Consensus of Scientists and Proof

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

That paper was published in 2004 and considered only 7 years of satellite records from 1993 to 2000, which wasn't long enough to establish a trend. The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year, that is, the facts have proven the paper wrong.

The lesson from this is that simply projecting past trends forwards (as in this paper) is not a good guide to the future. You need to take the physics responsible for the change into account, as do the scientists who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise.

Frescomexico wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,

So...roughly 20,000 years to reach our goal of 65 meters? Damn it, I had a sweet fishing spot picked out for high water.

Don't worry, luckily fish don't use models to decide where to feed.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,

So...roughly 20,000 years to reach our goal of 65 meters? Damn it, I had a sweet fishing spot picked out for high water.

Don't worry, luckily fish don't use models to decide where to feed.

I don't know about that...those walleyes can be pretty smart...


So Surface, how long till we get to 65 metres? Link me your favorite model, I'd like to have a look sea.

"frenziedmex" muffed:The Colorado record pike for years was held by a little girl using a grasshopper on her hook.

litesong wrote:

"frenziedmex" muffed:The Colorado record pike for years was held by a little girl using a grasshopper on her hook.

A favorite food of bald eagles is.... coot. The eagle I saw tearing a coot apart with feathers flying, bolstered that opinion.

Frescomexico wrote:

litesong wrote:

"frenziedmex" muffed:The Colorado record pike for years was held by a little girl using a grasshopper on her hook.

A favorite food of bald eagles is.... coot. The eagle I saw tearing a coot apart with feathers flying, bolstered that opinion.

Your(sic) right, but when is the next chance to pass on a piece of trivia like that?

litesong wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

litesong wrote:

"frenziedmex" muffed:The Colorado record pike for years was held by a little girl using a grasshopper on her hook.

A favorite food of bald eagles is.... coot. The eagle I saw tearing a coot apart with feathers flying, bolstered that opinion.

Your(sic) right, but when is the next chance to pass on a piece of trivia like that?

Like.... right now! I'd been watching the bald eagle perched on the telephone pole.... waiting.... & I waited. After a long period, I saw the eagle leap from its perch & I threw the binoculars to my eyes. Closely watching the eagle as he blurred across the lake, I saw it extend its claws. The coot was caught completely by surprise. Think the coot died, even before the talons sliced into its body. Certainly it died instantly.

Frescomexico wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

That paper was published in 2004 and considered only 7 years of satellite records from 1993 to 2000, which wasn't long enough to establish a trend. The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year, that is, the facts have proven the paper wrong.

The lesson from this is that simply projecting past trends forwards (as in this paper) is not a good guide to the future. You need to take the physics responsible for the change into account, as do the scientists who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise.

The physics responsible for some (most?) of the 24 year change is the greenhouse gas effect of CO2. Can the scientists, who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise, use that to predict the level at 2100? No. Back to using models based on unsubstantiated positive feedback.

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

That paper was published in 2004 and considered only 7 years of satellite records from 1993 to 2000, which wasn't long enough to establish a trend. The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year, that is, the facts have proven the paper wrong.

The lesson from this is that simply projecting past trends forwards (as in this paper) is not a good guide to the future. You need to take the physics responsible for the change into account, as do the scientists who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise.

The physics responsible for some (most?) of the 24 year change is the greenhouse gas effect of CO2. Can the scientists, who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise, use that to predict the level at 2100? No. Back to using models based on unsubstantiated positive feedback.

How do you think the global temperature has climbed by a degree over the past century, or changed by many degrees during the start and end of interglacial periods? The change in CO2 concentration alone couldn't possibly have been sufficient to do that. Feedback from water vapour is an essential part of the greenhouse mechanism.

It's very simple to understand. An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established. There is nothing unsubstantiated or mysterious about this. It's a completely obvious and expected effect.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

That paper was published in 2004 and considered only 7 years of satellite records from 1993 to 2000, which wasn't long enough to establish a trend. The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year, that is, the facts have proven the paper wrong.

The lesson from this is that simply projecting past trends forwards (as in this paper) is not a good guide to the future. You need to take the physics responsible for the change into account, as do the scientists who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise.

The physics responsible for some (most?) of the 24 year change is the greenhouse gas effect of CO2. Can the scientists, who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise, use that to predict the level at 2100? No. Back to using models based on unsubstantiated positive feedback.

How do you think the global temperature has climbed by a degree over the past century, or changed by many degrees during the start and end of interglacial periods? The change in CO2 concentration alone couldn't possibly have been sufficient to do that. Feedback from water vapour is an essential part of the greenhouse mechanism.

It's very simple to understand. An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established. There is nothing unsubstantiated or mysterious about this. It's a completely obvious and expected effect.

Do you think that all the temperature fluctuations of the past are explainable with CO2 as the driver?

Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Read a book and find out, muppet.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies

That book uses the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which violates physics. Want to try again?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies

That book uses the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which violates physics. Want to try again?

What you call the "Magick Bouncing Photon argument" is what the rest of us call quantum physics. It doesn't violate physics; it is physics.

How far exactly does your disbelief in textbook physics extend? Do you believe that photons exist? That atoms exist? Or are they all part of the scientific conspiracy too?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies

That book uses the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which violates physics. Want to try again?

What you call the "Magick Bouncing Photon argument" is what the rest of us call quantum physics. It doesn't violate physics; it is physics.

How far exactly does your disbelief in textbook physics extend? Do you believe that photons exist? That atoms exist? Or are they all part of the scientific conspiracy too?

You don't seem to understand what quantum physics is. To you, it's a buzzword.

Quantum physics does not override the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which your version of 'greenhouse' effect violates.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
No, of course not. Global temperature is a function of many different parameters, but greenhouse warming by CO2 is a very important one.

So how does CO2 warm the Earth?

Magick Blanket argument?

Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

You have not yet provided a description of 'greenhouse' effect that doesn't violate physics.

Yes, I have, countless times. If you don't follow my explanations, why not read a textbook on the topic? This might be a good place for you to start:

Global Warming for Dummies

That book uses the Magick Bouncing Photon argument, which violates physics. Want to try again?

What you call the "Magick Bouncing Photon argument" is what the rest of us call quantum physics. It doesn't violate physics; it is physics.

How far exactly does your disbelief in textbook physics extend? Do you believe that photons exist? That atoms exist? Or are they all part of the scientific conspiracy too?

You don't seem to understand what quantum physics is. To you, it's a buzzword.

Quantum physics does not override the laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which your version of 'greenhouse' effect violates.

I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.

It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.

It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.

It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?

You can't 'trap' heat. That effectively destroys energy.

You can't 'create' the energy to warm the Earth by using a non-energy source, such as carbon dioxide or the surface itself.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.

It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?

You can't 'trap' heat. That effectively destroys energy.

You can't 'create' the energy to warm the Earth by using a non-energy source, such as carbon dioxide or the surface itself.

There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.

It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?

You can't 'trap' heat. That effectively destroys energy.

You can't 'create' the energy to warm the Earth by using a non-energy source, such as carbon dioxide or the surface itself.

There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.

Sorry...that is trapping energy and destroying it.

You cannot trap heat.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm wasting my time with you. Your answer to everything that you disagree with is to simply deny it from a basis of total ignorance. No argument, no explanation, no logic, just flat denial. I might as well be talking to an imbecile.

It is YOU that is denying science in favor of your Religion. I guess you feel that actual thermodynamics is a waste of time.

Go on then: explain why you believe that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, as you have claimed.

It creates energy out of a non-energetic substance. It also destroys energy by 'trapping' it.

Now...would you like to hear why it violates the 2nd LoT again?

Where do you think the greenhouse effect requires energy to be created or destroyed?

You can't 'trap' heat. That effectively destroys energy.

You can't 'create' the energy to warm the Earth by using a non-energy source, such as carbon dioxide or the surface itself.

There is no energy creation or destruction happening. The greenhouse effect is causing the Earth to warm by making it radiate a little less energy than it absorbs. The increase in the Earth's energy is exactly equal to the difference between the energy absorbed and the energy radiated, as required by the 1st LoT. Hence there is no violation of the 1st LoT.

Sorry...that is trapping energy and destroying it.

You cannot trap heat.

No energy is being destroyed. The equation is balanced:

Energy out = Energy in - Increase in Earth's internal energy

You do understand the concept of internal energy, don't you?

Surface Detail wrote
An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established.

GasGuzzler wrote:
OK Parrot Killer,

You know I am not a warmie in any way shape or form. However, I do not understand your statements about not being able "trap heat". I do understand the theory of greenhouse effect, I just don't buy into man made CO2 causing any more than microscopic warming due to man's microscopic percentage total greenhouse gases. (I include water vapor

)

On a cold winter night in the Midwest US, even with very dry air, even a thin layer of clouds is good for 8-10 degrees F warmer than without. In the dead of winter with snow cover, a cloudy day is also warmer by 10 degrees. Is this not "trapping heat? Why do you insulate a home? It is obviously to trap heat, but you say it can't be done. Can you explain in laymans please?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote
An increase in CO2 concentration raises the temperature a little, which causes more water to evaporate, which increases the amount of water vapour in the air, which further raises temperate until equilibrium is re-established.

Can you tell me how increased water vapor increases temps? Not true where I live.

To understand, you first must understand what 'heat' actually is. It is not temperature.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat can only flow from hot to cold.

Insulation works because you are reducing heat, that is, the flow of thermal energy.

If you place a source of heat inside (or under) insulation, than heat loss (which is the flow of heat away from the source) is reduced. Heat is never trapped, but it may be reduced through the use of insulation.

As far as clouds are concerned, this is a popular theory. It is not a scientific one. There is really no way to measure
what the temperature 'should' have been had the cloud layer not been there.

I live in the Seattle area. As you know, we get a lot of days with rain (not a lot of rain, just light rain or drizzle). We can go several months without seeing the Sun at all. You can probably imagine how frustrated hobby astronomers get here.

Carbon dioxide is not even capable of 'microscopic' warming of the Earth. It simply doesn't have any insulative properties. Its ability to absorb light in the infrared range is shared by many materials, including dirt, concrete, water, you, a cat snoozing in the sunlight, etc.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Thing is, clouds do have a blanket effect. I've seen numerous times on a cold clear night where it clouded up just locally and the temps stop their plummet, where area to the south by just 50-100 miles should be warmer by 2-3 degrees, instead are 6-8 degrees colder and they remained clear. Agree there is no way to measure "what it should have been", but there is more than sufficient evidence that clouds insulate. It almost always verifies.

Yup. And the reason for this is that clouds, being made of water droplets, both absorb and emit infra-red radiation very well. They absorb the IR emitted by the ground (rather than allowing it to pass into space) and also emit IR both upwards and downwards. The net effect of this is a downward flow of IR that wouldn't be there if the clouds weren't there; this keeps the ground warmer than it would otherwise be.

The greenhouse effect works in a similar way, except that here it is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit IR (though not as well as clouds do). Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR (as they are to visible light) and therefore play no part in the greenhouse effect. That's why the greenhouse effect becomes stronger as the proportions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase.

GasGuzzler wrote:

To understand, you first must understand what 'heat' actually is. It is not temperature.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one place to another. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, heat can only flow from hot to cold.

Insulation works because you are reducing heat, that is, the flow of thermal energy.

If you place a source of heat inside (or under) insulation, than heat loss (which is the flow of heat away from the source) is reduced. Heat is never trapped, but it may be reduced through the use of insulation.

Yep, I understand heat pretty well and this all makes sense.

As far as clouds are concerned, this is a popular theory. It is not a scientific one. There is really no way to measure
what the temperature 'should' have been had the cloud layer not been there.

Thing is, clouds do have a blanket effect. I've seen numerous times on a cold clear night where it clouded up just locally and the temps stop their plummet, where area to the south by just 50-100 miles should be warmer by 2-3 degrees, instead are 6-8 degrees colder and they remained clear. Agree there is no way to measure "what it should have been", but there is more than sufficient evidence that clouds insulate. It almost always verifies.

I live in the Seattle area. As you know, we get a lot of days with rain (not a lot of rain, just light rain or drizzle). We can go several months without seeing the Sun at all. You can probably imagine how frustrated hobby astronomers get here.

Oh so sorry. I get crazy in the head when I don't get sun for a couple days. And you're in Litebeer territory also!

Carbon dioxide is not even capable of 'microscopic' warming of the Earth. It simply doesn't have any insulative properties. Its ability to absorb light in the infrared range is shared by many materials, including dirt, concrete, water, you, a cat snoozing in the sunlight, etc.

I have to be honest, this sounds a bit contradictory, but my understanding of the light spectrum is limited. If CO2 has the same properties as myself, I certainly sit in the sun and warm up. Can you explain a little farther?

Thanks

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Thing is, clouds do have a blanket effect. I've seen numerous times on a cold clear night where it clouded up just locally and the temps stop their plummet, where area to the south by just 50-100 miles should be warmer by 2-3 degrees, instead are 6-8 degrees colder and they remained clear. Agree there is no way to measure "what it should have been", but there is more than sufficient evidence that clouds insulate. It almost always verifies.

Yup. And the reason for this is that clouds, being made of water droplets, both absorb and emit infra-red radiation very well. They absorb the IR emitted by the ground (rather than allowing it to pass into space) and also emit IR both upwards and downwards. The net effect of this is a downward flow of IR that wouldn't be there if the clouds weren't there; this keeps the ground warmer than it would otherwise be.

Surface Detail wrote:
The greenhouse effect works in a similar way, except that here it is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit IR (though not as well as clouds do).

Surface Detail wrote:
Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR (as they are to visible light)

Surface Detail wrote:
and therefore play no part in the greenhouse effect. That's why the greenhouse effect becomes stronger as the proportions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase.

spot wrote:
ITN thinks there is no difference between gasses in respect to their effect on the atmosphere, he's contrary and will probably say that I am misrepresenting him but that is the impression.

spot wrote:
He also thinks the myth-busters team ( Americans who like big explosions guns and cars being smashed up) are being dishonest are just doing a majck trick and not demonstrating a long held to be true effect in this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

spot wrote:
He is also a rocket scientist,

spot wrote:
you can think he is a super genius with his brilliant arguments I just think he's deluded.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Thing is, clouds do have a blanket effect. I've seen numerous times on a cold clear night where it clouded up just locally and the temps stop their plummet, where area to the south by just 50-100 miles should be warmer by 2-3 degrees, instead are 6-8 degrees colder and they remained clear. Agree there is no way to measure "what it should have been", but there is more than sufficient evidence that clouds insulate. It almost always verifies.

Yup. And the reason for this is that clouds, being made of water droplets, both absorb and emit infra-red radiation very well. They absorb the IR emitted by the ground (rather than allowing it to pass into space) and also emit IR both upwards and downwards. The net effect of this is a downward flow of IR that wouldn't be there if the clouds weren't there; this keeps the ground warmer than it would otherwise be.

You can't trap heat. That violates the 1st LoT. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. That violates the 2nd LoT. You can't reduce radiance (by trapping photons) and increase the temperature at the same time. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Surface Detail wrote:
The greenhouse effect works in a similar way, except that here it is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit IR (though not as well as clouds do).

There is no 'greenhouse' effect. You are describing violations of physics.

Surface Detail wrote:
Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR (as they are to visible light)

Both oxygen and nitrogen are NOT transparent to visible light. O2 absorbs in a variety of frequencies from infrared to ultraviolet, including a strong absorption line in the cyan color range.

Nitrogen is pretty much the same, with a strong absorption band in the yellow-green range.

Surface Detail wrote:
and therefore play no part in the greenhouse effect. That's why the greenhouse effect becomes stronger as the proportions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase.

Absorption of infrared is NOT the 'greenhouse' effect. It is simply another way for the surface to lose energy to the atmosphere.

Remember the surface also absorbs infrared. Why does the surface not heat the surface? Hmmmmm?

Surface Detail wrote:
Some weird stuff there, but your continued insistence that trapping heat somehow violates the 1st LoT is quite incomprehensible. We trap heat all the time: in our houses and ovens, for example.

Surface Detail wrote:
This doesn't violate the 1st LoT since no energy is being created or destroyed.

Surface Detail wrote:
Same goes for the Earth as a whole.

Surface Detail wrote:
Indeed, the 1st LoT says that the temperature of the Earth must increase if you reduce the rate at which it radiates heat by changing the composition of its atmosphere.