How can scientists know Earth's greenhouse effect is not because of its atmospheric pressure?
| How can scientists know Earth's greenhouse effect is not because of its atmospheric pressure?21-12-2015 21:14 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
Examining the other plants in the solar system, we see that Venus is very hot because of its very high atmospheric pressure, Mars is very cold because of its very low atmospheric pressure, Jupiter is very hot because of its very high atmospheric pressure. Jupiter is like 10,000 C at its surface even though Jupiter has no greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.
Edited on 21-12-2015 21:17 |
| 21-12-2015 21:35 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
So my question is, let's say Earth does not have any greenhouse gases in its atmosphere, what would be Earth's surface temperature? I'm guessing a lot more than the Moon since the Moon has no atmospheric pressure whereas Earth has high atmospheric pressure. The Moon has let's say an average surface temperature of -5 C. Even without any greenhouse gases, I think Earth's surface temperature would have an average of about 14 or 15 C. Edited on 21-12-2015 21:46 |
| 21-12-2015 23:01 | |
| still learning★★☆☆☆ (244) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: You could do more than guess. Lots of references found on the internet on how to solve the problem. Another poster on this forum gave a good reference several weeks ago. See http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html Work your way down to end of section 7.2.2. They come up with 255K (-18C). Or try here http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html find that it's -18C in the fifth paragraph. Irrelevant aside: In your previous post, where did you come up with that value for Jupiter's surface temperature? 10000 c? The Sun's surface is nowhere near that hot. |
| 21-12-2015 23:10 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
still learning wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: At the "surface" pressure level of 10 bars, the temperature is around 340 K (67 °C; 152 °F). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter http://www.space.com/18391-jupiter-temperature.html Earth cannot be colder than the Moon even if Earth has no greenhouse gases due to its high atmospheric pressure. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/168-What-is-the-temperature-on-the-Moon- If Earth has no atmosphere, then maybe the Earth would be -18 C. But since Earth has a lot of atmospheric pressure, Earth would be far hotter than -18 C even if Earth has no greenhouse gases. Edited on 21-12-2015 23:27 |
| 22-12-2015 01:36 | |
| still learning★★☆☆☆ (244) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: How does atmospheric pressure, by itself, affect temperature? If you compress a gas it'll get hot, but in a real-world system that increased temperature will dissipate over time to the surroundings. |
| 22-12-2015 02:30 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
still learning wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: Pressure affects temperature in a causal relationship. The higher the altitude, the lower the pressure, the colder. The lower the altitude, the higher the pressure, the hotter. Has all to do with pressure. Has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html The Earth has an atmosphere, and that means pressure, and that's why Earth is hotter than the Moon. Greenhouse effect only does moderation. Greenhouse gases take away heat during the day, converting heat energy into kinetic energy. Greenhouse gases release heat at night, converting kinetic energy into heat energy. Greenhouse effect does not increase temperature. Only increasing pressure can increase temperature. Edited on 22-12-2015 02:35 |
| 22-12-2015 02:47 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:still learning wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: Well, that's wrong for a start. The temperature of the atmosphere falls with increasing height until you reach the stratosphere, then it rises again, then falls through the mesosphere before finally rising again through the thermosphere. There's no relationship with pressure.  |
| 22-12-2015 03:24 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote:still learning wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: For all intents and purposes, with regards to the atmosphere, we only care about the troposphere, especially the lower portion of the troposphere where all the weather happens. Edited on 22-12-2015 03:35 |
| 22-12-2015 04:10 | |
| still learning★★☆☆☆ (244) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Let's run a thought-experiment. Several posts ago you allowed that the Earth's average surface temperature would be the calculated -18C if there were no atmosphere. You said though that the temperature would be higher because of the atmosphere, even with no greenhouse effect. In our thought experiment, lets start with no atmosphere. -18C. Start introducing an atmosphere (without greenhouse gasses) at ground level the gas at -18C. How will the atmosphere then warm? Ground won't warm it, being at the same temperature. As we increase the amount of gas, still at -18, we'll begin to get a pressure differential at higher altitudes and get a cooling at those higher altitudes. Cooler than -18. Start to get some convection, the warmer air (at -18) rising into the cooler air. Still nothing warmer than -18. |
| 22-12-2015 04:28 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
still learning wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: The answer is simple. Pressure increases temperature. Molecules in the air collide with each other all the time. That's kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is converted into heat energy. When a bullet hits a target, what happens? The kinetic energy is converted into heat energy. Same thing occurs in the atmosphere. The higher the pressure, the more collisions, the higher the temperature. Has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. I showed you prove. Jupiter surface is 67 C without having any greenhouse gases at all. |
| 22-12-2015 04:28 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: The temperature rises with increasing altitude (and falling pressure) in the stratosphere. This simple fact disproves your theory that atmospheric temperature is solely dependent on pressure. Edited on 22-12-2015 04:30 |
| 22-12-2015 04:37 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: I agree with your point that pressure is not the only factor determining temperature. However, in terms of the atmosphere, typically we only care about the lower part of the troposphere where all the weather occurs. |
| 22-12-2015 04:45 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: So your theory that temperature depends on pressure is only sometimes applicable. Why should it not apply in the stratosphere? |
| 22-12-2015 04:56 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: Climate scientists do not bother with the stratosphere. Only the troposphere affects weather. Remember those bottle experiments where people put CO2 gas in and explain CO2 increases temperature? Those are not controlled experiments since when CO2 gas is put in, the pressure of course is increased in that bottle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ I don't deny greenhouse gases do increase temperature. They do. However, I imagine the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is very very minimal. Water vapor in the air can vary by more than 1% within a single day without affecting temperature to any significant degree. Almost all of Earth's higher average temperature compared to the Moon should be due to pressure. But you know, CO2's effect on temperature is so minimal it takes very sophisticated instruments to measure CO2 concentration by IR. CO2 probably accounts for like 0.01% of Earth's higher average temperature compared to the Moon. Edited on 22-12-2015 05:05 |
| 22-12-2015 05:05 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Could you please get your story straight. Upthread you said: Greenhouse effect does not increase temperature. Only increasing pressure can increase temperature. Now you say greenhouse gases do affect temperature. I've a feeling you've not thought this through properly. |
| 22-12-2015 05:09 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: Of course CO2 increases Earth's temperature. CO2 prevents Earth from radiating heat into space. That's how CO2 meters measure CO2 level. However, CO2's effect on temperature is tiny. More than 99.9% of Earth's higher average temperature compared to the Moon is due to pressure, the rest 0.01% is due to greenhouse gases. Even if Earth has no greenhouse gases, Earth would have an average temperature of 15 C, cooler than high pressure Venus and hotter than low pressure Mars. Even if humans remove all CO2 from the atmosphere by air capture and sequester into the ground, Earth's average temperature will still be 15 C. It won't change by even 0.1 C. Pressure is the name of the game, not greenhouse gases. And that, my friends, is fact. You know, I don't mind removing all CO2 from the air and sequester into the ground and thereby destroying all life on Earth, but the fact of the matter is, doing that changes the Earth's average temperature by not even 0.1 C. Earth's pressure would hardly change because of that. And pressure is the name of the game when it comes to temperature. Edited on 22-12-2015 05:13 |
| 22-12-2015 05:16 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: And the sources for these figures are? Edit: Your earlier figure of 10,000 C at the surface of Jupiter was obviously complete bollocks. I'm assuming these figures are also bollocks unless you can explain how you calculated them. Edited on 22-12-2015 05:20 |
| 22-12-2015 05:20 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: Because pressure is the name of the game. Removing CO2 from the air does nothing to temperature. Pressure is the driver, not greenhouse gases. Look at Denver. Why is it cold? Because it has high elevation and therefore low pressure. Why is New York City hot? Because it has low elevation and therefore high pressure. It has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. If you don't believe me, you can wait until this crazy climate bandwagon removes all CO2 from the air by air capture and put into ground, destroying all life on Earth, and then you will see, temperature won't even change by 0.1 C. I guarantee you |
| 22-12-2015 05:26 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
Surface Detail wrote: I stand corrected. Jupiter surface temperature is 67 C at 10 bars. Edited on 22-12-2015 05:27 |
| 22-12-2015 05:27 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote:Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: You're a complete loon. It started with your claim that the temperature on the surface of Jupiter is 10,000 C and went downhill from there on. Why would anyone care what figures you choose to fish out your ass? |
| 22-12-2015 05:31 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
CO2 obviously does not affect temperature to any noticeable effect. CO2 follows temperature. Look at this graph. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4 |
| 22-12-2015 05:33 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
Like I said, pressure is in the driver's seat. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Earth, the Moon. These are all cases in point. Greenhouse gases increase temperature by a teeny tiny bit. MAYBE by 0.01 or 0.1 C. MAYBE.
Edited on 22-12-2015 05:34 |
| 22-12-2015 05:35 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Unless you can somehow justify those figures, we'll have to assume you're bullshitting. |
| 22-12-2015 05:42 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
Surface Detail wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: The numbers are so easy to see. Compare Denver and New York City. One has 1,600 meters elevation. The other has 10 meters elevation. One has much lower pressure. The other has much higher pressure. New York City is, what, 15 C hotter than Denver, yes? Now compare Earth and the Moon. The Moon has no atmosphere. No pressure. Earth has a pretty high pressure 1 bar. How much hotter should Earth be compared to the Moon if only pressure is considered? The number should be about 35 C hotter, yes? The Moon -18 C. -18 C + 35 C = 17 C. More or less this is how much Earth is hotter compared to the Moon. As you can see, at least 99.9% of Earth's warming compared to the Moon is due to pressure. Greenhouse gases are negligible in the warming effect. Even if all CO2 is removed from Earth's atmosphere and put into ground, the Earth would still be 15 C. Edited on 22-12-2015 06:07 |
| 22-12-2015 06:51 | |
| still learning★★☆☆☆ (244) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Where did you get that number? See http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-temperatures-large-cities.php At the above url, the average annual high in Denver is 18C, the low is 2. For New York City, the numbers are 17C and 9. Edited on 22-12-2015 06:53 |
| 22-12-2015 07:32 | |
| still learning★★☆☆☆ (244) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: The answer is simple. Pressure increases temperature. Molecules in the air collide with each other all the time. That's kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is converted into heat energy. When a bullet hits a target, what happens? The kinetic energy is converted into heat energy. Same thing occurs in the atmosphere. The higher the pressure, the more collisions, the higher the temperature. Has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. I showed you prove. Jupiter surface is 67 C without having any greenhouse gases at all.[/quote] Pressure doesn't increase temperature. The act of compressing a gas to a higher pressure does increase it's temperature. That higher temperature isn't permanent, it can "bleed off" to the surroundings. In my thought experiment I specified that we started with a -18C airless planet, then introduced air at -18C. Do this at ground level. Pressure would be minimal to start with. Continue to introduce air at -18C. Pressure will increase. Introduce more air at -18 until we reach one atmosphere pressure. You're contending that the air temperature will rise. Where does that energy come from? Ground temp still -18. Introduced air at -18. In your Jupiter 67 bit, it is the act of compressing that provides the energy, the temperature. Quoting from Wikipedia "The temperature and pressure inside Jupiter increase steadily toward the core, due to the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism. At the "surface" pressure level of 10 bars, the temperature is around 340 K (67 °C; 152 °F" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism is compression, a sort of continuing planetary accretion, a gravitational compression. Still going on in Jupiter. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin%E2%80%93Helmholtz_mechanism |
| 22-12-2015 16:33 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
still learning wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: New York City is far more than 17 C. Look at New York City weather for late December. https://www.google.ca/search?site=&source=hp&q=new+york+city+weather&oq=new+york+city+weather&gs_l=hp.3..0i131j0l9.3358599.3360538.0.3360663.21.13.0.2.2.0.282.1520.0j8j2.10.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..9.12.1549.pVZy6M4DKKI Compare this with Denver weather for late December. https://www.google.ca/search?site=&source=hp&q=denver+weather&oq=denver+weather&gs_l=hp.3..0i131l2j0l8.1045.3444765.0.3444947.21.13.3.5.5.0.152.1551.1j12.13.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..1.20.1520.Zmr8OVxlJ7o Pressure is what causes this difference. Edited on 22-12-2015 16:34 |
| 22-12-2015 16:37 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
My theory is that God made Earth a paradise. The 1 bar of atmospheric pressure makes Earth 33 C hotter than the Moon. This 15 C temperature is not too hot and not too cold for life to thrive. Earth's greenhouse gases moderate Earth's weather, storing away heat when there is sunlight and releasing heat when there is no sunlight, thereby making days cool, nights warm. Man adding more CO2 into the air will not increase temperature by any noticeable degree, but will instead add more moderation by reducing the day night temperature difference.
Edited on 22-12-2015 16:38 |
| 22-12-2015 16:41 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
I do not agree with NASA saying Earth's greenhouse effect makes Earth 33 C hotter than the Moon. All of that warming can be explained by Earth having 1 bar of pressure compared to the Moon having no pressure. Going from the Moon to Earth is like going from the top of the troposphere to sea level. You can imagine what the increase in temperature is. This shows the increase in temperature as pressure increases. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html As you can see, going from 16,000 feet to sea level, temperature increases from -17 C to 15 C. That's an increase of 32 C. This is NASA's Clinton nonsense, which says Earth is 33 C hotter than the Moon because Earth has greenhouse gases and the Moon does not. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/ Edited on 22-12-2015 16:55 |
| 22-12-2015 19:27 | |
| still learning★★☆☆☆ (244) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote: That view explains at lot. |
| 22-12-2015 19:37 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
still learning wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: Earth is the only planet we know of that has thriving life. We know of no other planet that has life. Earth is a gift from God. If I am not correct, you are welcome to point that out why instead of use insults. I also do not agree with NASA's claim that Earth's temperature is driven by the level of greenhouse gases in the air. If that were the case, Earth would be much hotter than it is today. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/ Edited on 22-12-2015 19:46 |
| 22-12-2015 21:50 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
I have proven mathematically that over 99.9% of Earth's increase from -18 C to 15 C is due to its atmospheric pressure of 1 bar. Greenhouse gases play a negligible role in increasing Earth's temperature. Greenhouses gases suck up heat during the day converting heat to kinetic and release heat at night converting kinetic to heat. Greenhouse gases only does moderating temperature, not increasing temperature. Therefore, even if the elites charge taxpayers quadrillions of dollars to capture all CO2 in the atmosphere and bury into ground using air capture and sequestration, the Earth will still be 15 C. Edited on 22-12-2015 21:51 |
| 24-02-2016 19:15 | |
| jesus☆☆☆☆☆ (7) |
please people.. anyone on here with any real power.. i know what causes climate change and i know what its going to take to reverses it.. i need someone in the computer simulatiom programming.. in ten minutes a can tell you how to save this planet...a lot of conversations all of them lead to my theory.... planetary rotational imbalance is onsetting climate change...witch is altering the the climates of our minds as well...sorry even with all this wisdom .. i have a hard time spelling.. i am from newfoundland.. and apperantly they are not high on the educated scale..lol but i sound normal and i am pretty lol please anyone care about how this planet really works...contact me..we can save this planet before its to late... |
| 24-02-2016 19:23 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14411) |
still learning wrote:Tai Hai Chen wrote: We all know that "climate" made earth a paradise, but then He was angered by man's sins so He sent a great flood as punishment, and He added a rainbow. I have no idea what Tai Hai Chen is talking about. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| RE: saving planet25-02-2016 18:50 | |
| jesus☆☆☆☆☆ (7) |
lol yes he lost.. please guys i can stop climate change..someone must be able to use such power.. |
| 26-02-2016 16:53 | |
One Punch Man ★☆☆☆☆(142) |
Surface Detail wrote: By my understanding Jupiter may not have a surface but deep in its atmosphere temperatures can apparently reach 24,000K which was measured by the Galileo spacecraft in 1994. Surface Detail wrote:And the sources for these figures are? Here's one source: according to measurements by Hottel and Leckner CO2 has a maximum absorptivity/emissivity of 0.003. When applying the radiative transfer equation for two bodies I got a radiation-enhancement of 0.45 W/m2 or 0.083K at the surface assuming the surface is 288K and the atmosphere is 255K which is close to Tai Hai Chen's estimate of 0.1K. Nasif Nahle calculates a temperature increase of 0.3K with the same formula although he uses different temperatures for the surface and atmosphere: http://climaterealists.com/?id=8236 Claes Johnson calculates an increase "smaller than 0.5 W/m2" http://claesjohnson.blogspot.co.uk/2013_02_01_archive.html and so my figure of 0.45 W/m2 seems about right. Rounding it off to 0.5 W/m2, that equates to a temperature increase at the surface of 0.092K, which is more or less the same as Tai Hai Chen's estimate. Edited on 26-02-2016 17:03 |
| 26-02-2016 22:26 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
One Punch Man wrote:Surface Detail wrote: That sounds incredible to me. At the core of the planet, possibly, but in the atmosphere? Do you have a reference for this? Surface Detail wrote:And the sources for these figures are? All the sources that I can find (e.g. this one, page 14) give the emissivity of CO2 as tending towards a maximum of about 0.18 with increasing optical depth (for temperatures around 300 K). Where exactly did your 0.003 figure come from ? Edited on 26-02-2016 22:27 |
| 26-02-2016 23:28 | |
| One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (142) |
Surface Detail wrote: In the core is what I meant. I understand the issue with calling it an atmosphere as I would assume it to be somewhere between a gas and a liquid. Though NASA refers to Venus as having an atmospheric surface temperaure of 737K even though its atmosphere at the surface is technically a supercritical fluid. this one, page 14) give the emissivity of CO2 as tending towards a maximum of about 0.18 with increasing optical depth (for temperatures around 300 K). Where exactly did your 0.003 figure come from ? The maximum emissivity of 0.003 at its current concentration is from Hottel and Leckner (you can Google their graphs) including the other scientists that Nasif Nahle references in his article. The total maximum might be 0.18 at super-high concentrations. Assuming an emissivity of 0.18 and applying the aforementioned radiative transfer equation and assuming a surface temperature of 288K and an atmospheric temperature of 255K that corresponds to a radiance of 21.5 W/m2 from CO2 whereas the IPCC assumes it to be 32 W/m2. |
| 27-02-2016 00:04 | |
| Surface Detail★★★★☆ (1673) |
One Punch Man wrote:Surface Detail wrote: It'd be easier if you'd say what you mean. "Deep in the atmosphere" is not the same as "in the core". And I don't see how Galileo (edit: the probe, of course!) could possibly have measured Jupiter's core temperature. Reference? this one, page 14) give the emissivity of CO2 as tending towards a maximum of about 0.18 with increasing optical depth (for temperatures around 300 K). Where exactly did your 0.003 figure come from ? The emissivity of a gas depends on its optical depth (typically in m atm) rather then just its concentration, so I suspect that you may have misinterpreted the graphs. Please could you give a link to where you found the 0.003 figure so I can check for myself. As I understand it, the optical depth of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is sufficient to give an emissivity approaching 0.18. Also, does the IPCC figure include contributions from other GHGs or just CO2? Edited on 27-02-2016 00:27 |
| 27-02-2016 14:01 | |
| spot★★★★☆ (1323) |
One Punch Man wrote: Never heard this but actually found out something interesting when looking up this up, you're wrong of course nobody is suggesting that there is supercritical CO2 now on Venus but you obviously half remembered something interesting. http://www.space.com/28112-venus-weird-superfluid-oceans.html |
Join the debate How can scientists know Earth's greenhouse effect is not because of its atmospheric pressure?:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist | 145 | 24-04-2024 02:48 |
| Previous Panics by *Scientists* | 0 | 27-03-2024 20:35 |
| Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics | 82 | 09-12-2023 00:36 |
| 'Greenhouse' Effect? | 49 | 30-11-2023 06:45 |
| Science and Atmospheric Chemistry | 6 | 25-11-2023 20:55 |