[Pants-of-dog]

No it isn't.

Not only is there a significant observed reduction, but also those wavelengths that are absorbed by GHGs are the ones most reduced.

That's putting it a little too simply. The IR wavelengths the earth emits from its surface -- water, land and ice -- are not the same ones it emits from its atmosphere to outer space, which satellites measure. Without GHGs, the IR emissions from the surface would escape directly to outer space without heating the atmosphere, and the earth would be a frozen ball of ice. With GHGs, the earth's surface is much warmer, and the temperature and spectrum of the final emission are those of GHGs at the emission altitude. That is a crucial difference which you self-evidently do not understand.

So you agree and understand that GHGs increase the time it takes for energy to be re-emitted into space.

And satellites have measured this reduction in energy emissions, and seen a significant increase since 1970, consistent with the increasing levels of GHGs.

No it isn't. It's just an increased difference between surface temperature and the temperature of final emission to outer space,

Both are true.

The change created by GHGs (or as you put it, the effect on spectral distribution of the emissions) is a reduction in energy emitted, and the temperature of the atmosphere where energy is released into space is also made colder, as you point out.

And colder bodies emit less heat energy than hot bodies. So the Earth is also emitting less energy is this respect as well.

a delay between the daytime and nighttime temperature equilibria, a higher equilibrium altitude and commensurately lower temperature of final emission, and a shift in its spectral distribution. The equilibrium energy emitted is exactly the same with and without GHGs: the same amount of energy that is received from the sun.

No.

You are making this faith based assumption that energy in is exactly equal to energy out.

This is simply not true.

To put it simply, you have no knowledge or understanding of atmospheric physics or radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere, and you refuse to learn anything from someone who does.

Yes, as described above: not on the amount of energy emitted, only on the difference between surface and emission temperature, the delay in reaching diurnal equilibria, and the altitude, characteristic temperature, and spectral distribution of the final IR emission to outer space, as I explained to you so very patiently, above.

The increased altitude is also reducing the energy we emit to space per second. The evidence is unclear as to whether or not this is significant enough to matter.

No it is not. You are just wrong. The quantity of energy emitted is exactly the same with or without GHGs. The only differences are as I described above. The controversy over CO2's effect on climate -- AGW -- concerns only how additional CO2's effect on the altitude, temperature and spectral distribution of the final emission to outer space propagates back down to affect temperature at the surface. Angstrom's experiment showed it has almost no effect because the IR absorption of standard surface air is already massively oversaturated by water vapor and the pre-industrial level of CO2.

No.

Angstrom’s experiment does not disprove the fact that CO2 is insulating the Earth. It does not disprove convection, it would only apply if the entire atmosphere was IR saturated, and ignores wavelengths outside of Angstrom’s narrow focus, and also ignores total heat budget since it does not discuss heat loss at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you merely proved that you do not know anything about the matter, and neither does the source of your diagram. A greenhouse works by blocking convection, not radiation;

No.

Convection is heat transfer through the movement of a heated fluid, usually air or water.

Greenhouses lose and gain heat through convection quite easily.

On the outside, greenhouses are affected by wind and rain. the wind and rain moving against the glass can heat or cool the glass quite effectively.

On the inside, there will be a convection current. The air on the south side will be warmer and will rise, while the air on the north side will be cooler and descend. So, people will feel a slight draft in the building blowing from north to south. This is for the northern hemisphere, and would be the opposite for those of us from down there.

There is also the stack effect, aka the chimney effect in greenhouses tall enough. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect)

But this is easily tested.

You can measure the temperature in a greenhouse and an opaque building at the same location and at he same time. The only difference would be amount of radiation.

Finally, ASHRAE disagrees with you. When we calculate heating and cooling loads for designing cooling and heating systems, the amount of solar radiation absorbed through windows is a very significant load.

"greenhouse" gases work by being transparent to visible-spectrum electromagnetic radiation but opaque to (i.e., blocking) infra-red radiation. Completely different principles.

GHGs work more like blankets on a bed than glass on a greenhouse. If you add another layer of glass to a greenhouse, or make the glass thicker, it has no effect on temperature in the greenhouse, while adding another blanket to a bed or using a thicker blanket does have a considerable effect on how warm the guy in the bed feels. The reason CO2 can't significantly affect the earth's surface temperature is that there is already so much water vapor (wool blankets) and CO2 (cotton blankets) in standard surface atmospheric air that adding more CO2 doesn't make any difference. Doubling CO2 is like adding a cotton blanket to a stack of one cotton and 40 wool blankets on a bed. It makes the temperature at the top of the stack a little different, but the effect on how warm the guy in the bed feels is microscopic.

You make this analogy a lot.

You never provide evidence that the CO2 impact is not significant.

[Truth To Power]

Not only is there a significant observed reduction, but also those wavelengths that are absorbed by GHGs are the ones most reduced.

You haven't provided any evidence to that effect. The reduction is in the characteristic temperature of emissions, not the quantity of energy emitted.

So you agree and understand that GHGs increase the time it takes for energy to be re-emitted into space.

Indisputably. They just don't reduce the amount.

And satellites have measured this reduction in energy emissions, and seen a significant increase since 1970, consistent with the increasing levels of GHGs.

No they haven't.

Both are true.

No, your claim is false.

The change created by GHGs (or as you put it, the effect on spectral distribution of the emissions) is a reduction in energy emitted,

No it isn't, as already explained, very patiently, in clear, simple, grammatical English, multiple times.

and the temperature of the atmosphere where energy is released into space is also made colder, as you point out.

Right.

And colder bodies emit less heat energy than hot bodies.

Cet. par. Cet is not par because the number of molecules of GHGs emitting IR at the final emission altitude is greater, and the overhead circular aperture of escape for IR radiation is wider at higher emission altitudes. More GHGs merely shift the thermal equilibrium conditions, they don't create a persistent disequilibrium.

So the Earth is also emitting less energy is this respect as well.

No it isn't, as already explained.

No.

Yes.

You are making this faith based assumption that energy in is exactly equal to energy out.

It's not faith based. It's how thermal equilibrium works and has to work. There is an oscillation around the equilibrium because of the diurnal and seasonal cycles, but that's all.

This is simply not true.

Yes it is.

The increased altitude is also reducing the energy we emit to space per second.

No it isn't.

The evidence is unclear as to whether or not this is significant enough to matter.

Zero is not significant enough to matter.

No.

Yes.

Angstrom’s experiment does not disprove the fact that CO2 is insulating the Earth.

Right. What it disproves is the objectively false claim that adding MORE CO2 to surface air could have a significant effect on its IR transmission characteristics.

It does not disprove convection,

Silliness. Convection is irrelevant because it depends on surface heating, and CO2 can't significantly affect surface heating.

it would only apply if the entire atmosphere was IR saturated,

Unscientific gibberish.

and ignores wavelengths outside of Angstrom’s narrow focus,

Because they are unrelated to CO2.

and also ignores total heat budget since it does not discuss heat loss at all.

Because heat loss from the upper atmosphere is both unaffected by and irrelevant to the effects of added CO2 on surface temperature.

[Truth To Power]

No.

Yes.

Convection is heat transfer through the movement of a heated fluid, usually air or water.

More accurately, it is heat transfer through the upward movement of warmer and downward movement of cooler fluids caused by the difference in their densities. Heat transfer by a fan is not, repeat, NOT convection.

Greenhouses lose and gain heat through convection quite easily.

No they don't.

On the outside, greenhouses are affected by wind and rain. the wind and rain moving against the glass can heat or cool the glass quite effectively.

Wind and rain are not convection. The convective cooling of a greenhouse is quite minor, as it depends on the temperature difference between the glass and the outside air.

On the inside, there will be a convection current.

Which is blocked by the roof.

The air on the south side will be warmer and will rise, while the air on the north side will be cooler and descend. So, people will feel a slight draft in the building blowing from north to south. This is for the northern hemisphere, and would be the opposite for those of us from down there.

And the greenhouse is warmer than the outside air because the roof keeps the rising warm air from leaving, forcing it to warm the rest of the greenhouse through internal circulation rather than being lost to the outside via convective cooling.

There is also the stack effect, aka the chimney effect in greenhouses tall enough. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect)

A tall greenhouse's roof still makes it warmer by stopping warm air from leaving upward through convection.

But this is easily tested.

Right. And such tests have proved you wrong: a greenhouse made of IR-transparent plastic is just as warm as one made of IR-opaque glass.

You can measure the temperature in a greenhouse and an opaque building at the same location and at he same time. The only difference would be amount of radiation.

That's not a test of how the greenhouse warms itself, only of how well the opaque building blocks sunlight from entering it.

Finally, ASHRAE disagrees with you.

No it doesn't.

When we calculate heating and cooling loads for designing cooling and heating systems, the amount of solar radiation absorbed through windows is a very significant load.

You have merely added another proof to the already teeming multitudes of proofs that you have no idea what you are talking about. The amount of visible-spectrum solar energy entering a building through its windows says nothing about how the building stops that energy from leaving. One reason roofs have vents is to prevent the space under the roof from overheating due to blocked convection.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You make this analogy a lot.

Because it is clear, simple, valid, accurate and informative. Unlike anything you have ever offered.

You never provide evidence that the CO2 impact is not significant.

That is false. Angstrom's experiment, which I have cited multiple times and has never been refuted, proved the impact of CO2 on surface temperature cannot be significant.

[Pants-of-dog]

You haven't provided any evidence to that effect. The reduction is in the characteristic temperature of emissions, not the quantity of energy emitted.

Prove it.

Quote any of the studies.

Indisputably. They just don't reduce the amount.

No they haven't.

No, your claim is false.

No it isn't, as already explained, very patiently, in clear, simple, grammatical English, multiple times.

Right.

No it isn't, as already explained.

Yes.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

Zero is not significant enough to matter.

Yes.

Unscientific gibberish.

Because they are unrelated to CO2.

Please write in clear and complete sentences.

Cet. par. Cet is not par because the number of molecules of GHGs emitting IR at the final emission altitude is greater,

No. The higher you go, the thinner the air.

and the overhead circular aperture of escape for IR radiation is wider at higher emission altitudes.

Irrelevant. The greater surface area contains less heat emitting molecules per unit of area, making the increased area irrelevant to heat emission.

More GHGs merely shift the thermal equilibrium conditions, they don't create a persistent disequilibrium.

They do both.

It's not faith based. It's how thermal equilibrium works and has to work. There is an oscillation around the equilibrium because of the diurnal and seasonal cycles, but that's all.

It is faith based since you provide no evidence at all for this claim.

Right. What it disproves is the objectively false claim that adding MORE CO2 to surface air could have a significant effect on its IR transmission characteristics.

No, this is incorrect.

This is because adding CO2 to surface air does have an impact, because this air and CO2 does not stay on the surface.

Silliness. Convection is irrelevant because it depends on surface heating, and CO2 can't significantly affect surface heating.

No.

The phrase "convection depends on surface heating" is gibberish.

Because heat loss from the upper atmosphere is both unaffected by and irrelevant to the effects of added CO2 on surface temperature.

No.

This is the claim that you still have not supported, and that has been contradicted by at least three studies cited in this thread.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

Tyndall's analogy

Like a dam on a river, the barrier [Increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere] thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Tyndall's analogy

Like a dam on a river, the barrier [Increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere] thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.

Much like the cotton blanket added to the stack of one cotton and 40 wool blankets: the temperature everywhere beneath it has to rise until there is enough heat pushing out to balance the heat generated by the sleeper's body. Big difference in temperature for the former top blanket, but less and less difference as you go down the stack, until the sleeper notices no difference at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes.

More accurately, it is heat transfer through the upward movement of warmer and downward movement of cooler fluids caused by the difference in their densities. Heat transfer by a fan is not, repeat, NOT convection.

No they don't.

Wind and rain are not convection. The convective cooling of a greenhouse is quite minor, as it depends on the temperature difference between the glass and the outside air.

You are mistaken about the definition of convection.

Perhaps you are using a definition different from that used by building engineers. We use it to mean heat transfer by a fluid.

You claimed that greenhouses heat themselves by blocking convection. This is incorrect even if we are discussing fluid movement due to different densities, which we call convective currents. We know this because greenhouses do have convective currents, they are not blocked, and while these air movements are enough to be felt by humans, blocking them would not change the temperature that much.

Do you mean air infiltration?

Which is blocked by the roof.

No. The convective current described simply descends on the cooler exterior wall.

It is basically circular.

And the greenhouse is warmer than the outside air because the roof keeps the rising warm air from leaving, forcing it to warm the rest of the greenhouse through internal circulation rather than being lost to the outside via convective cooling.

No.

Once the hot air rises, a large portion of the heated air will come into direct contact with a cooler part of the roof or upper wall. The air will then cool and descend along the cooler wall.

A tall greenhouse's roof still makes it warmer by stopping warm air from leaving upward through convection.

Not with a ridge vent.

A ridge vent is a covered opening in the top of a peaked roof.

Greenhouses tend to have them to allow air circulation during humid times.

While this stops heat from building up as quickly, it has no impact on the source of heating.

Right. And such tests have proved you wrong: a greenhouse made of IR-transparent plastic is just as warm as one made of IR-opaque glass.

No.

As someone who has actually read these studies for work, I know you are incorrect.

That's not a test of how the greenhouse warms itself, only of how well the opaque building blocks sunlight from entering it.

It would test your claim that greenhouses are heated by blocking convection. Both would block convection equally well, and would therefore be the same temperature if you were correct.

In reality, the one that allows heat radiation to enter but not leave as much will be warmer.

No, it doesn't.

When calculating the heating and cooling loads for a space, things like window size, orientation and latitude all have to be taken into account since all of these impact the heat from solar radiation.

You have merely added another proof to the already teeming multitudes of proofs that you have no idea what you are talking about. The amount of visible-spectrum solar energy entering a building through its windows says nothing about how the building stops that energy from leaving. One reason roofs have vents is to prevent the space under the roof from overheating due to blocked convection.

You claimed that greenhouses heat themselves by blocking convection.

Now yiu seem to be shifting the goalposts and arguing that greenhouses prevent heat loss by blocking exfiltration.

All buildings in colder environments prevent heat loss by preventing air exfiltration.

By the way, the reason most homes have ridge vents in colder climes is to prevent ice dams.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Because it is clear, simple, valid, accurate and informative. Unlike anything you have ever offered.

That is false. Angstrom's experiment, which I have cited multiple times and has never been refuted, proved the impact of CO2 on surface temperature cannot be significant.

Since that has been refuted by the five different scientific works already cited, your argument is now dismissed.

[Truth To Power]

You are mistaken about the definition of convection.

No, of course I'm not. Don't be so ridiculous with your false, nonsensical, absurd and disingenuous claims. Read, and do your best to learn something:

"con·vec·tion: the movement caused within a fluid by the tendency of hotter and therefore less dense material to rise, and colder, denser material to sink under the influence of gravity, which consequently results in transfer of heat." -- Oxford Languages

In case you were uncertain, the above is indisputable proof that I am right and you are wrong. It's always going to be the same.

Perhaps you are using a definition different from that used by building engineers. We use it to mean heat transfer by a fluid.

Then you use it wrong.

You claimed that greenhouses heat themselves by blocking convection. This is incorrect

No it isn't. I'm right, you're wrong. Period.

even if we are discussing fluid movement due to different densities, which we call convective currents.

People who use English correctly call it, "convection." See above.

We know this because greenhouses do have convective currents, they are not blocked,

Right, a greenhouse works by blocking the convection it doesn't have because it is blocked. See how that works?

and while these air movements are enough to be felt by humans, blocking them would not change the temperature that much.

Right, because the greenhouse heats itself by stopping rising warm air from exiting through the roof.

Do you mean air infiltration?

I mean convection: less dense warm air rising and being replaced by denser, cooler air.

No. The convective current described simply descends on the cooler exterior wall.

Because the normal convective current -- warm air rising -- is blocked by the greenhouse's roof.

It is basically circular.

Unlike the convection that the greenhouse blocks.

No.

Yes.

Once the hot air rises, a large portion of the heated air will come into direct contact with a cooler part of the roof or upper wall. The air will then cool and descend along the cooler wall.

But because the roof blocked it from continuing to rise in the normal convective flow pattern, it remains a lot warmer than the outside air, proving me right and you wrong.

Not with a ridge vent.

A ridge vent merely stops the greenhouse from getting too hot -- like the inside of a car on a hot day with the windows rolled up -- by permitting some of the rising warm air to escape and be replaced by cooler air from outside.

Greenhouses tend to have them to allow air circulation during humid times.

They have them because when the weather is warm, blocking convection completely will make the greenhouse too hot, like the inside of a car on a hot day.

While this stops heat from building up as quickly, it has no impact on the source of heating.

It just makes the blockage of convection incomplete.

No.

Yes.

As someone who has actually read these studies for work, I know you are incorrect.

I am objectively correct:

https://www.canr.msu.edu/floriculture/u ... lazing.pdf

See Table 1, which shows polyethylene lets >17x as much IR through as glass, and Table 2, which shows they have the same heat loss coefficient.

I'm objectively right, you're objectively wrong. It's always the same.

It would test your claim that greenhouses are heated by blocking convection. Both would block convection equally well, and would therefore be the same temperature if you were correct.

No, because the opaque one is not getting as much heat from the sun. It's just heating the outside of the building, where the heat will be lost to convection. Duh.

In reality, the one that allows heat radiation to enter but not leave as much will be warmer.

Nope. Here's the real test: a glass greenhouse that blocks IR but has a large open space at the top of the wall under the glass vs a plastic one that lets IR out but keeps warm air in. You know that the plastic one will be a lot warmer (and if you don't, then you are completely incompetent in the most basic elements of building envelope engineering). That is why leaving a car window open just a centimeter on a hot day will dramatically reduce the temperature inside, even though all the IR is still being blocked by the car's roof. It's blocked convection that makes the inside of the car so hot.

You claimed that greenhouses heat themselves by blocking convection.

Which is objectively correct, as proved above.

Now you seem to be shifting the goalposts and arguing that greenhouses prevent heat loss by blocking exfiltration.

It's the same effect: convection is blocked, preventing warm air from rising out of the greenhouse.

All buildings in colder environments prevent heat loss by preventing air exfiltration.

But greenhouses do it everywhere. That's how they work.

By the way, the reason most homes have ridge vents in colder climes is to prevent ice dams.

It's mostly to prevent condensation of moisture from warm house air from accumulating in the attic, as proved by the fact that they are common even where ice dams are not a threat.

Since that has been refuted by the five different scientific works already cited, your argument is now dismissed.

No, you have made that claim, but have not supported it.

[late]

https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=181311

.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

Does a greenhouse work more from infrared heating (the greenhouse effect) or more from the inhibition of convective heat loss?






Assuming they haven’t made any fundamental mistakes with the numbers, I think you will find that the greenhouse effect is consistently larger than the convective inhibition.

Note: The convective heat loss by the greenhouse roof is only 8 W/m2 less than if the greenhouse was not there. In contrast, the reduced IR 'loss' is twelve times as large as the reduction in the convective loss.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Does a greenhouse work more from infrared heating (the greenhouse effect) or more from the inhibition of convective heat loss?

The latter, as I already proved to PoD:

https://www.canr.msu.edu/floriculture/u ... lazing.pdf

See Table 1 and 2.

Assuming they haven’t made any fundamental mistakes with the numbers, I think you will find that the greenhouse effect is consistently larger than the convective inhibition.

No, that's not what it says.

Note: The convective heat loss by the greenhouse roof is only 8 W/m2 less than if the greenhouse was not there. In contrast, the reduced IR 'loss' is twelve times as large as the reduction in the convective loss.

You have completely misunderstood the diagrams. The IR loss is greater from the greenhouse roof because it is warmer than the ground without a greenhouse. The internal IR interception is greater because the ground is at 85F instead of 75F because of the convective inhibition. See the source I provided.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

You have not accounted for the 100 W/m2 back radiation emitted by the glass.



p.s. You can prove this radiation exists empirically by doing an experiment on a frosty night with cars and a greenhouse without walls. The cars parked outside the carport are frosty, the car inside is frost-free.

[Truth To Power]

Prove it.

Quote any of the studies.

It is up to you to quote where the papers say the quantity of energy emitted has decreased. So far, you haven't been able to do that.

Please write in clear and complete sentences.

I do. And you know it.

No. The higher you go, the thinner the air.

You are trying to change the subject, which is the difference between pre-industrial and current GHG concentration. When GHGs increase, the number of GHG molecules at the emission altitude is greater than it was,, not greater than at a lower altitude. Get it? Whether the number is greater than at the pre-industrial emission altitude depends on which factor dominates: the lower characteristic emission temperature or the wider escape aperture caused by the increased emission altitude.

Irrelevant. The greater surface area contains less heat emitting molecules per unit of area, making the increased area irrelevant to heat emission.

No; as I explained above, the number of emitting CO2 molecules at the emitting altitude is greater than it was in pre-industrial times, in part because water vapor continues to decline with temperature the higher you go. With less water vapor emitting, final emission has to occur where there is more CO2, to maintain the thermal equilibrium. The increased angular aperture of escape means more final IR emissions from fewer molecules.

They do both.

No they don't. That's why we speak of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).

It is faith based since you provide no evidence at all for this claim.

Garbage. I already explained how the Stefan-Boltzmann equation forces thermal equilibrium.

No, this is incorrect.

No, it is correct.

This is because adding CO2 to surface air does have an impact, because this air and CO2 does not stay on the surface.

That is irrelevant because CO2 is well mixed. The CO2 that rises by convection is replaced by the same amount of indistinguishable CO2 from nearby.

No.

Yes.

The phrase "convection depends on surface heating" is gibberish.

No it isn't.

No.

Yes.

This is the claim that you still have not supported, and that has been contradicted by at least three studies cited in this thread.

The authors of those studies might deny it in the course of their mandatory genuflections to AGW nonscience, but you have identified nothing in those studies that actually contradicts it.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, of course I'm not. Don't be so ridiculous with your false, nonsensical, absurd and disingenuous claims. Read, and do your best to learn something:

"con·vec·tion: the movement caused within a fluid by the tendency of hotter and therefore less dense material to rise, and colder, denser material to sink under the influence of gravity, which consequently results in transfer of heat." -- Oxford Languages

In case you were uncertain, the above is indisputable proof that I am right and you are wrong. It's always going to be the same.

Then you use it wrong.

No it isn't. I'm right, you're wrong. Period.

People who use English correctly call it, "convection." See above.

Right, a greenhouse works by blocking the convection it doesn't have because it is blocked. See how that works?

Right, because the greenhouse heats itself by stopping rising warm air from exiting through the roof.

I mean convection: less dense warm air rising and being replaced by denser, cooler air.

Because the normal convective current -- warm air rising -- is blocked by the greenhouse's roof.

Unlike the convection that the greenhouse blocks.

Yes.

But because the roof blocked it from continuing to rise in the normal convective flow pattern, it remains a lot warmer than the outside air, proving me right and you wrong.

You have to clarify exactly which convection current you are discussing.

I am discussing the air inside the greenhouse.

Once the heated air inside the greenhouse reaches the roof, the heated air will transfer this heat to the glass which makes up the roof. This air will then descend, since it is cooler than the hotter ascending air.

In general, this air that was just cooled will descend on the cooler wall.

You seem to think that air heats up from the heat radiating from the floor and other thermal masses, and then ascends, and then magically stops and somehow heats the entire space despite being up by the roof.

A ridge vent merely stops the greenhouse from getting too hot -- like the inside of a car on a hot day with the windows rolled up -- by permitting some of the rising warm air to escape and be replaced by cooler air from outside.

They have them because when the weather is warm, blocking convection completely will make the greenhouse too hot, like the inside of a car on a hot day.

It just makes the blockage of convection incomplete.

There is no blockage of convection of the sir inside a greenhouse.

Yes.

I am objectively correct:

https://www.canr.msu.edu/floriculture/u ... lazing.pdf

See Table 1, which shows polyethylene lets >17x as much IR through as glass, and Table 2, which shows they have the same heat loss coefficient.

You forgot what your claim was.

Your claim was that an opaque greenhouse and a glass one would be the same temperature.

This does not show that.

It actually supports my point that solar radiation is an important part of heating a greenhouse. This is because glass allows a lot more IR in, which would make the greenhouse warmer. This is why glass is the preferred material despite polyethylene being significantly cheaper.

A polyethylene building envelope will have the same R-value as a building envelope made of glass. But this is not the sole factor governing internal temperature.

I'm objectively right, you're objectively wrong. It's always the same.

No, because the opaque one is not getting as much heat from the sun. It's just heating the outside of the building, where the heat will be lost to convection. Duh.

Paint the opaque one black, so it is absorbing significantly more heat from the sun than the greenhouse. I will still be right.

Nope. Here's the real test: a glass greenhouse that blocks IR but has a large open space at the top of the wall under the glass vs a plastic one that lets IR out but keeps warm air in. You know that the plastic one will be a lot warmer (and if you don't, then you are completely incompetent in the most basic elements of building envelope engineering).

This is because the stack effect would remove all the heated air. It would not support your claim at all. Your claim is that solar radiation is not a reason why greenhouses are warm.

Tell you what:

You could test your hypothesis by building two identical greenhouses and putting one in the shade and seeing which gets warmer.

That is why leaving a car window open just a centimeter on a hot day will dramatically reduce the temperature inside, even though all the IR is still being blocked by the car's roof. It's blocked convection that makes the inside of the car so hot.

I see.

You have never noticed the difference between getting into a hot car with white seats versus a hot car with black seats.

The car with black seats will be hotter.

This is because the black car seats will absorb more light and radiate it as heat, while the white seats simply reflect more light and therefore radiate less heat.

Note the fact that I mentioned heat radiation twice.

Which is objectively correct, as proved above.

It's the same effect: convection is blocked, preventing warm air from rising out of the greenhouse.

And again, this is how greenhouses and other buildings prevent significant heat loss. It is not a heat source. It is not how greenhouses work to keep the interior warm.

But greenhouses do it everywhere. That's how they work.

It's mostly to prevent condensation of moisture from warm house air from accumulating in the attic, as proved by the fact that they are common even where ice dams are not a threat.

No, you have made that claim, but have not supported it.

If a greenhouse is situated in a climate that is warmer than the interior, than it does not need to have heating and therefore there is no point in discussing how they work in those climes. This is because the ambient air around the greenhouse will heat the greenhouse no matter what.

Also, note that convection of heated surface air on Earth is not blocked, so this weird idea that you have does not even apply to nature, though it does apply to Angstrom, which is why Angstrom is irrelevant for climate.

[Pants-of-dog]

You have completely misunderstood the diagrams. The IR loss is greater from the greenhouse roof because it is warmer than the ground without a greenhouse.

That is the IR loss from the greenhouse roof.

You should be comparing heat loss from the ground in both cases, as well as the test of the arrows.

The internal IR interception is greater because the ground is at 85F instead of 75F because of the convective inhibition. See the source I provided.

No, convection is the blue arrows.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

You have not accounted for the 100 W/m2 back radiation emitted by the glass.

Wrong again. That is exactly the same whether the greenhouse is made of glass or IR-transparent plastic, because it is caused by the roof being at 78F thanks to the blocking of convection warming the air inside.

p.s. You can prove this radiation exists empirically

Obviously IR radiation exists.

by doing an experiment on a frosty night with cars and a greenhouse without walls. The cars parked outside the carport are frosty, the car inside is frost-free.

No, that experiment proves nothing of the sort because the external heat source has been removed.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is up to you to quote where the papers say the quantity of energy emitted has decreased. So far, you haven't been able to do that.

I do. And you know it.

You are trying to change the subject, which is the difference between pre-industrial and current GHG concentration. When GHGs increase, the number of GHG molecules at the emission altitude is greater than it was,, not greater than at a lower altitude. Get it? Whether the number is greater than at the pre-industrial emission altitude depends on which factor dominates: the lower characteristic emission temperature or the wider escape aperture caused by the increased emission altitude.

No, the concentration of GHGs does not depend on the lower characteristic emission temperature or the wider escape aperture caused by the increased emission altitude.

It depends solely on how much GHGs are being pumped into the atmosphere and how much are getting removed.

And people are putting in more than nature can take out, so there are more GHGs at all levels of the atmosphere compared to pre-industial levels.

No; as I explained above, the number of emitting CO2 molecules at the emitting altitude is greater than it was in pre-industrial times, in part because water vapor continues to decline with temperature the higher you go. With less water vapor emitting, final emission has to occur where there is more CO2, to maintain the thermal equilibrium. The increased angular aperture of escape means more final IR emissions from fewer molecules.

You mean “ the number of absorbing CO2 molecules at the emitting altitude is greater than it was in pre-industrial times”.”

And you are incorrect since the temperature at the new higher altitude is lower, so the fewer molecules are also emitting fewer final IR emissions.

No they don't. That's why we speak of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).

Garbage. I already explained how the Stefan-Boltzmann equation forces thermal equilibrium.

No, it is correct.

I invite anyone to explain what TtP is talking about here, since he cannot.

That is irrelevant because CO2 is well mixed. The CO2 that rises by convection is replaced by the same amount of indistinguishable CO2 from nearby.

Are you seriously arguing that the entire atmosphere has identical CO2 and IR saturation properties?

lol

Yes

No it isn't.

Yes.

The authors of those studies might deny it in the course of their mandatory genuflections to AGW nonscience, but you have identified nothing in those studies that actually contradicts it.

….except for the evidenc ethat the Earth is emitting less heat, specifically in those wavelengths absorbed by GHGs.

[Truth To Power]

That is the IR loss from the greenhouse roof.

Which proves you wrong.

You should be comparing heat loss from the ground in both cases, as well as the test of the arrows.

No, because the ground is warmer in the greenhouse because convective cooling has been blocked by the roof. That is why greenhouses made of IR-transparent plastic are just as warm as greenhouses made of IR-opaque glass. I already gave you the reference that proves you wrong.

No, convection is the blue arrows.

And...? Why are you falsely and disingenuously pretending I said otherwise?

[Pants-of-dog]

….thanks to the blocking of convection warming the air inside.

Blocking air is not a heat source.

Energy does not magically appear from blocking air movement.

You need a source of energy.