Remember me
▼ Content

The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"



Page 3 of 6<12345>>>
11-10-2015 02:04
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann once again wins the "Not even Wrong" award.

He parrots the same nonsense pseudo-science of a small group of quack Sky Dragon Slayers from
http://www.principia-scientific.org/ yet claims it is science.

Is it any surprise that IBdaMann's fundamentally flawed views are the same views as those from the (not published) 'paper' on the PSI website which was written by a lawyer? (Albert Miatello)


http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

Is it any surprise that despite all his sanctimonious chest-beating about science, that IBdaMann has yet to provide a science source that supports his views about the basic physics of the 'greenhouse' effect?



Edited on 11-10-2015 02:20
11-10-2015 03:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Given the consistency with which you praise anyone or anything other than yourself and your own ideas,...

Hello, earth to trafn...this is a warmazombie-dominated religious site dedicated to the dogma of "climate." Until Into the Night showed up recently, I was the only one discussing science. You and the rest of the warmazombies become apoplectic when this is mentioned. You are delusional in thinking you have science when you clearly have none. Warmazombies are the first to become insulting and to drag the discussion away from science and into the muck...and to top it all off, they lash out at me for making them face actual science that runs counter to their dogma.

trafn wrote: it would be a far fetched conclusion to surmise that you ever praise anyone else.[quote]
This statement says nothing about me; you have no way of knowing how frequently I compliment others in other forums with actual quantities of reasonable people who aren't scientifically illiterate dupes who fully deserve to face all the science that can be put before them.

Your statement does, however, speak volumes about you. Yours is really just a petty insult based on your personal distaste for me, which really stems from your perceived offense to your religious sensitivities. You aren't scientifically literate, you believe in a fatalistic, imaginary "greenhouse effect," you allowed yourself to become confused over the meaning of having "The Science" and you get angry at the messenger. You are following the standard religious process of demonizing the non-believer.

I am happy to be demonized by warmazombies. It reminds me of how liberating it is to let science be my guide, not any WACKY dogma.

[quote]trafn wrote: Also, given your preference to turn the whole of science which dissatisfies you into dogma, discourse with you most often ends up looking like this:

You and I both know how the conversation goes at this point. To save us both time I will write it out so we can just jump to the end:

IBdaMann: What science are you claiming that I reject as "dogma"?
trafn: All that unfalsifiable stuff that I call "The Science." Falsifiability isn't the only valid science.
IBdaMann: Falsifiability is not science. Falsifiability is one requirement of science. None of your unfalsifiable dogma is science.
trafn: But you reject the science that disagrees with you.
IBdaMann: I don't disagree with science whatsoever. My position, and the body of science, are one in the same. I don't reject any science.
trafn: That's because you turned the whole of the science which dissastisfies you into dogma.
IBdaMann: No science "dissatisfies" me. To what science, in specific, do you claim I reject?
trafn: Well, maybe we're both right.
IBdaMann: So, nothing in specific?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2015 06:00
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
I don't know what 'science' IBdaMANNNN!!!!! believes he is ahhh...'discussing', but it's nothing that can be found in 'the body of science' as he claims.

I would suggest he reads a few textbooks to correct his fundamentally flawed understanding of the physics of thermodynamics, especially radiative heat transfer involved in the 'greenhouse' effect.

Here are just a few examples:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/radiative-transfer-atmosphere-and-ocean?format=PB

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/climatology-and-climate-change/principles-planetary-climate

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/atmospheric-thermodynamics-elementary-physics-and-chemistry?format=HB

But no doubt he would just go on a rant that Cambridge University Press and the authors are "Marxist warmazombie moron priests preaching their scientifically illiterate religious beliefs!!!"





Edited on 11-10-2015 06:04
11-10-2015 13:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote:I don't know what 'science' IBdaMANNNN!!!!! believes he is ahhh...'discussing', but it's nothing that can be found in 'the body of science' as he claims.

Obviously you're not going to find it when you are confusing the body of science with the body of "The Science."

Ceist wrote: I would suggest he reads a few textbooks to correct his fundamentally flawed understanding of the physics of thermodynamics, especially radiative heat transfer involved in the 'greenhouse' effect.

I have a better idea. Why don't you correct it for me? Explain the science of your version of the "greenhouse effect" right here in this thread. No links, no appeals to perceived authority figures, just your words typed out here.

What a coincidence! That's exactly the intent of this thread. Have at it, post haste.

Ceist wrote: But no doubt he would ....

Aaah, remember, that's because you really don't doubt very well. That's why you weren't cut out to be a scientist.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2015 14:41
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann

Trafn's suggestion of the day:

What's the best way to respond to you when you routinely employ Religion, Repetitiveness and Redundancy, the preferred Three R's of the climate science illiterate? By not responding! Simply suggest that you go sit in the corner where all immaturely behaving children belong, like this:

NON-RESPONSE: please feel free to go sit in the corner!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
11-10-2015 16:48
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
NON-RESPONSE
11-10-2015 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
Hi Into the Night,

Here are my thoughts on your most recent response to my prior posts (your statements are in bold italics).

Anything that tends to warm the surface or the lower atmosphere will simply radiate that much faster into space.

Agreed, unless there's additional insulation being added which allows the EM radiation to come in but not leave as fast. Ultimately, the radiation will leave, but as the GHG atmospheric concentrations continue to rise (the added insulation), it will just take more time for it to do so. In the meantime, while the radiation derived energy remains in our biosphere longer, it will have more time to interact with, and change, our environment (i.e. - melt ice, raise sea levels, etc.).

...'greenhouse' gases are misnamed. They cannot add energy to the mean temperature. They cannot subtract anything from the mean temperature.

Agreed, the GHG's in and of themselves neither add to, nor subtract energy from the system. However, their increasing concentrations can have the effect of causing longer retention of the IR radiation emitted from Earth's surface that would otherwise travel more quickly into outer space.

Your argument of these gases is exactly like digging the lake deeper and watching the water level rise as a result.

I apologize; let me clarify. When I said "dig the lake deeper" I wasn't comparing the lake at its original depth to what would occur immediately after digging it deeper when more water would be required so that it could rise up to its original level and thus continue releasing water downward toward the ocean. I was trying to compare the original lake to the deeper lake after the deeper dug lake had refilled to the level of the original lake. Please take a moment to reread the original post in that context.

Even a tiny amount of energy entrapment would destroy the Earth, even if you never increased the cause of that entrapment.

True, but there is no such thing as true, permanent entrapment of energy, as I am unaware of any insulator with 100% efficiency. There can only be a further increase in the amount of time between when the sun's radiated solar energy arrives here and when it then finally leaves us for outer space, once again.

So, I would summarize that we continue to say the same thing, but from two different view points.

Any insulator works by slowing or preventing heat flow by conduction. Taking for instance the insulation blankets in a house, these are made by interweaving glass fibers in a manner similar to making cotton candy (which is the inside joke of why they dye it pink intentionally to resemble it!). It's actually a loose thick felting, not a weave of any kind.

This traps air so it cannot move through the insulation very well. By creating many bubbles like this, a lot of tiny air pockets are created that each contain air that doesn't flow anywhere. When a higher temperature is applied to one side, these trapped air pockets prevent convection, thus slowing heat flow through the mass. Heat can flow not as masses of molecules interacting, but as much fewer of them interacting.

The effect of insulation is as if there was a less material available for conductive heat flow (by reducing some or most of the convective efficiency of it).

In a similar way, an actual greenhouse works by reducing convective activity (most of which goes up, being heat). A Thermos jug (Dewer flask, depending on who you ask!), has the best insulation due to the use of a vacuum between two layers of glass (one of them silvered to reflect infrared energy back into the bottle as well). No vacuum is perfect (not even in space!), and heat flow still occurs.

The atmosphere has no insulative qualities in any of it's component gases. Convection is open and possible anywhere in the atmosphere. This open convection is a huge factor in the open atmosphere. It is the primary means of getting energy up into the stratosphere. This portion conveys energy in the same way, but conductive and radiative heat flow is higher in importance here. By the time you get to the mesosphere, you are down to radiative flow.

At no place does a 'greenhouse' gas interfere with any of these different forms of heat flow. Energy may be extracted (improving heat flow and helping to cool the surface even better), and released into the night (keeping heat flowing outward when it otherwise would have stopped), but the mean heat flow does not change. The only effect of this change is to reduce temperature swings from hot to cold during the day/night cycle.

All of the atmosphere does this anyway. A 'greenhouse' gas simply does it a little better. Nothing is trapped. Nothing is changing the amount of heat escaping the planet. Nothing is 'insulating' the planet.

Again, the Thermos jug is the best insulator we have, by using a vacuum. If the Earth has no atmosphere at all, you have the same effect as a Thermos jug. Yet the mean temperature of the Earth does not change. It simply uses all radiative heat methods of conducting energy away (there is nothing to conduct or convect, other than the planet itself). Day and night temperatures swing wildly, since there is no extraction and re-release of energy from an atmosphere.
11-10-2015 22:48
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Into the Night,

First, I didn't know that about "pink" insulation. Hope no one eats it. Now about your following statement:

The atmosphere has no insulative qualities in any of it's component gases. Convection is open and possible anywhere in the atmosphere. This open convection is a huge factor in the open atmosphere. It is the primary means of getting energy up into the stratosphere. This portion conveys energy in the same way, but conductive and radiative heat flow is higher in importance here. By the time you get to the mesosphere, you are down to radiative flow.

Let's look at one single atom of CO2. The electrons are not locked in fixed orbits and can move from higher ones (absorption of energy) to lower ones (release/radiation of energy). These orbits tend to occur at specific quantum radii from the nucleus called shells, with electrons jumping from higher shells as atoms absorb energy, then back to lower shells as atoms radiate energy. This kind of aborption-radiation based movement can occur in isolated atoms, as well as in atoms which are combined into stable molecules.

The suns emits EM radiation, some of which hits and is absorbed by atoms at the Earth's surface. Over time, these atoms then release some of this energy as IR radiation which heads back up into the atmosphere. Much of this radiated IR radiation passes through our atmosphere into outer space. However, some of it is absorbed by the atoms of CO2 molecules in our atmosphere (the electrons in the CO2 molecules jump to higher shells without disrupting the overall stability of the molecule).

Over time the CO2 molecules release some of the IR energy they had previously absorbed (the molecules' electrons jump down to lower shells), and they release it in all directions: some up, some down, some sideways, etcetera. It's the amount which is released downward that we called "trapped" because it never got to continue onward and upward into and out of the atmosphere.

Overall, the equation for our biosphere's energy retention looks like this:

A - B + C - D + E = biosphere energy retention

Where:

A = EM radiant energy received from the sun.
B = IR radiant energy released upward by the Earth's surface.
C = IR radiant energy (B) captured by atmospheric CO2.
D = radiant energy released by CO2 back into the upper atmosphere toward outer space.
E = radiant energy released by CO2 back toward Earth (the "trapped"
component).

Now of course, the "trapped" energy isn't really trapped. In fact, we should probably refer to it as just being temporarily recycled.

As long as A is relatively stable, then B, C, D and E are also relatively stable as far as the Sun's influence is concerned. However, if the concentration of atmospheric CO2 rises, A and B will continue to be stable, but C, D, and E will all increase, leading to an overall increase in the energy content and, therefore, temperature of the biosphere (i.e. - the increase in D will not nullify the increase in C and E).

So, yes, "trapping" is a misnomer as the energy is only being temporarily recycled. However, we also speak of water as being "trapped" in a drain, when in fact, it's only being temporarily held there.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 11-10-2015 22:55
12-10-2015 04:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn, it's science time.

trafn wrote:Let's look at one single atom of CO2.

Having read your post, this is a time-wasting distraction. You don't need to devote a lot of time and effort just to say that thermal radiation is emitted in all directions. You get that for free. No one is going to debate you over that assertion.

trafn wrote: The suns emits EM radiation, some of which hits and is absorbed by atoms at the Earth's surface.

It looks like you are going to run into the 1st LoT as well on this one.

Of the sun's EM that is directed toward the earth, there is a certain quantity R that is reflected/deflected away and is not a factor in anything. All the remaining EM that is directed at the earth, quantity A, is absorbed, either by the surface, by the atmosphere, by the oceans, lakes, ice, snow, clouds, ...but it is all absorbed. If clouds form and absorb some of the EM that would have otherwise been absorbed by the ground, it is still, nonetheless, absorbed and converted into thermal energy, i.e. a zero sum game.

Assuming the solar output remains constant, that ever-equivalent quantity A of thermal energy necessarily maintains the exact same average temperature. This follows the 1st LoT. Please let me know if you have any questions at any time.

Now let's get to your "direction of radiation" issue...

trafn wrote: Over time the CO2 molecules release some of the IR energy they had previously absorbed (the molecules' electrons jump down to lower shells), and they release it in all directions: some up, some down, some sideways, etcetera. It's the amount which is released downward that we called "trapped" because it never got to continue onward and upward into and out of the atmosphere.


No. "Zero sum game" means "zero sum game". Every example you can give of EM being "redirected" somewhere has an equivalent and opposite example of EM not even arriving. For example, solar EM that would have otherwise headed straight for absorption on the surface is intercepted and absorbed by that same CO2, never reaching the ground, and most of it being radiated back out into space with only a fraction of the orignial EM reaching the ground. We'll call this CO2's corresponding cooling effect.

In the end, it all balances out. No energy is either created or destroyed anywhere. No energy is "trapped" anywhere. There is no "greenhouse effect" anywhere.

By the way, you acknowledge that the atmosphere cannot create energy in violation of the 1st LoT. Yet you believe that thermal energy is nonetheless increasing on planer earth (and currently melting our ice) because atmospheric composition "slows" the rate of earth's thermal emission (or causes earth to "retain" its thermal energy for a longer period of time). I explained the science of why this cannot happen. Do you accept the science that runs counter to your assertion, or do you nonetheless feel compelled to stand by your assertion.

trafn wrote: So, yes, "trapping" is a misnomer as the energy is only being temporarily recycled. However, we also speak of water as being "trapped" in a drain, when in fact, it's only being temporarily held there.

This is part and parcel of standard warmazombie dishonesty. The insistence on using the non-technical, non-scientific word "trap" is completely intentional so as to maintain wiggle room to play semantic games, and to always be able to say "well that's not what I meant..." or "that's not what 'trap' means in this case."

Let's jump to the chase: Does the body of science have a formula computing the amount of thermal energy emission retardation based on the amount of CO2?

(hint: No substance "traps" thermal energy. Thermal radiation is a function of temperature alone)


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 09:08
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Into the Night wrote:
Any insulator works by slowing or preventing heat flow by conduction. Taking for instance the insulation blankets in a house, these are made by interweaving glass fibers in a manner similar to making cotton candy (which is the inside joke of why they dye it pink intentionally to resemble it!). It's actually a loose thick felting, not a weave of any kind.

This traps air so it cannot move through the insulation very well. By creating many bubbles like this, a lot of tiny air pockets are created that each contain air that doesn't flow anywhere. When a higher temperature is applied to one side, these trapped air pockets prevent convection, thus slowing heat flow through the mass.
It's interesting to note your use of trap.
Ö¿Ö


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
12-10-2015 10:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Earthling wrote: It's interesting to note your use of trap.

The word "trap" can be applied to conduction.

The word "trap" does not apply to thermal radiation.

in. re. conduction, the English word "trap" can be replaced with an appropriate semantic from the falsifiable physics model, i.e. a direct temperature difference by reducing the transfer of heat via a lower heat transfer coefficient.

in. re. thermal radiation, warmazombies are relegated to flailing at semantic contortions of the word "trap" solely to avoid falsifiability, lest their dogma about various gases "trapping" heat be shown to be false.

This is the primary motivator for climate lemmings of all types to quietly confuse conduction with thermal radiation in the hopes that no one notices, otherwise they have nothing on which to pretend to base their assertions concerning the fictitious "greenhouse effect." What's a religion without imagery? Regarding Global Warming, it's all about insulation imagery of warm comfy blankets and sweltering greenhouses, neither of which apply to our atmosphere.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 11:06
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Many thanks to Into the Nights new mouthpiece.
12-10-2015 11:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Earthling wrote:Many thanks to Into the Nights new mouthpiece.

This is a good example of your normal petty nature. I bet the science in my post burned your eyes.

Hey, I have an idea, explain to those on this site why the earth would be an ice ball if it weren't for the trace quantities of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. I'm sure they'd love to read all about it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 11:27
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hey, I have an idea, explain to those on this site why the earth would be an ice ball if it weren't for the trace quantities of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. I'm sure they'd love to read all about it.


Actually, water vapour in the atmosphere is the main greenhouse gas that contributes to the natural greenhouse effect and prevents Earth from being an ice-ball, not CO2.
12-10-2015 11:42
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
On Earth, the contrast between maximum and minimum temperatures would not be as great as on the Moon, even without an atmosphere, because the Earth rotates once in a day, while the Moon only rotates once in a month. However, without an atmosphere the Earth's contrast between day and night and the contrast between summer and winter would be very large indeed.
12-10-2015 11:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:
Hey, I have an idea, explain to those on this site why the earth would be an ice ball if it weren't for the trace quantities of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. I'm sure they'd love to read all about it.


Actually, water vapour in the atmosphere is the main greenhouse gas that contributes to the natural greenhouse effect and prevents Earth from being an ice-ball, not CO2.


There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" because there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect." Remember? You tipped your king and gave up on the concept.

There is no subset of atmospheric gases that own the responsibility of somehow keeping the planet from being an ice ball.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 11:54
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" because there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect".


Can you post a link, or provide a reference to some source information to back up this statement?
12-10-2015 12:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:
There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" because there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect".


Can you post a link, or provide a reference to some source information to back up this statement?


I certainly can, but I won't. At least not at present. I am not the one that needs to convince anyone of anything. The existence of a "greenhouse effect" is your assertion. You bear the full burden of supporting your claim with a falsifiable model that isn't false. No one is required to accept your attempt to shift the burden of proof onto him/her. This also falls within the domain of things you are supposed to already understand.

Would you be willing to take another stab at proposing a falsifiable model for the "greenhouse effect" or shall it remain as unfalsifiable dogma?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 12:20
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I certainly can, but I won't. At least not at present


Why not? What is stopping you?

The existence of a "greenhouse effect" is your assertion


Nope. While I am flattered that you seem to imply I invented the greenhouse effect, you are in fact wrong. I provided plenty of links to other sources that assert the existence of the greenhouse effect.

For example: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

Now it is your turn.
12-10-2015 14:43
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

In response to your request for a falsifiable model for the "greenhouse effect", I am going to attempt one, and as it's on topic for this thread, I'll do it here. First, however, I'd like to lay the groundwork for my presentation by beginning with a falsifiable model for the existence of climate change science, to which the greenhouse effect presumably belongs. Once, we come to an agreement on this foundational model, or an acceptable variation of it, I will then proceed on to the falsifiable model for the greenhouse effect. For now, I will begin here:

A falsifiable model for the existence of Climate Change Science

This model only addresses the existence of climate change science. It does not address the existence of the greenhouse effect, GHG (greenhouse gases), AGW (anthropenic global warming) or M2C2 (man-made climate change).

DEFINITIONS:

Science: a body of knowledge which contains data about the physical world.

Data: the collection of physical measurements by accepted methods that are accurate to an appropriate degree, reproducible, and sufficiently sensitive and specific for that which they are measuring.

Climate: a collection of data measuring the variability of various physical characteristics of the atmosphere over several months, years, decades, centuries or longer periods of time (for comparison, see weather).

Weather: a collection of data measuring the variability of various physical characteristics of the atmosphere over several weeks, days, hours, minutes, or shorter periods of time (for comparison, see climate).

FASIFIABLE MODEL:

Climate change science exists, as it is possible to collect climate data which varies over time.

CONCLUSION:

Climate data can be collected, measured and analyzed. If climate change science exists, then this data will vary over time. If climate change science does not exist, then this data will show no variation over time (i.e. - be consistently constant). In the current archives of science, there is plentiful climate data which demonstrates variation over time, therefore, climate change science does exist.

Comments, corrections and thoughts are welcome.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 15:22
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
climate scientist wrote:
There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas" because there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect".


Can you post a link, or provide a reference to some source information to back up this statement?
Of course he can't.
He has been asked the same question multiple times.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
12-10-2015 17:44
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Of course he can't.
He has been asked the same question multiple times.


Agreed
12-10-2015 18:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
Hi Into the Night,

First, I didn't know that about "pink" insulation. Hope no one eats it. Now about your following statement:

The atmosphere has no insulative qualities in any of it's component gases. Convection is open and possible anywhere in the atmosphere. This open convection is a huge factor in the open atmosphere. It is the primary means of getting energy up into the stratosphere. This portion conveys energy in the same way, but conductive and radiative heat flow is higher in importance here. By the time you get to the mesosphere, you are down to radiative flow.

Let's look at one single atom of CO2. The electrons are not locked in fixed orbits and can move from higher ones (absorption of energy) to lower ones (release/radiation of energy). These orbits tend to occur at specific quantum radii from the nucleus called shells, with electrons jumping from higher shells as atoms absorb energy, then back to lower shells as atoms radiate energy. This kind of aborption-radiation based movement can occur in isolated atoms, as well as in atoms which are combined into stable molecules.

The suns emits EM radiation, some of which hits and is absorbed by atoms at the Earth's surface. Over time, these atoms then release some of this energy as IR radiation which heads back up into the atmosphere. Much of this radiated IR radiation passes through our atmosphere into outer space. However, some of it is absorbed by the atoms of CO2 molecules in our atmosphere (the electrons in the CO2 molecules jump to higher shells without disrupting the overall stability of the molecule).

Over time the CO2 molecules release some of the IR energy they had previously absorbed (the molecules' electrons jump down to lower shells), and they release it in all directions: some up, some down, some sideways, etcetera. It's the amount which is released downward that we called "trapped" because it never got to continue onward and upward into and out of the atmosphere.

Overall, the equation for our biosphere's energy retention looks like this:

A - B + C - D + E = biosphere energy retention

Where:

A = EM radiant energy received from the sun.
B = IR radiant energy released upward by the Earth's surface.
C = IR radiant energy (B) captured by atmospheric CO2.
D = radiant energy released by CO2 back into the upper atmosphere toward outer space.
E = radiant energy released by CO2 back toward Earth (the "trapped"
component).

Now of course, the "trapped" energy isn't really trapped. In fact, we should probably refer to it as just being temporarily recycled.

As long as A is relatively stable, then B, C, D and E are also relatively stable as far as the Sun's influence is concerned. However, if the concentration of atmospheric CO2 rises, A and B will continue to be stable, but C, D, and E will all increase, leading to an overall increase in the energy content and, therefore, temperature of the biosphere (i.e. - the increase in D will not nullify the increase in C and E).

So, yes, "trapping" is a misnomer as the energy is only being temporarily recycled. However, we also speak of water as being "trapped" in a drain, when in fact, it's only being temporarily held there.

Unfortunately, you don't have it quite right. Using this model, E will affect B, since B is now a higher temperature as a result of E. thus setting up a positive feedback loop as I described. D is of no factor in this.

This feedback builds a perpetual motion machine of the second order, thus violating the laws of thermodynamics.
12-10-2015 18:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
climate scientist wrote:
Hey, I have an idea, explain to those on this site why the earth would be an ice ball if it weren't for the trace quantities of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. I'm sure they'd love to read all about it.


Actually, water vapour in the atmosphere is the main greenhouse gas that contributes to the natural greenhouse effect and prevents Earth from being an ice-ball, not CO2.

The only way to get an ice ball is to have water. That means you must have water vapor.

No, even if there was no water at all, the mean temperature would stay the same. What you would get though, besides a dry lifeless planet, is wide temperature swings from day to night, similar to the effect of a desert, but planet-wide and somewhat wider in swing, since there is no nearby water to moderate it at all.
12-10-2015 18:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:
Of course he can't.
He has been asked the same question multiple times.

Agreed

Awesome! You're teaming up with he who knows nothing.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 19:19
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
With regards to water and the greenhouse effect, it's important to remember that any increasing water is a feedback, not a forcing. Without additional CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions, if you add water to the atmosphere, it will just rain out and return to the overall absolute humidity that existed before. But adding more CO2 allows more water to stay in the atmosphere. So water is a response to the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), not a triggering or causative factor on it's own.

And water vapor in the atmosphere does not just prevent wider temperature swings between day and night. Since it is a greenhouse gas too, it does hold in more of the sun's energy that would otherwise be reflected out to space.
Edited on 12-10-2015 19:22
12-10-2015 19:28
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
PS = A key factor here is residence time in the atmosphere. Warming from the greenhouse process is a slow process. It takes years for enough warming to occur once the gas is added to atmosphere. Only gases that will stay in the atmosphere that long can really trigger warming - be an initial forcing greenhouse gas. Water is very reactive and will precipitate out of the atmosphere long before any warming has come about. This is why water can only be a feedback factor. By contrast, CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of decades. It can continue to play it's greenhouse role while the slow warming takes it's course. Then with that warming, the atmosphere can maintain a higher humidity and extra water vapor will overall not precipitate out, and can contribute yet more warming.

So the basic rule is if a gas precipitates or reacts out of the atmosphere faster than any warming it can generate, it cannot be a forcing greenhouse gas, only a feedback mechanism. This is why the higher amount of water in the atmosphere than CO2 does not counter AGW. Water on it's own cannot cause additional warming, it can only react to warming by a gas with a long enough residence time.
Edited on 12-10-2015 19:36
12-10-2015 19:53
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
The only way to get an ice ball is to have water. That means you must have water vapor.


Agreed. I never said otherwise. My point was that water vapour dominates the natural greenhouse effect, not CO2.

This feedback builds a perpetual motion machine of the second order, thus violating the laws of thermodynamics.


So by this logic, it is not possible to ever have a runaway greenhouse effect, such is observed on Venus, or a runaway icehouse (the so-called 'Snowball Earth'), which is very likely to have occurred on Earth in the past (and probably several times over).

There is not really a positive feedback loop, since as Earth warms, it will reach a new equilibrium, whereby the outgoing IR radiation will increase because the Earth's surface is warmer (as you said), but the relative proportion of IR absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases will therefore decrease (assuming that GHG atmospheric mole fractions will stay the same), and so Earth's temperature will stabilise at a new equilibrium temperature, which will be higher than the temperature prior to adding anthropogenic CO2 etc. to the atmosphere.

A similar analogy would be insulating a house. The temperature will rise at first, even though you do not change the heating controls, but then a new equilibrium temperature will be reached, because the outgoing heat is again balanced by the heat generated from the heating system. The temperature inside the house will not continue to warm indefinitely just because you added insulation to the walls and roof, and much in the same way, the planet will not warm indefinitely (unless some other processes intervene), and therefore the greenhouse effect does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
12-10-2015 20:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:So by this logic, it is not possible to ever have a runaway greenhouse effect,

Correct. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" thus there is no such thing as a "runaway greenhouse effect."

climate scientist wrote: such is observed on Venus,

There is no "greenhouse effect" on Venus, and hence, there is no "runaway greenhouse effect" on Venus.

Venus' surface temperature is hot due to its proximity to the sun and its intense atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric composition is not a factor in atmospheric temperature.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 20:12
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
There is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" thus there is no such thing as a "runaway greenhouse effect."


Did you know that the world is actually flat? Science says so. The whole 'round world' thing is purely an illusion, made up by political organisations, such as NASA. I mean, come on, if the world was round, it would implode, which clearly hasn't happened. It's obvious to anyone who knows anything about science.
12-10-2015 20:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote:Did you know that the world is actually flat?

I'm certain you could be made to believe it. Heck, you could be made to believe that Venus has a "runaway greenhouse effect" even though you are completely aware that such a notion is a flagrant violation of the laws of physics.

You're a dupe. You are easily fooled.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 20:27
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Into the Night,

With regards to the following equation for our biosphere's energy retention:

A - B + C - D + E = biosphere energy retention

Where:

A = EM radiant energy received from the sun.
B = IR radiant energy released upward by the Earth's surface.
C = IR radiant energy ( B ) captured by atmospheric CO2.
D = radiant energy released by CO2 back into the upper atmosphere toward outer space.
E = radiant energy released by CO2 back toward Earth (the "trapped"
component).

You replied with the following:

Unfortunately, you don't have it quite right. Using this model, E will affect B, since B is now a higher temperature as a result of E. thus setting up a positive feedback loop as I described. D is of no factor in this. This feedback builds a perpetual motion machine of the second order, thus violating the laws of thermodynamics.

It would be a perpetual motion machine if E were "permanently" retained. It is, however, only temporarily recycled back into the biosphere instead of outer space. It might recyle back as part of B (yes, increasing B) or perhaps into another CO2 molecule (an E to C transfer), thus causing a positive feedback which does increase the biosphere energy content (i.e. - a process commonly referred to as global warming). But at some point, perhaps when everything on Earth is dead and things finally start to cool down again, all of E will soon become part of D and be released into outer space.

Variable D, on the other hand, is critically important, because that is the variable which keeps this equation from being a perpetual motion machine. Yes, if you eliminate D, which would not reflect reality if you did, then it would be a perpetual motion machine and violate the LoT's. But that's not what I'm describing with this equation because I do include D.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 20:34
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I'm certain you could be made to believe it. Heck, you could be made to believe that Venus has a "runaway greenhouse effect" even though you are completely aware that such a notion is a flagrant violation of the laws of physics.

You're a dupe. You are easily fooled.


No, not me. I'm fully clued up. You are the one who has been fooled, blindly following your 'round world' religion. Science proves that the world is flat! Show me your falsifiable model to prove that the world is round. I bet that you cannot, because you are a fraud!
12-10-2015 20:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
climate scientist wrote: Show me your falsifiable model to prove that the world is round. I bet that you cannot, because you are a fraud!

I recommend asking any person nearby who has actually completed a highschool education if perhaps what you are seeking is an observation rather than a proof.



Of course a logical proof could be constructed using geometry and observations of ships disappearing over the horizon, but if you have a direct observation of the earth being round, empirical evidence trumps all.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2015 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote: Show me your falsifiable model to prove that the world is round. I bet that you cannot, because you are a fraud!

I recommend asking any person nearby who has actually completed a highschool education if perhaps what you are seeking is an observation rather than a proof.



Of course a logical proof could be constructed using geometry and observations of ships disappearing over the horizon, but if you have a direct observation of the earth being round, empirical evidence trumps all.

Don't forget the stars that disappear over the horizon and do not rise again as you travel north or south.
12-10-2015 21:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
drm wrote:
With regards to water and the greenhouse effect, it's important to remember that any increasing water is a feedback, not a forcing. Without additional CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions, if you add water to the atmosphere, it will just rain out and return to the overall absolute humidity that existed before. But adding more CO2 allows more water to stay in the atmosphere. So water is a response to the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), not a triggering or causative factor on it's own.

And water vapor in the atmosphere does not just prevent wider temperature swings between day and night. Since it is a greenhouse gas too, it does hold in more of the sun's energy that would otherwise be reflected out to space.

Which cools the surface as a result during the day, then warming it again that night.
12-10-2015 21:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
drm wrote:
PS = A key factor here is residence time in the atmosphere. Warming from the greenhouse process is a slow process. It takes years for enough warming to occur once the gas is added to atmosphere. Only gases that will stay in the atmosphere that long can really trigger warming - be an initial forcing greenhouse gas. Water is very reactive and will precipitate out of the atmosphere long before any warming has come about. This is why water can only be a feedback factor. By contrast, CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of decades. It can continue to play it's greenhouse role while the slow warming takes it's course. Then with that warming, the atmosphere can maintain a higher humidity and extra water vapor will overall not precipitate out, and can contribute yet more warming.

So the basic rule is if a gas precipitates or reacts out of the atmosphere faster than any warming it can generate, it cannot be a forcing greenhouse gas, only a feedback mechanism. This is why the higher amount of water in the atmosphere than CO2 does not counter AGW. Water on it's own cannot cause additional warming, it can only react to warming by a gas with a long enough residence time.


There is no difference between the residence time of water vapor and carbon dioxide. Humidity may vary, but in maritime environments is always there.

In deserts, when they DO get humidity for a day or two, show a moderation of temperatures. The model that it takes a long time (for any 'greenhouse' gas) would therefore be false.
12-10-2015 21:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
climate scientist wrote:
The only way to get an ice ball is to have water. That means you must have water vapor.


Agreed. I never said otherwise. My point was that water vapour dominates the natural greenhouse effect, not CO2.

This feedback builds a perpetual motion machine of the second order, thus violating the laws of thermodynamics.


So by this logic, it is not possible to ever have a runaway greenhouse effect, such is observed on Venus, or a runaway icehouse (the so-called 'Snowball Earth'), which is very likely to have occurred on Earth in the past (and probably several times over).

There is not really a positive feedback loop, since as Earth warms, it will reach a new equilibrium, whereby the outgoing IR radiation will increase because the Earth's surface is warmer (as you said), but the relative proportion of IR absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases will therefore decrease (assuming that GHG atmospheric mole fractions will stay the same), and so Earth's temperature will stabilise at a new equilibrium temperature, which will be higher than the temperature prior to adding anthropogenic CO2 etc. to the atmosphere.

A similar analogy would be insulating a house. The temperature will rise at first, even though you do not change the heating controls, but then a new equilibrium temperature will be reached, because the outgoing heat is again balanced by the heat generated from the heating system. The temperature inside the house will not continue to warm indefinitely just because you added insulation to the walls and roof, and much in the same way, the planet will not warm indefinitely (unless some other processes intervene), and therefore the greenhouse effect does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Actually, the atmosphere in general is the dominant factor of temperature moderation. Water vapor just adds to that. Neither causes a mean temperature increase.

For this model to work, a greenhouse gas would have to reflect different amounts of energy depending on very minor changes in temperature. In addition, the warming surface would have to be able to escape better through the greenhouse effect.

This conflicts with the other model of greenhouse gases where if any increase occurs, the reflected energy is more. Both cannot be true (by the exclusion logic rule).

In other words, B is affected by E, which in turn affects B, in a positive feedback loop. There is nothing to stop it. The system is inherently unstable and will [b]not[/b reach a point of equilibrium.
12-10-2015 21:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
Hi Into the Night,

With regards to the following equation for our biosphere's energy retention:

A - B + C - D + E = biosphere energy retention

Where:

A = EM radiant energy received from the sun.
B = IR radiant energy released upward by the Earth's surface.
C = IR radiant energy ( B ) captured by atmospheric CO2.
D = radiant energy released by CO2 back into the upper atmosphere toward outer space.
E = radiant energy released by CO2 back toward Earth (the "trapped"
component).

You replied with the following:

Unfortunately, you don't have it quite right. Using this model, E will affect B, since B is now a higher temperature as a result of E. thus setting up a positive feedback loop as I described. D is of no factor in this. This feedback builds a perpetual motion machine of the second order, thus violating the laws of thermodynamics.

It would be a perpetual motion machine if E were "permanently" retained. It is, however, only temporarily recycled back into the biosphere instead of outer space. It might recyle back as part of B (yes, increasing B) or perhaps into another CO2 molecule (an E to C transfer), thus causing a positive feedback which does increase the biosphere energy content (i.e. - a process commonly referred to as global warming). But at some point, perhaps when everything on Earth is dead and things finally start to cool down again, all of E will soon become part of D and be released into outer space.

Variable D, on the other hand, is critically important, because that is the variable which keeps this equation from being a perpetual motion machine. Yes, if you eliminate D, which would not reflect reality if you did, then it would be a perpetual motion machine and violate the LoT's. But that's not what I'm describing with this equation because I do include D.

This would imply that E is reduced by raising B. If the effect of E is reduced, B must also reduce. Both cannot be true at the same time. You are changing the meanings of your variables in mid equation this way.
12-10-2015 22:14
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Into the Night:There is no difference between the residence time of water vapor and carbon dioxide.


In fact there is. A good discussion of this is at http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

The primary reasons why water vapor cannot be a cause of climate change are its short atmospheric residence time and a basic physical limitation on the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere for any given temperature (its saturation vapor pressure).


and

Unlike water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are long-lived greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for about 100 years

Edited on 12-10-2015 22:15
Page 3 of 6<12345>>>





Join the debate The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Sometimes I doubt the science ...511-07-2018 04:09
Water Vapor is THE Dominant Greenhouse Gas1009-05-2018 22:58
Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics35509-01-2018 14:22
Does 97% of science agree?917-12-2017 00:24
The Science of Doom922-11-2017 04:53
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact