Remember me
▼ Content

The Complexity of Climate Change



Page 3 of 4<1234>
02-04-2017 21:28
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.


Don,
In some places it might be for surface water. This could help in 2 ways. The first is to absorb some solar radiation and the 2nd is to hydrate the surface. The 2nd item might help to change how solar radiation is refracted.
What I think would help many situations is finding a less expensive way for desalinating sea water for agricultural use. That would allow it to have a higher salt content. What has been observed in history is that when aquifers are depleted that the land above it becomes arid. It's almost like ground water attracts the rain.
This aspect of climate change is considered Geo-Engineering.


Jim
03-04-2017 02:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Don,
The link is to an experiment about Max Planck's work on Black Body Radiation. He heated a steel bar in a furnace. Because the bar reacted to the plasma in the furnace it glowed red which is Planck's Constant.
Why the different colors matter is when solar radiation is refracted it can either repel or attract water vapor. I think Wake will get this. Water vapor has an absorption spectrum and if refracted solar radiation is within that spectrum then it should help to increase water vapor in that region.
I may be offline for a while because I have a medical situation to resolve.

Jim

Search black body radiation and James Lindgaard on YouTube. Have trouble copying on my phone.
03-04-2017 03:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
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!

Question: does tropospheric ozone make troposcatter work?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
03-04-2017 17:23
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@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
04-04-2017 00:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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


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.

The fact is that after chasing my tail around a bit I came across the fact that the long term MGT charts are still being used with faulty corrections for urban heating. Meanwhile, the satellite temperature data which has been rather short term available has shown this and in an effort to give Obama his "proof" of global warming they "corrected" the satellite temperature plots to correspond to the faulty ground measurements.

It appears that we haven't been in a "lull" after all - we are actually in a cooling phase.

Whether this lasts long or not, what we have seen is science cutting its own throat. Lying about fact for the sake of belief.
04-04-2017 05:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
04-04-2017 05:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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?
04-04-2017 05:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
04-04-2017 17:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.


Can we do without the moronic chatter? CO2 is a vastly minority gas that is largely in the lower atmosphere. That means that the RADIATION isn't from CO2 but from the other gases.

In the lower atmosphere the CO2 is several hundreds of thousands of time more likely to transfer it's energy to O2 or N that another CO2 molecule THROUGH CONDUCTION and not radiation.

This makes CO2 a COOLANT and not a "greenhouse gas".

Is this something that is too difficult for you to understand?
04-04-2017 17:12
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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
04-04-2017 18:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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


Not at all. We know very well that most of the Sun's emissions are in the visible spectrum and that most of that is absorbed directly by the Earth.

Heat or infrared radiation is passed about the atmosphere on it's way out. Because the upper atmosphere is so thin, the essence of the heat is strung very far apart - the molecules that are radiating radiate in all directions so that it goes in every direction but that which is directed into outer space is permanently gone.

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.

And because of it's lower latent heat content than other gases it radiates sooner. and this radiation is more likely to be absorbed by other gases than CO2 because of it's sparsity in the atmosphere.

The subterfuge of the True Believers has to be seen to be believed - "article:" "Most additional heating absorbed by oceans". Uhhh - yeah - Oceans cover over 70% of the Earth's surface. Land radiates MUCH faster because it heats up to a higher degree. Duhhh!
04-04-2017 20:13
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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.
04-04-2017 22:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
04-04-2017 23:48
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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.


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?
05-04-2017 00:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
05-04-2017 12:46
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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?
05-04-2017 17:01
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.


If my experiment works then the drop off in co2 and water would be explained in a different way. And then scientists would have to consider that atmospheric forcing does happen in the tropopause.


Jim
05-04-2017 18:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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?


What I'm saying is that the lighter gases tend to have a larger percentage in the upper atmosphere. So N and O2 are a greater percentage of the atmosphere in the stratosphere and above. When you get above the ionization layer the levels of energy in the spectrum are so high that they start breaking molecules into their component parts.
05-04-2017 23:10
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@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
06-04-2017 01:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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


Jim, you are perfectly welcome to pursue any science that you wish to.

We already had a discussion about your thoughts about the Kelvin-Joule effect somehow having an effect in the real world when it was derived from measured effects on experiments with several 10's of bars over seconds whereas the pressure difference across a tornado is only several millibars and the normal change in atmospheric pressure is seldom greater than one millibar per hour.

The "following" of temperatures and CO2 growth is just so much hogwash. You can scale virtually everything to make it appear to be directly connected to something else.

We in fact know that CO2 has grown in the atmosphere. This has been reported by several independent sources.

Because of the counterfeiting of the ground temperature records we know absolutely NOTHING about mean global temperatures and if you use the temperature records only from suburban areas well clear of urban effects we actually appear to be cooling.

Obtaining clear records is difficult since NOAA hardly wants to be caught with their pants down. But one would think that the difficulty of getting NOAA to supply records is in itself a pretty clear confession.

As for your ideas about ethylene - why do you suppose we don't have the environmentalists crying about production of polyethylene? Ethylene is by far the largest organic compound made by man. Everything is made of plastics these days so opting ethylene as some sort of bad guy ain't going to cut it.

As for methane and formaldehyde their construction in the atmosphere is nil.

But I would be interested in reading your paper.
06-04-2017 10:34
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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


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.
06-04-2017 13:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
06-04-2017 15:16
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.

Of course, Surface Detail is right, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is wrong.... & it is wrong on many avenues.
06-04-2017 16:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)


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.


Don,
You make a good point. With the Greenland Sea, it's volume is easy to over look.

quote: The result of their analysis: In the last thirty years, the water temperature between 2000 metres depth and the sea floor has risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade.

'This sounds like a small number, but we need to see this in relation to the large mass of water that has been warmed' says the AWI scientist and lead author of the study, Dr. Raquel Somavilla Cabrillo. 'The amount of heat accumulated within the lowest 1.5 kilometres in the abyssal Greenland Sea would warm the atmosphere above Europe by 4 degrees centigrade. The Greenland Sea is just a small part of the global ocean. end quote

For Americans, 4° C. = 7.2° F. And at all, going north from the Greenland Sea is a major fault line that extends into the Arctic Ocean. This simply means that a warming potential of over 6° C. or 10.8° F. is possible.
And we know this statement is true: Arctic heating up twice as fast as rest of the globe anyone can copy and paste those words in a search and will have many news stories on that.

One argument for co2 causing warming is that it's a fossil fuel, it's dirty, etc. Yet even the IPCC acknowledges that our atmosphere needs co2 to support the ozone layer which is critical to life on earth.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

In this, NOAA is quoting the IPCC. This is how we know they are;
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
06-04-2017 16:59
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.

edited to add; Surface Detail, at the end of the day I think scientists need to show that type of proof. They haven't done it. All it would take is either adding or subtracting co2 to atmospheric air and then exposing it to a specific amount of energy. Then as it's passed through a cylinder at extremely low velocity it's temperature could be monitored.
Yet in all these years there is not one lab experiment under controlled conditions that shows specifically whether or not co2 has a specific effect as far as temperature variations go. Just computer simulations and arguments over absorption/emission spectrums.
And even the graph used does not show any warming between 1950 and 1978 while co2 levels rose steadily. And if anyone looks at this graph which is the same as all of the others, nothing was happening between 1940 - 1980. Yet co2 based global warming started in 1950. Myself, I'll go with ozone depletion and hydrothermal vents/faults. Kind of why stratospheric cooling is a part of climate change. The ozone layer is reflecting less heat.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/09/vertical-human-fingerprint-found-in-stratospheric-cooling-tropospheric-warming/
https://goo.gl/images/9gqtli
Edited on 06-04-2017 17:26
06-04-2017 17:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

It's been demonstrated lots of times - here, for example:

https://youtu.be/pPRd5GT0v0I

Scientists have know about the radiative properties of different atmospheric gases for over a hundred years. The fact that some gases are able to absorb and emit IR while others can't is simply fact. There really is no scientific dispute about this.
06-04-2017 17:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
06-04-2017 18:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

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?
06-04-2017 18:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.

The atmosphere is warmed by a blanketing effect of a thick atmosphere.

The atmosphere of Jupiter is predominantly hydrogen and the rest is helium. The entire amount of other gases in the atmosphere of Jupiter are less than one percent. Perhaps a great deal less.

Even from a distance of 483,600,000 miles (obtaining about 1/500th the solar radiation) jupiter has a warmer temperature at a 1 bar depth than the Earth does. Part of this is that the core temperature of Jupiter has a more direct radiation pathway through the atmosphere which extends to it's core. But with virtually NO CO2 Jupiter is still warm.

Mars is not "warmer" than it would be with a Nitrogen atmosphere instead of CO2. That is pure balderdash in an atmosphere that is almost indetectable.
06-04-2017 19:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
06-04-2017 20:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
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.


The Parrot Killer
06-04-2017 21:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
06-04-2017 21:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
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.




This is how I feel explaining secondary school science to genuine self certified rocket scientist ITN.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
06-04-2017 22:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.


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

I outlined what has occurred to your psyche due to your love of Obama but you will carry on telling us the same thing over and over again until you die despite the fact that none of your predictions could ever come true.
06-04-2017 22:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
06-04-2017 22:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
06-04-2017 23:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
07-04-2017 00:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
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.
07-04-2017 01:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Are you still claiming that the greenhouse effect is both non-existent and caused by H2O?
07-04-2017 17:53
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
The link is about historical ice floe in the Atlantic. It also has a map based on observations and shows the extent of pack ice in 1906. The Greenland Sea was frozen over while the Gulf Stream had no icing. Of which any Norwegian knows that no waters around Norway froze during winter because of the Gulf Stream. And why the maps on the linked page and what the article is about is important is because of what was to follow as far as a retreating ice pack goes.
And as everyone knows by now I do believe volcanoes and hydrothermal vents are contributing a lot of heat.


Jim



http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004JC002851/full
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate The Complexity of Climate Change:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact