The Physics Underlying The Greenhouse Gas Effect Of Earths Atmosphere

[Loudmouth]

Do you mean the sign in physics that shows the two way street - where the physics of earth's atmosphere is fundamentally based on the cloud cover variability (a double albedo factor)?

The earth's atmospheric temperature can cool or warm due to the magnitude of the albedo?

What changes albedo over time? What is the residence time of water vapor in the air? How can water vapor drive long term climate change?

 

[Loudmouth]

Based on research done in the 1950s? Shouldn't we know better by now? It's already been shown that scientists and politicians (mostly politicians) cling to this stuff because it is profitable for them to do so. It's been the most effective way to stifle economic growth and raise taxes. Why would they want to give that up?

Are you saying that scientists and politicians are making up the greenhouse effect?

 

[Loudmouth]

But people who drive the planetary society gamble with lives, economies, mortality, politics, genetics, habitats, and pretty much every area of life possible. Gambles are what the "successful" would argue are part of an intricate necessity of advancement and pr9gress.

The problem is that we have politicians trying to run away from the scientific facts because those facts are inconvenient for the people who donate to their campaigns. In this thread, we have people who can't seem to accept the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. What does that tell you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem is that we have politicians trying to run away from the scientific facts because those facts are inconvenient for the people who donate to their campaigns. In this thread, we have people who can't seem to accept the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. What does that tell you?

Agreed, in this thread we have people that can't seem to accept the basic physics that an insulator works both ways and is not a magical one-way mirror.

And hence this cycles temperature did not reach temperatures of the past - and we have not yet begun that downward trend.

 

[Loudmouth]

Agreed, in this thread we have people that can't seem to accept the basic physics that an insulator works both ways and is not a magical one-way mirror.

You still can't answer this basic question.

Is carbon dioxide transparent to the visible wavelengths of light produced by the Sun?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Agreed, in this thread we have people that can't seem to accept the basic physics that an insulator works both ways and is not a magical one-way mirror.

Ask yourself this: Does the sun emit the same proportion of frequencies of light as the earth?

Hint: Look at the ground. Is it glowing yellow/white hot?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ask yourself this: Does the sun emit the same proportion of frequencies of light as the earth?

Hint: Look at the ground. Is it glowing yellow/white hot?

And further, by putting an insulator between the Earth and the Sun, would this warm or cool the Earth? When you put an ice chest insulator between the Sun and your ice, does it make the ice melt slower or faster?

 

[[serious]]

Agreed, in this thread we have people that can't seem to accept the basic physics that an insulator works both ways and is not a magical one-way mirror.

And hence this cycles temperature did not reach temperatures of the past - and we have not yet begun that downward trend.

That graph is actually a great example of the current problem.

Let me use an analogy, what would happen if you are driving your car and hit a brick wall at 10 miles per hour? What would happen if you hit that same wall at 100 miles per hour?

Eyeballing that chart, looks like we see 5 degree swings over the course of 5000 years, or a rate of 1 degree every 1000 years. Current warming trends over the part 40 years are 10 times more rapid.

 

[Heissonear]

What changes albedo over time? What is the residence time of water vapor in the air? How can water vapor drive long term climate change?

Look it up. Recent evidence is showing it to be one of the major natural factors that caused the 1978-1998 temp increase. Again, look it up.

Clouds happen to be what computer models cannot model. Computer modelers have to manually put in an x amount to then run simulations (I.e. insert a fixed number from their best educated estimation). Recent excuses for the "failed" Global Warming computer models is the cloud parameter. Again, look it up.

Why? A 2% change in earth's cloud cover over a 1 year period will result in a 1°F change in earth global temperature!!! For 2% more clouds a 1% decrease in global temperature; a 2% decrease in cloud cover and a 1% increase in global temperature!!! Again, look it up.

The natural factors must first be understood and the natural baseline established in what weather and climate we will have before anyone can come to understand what effects CO2 has on earths temperature. The baseline set by natural factors must be established first.

The natural factors baseline has never been established in climatology, however this is the pivot in knowing how much influence each natural or manmade climate variable has on Global Warming or Cooling.

The IPCC, in particular, through promoting bad science has made people think CO2 over powers all natural factors and is the control knob controlling earths temperature. They have promoted that if society raises atmospheric CO2 content then the earth temperature will go up proportional to CO2 content; if society brings atmospheric CO2 levels down then the earths global temperatures will go down. The IPCC and other organizations promote CO2 is THE control knob to control earths temperature.

That has been one of the misleading "science is settled" over promotions for an agenda.

I've been like everyone else and have had to learn and discern to find out what is going on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Look it up. Recent evidence is showing it to be one of the major natural factors that caused the 1978-1998 temp increase. Again, look it up.

Your claim. You look it up.

What drives long term changes in albedo and water vapor content in the atmosphere?

Clouds happen to be what computer models cannot model. Computer modelers have to manually put in an x amount to then run simulations (I.e. insert a fixed number from their best educated estimation). Recent excuses for the "failed" Global Warming computer models is the cloud parameter. Again, look it up.

What would drive long term changes in cloud cover? What is the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere?

Why? A 2% change in earth's cloud cover over a 1 year period will result in a 1°F change in earth global temperature!!! For 2% more clouds a 1% decrease in global temperature; a 2% decrease in cloud cover and a 1% increase in global temperature!!! Again, look it up.

How do you get a long term change of 2%? What are the mechanisms involved?

The natural factors must first be understood and the natural baseline established in what weather and climate we will have before anyone can come to understand what effects CO2 has on earths temperature. The baseline set by natural factors must be established first.

We don't have to understand every single cancer to understand that someone died of a bullet wound.

CO2 traps heat. You have done nothing to prove otherwise. Where do you think that extra trapped heat goes?

 

[Aldebaran]

Are you saying that scientists and politicians are making up the greenhouse effect?

I'm saying that they're taking a theory that has since been disproven and are now clinging to it to further political agendas.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm saying that they're taking a theory that has since been disproven and are now clinging to it to further political agendas.

When was the greenhouse effect disproven?

 

[Aldebaran]

When was the greenhouse effect disproven?

Numerous times by numerous sources as has been pointed out to you already in this thread. You're just asking the same questions now and going in circles.

 

[Loudmouth]

Numerous times by numerous sources as has been pointed out to you already in this thread.

Show me a single source that disproves any of the information in this figure.

Show me a single source that disproves the wavelength and power spectrum of the Sun, the Earth, or the absorbance spectra of the gases listed in the figure.

You're just asking the same questions now and going in circles.

I will stop asking them when people try to answer them.

 

[Aldebaran]

Show me a single source that disproves any of the information in this figure.

Show me a single source that disproves the wavelength and power spectrum of the Sun, the Earth, or the absorbance spectra of the gases listed in the figure.

You can start with page 8 of this thread.

I will stop asking them when people try to answer them.

When they try? You can go back and do some reading, starting with page 1 of this thread. After 12 pages, I think it's obvious people have been trying to answer you. It's up to you to try to listen to the answers.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can start with page 8 of this thread.

I have been a part of this thread since post 1. Not a single poster has refuted a single piece of this figure.

Even you can't point to a single post that does so.

 

[Aldebaran]

I have been a part of this thread since post 1. Not a single poster has refuted a single piece of this figure.

Even you can't point to a single post that does so.

Maybe it'll be refuted when we accept that they know just how much earth thermal radiation is going out versus what is going in, and other items they have to guess about. The earth is more complicated than measuring the temperature in a house with a thermometer and furnace and then knowing how much heat came in and what went out. You're placing way too much faith in people who want you to believe they know everything. They don't. But they sure can gain control of people when they can get them to believe they do.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's make this even easier and break down that figure a bit.

First, the power spectrum of the Sun.

Where has anyone ever refuted that some of the most intense light produced by the Sun falls within the wavelengths that are visible to our eyes?

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe it'll be refuted when we accept that they know just how much earth thermal radiation is going out versus what is going in, and other items they have to guess about.

None of that is part of this diagram.

Show me a single thing in this figure that is wrong or unknown.

 

[Aldebaran]

Let's make this even easier and break down that figure a bit.

First, the power spectrum of the Sun.

Where has anyone ever refuted that some of the most intense light produced by the Sun falls within the wavelengths that are visible to our eyes?