The Physics Underlying The Greenhouse Gas Effect Of Earths Atmosphere

[CryOfALion]

Wow, that was quite the reaction. Calm down buddy, we're all friends here. The point of project steve is that there are enough people in the world that lists of hundreds of people can be made for virtually any position. The point made by project steve is that lists are kind of useless. It isn't something that will inform you about the consensus status, as with even a little bit of effort, a substantial list can be made even of groups that are substantial minorities. Their list is a list of those in the minority by name. Steve's make up only about 1% of the population. They also have a more rigid requirement for education, requiring a PhD in a relevant field. In the evolution denier list they were responding to, the minority group was those who deny evolution. The global warming skeptic list is a minority as well. Each manage to collect several hundred signatures.

I am not your buddy, and we aren't friends.

 

[Heissonear]

I am not your buddy, and we aren't friends.

Yep, attacks lurk at every possibility with many bias posters on CFs. Openess is not their virtue. Undermining the source information of others is. Serious tried to undermind your highly compentent non-followers of the AGW agenda and bandwagon.

The individuals you list have very clear and competent testimonies about AGW. It is people like serious that show others "there is really only one side" thay makes people question motives and truth, not his words spoken.

 

[Heissonear]

I don't think science operates that way, but if man-made global warming were so horribly flawed it wouldn't gather to itself about 97% of climate scientists.


It just so happens that the science seems to line up with what the vast majority of professionals in this field feel is most accurate (that man-made global warming is real).

But you are unwilling to defend why you believe a small minority of scientists on a science you seem unwilling to hold any technical opinion on.

It seems that you have arbitrarily decided to believe a small minority without reason to reject the majority.

The above is the definition of Bandwagon; going with the crowd.

And many have the verbage of the AGW Propaganda.

Look at the record of the group you are following. Their projections, science fundamentals, and climate calculations are showing attributes of amateurs.

Needless to say they have proven before all not even their science is settle, but rifted with error.

Natural climatic cycles fully and clearly explain what weather over time is showing.

 

[hurste1951]

The above is the definition of Bandwagon; going with the crowd.

I was responding to CryofaLion who, himself, stated that he was not going to provide any justification based on technical details as to why he DIDN'T go with the majority opinion.

I clearly stated that for me the reason I believe in the hypothesis of man-made global warming was two fold:

1. The science of it makes very good sense
2. The majority of experts are in general agreement with the hypothesis

So why would I go against that opinion?

I am OK with people like CryofaLion wishing to side with the minority opinion but only if they have a rational reason to do so. Since CryofaLion was unwilling to discuss any aspect of the technical details I am left more confused than anything.

If one wishes to bet against the house then that is taking a probabilistically poor choice.

Look at the record of the group you are following.

I have. And to my knowledge there has never been any indication of any fraudulent manipulation of their data (despite being accused of it repeatedly). I have seen errors, yes, but those are corrected. I don't know of anything in life that is perfect.

Needless to say they have proven before all not even their science is settle, but rifted with error.

There is error in everything. I don't assume they are perfect. But by the same token finding one error in a field every-so-often does not make me think the entire field is false.

Natural climatic cycles fully and clearly explain what weather over time is showing.

Not from what I've read. I've seen one study (GRID Arendal) that reconstructed temperatures over the last 125 or so years. They started off with only natural factors and were able to only very poorly reconstruct the actual temperature trends globally. When they added in human factors the fit with the actual temperature trends became much, much better.

Natural cycles are very important, no one argues that they aren't. But they don't explain what has been happening the past 60-70 years without also understanding the role of human behaviors (land use changes, deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, pollution).

 

[essentialsaltes]

The above is the definition of Bandwagon; going with the crowd.

You misspelled 'experts'.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

As explained earlier, you have not read and Absorbed what Miskolczi published And Have Taken ONLY A Part of the paper Out of Context.

It is apparent, is it not, that Figure 11 is not the only Figure of what is presented.

Are you going to read the paper And a understand It before replying OR are you failing back on the so called "rebuttal"?

Miskolczi is talking about a constant in the spectral GHGs equilibrium. Do you understand this part? Have you read that far?

From the abstract: "In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness is found to be time-stationary"

That is false, as shown by Figure 11 in his own paper. Its the whole basis of his thesis: the amount of radiation trapped by CO2 is compensated by other changes which maintains a time-stationary greenhouse-gas optical thickness.


And even if global warming is false (which it isn't), it shouldn't change our collective opinion that pollution is bad and that we should leave the world as we entered it, to the best of our abilities. This is standard practice we are taught as children: "When you're done playing, leave the room just as you found it when you came in."

It baffles me that this kind of logic does not scale up when we become adults.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Your phrase above indicates you have not read nor understand the Miskolczi paper.


Particularly:


Miskolczi presents real world data that supports the "Greenhouse Gas Saturation" theory.

No he doesn't! He presents a figure (Figure 11) which completely CONTRADICTS the "saturation theory".

Also, his curve fit in Figure 7 is laughably horrible. What's the RMS on that curve? Like 40?

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.

Even if global warming is false, it shouldn't change our collective opinion that pollution is bad and that we should leave the world as we entered it, to the best of our abilities. This is standard practice we are taught as children: "When you're done playing, leave the room just as you found it when you came in."

It baffles me that this kind of logic does not scale up when we become adults.


Heissonear, why are you so against limiting our impact on the planet?

Also, Friends of Science is an organization backed heavily by the oil and gas industry in Calgary, AB. I know, because I'm a geophysicist who used to work in oil and gas industry in Calgary. They rely almost exclusively on donations from private oil and gas companies. Its a willful act to spread misinformation.

 

[Heissonear]

The physics of the boundry layer and the GHG insulator effect.

Some on CF do not read varefully what is presented. Your comments sorely show it.

Current News | Principia Scientific Intl

So, physics of the boundry layer, even past Havard presented physics had it fundamentally wrong. They presented erroneous radiation transfer physics. After reafing the link content can you now see the very apparent error?

 

[Heissonear]

It has become apparent that many on CF do not read carefully what is presented. There may be others who have poor comprehension.


Current News | Principia Scientific Intl


So, physics of the boundry layer, even past Havard presented physics had it fundamentally wrong. They presented erroneous radiation transfer physics.

Defending the Harvard present radiation physics has turned out to be A BAD THING.

How many walked in error and made false conclusions?

 

[Heissonear]

How many people walked in and defended the faulty Harvard promoted radiation physics?

 

[Heissonear]

We have had parrots reply to the physics of GHG radiation effects in earth's atmosphere. Rehash.

The link below is a specific application of GHG spectra physics to two primary broad regions in Africa.

The greenhouse effect that wasn’t (Part 2) « Okulær


The broad scope of the regions allow earth surface parameters to be studied in the equal average amount of radiation input with study of the out going radiation data with earth temperatures in those regions. The second area is for latitude observational differences.

What is the conclusion? GHG can promote cooling. The data is clear.

 

[Heissonear]

The two latitudes in Okulaer study show there is no earth-atmosphere system warming by CO2 radiation physics (rGHG in particular). It is plainly seen in observed data.

Get over the propaganda that has been pushed for decades. The publications over the two past years based on recent observed data are adding up.

 

[Loudmouth]

The physics of the boundry layer and the GHG insulator effect.

Some on CF do not read varefully what is presented. Your comments sorely show it.

Current News | Principia Scientific Intl

So, physics of the boundry layer, even past Havard presented physics had it fundamentally wrong. They presented erroneous radiation transfer physics. After reafing the link content can you now see the very apparent error?

You do not read carefully when we ask for peer reviewed science instead of blogs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dr. Joanne Simpson, Atmospheric Scientist

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics

Dr. Kiminori Itoh, UN IPCC Japanese Scientist

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


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 :.

Any takers/commentary? These are all "reputable specialists in their field," with Nobel Laureates, and government workers included - about 700 of them refuting man-made climate change (and not patterned natural changes.)

This is what happens when we start to discuss the actual physics of the greenhouse effect. Those who want to deny the science use tactics like the ones you are using here which is nothing more than an attempt to distract us from the actual science.

What do you think happens when we increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas? Does the atmosphere capture less heat, or more heat?

 

[Aldebaran]

This is what happens when we start to discuss the actual physics of the greenhouse effect. Those who want to deny the science use tactics like the ones you are using here which is nothing more than an attempt to distract us from the actual science.

What do you think happens when we increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas? Does the atmosphere capture less heat, or more heat?

What happens when there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, such as from high flying jets that leave contrails that become clouds. Remember, water vapor traps more heat in the atmosphere than CO2 does. Maybe water vapor should be classified as a "greenhouse gas"!

 

[Heissonear]

The major GHG that should be the focus - water vapor.

Look at the graph in the attached. Look how much Downwelling LWR at low atmospheric water content.

Is all of the world at the equator? Do we have high latitudes and sun inclination variations?

Greenhouse Effect Of Water Vapor | Real Science

 

[Heissonear]

What happens when there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, such as from high flying jets that leave contrails that become clouds. Remember, water vapor traps more heat in the atmosphere than CO2 does. Maybe water vapor should be classified as a "greenhouse gas"!

You are correct. Present and absent, moisture has major effects in earths by its radiation GHG.

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/b2swyamcmaahifq.png?w=652

 

[Loudmouth]

What happens when there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, such as from high flying jets that leave contrails that become clouds. Remember, water vapor traps more heat in the atmosphere than CO2 does. Maybe water vapor should be classified as a "greenhouse gas"!

The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is about 2 weeks.

"The mean annual precipitation for the planet is about 1 meter, which implies a rapid turnover of water in the air – on average, the residence time of a water molecule in the troposphere is about 9 to 10 days."
Water vapor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water vapor can not drive long term climate patterns. However, the residence time of carbon dioxide can be measured in decades.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/acp-7-2287-2007.pdf

But you are right. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Loudmouth]

The major GHG that should be the focus - water vapor.

How can water vapor cause long term climate change when it has a residence time of just a couple of weeks?

 

[Aldebaran]

How can water vapor cause long term climate change when it has a residence time of just a couple of weeks?

Then what caused climate change that brought about the end to the ice age? What brought about the record high temperatures in the 1930s? Was it carbon dioxide, or was it water vapor--the supposed 2 evils of our planet?