The Physics Underlying The Greenhouse Gas Effect Of Earths Atmosphere

[Loudmouth]

Like most science deniers, you refuse to understand the basic science.

 

[Aldebaran]

Like most science deniers, you refuse to understand the basic science.

And like most bitter clingers, clinging to outdated theories about how the earth is heating up and we're all going to die unless we adopt every plan Obama comes up with to shut down our ability to produce the power we need to keep this country running--while at the same time giving China (the world's biggest polluter) a free pass to do whatever they please, you fail to understand you're being duped by the dupsters!

 

[Loudmouth]

And like most bitter clingers, clinging to outdated theories about how the earth is heating up and we're all going to die unless we adopt every plan Obama comes up with to shut down our ability to produce the power we need to keep this country running--while at the same time giving China (the world's biggest polluter) a free pass to do whatever they please, you fail to understand you're being duped by the dupsters!

I never made any of those claims. Show me a single post where I proclaimed that we are all going to die because of global warming.

You ignore the science while attacking a strawman. How predictable.

 

[Aldebaran]

I never made any of those claims. Show me a single post where I proclaimed that we are all going to die because of global warming.

You ignore the science while attacking a strawman. How predictable.

So we're not going to die after all if we continue living as we are? Maybe then we should just stop going on and on about global warming then. I'd be fine with that!

 

[Loudmouth]

So we're not going to die after all if we continue living as we are? Maybe then we should just stop going on and on about global warming then. I'd be fine with that!

Global warming is not going to wipe out the entire human race. Funny how you are changing your story as you go along.

Are you going to comment on the science or not?

 

[Aldebaran]

Global warming is not going to wipe out the entire human race. Funny how you are changing your story as you go along.

Are you going to comment on the science or not?

What I'm trying to say is that it's obviously not the big deal it's been made out to be. Heck, politicians were recently saying that it's the biggest threat to national security right now. These are the same people that are shutting down our coal-fired power plants and "causing energy rates to necessarily skyrocket" (Obama's pre-election promise to us). Do you really want to follow these guys?

 

[Loudmouth]

What I'm trying to say is that it's obviously not the big deal it's been made out to be.

I believe this is the bargaining stage of science denial where the science denier accepts that global warming is real, but tries to bargain for its severity.

 

[Aldebaran]

I believe this is the bargaining stage of science denial where the science denier accepts that global warming is real, but tries to bargain for its severity.

I don't need to "bargain" for its severity. You've already admitted you don't think it's going to wipe us out like the dupsters keep claiming. Furthermore, I don't deny that global warming (or cooling) is real. I think both can and do happen as a part of nature.

 

[Loudmouth]

You've already admitted you don't think it's going to wipe us out like the dupsters keep claiming.

This thread was never about how many people Global Warming will kill.

Furthermore, I don't deny that global warming (or cooling) is real. I think both can and do happen as a part of nature.

Do you deny that the greenhouse effect is real?

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you deny that the greenhouse effect is real?

You asked me this question in response to me saying:

Furthermore, I don't deny that global warming (or cooling) is real. I think both can and do happen as a part of nature.

I'd say I've answered your question before you asked it. This is an example of the "going in circles" that you do that I made reference to before.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'd say I've answered your question before you asked it.

Of course you would say that to cover up the fact that you haven't answered the question. You could claim that the Earth heats and cools through mechanisms other than the greenhouse effect. Just saying that the Earth gets colder and hotter does not answer the question of whether or not you accept the greenhouse effect.

So do you? Do you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

 

[Aldebaran]

Of course you would say that to cover up the fact that you haven't answered the question. You could claim that the Earth heats and cools through mechanisms other than the greenhouse effect. Just saying that the Earth gets colder and hotter does not answer the question of whether or not you accept the greenhouse effect.

So do you? Do you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

From post #128

Furthermore, I don't deny that global warming (or cooling) is real. I think both can and do happen as a part of nature.

I also repeated the answer in post #130. This is now the 3rd time in a short time period you have asked this question. What you are now doing is trolling rather than having a discussion.

 

[Heissonear]

So do you? Do you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

Do you want us to copy and paste every time you have posted the above question? They are adding up.

Is there a problem?

It appears you promote that the the earths Temperature Control Knob is the IPCC CO2 hypothesis.

Said another way, do you think like the IPCC that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere dictates what the earths temperature will be - which is a hypothesis that is still unsupported by observations.

The IPCC in particular has promoted "bad science". They forgot that they need to validate the hypothesis before it can be stated as true. The IPCC says it's true without evidence. They thought "trusty computer models" were sufficient but Mother Nature did not comply to their predictions.



So what is your problem? CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs solar radiation at select spectra wavelengths. So?

Why do you repeat the question over and over and over?

You don't work for the IPCC, do you? You are not on their "Control Knob" bandwagon are you?

 

[Loudmouth]

It appears you promote that the the earths Temperature Control Knob is the IPCC CO2 hypothesis.

In this thread, we are discussing why CO2 can increase global temps.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the greenhouse effect is real, then the purpose of this thread is finished.

So what is your problem? CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs solar radiation at select spectra wavelengths. So?

You are still getting the basics wrong. This is why I wanted to discuss the basics of the greenhouse effect.

The absorption of solar radiation by greenhouse gases is NOT what causes the greenhouse effect. It is the absorption of Earth's radiation that causes the greenhouse effect.

My problem is that you still don't understand what the greenhouse effect is.

 

[Loudmouth]

From post #128

I also repeated the answer in post #130. This is now the 3rd time in a short time period you have asked this question. What you are now doing is trolling rather than having a discussion.

You didn't answer it. That's the point. From my previous post:

"You could claim that the Earth heats and cools through mechanisms other than the greenhouse effect. Just saying that the Earth gets colder and hotter does not answer the question of whether or not you accept the greenhouse effect."

Do you accept that the greenhouse effect is real, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

 

[fargonic]

It appears you promote that the the earths Temperature Control Knob is the IPCC CO2 hypothesis.

This is a misrepresentation. The IPCC doesn't do any research of its own. It aggregates and analyzes research from countless independent researchers across the globe.

Secondly they do not and have never limited the control of temperature to CO2 alone. Even in the first IPCC report back in 1990 they included both positive and negative and natural and man-made forcings.

Said another way, do you think like the IPCC that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere dictates what the earths temperature will be - which is a hypothesis that is still unsupported by observations.

Actually it is a general truism that the presence of greenhouse gases keeps the average temperature of the earth's surface about 30 degrees C higher than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases. Even if we had an atmosphere made up of O2 and N2 and Ar, the little bit of natural greenhouse gases keeps the earth from losing all its re-radiated energy back out into space. You can calculate the earth's blackbody temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

The IPCC in particular has promoted "bad science".

You have made a logic error here: you state that the IPCC makes a claim which they do not and then you accuse them of promoting bad science because of this claim they do not make.

The IPCC says it's true without evidence.

This is not true. Please remember the 9th Commandment!

You don't work for the IPCC, do you? You are not on their "Control Knob" bandwagon are you?

Even the IPCC isn't on the bandwagon you continually accuse them of being on.

Please, I beg of you my brother in Christ, remember the 9th commandment.

 

[Heissonear]

In this thread, we are discussing why CO2 can increase global temps.

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the greenhouse effect is real, then the purpose of this thread is finished.

You are still getting the basics wrong. This is why I wanted to discuss the basics of the greenhouse effect.

The absorption of solar radiation by greenhouse gases is NOT what causes the greenhouse effect. It is the absorption of Earth's radiation that causes the greenhouse effect.

My problem is that you still don't understand what the greenhouse effect is.

Is there still a problem? Your last sentence above is the first sentence of this thread!

Read Post #1.

Are you sure there is not a problem, like difficulty in spectra physics comprehension or plain forgetfulness? Or could it be a possible "CO2 Control Knob" Syndrome?

And you say above that "the purpose of this tread is now finished"? ???

Again, read Posts #1. Do you understand radiation physics and how to determine the effects of GHGs? I think not since you have repeated the first sentence of Post #1 over and over - and have appeared to not comprehend what was presented in Posts #1, and many posts since then.

 

[fargonic]

Are you sure there is not a problem, like difficulty in spectra physics comprehension or plain forgetfulness? Or could it be a possible "CO2 Control Knob" Syndrome?

I believe the poster is attempting to get you and other people who stand against "AGW" to clearly explain why you think CO2 ISN'T a concern? CO2 has been known to absorb in the IR region of the spectrum since the 1850's. The earth tends to radiate heat back out in the IR end of the spectrum. It receives radiation in the short-wave end of the spectrum from the sun, a region where CO2 is largely transparent at these temperatures.

The point being that one cannot denigrate the role of CO2 as a positive factor causing warming.

Again, read Posts #1. Do you understand radiation physics and how to determine the effects of GHGs? I think not since you have repeated the first sentence of Post #1 over and over

I personally believe the poster DOES understand the radiation physics and the absorption spectrum of CO2 quite well. That is why they keep asking you if you will clarify your understanding of it.

That way we can understand what you are not seeing in the science that seems so obvious to most of the professionals.

 

[Aldebaran]

I believe the poster is attempting to get you and other people who stand against "AGW" to clearly explain why you think CO2 ISN'T a concern? CO2 has been known to absorb in the IR region of the spectrum since the 1850's. The earth tends to radiate heat back out in the IR end of the spectrum. It receives radiation in the short-wave end of the spectrum from the sun, a region where CO2 is largely transparent at these temperatures.

The point being that one cannot denigrate the role of CO2 as a positive factor causing warming.



I personally believe the poster DOES understand the radiation physics and the absorption spectrum of CO2 quite well. That is why they keep asking you if you will clarify your understanding of it.

That way we can understand what you are not seeing in the science that seems so obvious to most of the professionals.

This has been done to death already. Constantly repeating it until he agrees with us isn't helpful.

 

[Heissonear]

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.

Justa - how interesting in that the graph illustrates predominant long extreme cooling periods with just a few very peakish warm periods of short duration and how responders only talk about the slim peaks and are mute about the wide and deep valleys of a cold earth!

That is cherry picking data. Seeing Only what you want to see.