The Physics Underlying The Greenhouse Gas Effect Of Earths Atmosphere

[Heissonear]

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

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

By who, fraudsters? They used "clouds" as the premise but they are transient. You cannot disprove the GHG radiation equilibrium by transient parameter, the GHG EQUILIBRIUM simply adjusts to transient variables.

You do not know how or why they cover up their pseudoscience? You pull things off the web by them and do not understand what you paste in your posts?

Second: it may be new to you but the earth already freezes everyday, particularly in the winters. It has been below -20 F for two weeks in Khatanga, Russia, and was -45 F today. What produces -45 below zero temperatures on earth. They are natural factors. You think natural factors have went away?

You are trying to hype an additional 150 ppm CO2 since 1900 as taking over the earth's temperature. All other items like the shift in Arctic Oscillation southward the past two years as CO2 GHG induced? 150 extra ppm CO2? And the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Pacific Multi-decadal, and the Tropics QBO as CO2 controlled? 150 ppm CO2?

What about the tilt and rate of spin of the earth, it's orbit speed, and solar radiation variations annually with the circulation patterns of the oceans on earth - you think that an additional 150 ppm CO2 now has first order effects over them?

.

 

[Heissonear]

It is another -45°F below zero today and predicted -50 °F for tomorrow.

What makes parts of earth so cold?

What happens because of these extreme cold areas and warm areas? They are natural processes, even wind and condensation.

 

[Loudmouth]

By who, fraudsters? They used "clouds" as the premise but they are transient. You cannot disprove the GHG radiation equilibrium by transient parameter, the GHG EQUILIBRIUM simply adjusts to transient variables.

As already shown, you are wrong. There is no GHG equilibrium. When you increase CO2, water vapor does not magically change to counteract it.

Second: it may be new to you but the earth already freezes everyday, particularly in the winters. It has been below -20 F for two weeks in Khatanga, Russia, and was -45 F today. What produces -45 below zero temperatures on earth. They are natural factors. You think natural factors have went away?

I am talking about the entire Earth. Without the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth would be a solid chunk of ice.

You are trying to hype an additional 150 ppm CO2 since 1900 as taking over the earth's temperature. All other items like the shift in Arctic Oscillation southward the past two years as CO2 GHG induced? 150 extra ppm CO2? And the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Pacific Multi-decadal, and the Tropics QBO as CO2 controlled? 150 ppm CO2?

What about the tilt and rate of spin of the earth, it's orbit speed, and solar radiation variations annually with the circulation patterns of the oceans on earth - you think that an additional 150 ppm CO2 now has first order effects over them?

.

I have never, ever claimed that increased CO2 is the sole driver of temperature over the last 150 years. Never. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

My argument is a very simple one. What do you think happens when you increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmopshere? Do you capture more heat or less heat? Where do you think that heat goes?

The answer is obvious. When you capture more heat the Earth heats up. It is such a simple concept that you fight so hard to not understand.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is another -45°F below zero today and predicted -50 °F for tomorrow.

What makes parts of earth so cold?

What happens because of these extreme cold areas and warm areas? They are natural processes, even wind and condensation.

What now? The poles disprove the greenhouse effect?

 

[Heissonear]

What now? The poles disprove the greenhouse effect?

?

Do you possibly "overly isolate the GHG effects of CO2" where a multitude of natural events and factors are all of no significance compared to the "power of CO2"?

What makes locations on earth become -45°F?

CO2 does not have that "power" to stop nor produce -45°F temperature. Is that clear?

Other first order factors involved in earths climate must be factored before a minor amount of increase in a GHG (+150 ppm CO2).

It is not best to "isolate" the GHG effects in Mother nature. Mother nature has many major forces in dynamic equilibrium.

 

[fargonic]

What makes locations on earth become -45°F?

The latitude and lower solar insolation. Just because it is cold in some places doesn't mean that it can't be warming overall. No one, least of all the scientists who study global climate change, think that it will never be cold on earth with warming.

Remember the warming is in the AVERAGE global temperature. There are still cold places and warm places on the earth.

CO2 does not have that "power" to stop nor produce -45°F temperature. Is that clear?

That isn't the point. CO2 becomes well mixed in the atmosphere and it can cause the overall temperature to increase. This has been known for a long, long time. In fact it is exactly why the surface of the earth currently has an average temperature that is about 30C higher than it would be without any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. You can calculate it for yourself using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Other first order factors involved in earths climate must be factored before a minor amount of increase in a GHG (+150 ppm CO2).

But the current loading of CO2 is NOT minor. The key factor isn't the relative amount of CO2 but it's CLIMATE SENSITIVITY which is the measure of how much warming it will induce with a doubling of the CO2 concentration. That numbers is pretty well known and established.

It is not best to "isolate" the GHG effects in Mother nature. Mother nature has many major forces in dynamic equilibrium.

There is nothing in the science that ignores Mother Nature. In fact the role of nature is CRITICAL to understanding human-caused global warming.

 

[Mainframes]

?

Do you possibly "overly isolate the GHG effects of CO2" where a multitude of natural events and factors are all of no significance compared to the "power of CO2"?

What makes locations on earth become -45°F?

CO2 does not have that "power" to stop nor produce -45°F temperature. Is that clear?

Other first order factors involved in earths climate must be factored before a minor amount of increase in a GHG (+150 ppm CO2).

It is not best to "isolate" the GHG effects in Mother nature. Mother nature has many major forces in dynamic equilibrium.

Please listen to us for once.

No one has ever said that CO2 is solely responsible for the climate. There are many factors that control the environment both globally and at a regional level. Hence why the poles are significantly colder than the tropics.

However, CO2 is one of those factors and is now being pushed in a manner that will trend the global climate generally in one direction beyond that normally seen by natural effects. The main problem is that global society is dependant upon the climate being a certain way and climate is being pushed away from that.

 

[Heissonear]

Please listen to us for once.

No one has ever said that CO2 is solely responsible for the climate. There are many factors that control the environment both globally and at a regional level. Hence why the poles are significantly colder than the tropics.

However, CO2 is one of those factors and is now being pushed in a manner that will trend the global climate generally in one direction beyond that normally seen by natural effects. The main problem is that global society is dependant upon the climate being a certain way and climate is being pushed away from that.

Have you heard the "balanced effects" of additional CO2 added to earth's atmosphere or only as an extremely non-beneficial, even catastrophic occurance on earth?

 

[hurste1951]

Have you heard the "balanced effects" of additional CO2 added to earth's atmosphere or only as an extremely non-beneficial, even catastrophic occurance on earth?

Benefits like rapidly changing ecosystems driving animals either to extinction or into direct conflict with human settlements for food!

Benefits like shifting plant heartiness zones causing agricultural areas to change location! (Because NOTHING says "economic stability" like moving agricultural zones across borders)

Benefits like changing weather patterns which cause collapse of agricultural areas that have the infrastructure for agriculture! (Because nothing says "SAVINGS" like having to re-build ag infrastructure somewhere else because of multidecadal droughts!)

Benefits like rising sea levels driving millions of people INLAND to areas that don't have the infrastructure to support them! (Because nothing says "CIVIL ORDER" like a massive invasion of refugees!)

All these benefits aren't really possible unless the changes happen QUICKLY and thankfully humans are helping them to happen QUICKLY so animals and plants really don't have time to adapt!

What's EVEN BETTER is this is the type of thinking that says I have my last $1000 and I could pay my rent and have a place to stay OR I COULD GO TO VEGAS AND GAMBLE IT AND MAKE IT INTO $1,000,000! AND BE RICH!

It's called GAMBLING. And if GAMBLING is something you consider to be a legitimate route to sustainability then you and I have far, far, far more differences than can ever be overcome.

Gamble with your own planet. Not one we have to share with you.

 

[CryOfALion]

Benefits like rapidly changing ecosystems driving animals either to extinction or into direct conflict with human settlements for food!

Benefits like shifting plant heartiness zones causing agricultural areas to change location! (Because NOTHING says "economic stability" like moving agricultural zones across borders)

Benefits like changing weather patterns which cause collapse of agricultural areas that have the infrastructure for agriculture! (Because nothing says "SAVINGS" like having to re-build ag infrastructure somewhere else because of multidecadal droughts!)

Benefits like rising sea levels driving millions of people INLAND to areas that don't have the infrastructure to support them! (Because nothing says "CIVIL ORDER" like a massive invasion of refugees!)

All these benefits aren't really possible unless the changes happen QUICKLY and thankfully humans are helping them to happen QUICKLY so animals and plants really don't have time to adapt!

What's EVEN BETTER is this is the type of thinking that says I have my last $1000 and I could pay my rent and have a place to stay OR I COULD GO TO VEGAS AND GAMBLE IT AND MAKE IT INTO $1,000,000! AND BE RICH!

It's called GAMBLING. And if GAMBLING is something you consider to be a legitimate route to sustainability then you and I have far, far, far more differences than can ever be overcome.

Gamble with your own planet. Not one we have to share with you.

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.

Why would environmental gambling be off limits? (By the way, I don't think anybody - any layperson - is actually gambling with the environment no matter how big their truck is, political and scientific status, and/or position on AGW.)

 

[Mainframes]

I think a good analogy here would be driving the wrong way up a one way road:

Science has seen the signs for the one way road and is advising that we turn around before we have an accident.

Sceptics are saying that you can't prove its a one way street because we haven't seen vehicles coming the other way so just keep going. A head-on collision is inevitable.....

 

[Aldebaran]

I think a good analogy here would be driving the wrong way up a one way road:

Science has seen the signs for the one way road and is advising that we turn around before we have an accident.

Sceptics are saying that you can't prove its a one way street because we haven't seen vehicles coming the other way so just keep going. A head-on collision is inevitable.....

Maybe that's because there's no credible evidence that it's a one way street.

 

[Mainframes]

Maybe that's because there's no credible evidence that it's a one way street.

The signs are all there....

 

[Heissonear]

The signs are all there....

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?

 

[Heissonear]

And after the Greenhouse Effect from atmospheric physics, well we need to look at the primary mass that controls earth's climate, the ocean.

Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science | Climate Etc.

 

[hurste1951]

And after the Greenhouse Effect from atmospheric physics, well we need to look at the primary mass that controls earth's climate, the ocean.

This is probably why world-famous oceanographers like Roger Revelle were among the first to raise the warning flags to the public and government about global climate change due to human activities.

Roger Revelle's Discovery

If one goes to the grounds of Scripps Institution of Oceanography one will readily find THE ORIGINAL LAB that CHARLES KEELING had as well! Keeling was the guy who started measuring atmospheric CO2 that we all know as the Keeling Curve now and for which he won the National Medal of Science.

That same data is still being collected today and in many places around the globe!

I hope Heissonear will tell us, based on his vast knowledge of oceanography, how these folks were "dupsters" too!

 

[Aldebaran]

This is probably why world-famous oceanographers like Roger Revelle were among the first to raise the warning flags to the public and government about global climate change due to human activities.

Roger Revelle's Discovery

If one goes to the grounds of Scripps Institution of Oceanography one will readily find THE ORIGINAL LAB that CHARLES KEELING had as well! Keeling was the guy who started measuring atmospheric CO2 that we all know as the Keeling Curve now and for which he won the National Medal of Science.

That same data is still being collected today and in many places around the globe!

I hope Heissonear will tell us, based on his vast knowledge of oceanography, how these folks were "dupsters" too!

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?

 

[[serious]]

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's changing the albedo?

 

[hurste1951]

Based on research done in the 1950s? Shouldn't we know better by now?

We do. I just wanted to point out to Heissonear that Oceanographers actually are integral to this research he is calling all manner of names.

I agree the role of the oceans is important and still under investigation but I just wanted people to know the FULL story, that indeed oceanographers are on the front lines of this research and have been from the beginning.

It is important that people keep on these threads. So far even clear-eyed skeptics like Heissonear have already fallen for Patrick Morris's claim to be a co-founder of Greenpeace (that was not true, I had to show him on this post:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7836902-56/#post66687411

And earlier Heissonear made a big claim about Will Happer being a lead author on the IPCC AR5. Again that was not correct

And I had to correct him here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7836902-56/#post66687411

He then posted a correction it was a completely different guy. But Heissonear needs to have someone to help make sure all the information gets out there.

Heissonear doesn't want anyone to be lead astray by "dupsters" (sic), but he doesn't always seem to get the whole story.

It's already been shown that scientists and politicians (mostly politicians) cling to this stuff because it is profitable for them to do so.

I take it you don't know any scientists personally? Because most scientists don't make a lot of money. Certainly not as much as CEO's of coal companies or oil companies who may pull down millions and millions of dollars a year in compensation.

And I'm assuming you don't know how grant funding works: hint: they don't give out grants based on preferred outcomes. I actually know some folks who work in grant organizations and process the paperwork. It looks nothing like most of the uninformed skeptics tell you on this board. Don't be duped by people who don't know what they are talking about.

It's been the most effective way to stifle economic growth and raise taxes. Why would they want to give that up?

Who in their right mind wants to "stifle economic growth"? I've never heard of such a politician. I have on the other hand seen politicians bend over backwards to make sure economic numbers keep growing in order to get votes.

This whole "conspriacy theory" mentality the skeptics have is beyond bizarre. It is usually made up of half-truths, outright falsehoods and whole-cloth ignorance of how things really work. It is positively bizarre.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you possibly "overly isolate the GHG effects of CO2" where a multitude of natural events and factors are all of no significance compared to the "power of CO2"?

Do you possibly ignore the basic physics because you don't like where it leads?

What makes locations on earth become -45°F?

A ton of different mechanisms, including sunlight per square meter. Do we also need to explain to you why it is colder at the poles than the equator, and why it gets cold in the winter?

CO2 does not have that "power" to stop nor produce -45°F temperature. Is that clear?

No one is saying that CO2 will cause the temperature to be the same across the entire globe, nor make the temperature the same every day of the year regardless of latitude or season. You are beating on a strawman.

Other first order factors involved in earths climate must be factored before a minor amount of increase in a GHG (+150 ppm CO2).

Such as? Which of these can cause changes of long term climate?

It is not best to "isolate" the GHG effects in Mother nature. Mother nature has many major forces in dynamic equilibrium.

And they are? How do they cause long term climate change?