tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post2572074305910451401..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature ModelUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-63553013409173692552018-05-08T03:34:41.673-07:002018-05-08T03:34:41.673-07:00Squidly: Wrong. LoT's are not violated because...Squidly: Wrong. LoT's are not violated because the net energy balance is established between the Earth (relatively cold body) and the Sun (very hot body), not between Earth's surface and atmosphere. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-63436623997519306052018-02-01T03:00:36.438-08:002018-02-01T03:00:36.438-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-14620516954412121792018-02-01T02:26:43.978-08:002018-02-01T02:26:43.978-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-57576225999280244452018-02-01T00:54:51.428-08:002018-02-01T00:54:51.428-08:00Time for another post please.
Have you been away?
...Time for another post please.<br />Have you been away?<br />Hope all is well.<br />Looking forward to your next offering.<br />Yz<br />DaveThe 2 Ellerbyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16546023763371909138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-83094599525821008162018-01-29T03:29:39.581-08:002018-01-29T03:29:39.581-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-39908812421074201942018-01-28T08:13:48.100-08:002018-01-28T08:13:48.100-08:00"or a net source of additional energy to the ..."or a net source of <b>additional energy</b> to the system."<br /><br />See anything wrong with this? ... someone please explain how it would even be possible for DWLR to create "additional energy to the system" without violating the 1st LoT ...Squidlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09916585097070823476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-47315323237862748582017-12-27T21:31:53.342-08:002017-12-27T21:31:53.342-08:00"high emissivity will cool the atmosphere but..."high emissivity will cool the atmosphere but at the expense of emitting radiation back to the surface."<br />-<br />It doesn't make any difference if the emitted radiation is back to the surface or not. You still cannot further warm the surface from a cooler object (the atmosphere). Nor can the original source of that IR (the surface) heat itself simply by bouncing radiation to gasses like CO2 back to itself. You cannot get around the 1st and 2nd LoT's ...Squidlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09916585097070823476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-30835594674549321792017-12-01T03:15:52.292-08:002017-12-01T03:15:52.292-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Swifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03360339770391670178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-894150605076381172017-11-21T08:36:51.399-08:002017-11-21T08:36:51.399-08:00"This is because, in gaseous systems, heat is..."This is because, in gaseous systems, heat is primarily transferred (dissipated) by convection (i.e., through fluid motion) rather than radiative exchange."<br /><br />How does an atmosphere surrounded by vacuum move it's heat out of the system, if not by radiative exchange?<br /><br />" It is also known that high-emissivity materials promote radiative cooling."<br /><br />Emission of a gas happens in all directions, not just toward the cold area. High emissivity promotes cooling of an object, but not the objects that are radiating to it. In other words, high emissivity will cool the atmosphere but at the expense of emitting radiation back to the surface.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15137876727646258956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-51927813267688566892017-09-24T15:23:33.783-07:002017-09-24T15:23:33.783-07:00Just what we've been saying here for some time...Just what we've been saying here for some time is it not ?<br /><br />And I've been promulgating the mass /density/ gravity aspect since 2008 in multiple blogs.<br />Stephen Wildehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07357171106480483956noreply@blogger.com