The Complexity of Climate Change

Frescomexico wrote:

James_ wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

You are way ahead of me on this ozone layer subject. I'm just a refrigeration technician. But, since the health of the layer so affects my profession, and since I live in the tropics (20 N Lat), the layer's influence on my climate is important, so I'll keep following your thread.

Thanks, Don

Thanks for the compliment. Right now everything is in a wait and see mode. I have contacted scientists and the media to try to get interest in seeing an experiment performed. I am hoping a local university will get involved. At the moment atmospheric forcing is not considered to be happening and all climate change models only allow for CO2 to change through photosynthesis.
I have a medical situation that I am trying to have resolved. Once that happens then if need be I could see about doing the experiment myself.


Jim

p.s., on a different thought, the rain forest on the South American continent may have vegetation that absorbs water vapor in the atmosphere and drains it through it's root system. Because of how thick the vegetation can be, it makes me wonder how water gets to plants underneath the canopy.
If such plants exist then they may help to restore ground water in other places.

That is an exciting possibility. However, many places where the aquifers are depleted are also places that have low humidity. Perhaps you are only referring to surface ground water.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Radio signals are reflected by ozone.

That is simply wrong. You need freely mobile, charged particles to reflect radio waves, and these are only found in substantial numbers in the tenuous ionosphere. The ozone layer is far too dense for any free electrons and ions to last long before recombination. Hence the ozone layer cannot reflect radio waves!

James_ wrote:
@All,
This is the link that I was talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvm4hurlock

I know history can be boring but with climate change, etc. it might help us to better understand how we can help change to come about. And why the ionospshere is being discussed in this thread I don't know. It's completely off topic and is rude.
Why does max Planck's work matter ? This let's us know that when solar radiation is absorbed and the emitted that those frequencies can effect the weather. And what the experiment I did let's us know is that there is more energy in the color blue than found in brown. Between the black ring and the white hot center was blue (the 15 second mark).
At the same time plants whose leaves are darker green might be better for cooling a region than plants with lighter colored green leaves. after all, when land becomes arid that is because it happens over time. And with climate and geologic change, those can be improved upon over time as well.

@Don, there are ways that desalination might be made more affordable. If so then that can help places that have little rainfall. One such example is where the Dust Bowl happened in the U.S. And in the U.S. every aquifer west of the Mississippi is in danger of going dry.

http://www.history.com/topics/dust-bowl

Wake wrote:
While most of the True Believers here don't understand the first thing about black body radiation and how very little of it is used to cool the Earth, one day they may accidentally discover the theory of conduction and see just what they thought they knew isn't true.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
While most of the True Believers here don't understand the first thing about black body radiation and how very little of it is used to cool the Earth, one day they may accidentally discover the theory of conduction and see just what they thought they knew isn't true.

Given that the Earth is in space, the only way that it can cool is through radiation. Space does not conduct.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
While most of the True Believers here don't understand the first thing about black body radiation and how very little of it is used to cool the Earth, one day they may accidentally discover the theory of conduction and see just what they thought they knew isn't true.

Given that the Earth is in space, the only way that it can cool is through radiation. Space does not conduct.

And CO2 is too heavy too be in the upper atmosphere and in too small a percentage. So where does that leave you?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
While most of the True Believers here don't understand the first thing about black body radiation and how very little of it is used to cool the Earth, one day they may accidentally discover the theory of conduction and see just what they thought they knew isn't true.

Given that the Earth is in space, the only way that it can cool is through radiation. Space does not conduct.

And CO2 is too heavy too be in the upper atmosphere and in too small a percentage. So where does that leave you?

It leaves me wondering WTF your comment has to do with anything. The only way the Earth can lose heat is through radiation since space does not conduct. Both the surface and atmosphere of the Earth radiate energy into space; that is how the Earth loses the energy that it gains from incoming solar radiation.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
While most of the True Believers here don't understand the first thing about black body radiation and how very little of it is used to cool the Earth, one day they may accidentally discover the theory of conduction and see just what they thought they knew isn't true.

Given that the Earth is in space, the only way that it can cool is through radiation. Space does not conduct.

And CO2 is too heavy too be in the upper atmosphere and in too small a percentage. So where does that leave you?

It leaves me wondering WTF your comment has to do with anything. The only way the Earth can lose heat is through radiation since space does not conduct. Both the surface and atmosphere of the Earth radiate energy into space; that is how the Earth loses the energy that it gains from incoming solar radiation.

James_ wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
While most of the True Believers here don't understand the first thing about black body radiation and how very little of it is used to cool the Earth, one day they may accidentally discover the theory of conduction and see just what they thought they knew isn't true.

Given that the Earth is in space, the only way that it can cool is through radiation. Space does not conduct.

And CO2 is too heavy too be in the upper atmosphere and in too small a percentage. So where does that leave you?

It leaves me wondering WTF your comment has to do with anything. The only way the Earth can lose heat is through radiation since space does not conduct. Both the surface and atmosphere of the Earth radiate energy into space; that is how the Earth loses the energy that it gains from incoming solar radiation.

@Wake,
How the Earth warms, cools and retains heat might have to be reconsidered. As Surface Detail wrote "solwr radiation warms the Earth ".
It's possible that solar radiation doesn't make it past the Van Allen Radiation Belt. What tends to suggest this is how cold both the tropopause and stratosphere are while both have wwarmer regions both above and below them.
Change can take a lot of time.

Jim

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
While most of the True Believers here don't understand the first thing about black body radiation and how very little of it is used to cool the Earth, one day they may accidentally discover the theory of conduction and see just what they thought they knew isn't true.

Given that the Earth is in space, the only way that it can cool is through radiation. Space does not conduct.

And CO2 is too heavy too be in the upper atmosphere and in too small a percentage. So where does that leave you?

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
While most of the True Believers here don't understand the first thing about black body radiation and how very little of it is used to cool the Earth, one day they may accidentally discover the theory of conduction and see just what they thought they knew isn't true.

Given that the Earth is in space, the only way that it can cool is through radiation. Space does not conduct.

And CO2 is too heavy too be in the upper atmosphere and in too small a percentage. So where does that leave you?

CO2 as a gas diffuses throughout the earth's atmosphere. The fact that as a compound it is heavier than air does not affect its diffusion. The atmosphere is not stratified by the molecular weight of its components.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
While most of the True Believers here don't understand the first thing about black body radiation and how very little of it is used to cool the Earth, one day they may accidentally discover the theory of conduction and see just what they thought they knew isn't true.

Given that the Earth is in space, the only way that it can cool is through radiation. Space does not conduct.

And CO2 is too heavy too be in the upper atmosphere and in too small a percentage. So where does that leave you?

CO2 as a gas diffuses throughout the earth's atmosphere. The fact that as a compound it is heavier than air does not affect its diffusion. The atmosphere is not stratified by the molecular weight of its components.

Well yes and no. In the troposphere there is rather complete mixing. (Troposphere - "layer of mixing") As you move to higher layers you have less and less of this effect. CO2 is actually in the lower half of the stratosphere and decreases rapidly above 15 miles. The Ozone layer is in about the middle of the Stratosphere because of this.

Above this level with the air too thin for convection to cause mixing the atmosphere tends to mix only from the thermal reactions to the Sun. These cause little motion other than the absorption of energy (vibration of the molecule without other molecules to bump against to send them hurling around).

Even when a highly excited molecule does bump into a neighbor who is usually equally excited the two fly off in different directions unlikely to bump into another but more likely to hurl into space or into the lower layers of the atmosphere. This is the basic method of how Mars lost it's atmosphere.

The heat of the mesosphere is very low even though it is exposed to the direct radiation of the Sun. This is due to the extremely thin atmosphere at this level and the temperature drops with altitude because of this.

Above this level there are extremely few molecules. The energy is so high that all molecules are reduced to free electrons, protons and the occasional neutron.

Frescomexico wrote:
Very interesting lesson for me. So is CO2 restricted to below the upper half of the stratosphere because of its molecular weight or some other characteristic?

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Very interesting lesson for me. So is CO2 restricted to below the upper half of the stratosphere because of its molecular weight or some other characteristic?

Absolutely not. It, as a percentage of the atmosphere, simply grows thinner and thinner as H2O does. In an atmosphere not thick enough to promote mixing through convection the weight of the molecule matters.

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Very interesting lesson for me. So is CO2 restricted to below the upper half of the stratosphere because of its molecular weight or some other characteristic?

Absolutely not. It, as a percentage of the atmosphere, simply grows thinner and thinner as H2O does. In an atmosphere not thick enough to promote mixing through convection the weight of the molecule matters.

In testing they could tell when they hit the tropopause simply because there was an abrupt drop in CO2 of 1 - 3 ppm. And this was STILL in the mixing layers.

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
Very interesting lesson for me. So is CO2 restricted to below the upper half of the stratosphere because of its molecular weight or some other characteristic?

Absolutely not. It, as a percentage of the atmosphere, simply grows thinner and thinner as H2O does. In an atmosphere not thick enough to promote mixing through convection the weight of the molecule matters.

Thank you. Continuing my education, with the molecules, CO2 and H2O growing thinner with elevation, does the same thing happen with N2 and O?

Also, you stated "In the troposphere there is rather complete mixing. (Troposphere - "layer of mixing") As you move to higher layers you have less and less of this effect. CO2 is actually in the lower half of the stratosphere and decreases rapidly above 15 miles. The Ozone layer is in about the middle of the Stratosphere because of this." Ozone is of particular interest to me because of the business I am in (refrigeration). Does the ozone become a layer because it can migrate no higher, or does it form at that elevation by some chemical reaction from one or more other components of the atmosphere?

James_ wrote:
@Don,
The link is to a Greenland Sea warming graph set into an annual global warming graph that also shows co2 levels. I think you'll notice how the Greenland Sea warming matches warming since 1950. Before that co2 does not match annual global warming because the period from 1880 to 1940 doesn't follow co2 levels.

What Wake is missing about gases in the upper atmosphere is that if climate forcing happens in the tropopause then there is a reason why molecules like co2 and water have a lower percentage when compared to other gases such as H2C, CH4, CH2O which all can come from climate forcing or co2 and water converting into other molecules. Kind of why I'm pursuing my experiment, it would change the discussion on how our atmosphere works and how that effects global warming and climate change.


Jim


https://goo.gl/photos/YmNnMxpgZfd3h6nw8

James_ wrote:
@Don,
The link is to a Greenland Sea warming graph set into an annual global warming graph that also shows co2 levels. I think you'll notice how the Greenland Sea warming matches warming since 1950. Before that co2 does not match annual global warming because the period from 1880 to 1940 doesn't follow co2 levels.

What Wake is missing about gases in the upper atmosphere is that if climate forcing happens in the tropopause then there is a reason why molecules like co2 and water have a lower percentage when compared to other gases such as H2C, CH4, CH2O which all can come from climate forcing or co2 and water converting into other molecules. Kind of why I'm pursuing my experiment, it would change the discussion on how our atmosphere works and how that effects global warming and climate change.


Jim


https://goo.gl/photos/YmNnMxpgZfd3h6nw8

Wake wrote:
Eventually all of that heat is lost to space in the manner that Surface Detail said. His error is in thinking that there is anything special about CO2. There is no energy save a very little in a very small area of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs that other gases don't absorb as well. And it's emissions are absorbed entirely by the other gases or atmospheric H2O.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Eventually all of that heat is lost to space in the manner that Surface Detail said. His error is in thinking that there is anything special about CO2. There is no energy save a very little in a very small area of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs that other gases don't absorb as well. And it's emissions are absorbed entirely by the other gases or atmospheric H2O.

No, that's incorrect. The fundamental difference between greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, H2O, CH4) and non-greenhouse gases (e.g. O2, N2) is that molecules of the former are able to absorb IR photons of certain wavelengths, while those of the latter cannot absorb or emit IR radiation.

If the Earth's atmosphere consisted only of O2 and N2, the Earth would be considerably colder. This is because virtually all of the IR radiated from its surface would pass straight through the atmosphere and into space.

In the real atmosphere, some of the IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface are, instead, absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules, which then pass the absorbed energy to neighbouring molecules though collisions, thus warming the air. Similarly, a greenhouse gas molecule may receive sufficient energy from collisions to radiate an IR photon (thus cooling the air).

The overall effect of this is that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass into space but is, instead absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere. Some of the IR emitted by the atmosphere travels downwards and is absorbed by the Earth's surface, thus warming it. This is why the Earth is about 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be.

In the main graph in the link, the correlation between CO2 and temperature seems to disappear between 1930 and 1970. Also I can understand the effect of the Pacific Ocean temperature on global climate (El Nino), but it is difficult to feature a global effect from the relatively small Greenland Sea.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Eventually all of that heat is lost to space in the manner that Surface Detail said. His error is in thinking that there is anything special about CO2. There is no energy save a very little in a very small area of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs that other gases don't absorb as well. And it's emissions are absorbed entirely by the other gases or atmospheric H2O.

No, that's incorrect. The fundamental difference between greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, H2O, CH4) and non-greenhouse gases (e.g. O2, N2) is that molecules of the former are able to absorb IR photons of certain wavelengths, while those of the latter cannot absorb or emit IR radiation.

If the Earth's atmosphere consisted only of O2 and N2, the Earth would be considerably colder. This is because virtually all of the IR radiated from its surface would pass straight through the atmosphere and into space.

In the real atmosphere, some of the IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface are, instead, absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules, which then pass the absorbed energy to neighbouring molecules though collisions, thus warming the air. Similarly, a greenhouse gas molecule may receive sufficient energy from collisions to radiate an IR photon (thus cooling the air).

The overall effect of this is that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass into space but is, instead absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere. Some of the IR emitted by the atmosphere travels downwards and is absorbed by the Earth's surface, thus warming it. This is why the Earth is about 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be.

James_ wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Eventually all of that heat is lost to space in the manner that Surface Detail said. His error is in thinking that there is anything special about CO2. There is no energy save a very little in a very small area of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs that other gases don't absorb as well. And it's emissions are absorbed entirely by the other gases or atmospheric H2O.

No, that's incorrect. The fundamental difference between greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, H2O, CH4) and non-greenhouse gases (e.g. O2, N2) is that molecules of the former are able to absorb IR photons of certain wavelengths, while those of the latter cannot absorb or emit IR radiation.

If the Earth's atmosphere consisted only of O2 and N2, the Earth would be considerably colder. This is because virtually all of the IR radiated from its surface would pass straight through the atmosphere and into space.

In the real atmosphere, some of the IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface are, instead, absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules, which then pass the absorbed energy to neighbouring molecules though collisions, thus warming the air. Similarly, a greenhouse gas molecule may receive sufficient energy from collisions to radiate an IR photon (thus cooling the air).

The overall effect of this is that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass into space but is, instead absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere. Some of the IR emitted by the atmosphere travels downwards and is absorbed by the Earth's surface, thus warming it. This is why the Earth is about 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be.

I tend to think if co2 actually trapped heat then a scientist would demonstrate this by adding co2 to air and show how that air becomes warmer. Hasn't been done. Why not ?
Too simple ? Maybe.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Eventually all of that heat is lost to space in the manner that Surface Detail said. His error is in thinking that there is anything special about CO2. There is no energy save a very little in a very small area of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs that other gases don't absorb as well. And it's emissions are absorbed entirely by the other gases or atmospheric H2O.

No, that's incorrect. The fundamental difference between greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, H2O, CH4) and non-greenhouse gases (e.g. O2, N2) is that molecules of the former are able to absorb IR photons of certain wavelengths, while those of the latter cannot absorb or emit IR radiation.

If the Earth's atmosphere consisted only of O2 and N2, the Earth would be considerably colder. This is because virtually all of the IR radiated from its surface would pass straight through the atmosphere and into space.

In the real atmosphere, some of the IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface are, instead, absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules, which then pass the absorbed energy to neighbouring molecules though collisions, thus warming the air. Similarly, a greenhouse gas molecule may receive sufficient energy from collisions to radiate an IR photon (thus cooling the air).

The overall effect of this is that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass into space but is, instead absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere. Some of the IR emitted by the atmosphere travels downwards and is absorbed by the Earth's surface, thus warming it. This is why the Earth is about 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Eventually all of that heat is lost to space in the manner that Surface Detail said. His error is in thinking that there is anything special about CO2. There is no energy save a very little in a very small area of the spectrum that CO2 absorbs that other gases don't absorb as well. And it's emissions are absorbed entirely by the other gases or atmospheric H2O.

No, that's incorrect. The fundamental difference between greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, H2O, CH4) and non-greenhouse gases (e.g. O2, N2) is that molecules of the former are able to absorb IR photons of certain wavelengths, while those of the latter cannot absorb or emit IR radiation.

If the Earth's atmosphere consisted only of O2 and N2, the Earth would be considerably colder. This is because virtually all of the IR radiated from its surface would pass straight through the atmosphere and into space.

In the real atmosphere, some of the IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface are, instead, absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules, which then pass the absorbed energy to neighbouring molecules though collisions, thus warming the air. Similarly, a greenhouse gas molecule may receive sufficient energy from collisions to radiate an IR photon (thus cooling the air).

The overall effect of this is that some of the IR emitted from the Earth's surface does not pass into space but is, instead absorbed and re-emitted by the atmosphere. Some of the IR emitted by the atmosphere travels downwards and is absorbed by the Earth's surface, thus warming it. This is why the Earth is about 33°C warmer than it would otherwise be.

Someone better tell Mother Nature that she's polluting the planet with methane since the overwhelming majority of methane is produced via natural microbial reduction of biomass. Someone also should hide the fact that you can scale the atmospheric levels of methane to match the increase in global warming that doesn't seem to exist.

Since the atmosphere ISN'T composed of O2 and N naturally you have nothing more than some bad-assed theory that the surface temperature would be different than it presently is. You have absolutely NOTHING real to back that up with.

In 2009 there was a book written called "The Nudge". It explained how to use psychological methods to control people because after all - they are too stupid to know what's good for them. This methodology was immediately seized upon by the Obama government in the US and Gordon Brown in the UK.

It mostly consists of presenting things in such a manner as that they sound correct and right but in fact are exactly opposite what a rational person would choose. Those that are most strongly effected by these things are minorities and the young.

The problem with it is that it can cause permanent and lasting psychological damage. We see this in the black community when offered jobs they do not respond with a willingness to work but they believe that something is being taken away from them - that the intent is only to take their welfare away from them and not to help them better themselves.

The Millennial Generation is also strongly effected. You no longer can even tell the difference between what is and what isn't your own best self interest.

You sit here and quote things you do not understand as if it were the laws of the universe with complete confidence. You haven't the slightest compunction to use false data that even NOAA has admitted has been incorrectly interpreted in order to give Obama "proof" of AGW to present to the IPCC.

Not ONE contraindication is acceptable to you. No level of proof will break through your coat of armor.

That is the psychological damage that has been used against you and it is in all probability permanent.

It worked in Great Britain they were so blatant as to call it "The Nudge Department" And it succeeded to stop the separation of Scotland from Great Britain but since the larger part of England were older people far more racially harmonious it could not be used to convince them to not exit the EU against their best interests.

You my lad are lost. And you always will be. So arguing anything with you is a lost cause. But fear not - no one cares in the least what you think. The climate will be what it will be regardless of what you believe is the cause. After all, increasing methane couldn't be caused by warmer weather causing increased biomass production to be reduced by microbial actions to methane. It absolutely HAS to be produced in some manner in the upper atmosphere by reactions with CO2.

Have a good time.

Surface Detail wrote: Sorry, but I don't see how your little political rant constitutes a reply to my post about the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Do you dispute the actual existence of the greenhouse effect?

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Sorry, but I don't see how your little political rant constitutes a reply to my post about the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Do you dispute the actual existence of the greenhouse effect?

Just so we're clear about this - there is no greenhouse "effect". I don't know how many times I have to say that as I have over the last lo so many years.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Sorry, but I don't see how your little political rant constitutes a reply to my post about the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Do you dispute the actual existence of the greenhouse effect?

Just so we're clear about this - there is no greenhouse "effect". I don't know how many times I have to say that as I have over the last lo so many years.

Then you are in complete nutcase territory. It is impossible not to have a greenhouse effect when gases that absorb IR radiation are present in the atmosphere, as I outlined above. You might as well deny the existence of gravity.

I'm sure you won't find any scientist who disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect. Even global warming sceptics like Dr Roy Spencer accept the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect; they just dispute how much humans may be influencing it. In fact, Dr Roy Spencer has written an interesting article describing how the world would look without greenhouse gases: What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect? It's worth a read.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Sorry, but I don't see how your little political rant constitutes a reply to my post about the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Do you dispute the actual existence of the greenhouse effect?

Just so we're clear about this - there is no greenhouse "effect". I don't know how many times I have to say that as I have over the last lo so many years.

Then you are in complete nutcase territory. It is impossible not to have a greenhouse effect when gases that absorb IR radiation are present in the atmosphere, as I outlined above. You might as well deny the existence of gravity.

I'm sure you won't find any scientist who disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect. Even global warming sceptics like Dr Roy Spencer accept the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect; they just dispute how much humans may be influencing it. In fact, Dr Roy Spencer has written an interesting article describing how the world would look without greenhouse gases: What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect? It's worth a read.

Absorption of infrared light is not greenhouse effect.

You can't heat a warmer substance such as the surface with a colder gas. It doesn't matter if heating is by conduction, convection, or radiance.

You conveniently like to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics to make greenhouse effect work. You also like to ignore other rather important physical laws, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Surface Detail wrote:

No, neither I nor the entirety of the world's scientists are ignoring any physical laws. Indeed, the greenhouse effect is a consequence of physical laws. The problem is that you are failing to understand how the physical laws work (deliberately, I assume, since this has been explained to you many times here). In short: you are wrong and the world's scientists are correct.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Sorry, but I don't see how your little political rant constitutes a reply to my post about the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Do you dispute the actual existence of the greenhouse effect?

Just so we're clear about this - there is no greenhouse "effect". I don't know how many times I have to say that as I have over the last lo so many years.

Then you are in complete nutcase territory. It is impossible not to have a greenhouse effect when gases that absorb IR radiation are present in the atmosphere, as I outlined above. You might as well deny the existence of gravity.

I'm sure you won't find any scientist who disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect. Even global warming sceptics like Dr Roy Spencer accept the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect; they just dispute how much humans may be influencing it. In fact, Dr Roy Spencer has written an interesting article describing how the world would look without greenhouse gases: What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect? It's worth a read.

Absorption of infrared light is not greenhouse effect.

You can't heat a warmer substance such as the surface with a colder gas. It doesn't matter if heating is by conduction, convection, or radiance.

You conveniently like to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics to make greenhouse effect work. You also like to ignore other rather important physical laws, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No, neither I nor the entirety of the world's scientists are ignoring any physical laws. Indeed, the greenhouse effect is a consequence of physical laws. The problem is that you are failing to understand how the physical laws work (deliberately, I assume, since this has been explained to you many times here). In short: you are wrong and the world's scientists are correct.

Wake wrote:
Just so we're clear about this - there is no greenhouse "effect". I don't know how many times I have to say that as I have over the last lo so many years.

Wake wrote:
Too bad you haven't any idea of what you're talking about. The "greenhouse effect" is caused by H2O.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Just so we're clear about this - there is no greenhouse "effect". I don't know how many times I have to say that as I have over the last lo so many years.

Wake wrote:
Too bad you haven't any idea of what you're talking about. The "greenhouse effect" is caused by H2O.

Looks to me like you're the one struggling to get your story straight.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Just so we're clear about this - there is no greenhouse "effect". I don't know how many times I have to say that as I have over the last lo so many years.

Wake wrote:
Too bad you haven't any idea of what you're talking about. The "greenhouse effect" is caused by H2O.

Looks to me like you're the one struggling to get your story straight.

And it looks to me that you are the one that can't tell the difference between absorption and emission spectra.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Just so we're clear about this - there is no greenhouse "effect". I don't know how many times I have to say that as I have over the last lo so many years.

Wake wrote:
Too bad you haven't any idea of what you're talking about. The "greenhouse effect" is caused by H2O.

Looks to me like you're the one struggling to get your story straight.

And it looks to me that you are the one that can't tell the difference between absorption and emission spectra.

Very Trumpian of you. When cornered by your own contradictions, simply make some other totally unrelated and unsubstantiated accusation.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:
Just so we're clear about this - there is no greenhouse "effect". I don't know how many times I have to say that as I have over the last lo so many years.

Wake wrote:
Too bad you haven't any idea of what you're talking about. The "greenhouse effect" is caused by H2O.

Looks to me like you're the one struggling to get your story straight.

And it looks to me that you are the one that can't tell the difference between absorption and emission spectra.

Very Trumpian of you. When cornered by your own contradictions, simply make some other totally unrelated and unsubstantiated accusation.

As we ALL know the emission and absorption spectra of CO2 is totally unknown and has no bearing whatsoever on your claims about CO2.

Again a perfect demonstration of your psychological problems brought about by the nudge.