The Physics Underlying The Greenhouse Gas Effect Of Earths Atmosphere

[Heissonear]

.

Originally Posted by Loudmouth 

The premise is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you know what a greenhouse gas is? Do you understand what the greenhouse effect is?

Do you understand what the proposed mechanism is?

.


I understand the interpretation of measured/observed spectral data that shows CO2 has not changed the net outgoing nor incoming radiation equilibrium, and as further presented in the HARTCODE radiation transfer code calculations.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...miskcolczi.pdf

This thread is for debating the spectra physics and physical chemistry involved in determining the processes controlling the GHGs effect on earths atmospheric properties, such as temperature.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The sun's radiation passes through the atmosphere quite easily, since its radiation largely coincides with a low absorption 'window' in the atmospheric absorption spectrum.

Radiation emitted by the earth is absorbed (kept) by the atmosphere by various gases. Water vapor is a big contributor, but water vapor has its own window that lets some heat back out into space, cooling the planet.

CO2 has a nice absorption band right in that window. Increasing CO2 concentration will shut that window and keep more heat on the earth.

 

[Heissonear]

This should stir up "the science is settled" hear sayers!

http://www.friendsofscience.org/ass...enhouse-Effect-Theory-of-Ferenc-Miskolczi.pdf

Miskolczi has many publications, one is linked in the first post. The real world data supports the "Greenhouse Gas Saturation" theory.

Specifically the HARTCODE integrated formulation code for:

1. (Sv, U) = spectral surface upwards radiation
2. (Ev, D) = downward atmospheric emittance
3. (Ev, U) = upwards atmospheric emittance
4. (Sv, T) = transmitted surface radiation

What actual measurement data has shown is what the HARTCODE calculations and conclusion state: the earth-atmosphere system Maintains An Equilibrium Greenhouse Effect.

Adding more CO2 to the earth's atmosphere will only shift the equilibrium, such as atmospheric moisture content. The measured atmospheric data is adding up to this conclusion.

 

[Heissonear]

Link from post 1.

Http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

A more recent publication by Ferenc Miskolczi.

 

[Heissonear]

The link and abstract


Http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf


THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH’S GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS

Ferenc M. Miskolczi
3 Holston Lane, Hampton VA 23664, USA

ABSTRACT
By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data.

New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-allsky model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used.

The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.

.

 

[Loudmouth]

.
I understand the interpretation of measured/observed spectral data that shows CO2 has not changed the net outgoing nor incoming radiation equilibrium, and as further presented in the HARTCODE radiation transfer code calculations.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...miskcolczi.pdf

This thread is for debating the spectra physics and physical chemistry involved in determining the processes controlling the GHGs effect on earths atmospheric properties, such as temperature.

If there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, then the Earth should be much, much colder than it is.

"Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F)."
Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greenhoue gases trap heat. What do you think happens when we increase the amount of heat that is trapped?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Rebuttal by climate scientists.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, then the Earth should be much, much colder than it is.

Miskolczi is not saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, but rather that it has remained constant despite increasing CO2. Requiring water vapor to disappear.

"The consequence of setting a constraint on optical depth is that if the carbon dioxide concentration increases, other greenhouse gases must decrease. Miskolczi (2010) claims that the amount of water vapour is declining in time supporting his theory. He used NOAA
NCEP/NCAR reanalysis (2008) results to suggest this (see Miskolczi’s Figure 11). NCEP/NCAR reanalysis is known to have poor long-term trends. What Miskolczi analysis actually shows is that water vapour fluctuations are dominantly responsible for the changes in optical depth, which is a reasonable finding. More importantly, his Figure 11 is a good illustration of the fact that the optical depth is not constant, and is therefore inconsistent with his own theory.
A more robust analysis of water vapour changes by Mears et al. (2010) shows that total column water vapour is increasing over the oceans in the period 1988-2009 at a rate of 0.27 +/- 0.08 mm/decade."

 

[Loudmouth]

Miskolczi is not saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, but rather that it has remained constant despite increasing CO2. Requiring water vapor to disappear.

Overall, I am trying to establish that the greenhouse effect is real. There seems to be an idea going around that the only reason CO2 is said to be a culprit for global warming is that we see a correlation between temp and CO2 in the ice cores. We are being accused of following a correlation to a false causation.

What I wanted to make clear is that the greenhouse mechanism was proposed well before we had ice core data that could correlate temp and CO2. For example, Arrehenius' paper from 1896 discusses the details of the greenhouse effec in depth:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Obviously, there was no ice core data at this point.

 

[Heissonear]

Rebuttal by climate scientists.

.
Not that I've absorbed all of the content of the Dorland et al. rebuttal, but Miskolczi presents the long timescale equilibrium of the flux components. In this case the rebuttal misrepresents his data, true? Clouds are transient and with time shifts in the energetic equilibrium will be adjusted. By this is the meaning of constant.


Quote from Miskolczi:

New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-allsky model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used.

Quote from Dorland et al.:
"In fact, Miskolski overstates the equality of these two terms. Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) and Van Dorland (1999) find differences of 25 Wm-2 (over 5%) if clouds are accounted; Van Dorland (1999) additionally shows that clouds (globally averaged) increase both terms, Aa and Ed, almost equally. Therefore, the difference between Aa and Ed in the aforementioned cloudy case also applies to the clear sky case of Miskolczi."

The clouds effect "globally averaged" is mismatched since transient to the primary flux factors. True?

 

[Heissonear]

Overall, I am trying to establish that the greenhouse effect is real. There seems to be an idea going around that the only reason CO2 is said to be a culprit for global warming is that we see a correlation between temp and CO2 in the ice cores.

There are Greenhouse Gases that absorb IR, as Arrhenius found. CO2 is a GHG that influences the amount of IR absorbed and radiated about the earth's atmosphere.

The issue is beyond the "independent CO2 effect". The climate is an integration of factors and variables.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not "singularly" make the earth's temperature go up like a dial being turned up. The atmosphere is an open energy system with a multitude of additional factors and processes competing, even gravity (such as gravity involvement with lapse rate).

 

[Mainframes]

There are Greenhouse Gases that absorb IR, as Arrhenius found. CO2 is a GHG that influences the amount of IR absorbed and radiated about the earth's atmosphere.

The issue is beyond the "independent CO2 effect". The climate is an integration of factors and variables.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not "singularly" make the earth's temperature go up like a dial being turned up. The atmosphere is an open energy system with a multitude of additional factors and processes competing, even gravity (such as gravity involvement with lapse rate).

Yes but most of these factors are fairly stable or cyclic and out of our control. CO2 composition in the atmosphere is now proven to being driven by human activity, is higher than at any other time in history and is still going up.

If this doesnt cause concern then something is clearly wrong.

 

[Heissonear]

Yes but most of these factors are fairly stable or cyclic and out of our control. CO2 composition in the atmosphere is now proven to being driven by human activity, is higher than at any other time in history and is still going up.

If this doesnt cause concern then something is clearly wrong.

I fully agree the concentration of CO2 in the earths atmosphere is increasing, and we are presently at ~400 ppm.

What is to be determined is the effect. In this thread we are addressing the spectra physics to help understand if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is detrimental, beneficial, or neither.

Since CO2 gas in the atmosphere has "greenhouse effects", within the ocean-atmosphere interactions and climatic systems what weight does the CO2 GHG effect have?

In the first posts I inserted links to information that challenges "modern climatology", in which the modern mainstream climatologists have their 35+ sophisticated computer models that clearly address their spectral and climate systems scientific understanding of what is controlling earth's climate over time, including the presence of CO2 and working from many elaborate weather databases to formulate and base their climate science on.

We have SO FAR found the currupt, I mean current, climatologist use of physics, chemistry, and modelling have yielded up to This Point in time zero predictive skill.
This failure of their science has Major Implementations. Major.

1. Would you agree that the mainstream climatologists have failed to understand the real world effects of increased atmospheric CO2? Is that what real world data is showing?

2. And also agree that we as scientists are still needing to be open to learning what science is going on we have yet to understand?

3. And that the science is not settled, and that proposed statement is mere propaganda?

 

[essentialsaltes]

.
Clouds are transient

They are not permanent features, but there is no day when there are no clouds. The average cloud cover needs to be accounted for.

"Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) and Van Dorland (1999) find differences of 25 Wm-2 (over 5%) if clouds are accounted; Van Dorland (1999) additionally shows that clouds (globally averaged) increase both terms, Aa and Ed, almost equally. Therefore, the difference between Aa and Ed in the aforementioned cloudy case also applies to the clear sky case of Miskolczi."

The clouds effect "globally averaged" is mismatched since transient to the primary flux factors. True?

I don't see why it is 'mismatched'. If cloud cover is partial, which it is, then
calculating its effect with a global average seems to me to be the right way to handle it, rather than ignoring clouds entirely.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are Greenhouse Gases that absorb IR, as Arrhenius found. CO2 is a GHG that influences the amount of IR absorbed and radiated about the earth's atmosphere.

It also captures more of the heat being radiated by the Earth after being heated by shorter wavelength light, such as visible light. CO2 does not absorb these incoming wavelengths. However, it does absorb the outgoing wavelengths. CO2 traps heat. Increasing CO2 traps more heat.

The issue is beyond the "independent CO2 effect". The climate is an integration of factors and variables.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not "singularly" make the earth's temperature go up like a dial being turned up. The atmosphere is an open energy system with a multitude of additional factors and processes competing, even gravity (such as gravity involvement with lapse rate).

Do you think some other factor is going to magically change to compensate for the additional CO2? Just by luck?

Let's look at some of those other factors. We could start with natural stores of CO2. Two such stores are the ocean and permafrost. When we add CO2 it warms the oceans. When the oceans warm it causes CO2 dissolved in the ocean to come out of solution and into the air. That adds even more warming. As we add CO2 and cause warming, more permafrost melts and all of that carbon is digested by microbes that release methane. Methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but luckily it doesn't last as long in the atmosphere as CO2. Methane is oxidized in a few years by free oxygen, and it is oxidized to . . . you guessed it, CO2.

 

[Loudmouth]

.
Clouds are transient and with time shifts in the energetic equilibrium will be adjusted. By this is the meaning of constant.

Miskolczi just assumes they are a constant without supplying a mechanism whereby an increase in CO2 automatically changes water vapor content to maintain the same optical depth. This is refuted by the data itself which shows that water vapor is actually increasing and that optical depth is not a constant.

But you are right about water vapor being transient. The half life of any water molecule in the air is about 2 weeks. Water vapor is constantly precipitating out of the atmosphere which means that it can't increase temps over long time periods. However, CO2 does have a long residency time in the atmosphere that is measured in decades. This is why CO2 can drive long term climate.

 

[Heissonear]

What does a Professor of Atmospheric and Solar Physics who was involved in the first spectra measuring satellites say about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and Global Warming?


Fred Singer Closing in on Fact: CO2 Doesn?t Affect Global Temperature | Principia Scientific Intl

 

[Heissonear]

Another paper showing how spectra physics shows CO2 will not create "Global Warming" as proposed by IPCC and others.

Data Contradict Warming Hypothesis: Relative Emissivity Is Not Declining As IPCC Models Predicted!

 

[CryOfALion]

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.

Dr. Joanne Simpson, Atmospheric Scientist

I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics

worst scientific scandal in the history… When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.

Dr. Kiminori Itoh, UN IPCC Japanese Scientist

It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.

Stanley B. Goldenberg, U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.

Geoffrey G. Duffy, Professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.





More: .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

 

[[serious]]

.

Originally Posted by Loudmouth 

.


I understand the interpretation of measured/observed spectral data that shows CO2 has not changed the net outgoing nor incoming radiation equilibrium, and as further presented in the HARTCODE radiation transfer code calculations.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...miskcolczi.pdf

This thread is for debating the spectra physics and physical chemistry involved in determining the processes controlling the GHGs effect on earths atmospheric properties, such as temperature.

File not found.