The Physics Underlying The Greenhouse Gas Effect Of Earths Atmosphere

[Loudmouth]

Then what caused climate change that brought about the end to the ice age?

Milankovtich cycles, which involve the wobble in Earth's rotation and changes in how elliptical its orbit is around the Sun.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the past, CO2 was a passive forcer. In order to get more CO2 in the air, you need some other mechanism to initiate warming. Once oceans started warming, then you saw the release of CO2 from the oceans and additional warming. Humans have flipped this on its head. Humans are increasing CO2 independent of the Milankovitch cycles and ocean warming.

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?

Can you disprove a murder by pointing to someone else who died of natural causes?

 

[Aldebaran]

Milankovtich cycles, which involve the wobble in Earth's rotation and changes in how elliptical its orbit is around the Sun.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the past, CO2 was a passive forcer. In order to get more CO2 in the air, you need some other mechanism to initiate warming. Once oceans started warming, then you saw the release of CO2 from the oceans and additional warming. Humans have flipped this on its head. Humans are increasing CO2 independent of the Milankovitch cycles and ocean warming.

So why can't those cycles be affecting things now, assuming the earth's temperature is actually rising at this time? Also, why couldn't underwater volcanic activity be a reason for increased ocean temperatures? CO2 and methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas) is emitted from volcanic activity.

Can you disprove a murder by pointing to someone else who died of natural causes?

So now you want us to trust your theory (or the people you quote from wikipedia) about how climate change happens without our involvement simply on the basis that it can't be DISproven? Ever heard of guilty until proven innocent? It's the same basis.

 

[Loudmouth]

So why can't those cycles be affecting things now,

They are. We do not have 2 mile thick glaciers across all of Canada because of those cycles.

The additional CO2 released by humans is adding warming on top of these natural cycles.

Also, why couldn't underwater volcanic activity be a reason for increased ocean temperatures? CO2 and methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas) is emitted from volcanic activity.

The isotope makeup of the increase does not match abiotic sources like volcanos. When photosynthesizers fix CO2 into cellulose and sugars, they have a slight preference for 12C over 13C. Therefore, organic matter like coal and oil have a slightly higher concentration of 12C than does the CO2 released by volcanos and other abiotic sources. The recent increase in CO2 is rich in 12C as we would expect from the burning of fossil fuels.

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

On top of that, over the past 3 or 4 glacial cycles, CO2 in the atmosphere has never gone above 300 ppm. We are quickly approaching 400 ppm right now. Do you think it is just a coincidence that we are seeing a sudden 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 at the same time we are burning massive amounts of fossil fuels?

So now you want us to trust your theory (or the people you quote from wikipedia) about how climate change happens without our involvement simply on the basis that it can't be DISproven?

Can you disprove a murder by pointing to someone else who died of natural causes?

 

[Aldebaran]

They are. We do not have 2 mile thick glaciers across all of Canada because of those cycles.

The additional CO2 released by humans is adding warming on top of these natural cycles.

These copy/pastes from wikipedia don't interest me. But here's something for you. How about how the temperature "increase" of the climate is being measured? Not very scientific: The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Can you disprove a murder by pointing to someone else who died of natural causes?

Can you PROVE a murder by pointing to someone else who died of natural causes?

 

[Loudmouth]

These copy/pastes from wikipedia don't interest me.

Facts don't seem to interest you. No one disputes the fact that past interglacials have not gone above 300 ppm, and that we are almost at 400 ppm right now.

How about how the temperature "increase" of the climate is being measured? Not very scientific: The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

This doesn't change the simple fact that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere will capture more heat and cause warming. What you are attempting is yet another distraction away from the physics that govern climate.

Can you PROVE a murder by pointing to someone else who died of natural causes?

You are trying to disprove a man made cause by pointing to a natural cause. I am showing you why this is false. Natural warming and man made warming are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Aldebaran]

Facts don't seem to interest you. No one disputes the fact that past interglacials have not gone above 300 ppm, and that we are almost at 400 ppm right now.

You're asking me to accept how many ppm existed in glaciers that existed before humanity did, and this from wikipedia. What I'm showing you is that the temperature being recorded are accomplished using faulty methods. VERY faulty methods.

This doesn't change the simple fact that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere will capture more heat and cause warming. What you are attempting is yet another distraction away from the physics that govern climate.

But it does affect the validity of the findings. Measuring the temperature of the climate by putting a thermometer next to a burn barrel or in the path of jet exhaust and then using the increased measurements to say the climate temperature is increasing makes me and any other thinking person question other findings these people claim as "accurate". You even want me to accept the findings of what glaciers contained in ppm before humanity even existed!

You are trying to disprove a man made cause by pointing to a natural cause. I am showing you why this is false. Natural warming and man made warming are not mutually exclusive.

No, they aren't necessarily exclusive. But I'm not even trying to disprove a man-made cause. I'm showing you that there are several natural causes that could very well be in effect. I'm even showing how natural causes alone have caused even more climate change than we're seeing now.

 

[Mainframes]

The glaciers still exist now. They were laid down in prehistory and trapped bubbles of air which is what is measured to gain ppm measurements. Nothing tricky there.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're asking me to accept how many ppm existed in glaciers that existed before humanity did, and this from wikipedia.

It is part of the Antarctic and Greenland ice cores which is found throughout the scientific literature. You can check out the webpage for the US National Ice Core labs if you like:

U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory

Seriously. The facts I have presented about past CO2 in the atmosphere is not debated, even by global warming skeptics.

What I'm showing you is that the temperature being recorded are accomplished using faulty methods. VERY faulty methods.

What I am showing you is that the inescapable consequence of increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is warming. Using less than precise methods for measuring the increase in warming does not change the fact that increasing greenhouse gases traps more heat in the atmopshere.

But it does affect the validity of the findings.

None of the conclusions related to the ability of CO2 to trap heat is related to those findings. Scientists wrote papers on the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas at the turn of the 20th century, well before this data was even collected.

Measuring the temperature of the climate by putting a thermometer next to a burn barrel or in the path of jet exhaust and then using the increased measurements to say the climate temperature is increasing makes me and any other thinking person question other findings these people claim as "accurate". You even want me to accept the findings of what glaciers contained in ppm before humanity even existed!

None of which changes the fact that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will capture more heat.

No, they aren't necessarily exclusive. But I'm not even trying to disprove a man-made cause. I'm showing you that there are several natural causes that could very well be in effect. I'm even showing how natural causes alone have caused even more climate change than we're seeing now.

In essence, you are trying to disprove the conclusion that JFK was killed by a bullet fired from a gun by pointing to people who died of natural heart attacks.

 

[Loudmouth]

The glaciers still exist now. They were laid down in prehistory and trapped bubbles of air which is what is measured to gain ppm measurements. Nothing tricky there.

The ice records used for paleoclimates are from Anarctica and Greenland where the ice has never melted during the interglacial periods. They have a continuous record going back to nearly 1 million years before present, and they span several glacial cycles.

 

[Aldebaran]

What I am showing you is that the inescapable consequence of increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is warming. Using less than precise methods for measuring the increase in warming does not change the fact that increasing greenhouse gases traps more heat in the atmopshere.


None of the conclusions related to the ability of CO2 to trap heat is related to those findings. Scientists wrote papers on the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas at the turn of the 20th century, well before this data was even collected.


None of which changes the fact that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will capture more heat.

But what you're failing to do is prove that it's actually happening! It's one thing to say "greenhouse gasses" trap heat. But to use seriously flawed methods to prove it--methods that are skewed towards indicating an increase in temperature, indicate a desperation to have results that end up fulfilling an agenda rather than science.

In essence, you are trying to disprove the conclusion that JFK was killed by a bullet fired from a gun by pointing to people who died of natural heart attacks.

No. More like trying to disprove person A murdered person B on the basis that someone heard what sounded like a gunshot coming from the general vicinity of person A on the night of July 4th.

 

[Loudmouth]

But what you're failing to do is prove that it's actually happening!

It has already been proven that CO2 has risen due to fossil fuel use. It has already been proven that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas.

It's one thing to say "greenhouse gasses" trap heat. But to use seriously flawed methods to prove it--methods that are skewed towards indicating an increase in temperature, indicate a desperation to have results that end up fulfilling an agenda rather than science.

All you need to prove the greenhouse effect is a spectrometer. That's what you fail to understand. CO2 is transparent to visible light, but absorbs light at wavelengths in the IR band. That is what makes it a greenhouse gas. The inescapable physics is that the visible light from the Sun goes right through CO2. That light heats the Earth. Some of that heat is radiated by the Earth in the IR band. Those emitted IR photons are absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. None of this is based on flawed temperature gathering methods. This is all based on basic laboratory observations related to the emission and absorbance of light by gases and the Earth.

No. More like trying to disprove person A murdered person B on the basis that someone heard what sounded like a gunshot coming from the general vicinity of person A on the night of July 4th.

That's not it at all. You are trying to disprove man made processes by pointing to natural processes. You are ignoring the basic physics of what causes the greenhouse effect.

 

[Aldebaran]

It has already been proven that CO2 has risen due to fossil fuel use. It has already been proven that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas.

Now you're just going in circles, not even trying to understand. I can't really continue this with you if you're just going to keep using circular arguments like this one.

All you need to prove the greenhouse effect is a spectrometer. That's what you fail to understand. CO2 is transparent to visible light, but absorbs light at wavelengths in the IR band. That is what makes it a greenhouse gas. The inescapable physics is that the visible light from the Sun goes right through CO2. That light heats the Earth. Some of that heat is radiated by the Earth in the IR band. Those emitted IR photons are absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. None of this is based on flawed temperature gathering methods. This is all based on basic laboratory observations related to the emission and absorbance of light by gases and the Earth.

Proving CO2 absorbs heat doesn't prove that the existence of it in the atmosphere is causing it to increase the climate temperature. The existence of methane (a poison gas to humans) in the atmosphere doesn't prove that we're all dying because of it.

That's not it at all. You are trying to disprove man made processes by pointing to natural processes. You are ignoring the basic physics of what causes the greenhouse effect.

I'm trying to show you the most likely cause of what you're talking about.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you're just going in circles, not even trying to understand. I can't really continue this with you if you're just going to keep using circular arguments like this one.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is undoubtedly from the burning of fossil fuels, as already discussed.

It is also indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as shown by it's absorbance spectra. CO2 is transparent to visible light from the Sun, and absorbs IR photons emitted by the Earth. This is indisputable.

Proving CO2 absorbs heat doesn't prove that the existence of it in the atmosphere is causing it to increase the climate temperature.

What do you think happens when you capture more heat? Have you heard of the laws of thermodynamics?

The existence of methane (a poison gas to humans) in the atmosphere doesn't prove that we're all dying because of it.

Methane is only poisonous if it replaces oxygen by volume. Methane by itself is not poisonous. Your colon is full of methane right now.

I'm trying to show you the most likely cause of what you're talking about.

No, you aren't. You are trying to deny the most likely cause of the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Do you really think it is just a coincidence that we have seen a sudden 30% increase in atmospheric content to levels not seen anywhere in the ice core records? Do you think it is just a coincidence that this sudden 30% increase is rich in the same carbon isotopes that fossil fuels are rich in?

 

[Heissonear]

The IPCC glossary states the following - which is over simplistic in the real surface-atmosphere system.

Greenhouse effect:
Greenhouse gases effectively absorb infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth�s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth�s surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the natural greenhouse effect.
Atmospheric radiation is strongly coupled to the temperature of the level at which it is emitted. In the troposphere the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth�s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.
An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing, an imbalance that can only be compensated for by an increase of the temperature of the surface-troposphere system. This is the enhanced greenhouse effect.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The increase in atmospheric CO2 is undoubtedly from the burning of fossil fuels, as already discussed.

It is also indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as shown by it's absorbance spectra. CO2 is transparent to visible light from the Sun, and absorbs IR photons emitted by the Earth. This is indisputable.



What do you think happens when you capture more heat? Have you heard of the laws of thermodynamics?



Methane is only poisonous if it replaces oxygen by volume. Methane by itself is not poisonous. Your colon is full of methane right now.




No, you aren't. You are trying to deny the most likely cause of the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Do you really think it is just a coincidence that we have seen a sudden 30% increase in atmospheric content to levels not seen anywhere in the ice core records? Do you think it is just a coincidence that this sudden 30% increase is rich in the same carbon isotopes that fossil fuels are rich in?

All the data shows is that insulator kept us from reaching the temperatures of past cycles - being an insulator not a magic one way mirror. And has kept us from dropping in temperature - being an insulator.

 

[Loudmouth]

All the data shows is that insulator kept us from reaching the temperatures of past cycles - being an insulator not a magic one way mirror.

You still deny the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Let's see if you can answer even the simplest questions.

Question 1: Does carbon dioxide absorb photons in the visible range (400 nm to 700 nm wavelength)?

 

[Heissonear]

So, Ferenc Mikolczi use to work for NASA and found a "flaw" in what NASA was presenting to the UN IPCC.

The Work of Ferenc Miskolczi (Part 1) - Jennifer Marohasy

The Miskolczi-principle:

• The greenhouse effect is not a free variable.

• Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient water vapor reservoirs, maintain an energetically maximized (constant, ‘saturated’) greenhouse effect that cannot be increased by emissions.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, Ferenc Mikolczi use to work for NASA and found a "flaw" in what NASA was presenting to the UN IPCC.

The Work of Ferenc Miskolczi (Part 1) - Jennifer Marohasy

The Miskolczi-principle:

• The greenhouse effect is not a free variable.

• Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient water vapor reservoirs, maintain an energetically maximized (constant, ‘saturated’) greenhouse effect that cannot be increased by emissions.

His priniciple is falsified by the real data.

"The alternative greenhouse theory of Miskolczi (2007,2010) results in a constant infrared optical depth with time, meaning that there can be no increasing greenhouse effect with time. Miskolczi suggests that observations show this ratio to be fixed. However, both observations and calculations with physically sound radiative transfer models show that Miskolczi’s theory does not stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, there is ample observational evidence that the most important greenhouse gases, water vapour and carbon dioxide have increased in the last four decades, meaning that the total infrared optical depth is indeed increasing. Finally, direct satellite observations of the outgoing infrared spectrum show that the greenhouse effect has been enhanced over this period. Even the calculations of Miskolczi show a change of optical depth with time. Therefore, neither observations nor radiative transfer theory can support Miskolczi;s conclusions."
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Rebuttal_Miskolczi_20100927.pdf

 

[Heissonear]

Once again, look at the balloon and satallite measured spectral data.

Look at the data. What do the measurements show?

Then apply the MEASURED DATA to 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 through the HARTCODE calculations is the earth-atmosphere system overtime has Maintained An Equilibrium Greenhouse Effect.

By using the measured spectral data we see an equilibrium from the incoming and out going radiation energy.

Are you going to set this emperical GHG data aside?

 

[Loudmouth]

Once again, look at the balloon and satallite measured spectral data.

Look at the data. What do the measurements show?

Then apply the MEASURED DATA to 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 through the HARTCODE calculations is the earth-atmosphere system overtime has Maintained An Equilibrium Greenhouse Effect.

By using the measured spectral data we see an equilibrium from the incoming and out going radiation energy.

Are you going to set this emperical GHG data aside?

You have already been shown that the data you are referring to is faulty.

"If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

If we took out all of the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, the Earth would freeze.