The entire greenhouse effect does not even add 0.1 C. The debate is over. The science is settled.

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

That can't be right. The IR emissivity of sea water is around 0.98, and the IR emissivities of almost all land surfaces are above 0.90. Where did you get that figure from?

Tai Hai Chen wrote: Earth's surface's emissivity is found to be 0.612

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

That can't be right. The IR emissivity of sea water is around 0.98, and the IR emissivities of almost all land surfaces are above 0.90. Where did you get that figure from?

You are right. I misunderstood emissivity. The emissivity of an object is the object's ability to emit infrared energy. An object's emissivity has nothing to do with the said object's albedo. It is corrected in the first post. Thanks for the heads up.

Emissivity is a number between 0 and 1. A perfect mirror has emissivity 0. A perfect black body has emissivity 1. Earth's surface's emissivity is found to be 0.612.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/c/Climate_model.htm

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

That can't be right. The IR emissivity of sea water is around 0.98, and the IR emissivities of almost all land surfaces are above 0.90. Where did you get that figure from?

You are right. I misunderstood emissivity. The emissivity of an object is the object's ability to emit infrared energy. An object's emissivity has nothing to do with the said object's albedo. It is corrected in the first post. Thanks for the heads up.

Emissivity is a number between 0 and 1. A perfect mirror has emissivity 0. A perfect black body has emissivity 1. Earth's surface's emissivity is found to be 0.612.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/c/Climate_model.htm

Go back and read your sources again. 0.612 is the effective emissivity of the Earth as a whole (after taking into account the greenhouse effect), not the emissivity of the Earth's surface!

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

That can't be right. The IR emissivity of sea water is around 0.98, and the IR emissivities of almost all land surfaces are above 0.90. Where did you get that figure from?

You are right. I misunderstood emissivity. The emissivity of an object is the object's ability to emit infrared energy. An object's emissivity has nothing to do with the said object's albedo. It is corrected in the first post. Thanks for the heads up.

Emissivity is a number between 0 and 1. A perfect mirror has emissivity 0. A perfect black body has emissivity 1. Earth's surface's emissivity is found to be 0.612.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/c/Climate_model.htm

Go back and read your sources again. 0.612 is the effective emissivity of the Earth as a whole (after taking into account the greenhouse effect), not the emissivity of the Earth's surface!

A perfect black body has emissivity 1. What's Earth's surface's emissivity then?

The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99 (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7).

Surface Detail wrote:

The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99 (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7).

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

The emissivities of terrestrial surfaces are all in the range of 0.96 to 0.99 (except for some small desert areas which may be as low as 0.7).

That does not explain this.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

There has been practically 0 change to temperature after a 43% increase in CO2. I call the greenhouse effect bull. There could be a small effect, maybe, but definitely not a 33 C increase.

Surface Detail wrote:
Nor does it explain the price of bananas. It was the answer to your question though.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Nor does it explain the price of bananas. It was the answer to your question though.

We have done the experiment. 43% increase in CO2. No effect. The science is settled. The debate is over. Science is all about experimentation. This is the scientific method pioneered by Galileo at the start of the Renaissance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKX20WhKS4

Surface Detail wrote:
What do you mean, no effect? The last century has seen the most rapid rise in global temperature since the current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago!

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
What do you mean, no effect? The last century has seen the most rapid rise in global temperature since the current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago!

No change in temperature, as far as I can tell, after 44% increase in CO2. Experiment has proven the greenhouse effect is negligible.

Any minor increase in temperature can be wholly explained by:

1. the world was coming out of the little ice age

2. vast increase in human energy use since the start of the industrial revolution, which convert into heat at the surface

Surface Detail wrote:Given that you've just demonstrated a startling inability to comprehend your own sources concerning emissivities, you'll forgive me if I don't take your further musings very seriously without some form of explanation or reference. How much heat has been produced by humans? Is this significant compared to the heat from the sun? Would it be sufficient to account for the 1 C rise in global temperature measured during the last century?

Earth is not a black body.

Earth is too complicated and dynamic to be modeled.

The only way is to do an experiment on Earth and see the results.

Thermal imaging clearly shows, the air itself has a negligible radiation effect.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/521fc8126bb3f77d6de58aba/thermal-images-of-new-york-city-show-why-cities-are-so-much-hotter-than-suburbs.jpg

Surface Detail wrote:
Not so. The long term outcomes of complicated systems can often be modelled to a useful degree even though the short term fluctuations defy modelling.

Surface Detail wrote:
That's what we are doing, despite the obvious moral issues.

Surface Detail wrote:
At the particular wavelength used to make that image, perhaps. Do you know what wavelength was used?

Surface Detail wrote: What do you mean, no effect? The last century has seen the most rapid rise in global temperature since the current interglacial began over 10,000 years ago!

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Any change in temperature over the past 100 years is negligibly small. Today is 1 C colder than the Medieval warm period and 1 C warmer than the little ice age.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Any change in temperature over the past 100 years is negligibly small. Today is 1 C colder than the Medieval warm period and 1 C warmer than the little ice age.

Frankly, I don't care much for comparisons with the medieval warm period. Is the earth cooler today than it was yesterday?


.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: As long as I have been alive, and that's decades, I have not personally felt any change in Earth's annual temperature.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote: As long as I have been alive, and that's decades, I have not personally felt any change in Earth's annual temperature.

That is a refreshingly honest answer. As far as you know, the earth could be warming, albeit at an imperceptible rate, or the earth could be cooling, albeit at an imperceptible rate.

Personally, I am not aware of a single climate that has changed over the course of my lifetime. Warmizombies point to incidences of normal events as proof that a climate has somehow changed and that the Global Warming religion is true.

.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
It is generally accepted that Earth's average surface temperature today is 15 C.

IBdaMann wrote:
...with what margin of error?

What is generally accepted is that no one can accurately compute the global average atmospheric temperature and that no one can accurately compute the global average surface temperature.

Do you think you can?

In any event, no one knows what the earth's average surface temperature is. I realize that doesn't prevent warmizombies from writing it in Wikipedia and of course nothing prevents gullible people from believing it.


.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: They can do that with satellites. Like this.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote: They can do that with satellites. Like this.

I'm sorry, but they cannot. Who are they anyway?

First, we would need a constellation of at least five satellites that were synchronized and that could take full coverage measurements at the same time. We currently don't have this.

Second, temperatures vary greatly from the surface to the upper atmosphere where satellites reside with their sensors. This introduces a broad margin of error in measurements.

Once satellites are in orbit, they cease to be regularly calibrated. Over time, confidence in accuracy degrades.

So if we were to establish a global temperature constellation for this purpose, our current satellites cannot produce an acceptably accurate value...but it doesn't matter because we don't have such a constellation.

All we have on which to rely are warmizombie reports that every day is the warmest of the "temperature record."


.