Does the Earth Have a Natural Greenhouse Effect?

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.

I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.

That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.

Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.

Why do you suppose SD ignored the "Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself."?

He seems to miss the obvious whenever any chance permits.

Since he estimated the humidity and his heating apparatus only had to heat in the region of CO2 absorption which he was in no position to estimate these findings showed nothing more than water is the controlling factor and not CO2.

His own references show that he doesn't understand the very thing he's claiming he studies.

You clearly missed his main result, which was that air containing both water vapour and CO2 absorbed 15 times as well as dry air without CO2. To summarise for the hard of thinking:

Dry air, no CO2: 1
Humid air, no CO2: 13
Humid air, with CO2: 15

Tyndall demonstrated that water vapour is a strong absorber of IR radiation and that CO2 also absorbs IR radiation. He also mentions that hydrocarbons (such as methane) are strong absorbers, and he goes on to point out that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could have been responsible for changes in global climate since even small changes could have a powerful warming effect. He was one smart fellow.

And YOU clearly missed my posting in your rush to call me wrong. They had NO WAY of measuring humidity accurately in the mid-1800's. Furthermore since they did NOT have any manner of measuring the wavelength of IR they could have been using precisely the correct frequency of CO2.

Since this is an unusual frequency that has so little energy in it that it is totally absorbed by CO2 in the normal atmosphere you have nothing whatsoever to back up your stupid misunderstandings.

Tell you what - talk to the stars. I'm done having anything to do with you. You are nothing more than litesong on even stronger drugs.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.

I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.

That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.

Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.

Why do you suppose SD ignored the "Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself."?

He seems to miss the obvious whenever any chance permits.

Since he estimated the humidity and his heating apparatus only had to heat in the region of CO2 absorption which he was in no position to estimate these findings showed nothing more than water is the controlling factor and not CO2.

His own references show that he doesn't understand the very thing he's claiming he studies.

You clearly missed his main result, which was that air containing both water vapour and CO2 absorbed 15 times as well as dry air without CO2. To summarise for the hard of thinking:

Dry air, no CO2: 1
Humid air, no CO2: 13
Humid air, with CO2: 15

Tyndall demonstrated that water vapour is a strong absorber of IR radiation and that CO2 also absorbs IR radiation. He also mentions that hydrocarbons (such as methane) are strong absorbers, and he goes on to point out that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could have been responsible for changes in global climate since even small changes could have a powerful warming effect. He was one smart fellow.

And YOU clearly missed my posting in your rush to call me wrong. They had NO WAY of measuring humidity accurately in the mid-1800's. Furthermore since they did NOT have any manner of measuring the wavelength of IR they could have been using precisely the correct frequency of CO2.

Since this is an unusual frequency that has so little energy in it that it is totally absorbed by CO2 in the normal atmosphere you have nothing whatsoever to back up your stupid misunderstandings.

Tell you what - talk to the stars. I'm done having anything to do with you. You are nothing more than litesong on even stronger drugs.

If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I found a text-only view of Tyndall's work:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.%24b564274;view=plaintext;seq=11;page=root;size=100;orient=0

Here is the relevant section:

Action of Aqueous Vapour.—Possible Effect of an Atmospheric
Envelope on the Temperature of a Planet.

I have now to refer briefly to a point of considerable interest — the effect, namely, of our atmosphere on solar and terrestrial heat. In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere, on the 20th of last November, the following results were obtained:—

Air sent through the caustic-potash tube and through the drying-tubes produced an absorption of about ... 1

Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of ... 15

Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.

It is my intention to repeat and extend these experiments on a future occasion; but even at present conclusions of great importance may be drawn from them. It is exceedingly probable that the absorption of the solar rays by the atmosphere, as established by M. Pouillet, is mainly due to the watery vapour contained in the air. The vast difference between the temperature of the sun at midday and in the evening, is also probably due in the main to that comparatively shallow stratum of aqueous vapour which lies close to the earth. At noon the depth of it pierced by the sunbeams is very small; in the evening very great in comparison.

The intense heat of the sun's direct rays on high mountains is not, I believe, due to his beams having to penetrate only a small depth of air, but to the comparative absence of aqueous vapour at those great elevations.

But this vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays is comparatively transparent to the rays of light. Hence the differential action of the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising a most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the stronger hydrocarbon vapours would powerfully hold back the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding climatic changes. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in the variable constituents of the atmosphere would suffice. Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain firm; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.

That is a pretty good description of what we now call the greenhouse effect.

Tyndall demonstrated absorption. That is not greenhouse effect.

His conjecture is not part of science. It is not falsifiable and it is not externally consistent.

Why do you suppose SD ignored the "Deducting the effect of the gaseous acid, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself."?

He seems to miss the obvious whenever any chance permits.

Since he estimated the humidity and his heating apparatus only had to heat in the region of CO2 absorption which he was in no position to estimate these findings showed nothing more than water is the controlling factor and not CO2.

His own references show that he doesn't understand the very thing he's claiming he studies.

You clearly missed his main result, which was that air containing both water vapour and CO2 absorbed 15 times as well as dry air without CO2. To summarise for the hard of thinking:

Dry air, no CO2: 1
Humid air, no CO2: 13
Humid air, with CO2: 15

Tyndall demonstrated that water vapour is a strong absorber of IR radiation and that CO2 also absorbs IR radiation. He also mentions that hydrocarbons (such as methane) are strong absorbers, and he goes on to point out that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could have been responsible for changes in global climate since even small changes could have a powerful warming effect. He was one smart fellow.

And YOU clearly missed my posting in your rush to call me wrong. They had NO WAY of measuring humidity accurately in the mid-1800's. Furthermore since they did NOT have any manner of measuring the wavelength of IR they could have been using precisely the correct frequency of CO2.

Since this is an unusual frequency that has so little energy in it that it is totally absorbed by CO2 in the normal atmosphere you have nothing whatsoever to back up your stupid misunderstandings.

Tell you what - talk to the stars. I'm done having anything to do with you. You are nothing more than litesong on even stronger drugs.

If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.

You are a real dumbass that cannot even read something as simple as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. ITN has been arguing about this and you understand neither his position nor mine.

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about and the best thing you could do on this site is to go away.

Surface Detail wrote:
I'm sure you would like me to go away and stop calling you out on your bullshit.

But I won't.

Surface Detail wrote:
If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.

Let me try to explain this in a more rational manner. Pardon my growing anger at your inability to comprehend normal English.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is very simple:

j = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) x T^4

Wake wrote:
This also means that T^4 = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) / j.
[quote]Wake wrote:
So if you know the temperature (frequency of radiation) you can calculate the energy of visa versa.

Wake wrote:
So the frequency exuding from a black body is dependent upon the energy input.

Wake wrote:
In these sorts of experiments they used things like candle flames or Bunsen burners to supply the energy so the energy was low and could have been directly in the frequency range of CO2's absorption bands.

Wake wrote:
Neither you nor I know that.

But the numbers he provided strongly suggest that because we know that there is actually a 1000:1 ratio of energy absorption between H2O vapor and CO2.

Wake wrote:
Hopefully you can understand this explanation.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
[quote]Surface Detail wrote:
If you bothered looking at Tyndall's paper, you'd have discovered that he used a copper plate covered with lampblack as his radiating surface. This would have radiated a good approximation of a black body spectrum. So, no, he couldn't possibly have been using the "correct frequency" of CO2. So Tyndall was correct and you, as usual, are wrong.

Let me try to explain this in a more rational manner. Pardon my growing anger at your inability to comprehend normal English.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is very simple:

j = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) x T^4

Wake wrote:
This also means that T^4 = ( Stefan–Boltzmann constant) / j.

Wake wrote:
So if you know the temperature (frequency of radiation) you can calculate the energy of visa versa.

False equivalence. You equating the energy of an individual photon with the total energy. They are not the same thing.

Wake wrote:
So the frequency exuding from a black body is dependent upon the energy input.

Not quite. The range of frequencies emitting from an ideal black body follows Wien's law. For actual bodies, the range of frequencies is also over the domain of the emitting substance (the ideal black body is not a 'substance').

Wake wrote:
In these sorts of experiments they used things like candle flames or Bunsen burners to supply the energy so the energy was low and could have been directly in the frequency range of CO2's absorption bands.

No ideal black body 'box' or any other device has ever been constructed.
In the experiments conducted, CO2 absorption made no difference. It is simply another part of the 'box' absorbing and emitting.

Wake wrote:
Neither you nor I know that.

But the numbers he provided strongly suggest that because we know that there is actually a 1000:1 ratio of energy absorption between H2O vapor and CO2.

Absorption is not 'greenhouse effect'. It is simply another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, just like conduction and convection.

Wake wrote:
Hopefully you can understand this explanation.

I find a lot of holes in you explanation.

Wake wrote:
Where is your education?

Wake wrote:
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU INCLUDE THE EMISSIVITY OF THE MATERIAL?

Wake wrote:
THAT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CONSTANT.

Wake wrote:
Is there some reason that a ratio would have anything to do with this subject?

Wake wrote:
DID Tyndall specify an energy level? Or was his study of the RATIO of absorption between Dry Air, Normal Air (meaning room humidity) and CO2?

Wake wrote:
You find holes in the explanation because you are completely unaware of the real world.

Wake wrote:
What in the hell does it matter in this particular case whether it was a true blackbody or a grey body?

Wake wrote:
You have no connection with the actual problem.

Wake wrote:
Reality isn't even peaking into your world.

Wake wrote:
I have worked in science forever.

Wake wrote:
I actually did things.

Wake wrote:
The first job out of the Air Force was in high energy nuclear research. I have worked in most of the best labs in this entire area. I worked in Lawrence Berkeley Labs increasing the power of the linear accelerator. I worked in Lawrence Livermore Labs on military projects. I worked at Sandia National Labs. I worked for so many companies I lost count long ago. If I had saved the awards I threw away I could probably buy a new car just with the gold plating from those awards.

Wake wrote:
The one important lab I never worked in was the IBM Research Center in San Jose.

Wake wrote:
The difference is that I can see the connection between a theoretical concept and the real world and you don't even know it exists.

Into the Night wrote: Define 'reality'.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Define 'reality'.

What you have shown is that you have done nothing that you claim.

Wake wrote:
So you find it easy to make statements like "what's reality".

Wake wrote:
That is the statement of a college freshman in a debating team and not someone discussing a specific described experiment.

Wake wrote:
After having a real experiment like this described you STILL don't understand what I'm talking about when I say "bell curve" so don't try to tell me that you've ever done anything.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Define 'reality'.

What you have shown is that you have done nothing that you claim.

Fine. I don't believe any of your claims either, then. Happy?

Wake wrote:
So you find it easy to make statements like "what's reality".

Since you seem to base so much of your argument on 'reality', it's only right that you should try to define it. Can you?

Wake wrote:
That is the statement of a college freshman in a debating team and not someone discussing a specific described experiment.

Belittlement doesn't help. Can you define it or not?

Wake wrote:
After having a real experiment like this described you STILL don't understand what I'm talking about when I say "bell curve" so don't try to tell me that you've ever done anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not produce a 'bell curve' or any other kind of curve. It produces a scalar value. That means it produces a single number. There is nothing to graph.

I am curious what you think a bell curve is and how it's defined.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Define 'reality'.

What you have shown is that you have done nothing that you claim.

Fine. I don't believe any of your claims either, then. Happy?

Wake wrote:
So you find it easy to make statements like "what's reality".

Since you seem to base so much of your argument on 'reality', it's only right that you should try to define it. Can you?

Wake wrote:
That is the statement of a college freshman in a debating team and not someone discussing a specific described experiment.

Belittlement doesn't help. Can you define it or not?

Wake wrote:
After having a real experiment like this described you STILL don't understand what I'm talking about when I say "bell curve" so don't try to tell me that you've ever done anything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not produce a 'bell curve' or any other kind of curve. It produces a scalar value. That means it produces a single number. There is nothing to graph.

I am curious what you think a bell curve is and how it's defined.

And again you have proven my points. Case dismissed.

James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU

Wake wrote:
2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that 2/3 of the 163 W/m^2 that makes it to the ground is transferred away by conduction?

The thermal conductivity of air is 0.024 W/(m K), and the vertical temperature gradient through the atmosphere is roughly 6.5 K/km i.e. 0.0065 K/m. This would give a heat transmission rate by conduction of

Rconduction = 0.024 * 0.0065 = 0.000156 W/m^2

which is absolutely miniscule in comparison with net rates of heat loss by radiation (58 W/m^2), convection (~19 W/m^2) and evaporation (~86 W/m^2).

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that 2/3 of the 163 W/m^2 that makes it to the ground is transferred away by conduction?

The thermal conductivity of air is 0.024 W/(m K), and the vertical temperature gradient through the atmosphere is roughly 6.5 K/km i.e. 0.0065 K/m. This would give a heat transmission rate by conduction of

Rconduction = 0.024 * 0.0065 = 0.000156 W/m^2

which is absolutely miniscule in comparison with net rates of heat loss by radiation (58 W/m^2), convection (~19 W/m^2) and evaporation (~86 W/m^2).

I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction.

Where did you get the bizarre idea that 2/3 of the 163 W/m^2 that makes it to the ground is transferred away by conduction?

The thermal conductivity of air is 0.024 W/(m K), and the vertical temperature gradient through the atmosphere is roughly 6.5 K/km i.e. 0.0065 K/m. This would give a heat transmission rate by conduction of

Rconduction = 0.024 * 0.0065 = 0.000156 W/m^2

which is absolutely miniscule in comparison with net rates of heat loss by radiation (58 W/m^2), convection (~19 W/m^2) and evaporation (~86 W/m^2).

I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about.

I don't expect anyone understands what you're talking about.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU

2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU

2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.

You missed it. with clouds they can and do absorb energy during the day and release it at night. our atmosphere is probably more active than what scientists give it credit for. And if 98% of the atmosphere is below the tropopause then why is the stratopause so warm for ? And you'll quote your text book yet once again even though you don't allow for atmospheric forcing.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU

2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.

You missed it. with clouds they can and do absorb energy during the day and release it at night. our atmosphere is probably more active than what scientists give it credit for. And if 98% of the atmosphere is below the tropopause then why is the stratopause so warm for ? And you'll quote your text book yet once again even though you don't allow for atmospheric forcing.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU

2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.

You missed it. with clouds they can and do absorb energy during the day and release it at night. our atmosphere is probably more active than what scientists give it credit for. And if 98% of the atmosphere is below the tropopause then why is the stratopause so warm for ? And you'll quote your text book yet once again even though you don't allow for atmospheric forcing.

Let me explain this to you - scientists are the idiots you seem to think they are. Clouds release energy 24 hours a day.

Wake wrote:
If you think that the stratosphere is warm then by all means stick you hand out the window and see for yourself.

Wake wrote:
That is a peculiarity of PRESSURE that causes that. The extremely thin atmosphere above the troposphere is still 2% thick as ground level but wide open to solar radiation and so all of the gases receive warming.

Wake wrote:
This SAME effect occurs on ALL of the planets and satellites with atmosphere at this same pressure. And they have atmospheric compositions entirely different from everyplace else.

Wake wrote:
Above the stratopause there is essentially no atmosphere and while the individual molecules are equally receiving solar radiation it is immeasurable since it is open space.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
There is a basic mistake made by concerned scientists. If anyone looks at fig. 2 in the link, scientists state that gases redirect heat by reflection back towards the Earth. This does not happen. And yet scientists can offer no other explanation how heat remains in our atmosphere.
As for their explanation (fig. 2) it is cooler on an overcast day while it is warmer on an overcast night. Their use of a diagram disagrees with what they claim.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WQ3n6uUrLIU

2/3rds of the heat that makes it to the ground is transferred into the upper atmosphere via conduction. Most of the other third eventually gets there via radiation.

But once in the Tropopause, 98% of the atmosphere is now below the heat. This means that the only way for the heat to be released from the Earth is via radiation.

By it's very nature radiation is in all directions so that means that some of the heat is indeed returned into the lower atmosphere. But the overwhelming majority of the heat is in the atmospheric H2O and not CO2 which is and will remain nothing more than a trace gas.

Since the Tropopause is so high the majority of radiation will not hit the Earth but will end up (often through a very circuitous route) being vented to space.

So they aren't "wrong" except in the actual effect of CO2.

And this is part of the reason that so many scientists haven't complained about these exaggerations - they are only wrong in detail and not in fact.

But science is beginning to see that if you don't confront wild exaggerations that science itself is held responsible. The times they are a changing.

You missed it. with clouds they can and do absorb energy during the day and release it at night. our atmosphere is probably more active than what scientists give it credit for. And if 98% of the atmosphere is below the tropopause then why is the stratopause so warm for ? And you'll quote your text book yet once again even though you don't allow for atmospheric forcing.

Actually, only about 80% of the mass is below the tropopause, not 98%.

Temperature isn't dependent on density of mass. It only depends on mass being there at all.

How WE feel temperature IS dependent on mass density. How the thermometer 'feels' temperature is not.

While the stratopause is quite a bit warmer than the tropopause, it doesn't feel warmer to us. That's because there simply isn't enough molecules around to transfer their energy into us. Despite the warmer measured temperature, to us it feels quite cold.

This gets worse the higher you go.

Total energy per, say, cubic meter, goes down in a continuous curve as you rise higher, again because of the loss of density in the atmosphere. There is no tropopause/stratopause type of bump in the curve.

It is energy that is being discussed here, not just temperature. Thermal energy is just one kind of energy. There is also electromagnetic energy (light).

It doesn't matter how the energy leaves the Earth. The simple fact here is that it does. The amount that leaves is the amount that comes in. The amount that leaves is the total radiance of the Earth, since by the time it leaves for space it is all light.

According to Stefan-Boltzmann, radiance is shown to be proportional to temperature of an object. The Earth is no exception. We can ignore the emissivity factor in the equation for this since it will be the same for incoming energy (absorption), and outgoing energy (emission).

If some Magick Holy Gas reduces the energy output, that is a reduction in radiance. To say that this causes the Earth to become warmer is to say that radiance is inversely proportional to temperature, in clear violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

To say that some Magick Holy Gas causes the emissivity of the Earth to decrease is to say that absorption must also be decreased, resulting in a COLDER Earth, not a warmer one.

Thus the Magick Bouncing Photon Theory of 'greenhouse effect' breaks down in the face of Stefan-Boltzmann. This is but one of the reasons that 'greenhouse effect' is not externally consistent.

It is also not a theory nor is it an observation. It builds a paradox to exist. It is a logical fallacy.