In this "experiment," the candle would represent "the surface of the earth,"
and the camera would be deep space.
no , the experiment is exactly as I described it.
I'm not saying the experiment is different from what you describe.
But is that your list, which describes
"a thermal imaging video camera. (the surface of the earth)," or is that a quote from the video?
Wouldn't that mean that
"a candle. (the source of thermal heat)" was referring to the sun?
I assumed that was your description, rather than from the video, since that is a backwards description of the greenhouse effect. Wikipedia, or even the denialist sites,
all explain the greenhouse effect in similar ways. Only you, in keeping with your proud ideal of
assuming the opposite (of mainstream science) must be true, have this odd notion about how the greenhouse effect works.
I was looking it up on wikipedia,
to make sure I wasn't imagining this,
and I found a reference to
the 'anti-greenhouse effect' that you can easily look up. It is just what you've been describing here for weeks now on various threads, and there is apparently an example of it on the moon Titan.
So sorry, if the video said that backwards stuff; I thought that was your interpretation.
It's no wonder you've been going on about the blocking
of incoming (short-wave, near-IR) heat from the sun
...as "evidence" that CO2 works differently
than over 100 years of study has demonstrated!
also , its not that I have been saying that CO2
works differently , because I have been saying that CO2
does absorb IR , what I am saying is that over 1/2 of the
heat from the sun is IR and a proportionate amount
of that heat is blocked by the CO2 in the atmosphere and
that proportion of heat never reaches the earths surface.
...Right!
But ...again, you're only focusing on the "incoming radiation" (short IR) as the heat source.
But that is only 1/3 of the heating!
The other 2/3 comes from the absorption of UV and visible light, and its conversion into long-wave IR,
which then leaves the surface as "outgoing longwave radiation."
That is the source of heat for the greenhouse effect; "outgoing longwave radiation,"
from the ground/surface ...and headed into space.
So that's why the candle should represent the ground (source of heat)
and the camera should represent deep space (destination of heat), istm.
Remember "back radiation" (also known as the 'greenhouse effect')
the IR heat that is blocked would normally be
absorbed and re-emitted from the surface to the atmosphere
if it were not blocked at the atmosphere , so since the proportion of IR heat is blocked its pretty clear that
since that heat never reaches the surface then it
also never gets re-emitted by the surface in order to
provide the "back radiation" therefore a proportion of
the "back radiation" will also be decreased.
the missing surface heat equates into the outgoing
heat also being decreased , doesn't that make sense to
you?
...totally right; yes it makes sense.
Does it make sense to you that whatever affects 2/3 of the heating,
is more important than whatever affects 1/3 of the heating?
the incoming IR heat that is trapped by the CO2 will decrease
the final total of the heat that the earth absorbs of the initial total of incoming heat from the sun.
as is depicted at the bottom of your image as ( net absorbed 0.9 W/m^2).
...
your statement is true, but has nothing to do with the 0.9 W/m^2 mentioned in the picture.That number comes from subtracting the outgoing total from the incoming total, iirc.
in the above image , do you see the cloud in the center
of the picture?
to your left of that cloud as your looking at it
you will see the number 78 , that number 78 represents
the amount of incoming solar radiation that is absorbed by the atmosphere.
if you follow that dark yellow band downwards until it
reaches the surface you will see the number 161 , that
number represents the amount of incoming solar radiation that the earths surface absorbs (it says absorbed by surface)
that number is 161 because 341 is the initial number that
represents the incoming solar radiation and there are several
numbers that are subtracted from the number 341.
if the number 78 beside the cloud increases because more
and more of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the
atmosphere due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere
then the number 161 will decrease.
if the number 161 decreases then the
number 396 ( surface radiation) also decreases.
decreasing the number 333 ( back radiation )
...again, totally right
UNTIL your conclusion.
Agreed:
It [
your mechanism]
would decrease the
"number 396 ( surface radiation)".But it [
CO2] would
also decrease that little "40" number (CO2's "atmospheric window" -
right-hand side of graphic)
by double (
2/3 v. 1/3, remember?) ...whatever your incoming was decreased by.
And that amount would be
added onto the 333 number,
or whatever the new "back radiation" number would be after being lowered slightly by your blockage of incoming IR.
That is all included, when they make these calculation; you haven't discovered a new mechanism for how CO2 works.
CO2 still operates just like the other GHGs, which would all act the same, or do the same thing ...in that video ...if the video used them instead of CO2.So that is why the net change is "heating" ...from extra CO2.
....Rather than cooling, as you
keep deducing
(because you're only looking at 1/3 of the picture, the incoming heat).
~
