken on? All you're doing is facilitating the monetization of atmospheric gases. Can you charge someone to emit gases? No? Someone can. You made them rich. After CO2, will come other gases. Enjoy your slavery. Just wait till Universe Change becomes an issue. Pay up, boys.

200+ years ago, Fourier noticed that no amount of layers of glass made the surface warmer than what the sun can make it alone. Oh sure, you can block convection and prevent the gas from cooling, but the max temp NEVER exceeded what the sun provided. Actually these experiments were done in the 1780s, and they're still true today. Now repeat after me: "The cart pushes the horse".

"Now, energy in must equal energy out for steady state conditions. Which means that when there's an imbalance (i.e. less longwave radiation is emitted) then the planet will start warming. As it does, longwave radiation goes up again. Once the two balance again, then the system stops changing and is in equilibrium again. That's the basis of AGW." That's all just rhetoric. Zero evidence. Zero science. There's no such thing as conservation of heat flow. Look at the radiative heat equation for crying out loud. Heat flow is REDUCED as objects get closer to equilibrium. But you want to pretend it stays the same. And to do that you raise the source radiation. It's all mathemagic, but you don't see it that way. I just showed data that debunks the rhetoric, and you ignore it. "You fail to classify between daytime and nighttime." That's a stupid distinction. I show cloudy versus clear. I show a change in TOA radiation having near zero effect on SFC radiation (and hence temperature). "Put your foot on the gas pedal and brake pedal at the same time." Cute, but you ran out of gas as you were driving 75 mph. You don't get to invoke more energy out of nowhere.

Olof, First of all, the atmosphere is in physical contact with the surface. It can get warmed by conduction and convection. The surface will be as warm as solar and geothermal makes it, wirhout colder CO2 molcules above having any say. Second, not all photons act as heat. Photons only act as heat when going from hot to cold. Photons will either warm a colder objects and die, or fail to warm a warmer object and die. What you call "thermodynamics" is actually just mere rhetoric. Please get that through your head. The cart pushes the horse. The cart pushes the horse. Keep repeating that ad naseum until you start to believe it. You will then be as wise as the politically funded scientists that are foolong you.

Oh no more blocks? cool! http://phzoe.com/2021/02/12/effect-of-clouds-on-global-upwelling-radiation/ The standard greenhouse effect narrative is that infrared absorbing gases prevent radiation from reaching space and this causes warming at the surface (thus more radiation). Well we clearly see that's not case. If clouds (water vapor + aerosols) hardly changes outgoing surface radiation, then the whole hypothesis is in error. Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn't cause surface heating and thus more radiation from the surface. mmmkay? It's very simple.

I recommend you guys read: http://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/

olof, I did provide a link, search this thread for "effect-of-clouds-on-global-upwelling-radiation" Links get autoblocked till moderator intervenes. "Is english your first language?" 3rd and best. "Is surface radiation longwave radiation too?"

Billvon, "No the source is not warming due to radiation - the ABSORBER is warming. In this case the emitter is the CO2 in the atmosphere. The absorber is the planet. More CO2 = more energy absorbed by the CO2 = more emission by the CO2 = more energy absorbed by the planet." More energy is absorbed by the planet, which sent the longwave radiation to the CO2 to begin with? If planet is absorbing more, then it's temperature should go up and it should emit more. So when are you going to present a single experiment to prove it? Tyndall should have seen the source of his radiation warm up as you claim. Never happened. Never will.

Billvon, "Changing temperature from -20C to -19C is a positive change in temperature, even though it is also "less negative." You understand that, right?" That's cute. You know I was talking about the delta (change), not absolute. The change here is not less negative. What you're suggesting is that, on a flat road, less breaking = more accelerating. --- I see you're still taking cloudiness/clearness as a magical given, without concerning yourself with the cause. Bad science. I guess all those clouds in the tropics are there just because. --- I provided you with a link that provided the relevant data. Let's go through it. Shall we?clr_toa_lw_up 262.503all_toa_lw_up 237.889pristine_toa_lw_up 262.979allnoaero_toa_lw_up 238.168clr_sfc_lw_dn 317.924all_sfc_lw_dn 347.329pristine_sfc_lw_dn 316.207allnoaero_sfc_lw_dn 346.359clr_sfc_lw_up 397.445all_sfc_lw_up 398.167pristine_sfc_lw_up 397.387allnoaero_sfc_lw_up 398.129 As you can see cloudy skies reduce outgoing longwave radiation. No disagreement there. And what about surface radiation? Barely any difference. I would argue 0, even though they show 0.722 (all minus clr) - because the can't capture cloudy and clear at the same place at the same time. This 0.722 W/m^2 is still just 0.13 degrees C difference. Nothing, really. Summary: outgoing longwave radiation to a satellite has no effect on surface radiation. The greenhouse effect hypothesis is incorrect.

"What I mean is absorption of that infrared radiation makes the ABSORBER warmer. Not the source. Did you really pass basic thermodynamics?" That's not the greenhouse effect theory. That theory states the source warms ... by ~33 degrees C. No evidence for 170 years since Tyndall.