The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"

trafn wrote:Given the consistency with which you praise anyone or anything other than yourself and your own ideas,...

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Earthling wrote: It's interesting to note your use of trap.

Earthling wrote:Many thanks to Into the Nights new mouthpiece.

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.

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.

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".

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

The existence of a "greenhouse effect" is your assertion

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.

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.

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.

climate scientist wrote:

Of course he can't.
He has been asked the same question multiple times.

Agreed

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

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

climate scientist wrote:So by this logic, it is not possible to ever have a runaway greenhouse effect,

climate scientist wrote: such is observed on Venus,

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Into the Night:There is no difference between the residence time of water vapor and carbon dioxide.

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).

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