The Physics Underlying The Greenhouse Gas Effect Of Earths Atmosphere

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This has been done to death already. Constantly repeating it until he agrees with us isn't helpful.

The very same exact thing is placed as the first sentence of Post #1 - I placed it there because he was repeating the same exact thing in other threads so I opened this thread to address this issue. His question has been answered in several directions and details. Yet he continues to say the exact same thing even now.

It still appears to be CO2 Control Knob related.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟72,846.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

That graph is actually a great example of the current problem.

Let me use an analogy, what would happen if you are driving your car and hit a brick wall at 10 miles per hour? What would happen if you hit that same wall at 100 miles per hour?

Eyeballing that chart, looks like we see 5 degree swings over the course of 5000 years, or a rate of 1 degree every 1000 years. Current warming trends over the part 40 years are 10 times more rapid.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
[serious];66733742 said:
That graph is actually a great example of the current problem.

Let me use an analogy, what would happen if you are driving your car and hit a brick wall at 10 miles per hour? What would happen if you hit that same wall at 100 miles per hour?

Eyeballing that chart, looks like we see 5 degree swings over the course of 5000 years, or a rate of 1 degree every 1000 years. Current warming trends over the part 40 years are 10 times more rapid.

Read the graph again with natural factors involved.

It does not show +6 to +8 °C temp increase over current modern time earth temp we find ourselves - but the opposite - swings to at least -6 °C below current earth temperature as normal in the past.

How may this dive in temperature on earth happen now - right now?

Simply add two plus two - the above past earth low temps with information below just released about "fresh water in the North Atlantic" (read Arctic ice thaw and fresh water release on going event) as the mechanism to shut down the AMOC.


The research, published today in the journal Nature Communications, used a simulation from a highly complex model to analyse the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), an important component of the Earth’s climate system.

It showed that early warning signals are present up to 250 years before it collapses, suggesting that scientists could monitor the real world overturning circulation for the same signals.

The AMOC is like a conveyor belt in the ocean, driven by the salinity and temperature of the water. The system transports heat energy from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere to the North Atlantic, where it is transferred to the atmosphere.

Experiments suggest that if the AMOC is ‘switched off’ by extra freshwater entering the North Atlantic, surface air temperature in the North Atlantic region would cool by around 1-3°C, with enhanced cooling of up to 8°C in the worst affected regions.

Many look at the "narrow peaks" on the graph Justa shows - rather than looking at the broad and deep valley temperatures "nature can and has induced".

I would keep my eyes on what nature has and can do rather than man's Global Warming speculations and no predictive skill climate models.
 
Upvote 0

hurste1951

Member
Nov 9, 2014
465
15
73
✟696.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
...
Experiments suggest that if the AMOC is ‘switched off’ by extra freshwater entering the North Atlantic, surface air temperature in the North Atlantic region would cool by around 1-3°C, with enhanced cooling of up to 8°C in the worst affected regions.

It should be noted that this may very well happen with increased WARMING of the earth. The fresh water from runoff of the melting Greenland ice sheet may cause a reorganization or shut down of the THC (Thermohaline Current, Gulf Stream).

So the average temperature of the earth increases, ice sheets melt into the north Atlantic and parts of norther and western Europe get COLDER.

This is how science works.

I would keep my eyes on what nature has and can do rather than man's Global Warming speculations and no predictive skill climate models.

Isn't it funny that people like Wally Broecker at Columbia wrote about the shutdown of the North Atlantic Thermohaline circulation waaaay back in 1997 and he seems to believe in AGW!

If anyone is interested in reading more about this it can be found here:

http://www.climate-talks.net/2004-ENVRE130/Open-Letter/19971128-Science-Broecker.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Misinformation excelled in explaining what was causing the "unprecedented " California drought.

But by an elaborate study by NOAA the cause turns out to be natural climate factors.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feds-Natural-forces-not-climate-change-caused-5943118.php

Over the past year the news and other media and greens have published tons of "due to CO2 induced Global Warming misinformation. Should they have been in such hast and affirmative when spreading their news? They are called Alarmists for a reason. That is what they do repeatedly.

But the scientific literature has been changing, since The Pause has to be a result of something besides induced by CO2. The trend in a more balance understanding of what controls climate and brings about weather and climate events on earth has come during The Pause. Praise the Lord Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fargonic

Newbie
Nov 15, 2014
1,227
775
55
✟14,445.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Misinformation excelled in explaining what was causing the "unprecedented " California drought.

Why do you put unprecedented in quotation marks? Do you not believe it is unprecedented? I live in California and this is the first time since records were kept that the entire state is in some form of drought.

I know you didn't mean to be hurtful but for many of us and even you yourself this is very serious. Some towns will likely be out of water within the next couple of months.

Please, I beg of you, do not denigrate the hard experiences of others.

Thank you.

But the scientific literature has been changing, since The Pause has to be a result of something besides induced by CO2. The trend in a more balance understanding of what controls climate and brings about weather and climate events on earth has come during The Pause. Praise the Lord Jesus.

You are right to demand a more balanced discussion. It is good on both sides! Not just those who believe in AGW, but YOU also! You have repeatedly excoriated the science on here, consistently misrepresenting what the scientists say and speaking as if no one else's voice had value.

I wish that we would ALL moderate our tone and come to terms over a divisive issue. It serves no one to simply yell at others one may not agree with.

You say Praise Lord Jesus. Hear hear! But remember that "blessed are the peace makers" are His words.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.

I do understand the greenhouse effect. You don't, as your posts demonstrate. Here is what you said.

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

Do you understand what is wrong with your statement?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I do understand the greenhouse effect. You don't, as your posts demonstrate. Here is what you said.

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

Do you understand what is wrong with your statement?

Well, you have to at least admit that the atmosphere of the Earth (including C02) doesn't absorb all wavelengths equally. Thankfully x-rays are absorbed more fully than white light?

IMO the most damning argument against C02 pollution is the other pollutants that are released in the process of burning coal and various fossil fuels.

Heavy air pollution blankets northern China, reaches 'hazardous' levels ? RT News

Those air pollutants kill far more human beings year after year than nuclear power and renewable energy combined watt for watt. That's the bottom line IMO. The 'global warming" debate requires too much effort to fully appreciate, and most folks aren't willing to do it.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Well, you have to at least admit that the atmosphere of the Earth (including C02) doesn't absorb all wavelengths equally. Thankfully x-rays are absorbed more fully than white light?

Thankfully, most of the photons produced by the Sun that reach the Earth's atmosphere are in the white light spectrum, wavelengths that are not absorbed by CO2. However, those wavelengths are absorbed by the Earth. Some of that absorbed energy goes into increasing the kinetic energy of the Earth, also known as heating. Some of that energy is re-emitted, and it is re-emitted in the IR spectrum where IT IS ABSORBED BY CO2. The greenhouse effect is caused by the absorption of EARTH'S RADIATION and not solar radiation, a simple concept that some people can't seem to understand.

Those air pollutants kill far more human beings year after year than nuclear power and renewable energy combined watt for watt. That's the bottom line IMO. The 'global warming" debate requires too much effort to fully appreciate, and most folks aren't willing to do it.

The developed world went through the same stage that China is going through now. In the beginning of industrialization, cheap energy is preferred over clean energy. As time moves forward, China will clean up their act. What we will be left with is CO2 even after we clean up the other emissions from the dirty burning coal.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Thankfully, most of the photons produced by the Sun that reach the Earth's atmosphere are in the white light spectrum, wavelengths that are not absorbed by CO2. However, those wavelengths are absorbed by the Earth. Some of that absorbed energy goes into increasing the kinetic energy of the Earth, also known as heating. Some of that energy is re-emitted, and it is re-emitted in the IR spectrum where IT IS ABSORBED BY CO2. The greenhouse effect is caused by the absorption of EARTH'S RADIATION and not solar radiation, a simple concept that some people can't seem to understand.



The developed world went through the same stage that China is going through now. In the beginning of industrialization, cheap energy is preferred over clean energy. As time moves forward, China will clean up their act. What we will be left with is CO2 even after we clean up the other emissions from the dirty burning coal.

I basically agree with you on this topic, I just think that C02 and global warming are too far removed from each other (scientifically) for average folks to fully appreciate.

On the other hand, air pollution and it's link to C02 release is pretty easy for most folks to comprehend. Furthermore, the pollution released from our use of coal is probably statistically more likely to kill them in their lifetime than global warming.

I also have a slightly cynical perspective in terms of politicians and their corrupted use of "carbon credits" as a means to deal with this issue. A more direct approach and a more direct investment in technology would be a more appropriate governmental response IMO.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I basically agree with you on this topic, I just think that C02 and global warming are too far removed from each other (scientifically) for average folks to fully appreciate.

What do you mean?

On the other hand, air pollution and it's link to C02 release is pretty easy for most folks to comprehend.

The link between coal and air pollution has nothing to do with CO2. The pollution is caused by molecules other than CO2, and has to do with how the coal is burned and how emissions are treated.

Furthermore, the pollution released from our use of coal is probably statistically more likely to kill them in their lifetime than global warming.

We can chew bubblegum and walk at the same time.

I also have a slightly cynical perspective in terms of politicians and their corrupted use of "carbon credits" as a means to deal with this issue. A more direct approach and a more direct investment in technology would be a more appropriate governmental response IMO.

Conservatives are not willing to spend that kind of money on direct research and infrastructure investment. They prefer "free market" approaches, which is what the carbon credits are meant to work through.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
What do you mean?

I mean that plants absorb C02, and the Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles with or without man's influence. Most folks don't have a real strong scientific understanding of the link between excess C02, it's it's overall long term effect on the environment.

On the other hand most folks can sometimes *see* and sometimes even *feel* (in their lungs) the air pollution that is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. They have pretty good understanding of the concept of personally getting cancer from such pollution, particularly if they experience it on a regular basis.

The 'global warming' thing is a little more complex with a lot of factors.

The link between coal and air pollution has nothing to do with CO2. The pollution is caused by molecules other than CO2, and has to do with how the coal is burned and how emissions are treated.

True, but those molecules are in the coal that we're burning and they get into the atmosphere without being fully treated properly. That's certainly true of less developed countries.

We can chew bubblegum and walk at the same time.

Then we can also appreciate that excess C02 also relates to excess air pollution as well.

Conservatives are not willing to spend that kind of money on direct research and infrastructure investment. They prefer "free market" approaches, which is what the carbon credits are meant to work through.

It's a nice "intent" of course, but in my experience the intent and the results are often not all that congruent. We'd be better off IMO directly investing in newer and safer nuclear technologies and renewable resources.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I mean that plants absorb C02, and the Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles with or without man's influence. Most folks don't have a real strong scientific understanding of the link between excess C02, it's it's overall long term effect on the environment.

I don't see why understanding the greenhouse effect is any more difficult or rarer than understanding the carbon cycle or the natural mechanisms of glaciation and interglacials.

On the other hand most folks can sometimes *see* and sometimes even *feel* (in their lungs) the air pollution that is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. They have pretty good understanding of the concept of personally getting cancer from such pollution, particularly if they experience it on a regular basis.

They also understand that this comes from the burning of fossil fuels which also contain the nitrogen and sulfur containing molecules responsible for visible smog.

The 'global warming' thing is a little more complex with a lot of factors.

The greenhouse effect is rather simple to understand, which is why I was hoping to focus on that process for this thread.


True, but those molecules are in the coal that we're burning and they get into the atmosphere without being fully treated properly.

Actually, US regulations require low sulfur deisel for vehicles, as one example. No such regulation in China. The US also requires more effecient ways of combusting coal and limitations on emissions that are not seen in China. Per ton of coal, the US puts out way less non-CO2 pollution than China does.


Then we can also appreciate that excess C02 also relates to excess air pollution as well.

It really doesn't. We can eliminate a massive percentage of pollution from our use of fossil fuel use and still be left with a lot of CO2. Moving to low pollution, low sulfur deisel did not lower CO2 emissions.

It's a nice "intent" of course, but in my experience the intent and the results are often not all that congruent. We'd be better off IMO directly investing in newer and safer nuclear technologies and renewable resources.

Agreed. No corporation is willing to risk massive amounts of capital on technologies that may or may not pan out. They don't want to be left with the energy equivalent of Beta-max.
 
Upvote 0