"Settled Science"??

[Lagboltz]

So you believe that the earth receives more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun? You believe that that radiation actually warms the surface of the earth even though you said that such a thing would be a violation of the second law.

You are either a troll, or trying to be silly. Everyone knows the earth receives all it's energy from the sun.

 

[Lagboltz]

So have they demonstrated CO2 having this greenhouse effect ? I get how water could manage it.

IR radiation absorption and scattering physics is the same for H2O, CO2, and methane. The major difference in climate science is that CO2 and methane are only in the gaseous phase in the atmosphere. Water can exist as solid, liquid and gas. That makes the climate physics of water much different than the other two gasses since water can change phase very rapidly.

 

[palerider]

You are either a troll, or trying to be silly. Everyone knows the earth receives all it's energy from the sun.

Really? Cliamte science apparently doesn't. Here is the official cartoon of climate science:

See the yellow bar...it clearly states that 161 watts of energy per square foot of energy from the sun reaches the surface of the earth. See the first tan bar? 396 watts per square meter radiating from the surface of the earth. 396 is greater than the 161 absorbed by the surface from the sun so where does the excess come from? Inquiring minds want to know. Well, the second tan bar tells us that 333 watts per square meter are absorbed by the surface in the form of back radiation from the atmosphere.

According to that graph, more than twice as much energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth in the form of back radiation from the atmosphere than it absorbs from the sun. Since the atmosphere is not an energy source the chance of that happening is about zero and yet, it is this absolutely ridiculous model that forms the basis for climate modeling in climate science today.

You believe in a hoax...your version of the hoax is not the official version as that one is just crazy, but only slightly more crazy than your own.

 

[palerider]

So have they demonstrated CO2 having this greenhouse effect ? I get how water could manage it.

Water can actually store energy...none of the other so called greenhouse gasses can. It is interesting to note that the adiabatic lapse rate for moist air is twice as great as that of dry air....precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse effect predicts.

 

[palerider]

IR radiation absorption and scattering physics is the same for H2O, CO2, and methane. The major difference in climate science is that CO2 and methane are only in the gaseous phase in the atmosphere. Water can exist as solid, liquid and gas. That makes the climate physics of water much different than the other two gasses since water can change phase very rapidly.

Not true, water can actually store energy because it can change phases in the open atmosphere. CO2, and the other so called greenhouse gasses can store energy if they are compressed into their solid form but not in the open atmosphere

 

[dogtowner]

Ok Im sorry I muddied the waters mentioning water so let me try again.... has the greenhouse effect been demonstrated ? By demonstrated I mean in an actual experiment that is observable and repeatable. Running a model on a pc is neither. For example CERN has done this with their solar theory that coresponds with actual experience in nature here on our planent. I trust all of us can acknowledge CERN has a very good reputation in the science biz.

 

[Lagboltz]

Really? Cliamte science apparently doesn't. Here is the official cartoon of climate science:

See the yellow bar...it clearly states that 161 watts of energy per square foot of energy from the sun reaches the surface of the earth. See the first tan bar? 396 watts per square meter radiating from the surface of the earth. 396 is greater than the 161 absorbed by the surface from the sun so where does the excess come from? Inquiring minds want to know. Well, the second tan bar tells us that 333 watts per square meter are absorbed by the surface in the form of back radiation from the atmosphere.

According to that graph, more than twice as much energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth in the form of back radiation from the atmosphere than it absorbs from the sun. Since the atmosphere is not an energy source the chance of that happening is about zero and yet, it is this absolutely ridiculous model that forms the basis for climate modeling in climate science today.

I don't see any problem. The incoming solar radiation is 161+78 = 239 watts per square meter (W/mm). The outgoing thermal radiation is 239, So the incoming and outgoing are in balance, as they should be.

If there were no water or other GH gases on earth, there would be no back radiation to the earth, the outgoing tan bar would be only 239 W/mm, and there would be no 333 W/mm incoming tan bar. Earth would be very cold.

Because of the water vapor there is back radiation which causes a hotter earth to the extent that the inner turmoil of surface and back radiation can be much larger than the input solar radiation. The earth is a lot hotter than the sun alone can furnish if there were no water, so it's no surprise that the tan bars are so large and in a delicate balance.

If only 40 W/mm can escape through the atmospheric window with the sun beating down at 239 W/mm, that also lends credibility that earth can be so hot that there is a large surface and back radiation.

 

[Lagboltz]

Not true, water can actually store energy because it can change phases in the open atmosphere. CO2, and the other so called greenhouse gasses can store energy if they are compressed into their solid form but not in the open atmosphere

Not totally true. All substances have a finite heat capacity and can store thermal energy. N2, O2, and the greenhouse gases can all store thermal energy but not latent heat energy. As you say, only water can also store energy as latent heat. As in your diagram, latent heat is only 80 W/mm compared to the hundreds going around in the atmosphere.

 

[Lagboltz]

Ok Im sorry I muddied the waters mentioning water so let me try again.... has the greenhouse effect been demonstrated ? By demonstrated I mean in an actual experiment that is observable and repeatable. Running a model on a pc is neither. For example CERN has done this with their solar theory that coresponds with actual experience in nature here on our planent. I trust all of us can acknowledge CERN has a very good reputation in the science biz.

I have seen carefully controlled experiments where a light source with the same spectrum as the sun was aimed at a dark background surrounded by air devoid of CO2, and compared with air plus CO2 with the same percentage as what is predicted in a few decades. The air temperature was a degree or two higher in the CO2 experiment. This was not meant to emulate climate, it was just to see what the greenhouse numbers were. I forgot the exact numbers and the source.

 

[dogtowner]

I have seen carefully controlled experiments where a light source with the same spectrum as the sun was aimed at a dark background surrounded by air devoid of CO2, and compared with air plus CO2 with the same percentage as what is predicted in a few decades. The air temperature was a degree or two higher in the CO2 experiment. This was not meant to emulate climate, it was just to see what the greenhouse numbers were. I forgot the exact numbers and the source.

ok, thanks. Need to chew on that.

 

[palerider]

Ok Im sorry I muddied the waters mentioning water so let me try again.... has the greenhouse effect been demonstrated ? By demonstrated I mean in an actual experiment that is observable and repeatable. Running a model on a pc is neither. For example CERN has done this with their solar theory that coresponds with actual experience in nature here on our planent. I trust all of us can acknowledge CERN has a very good reputation in the science biz.

No, it has never been quantified, measured, or demonstrated. It is a failing hypothesis.

Incidentally, if you plug the various planets and moons in the solar system which have atmospheres into a greenhouse model, it doesn't even come close to predicting the temperatures there. It only works here with constant tweaking and adjustment as evidenced by the spectacular failure of the climate models.

You can accurately predict the temperature of every planet and moon in the solar system with an atmosphere using little more than the ideal gas laws and corrections for incoming solar radiations. The temperature on planets is caused by a combination of atmospheric pressure and incoming solar radiation and what ever internal energy a planet generates....it is not the result of the specific make up of the atmosphere beyond the atomic weight of the various gasses found within it....that is to say, beyond what the atmosphere weighs. A CO2 atmosphere would be heavier by volume than a hydrogen atmosphere, etc.

The fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can not predict the temperatures of the other planets and moons is justification in itself to disregard the hypothesis and look for another more workable hypothesis...like the atmospheric thermal effect but that is not politically acceptable because using the workable atmospheric thermal effect, it would not be possible to demonize any particular gas found in the atmosphere.

 

[palerider]

I don't see any problem. The incoming solar radiation is 161+78 = 239 watts per square meter (W/mm). The outgoing thermal radiation is 239, So the incoming and outgoing are in balance, as they should be.

If there were no water or other GH gases on earth, there would be no back radiation to the earth, the outgoing tan bar would be only 239 W/mm, and there would be no 333 W/mm incoming tan bar. Earth would be very cold.

Because of the water vapor there is back radiation which causes a hotter earth to the extent that the inner turmoil of surface and back radiation can be much larger than the input solar radiation. The earth is a lot hotter than the sun alone can furnish if there were no water, so it's no surprise that the tan bars are so large and in a delicate balance.

If only 40 W/mm can escape through the atmospheric window with the sun beating down at 239 W/mm, that also lends credibility that earth can be so hot that there is a large surface and back radiation.

Of course you don't. You have drunk deeply of the kook aid and you can see the emperor's clothes.

So does the surface of the earth warm as a result of absorbed backradiaton or does it not?

 

[palerider]

So does the surface of the earth warm as a result of absorbed backradiaton or does it not?

I have seen carefully controlled experiments where a light source with the same spectrum as the sun was aimed at a dark background surrounded by air devoid of CO2, and compared with air plus CO2 with the same percentage as what is predicted in a few decades. The air temperature was a degree or two higher in the CO2 experiment. This was not meant to emulate climate, it was just to see what the greenhouse numbers were. I forgot the exact numbers and the source.

Those "careful controlled" experiments show all manner of phenomena, but not a greenhouse effect....and none of them demonstrate that a 100ppm increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause anything at all.

 

[Lagboltz]

Of course you don't. You have drunk deeply of the kook aid and you can see the emperor's clothes.

I would have preferred to see a commentary on why you disagree rather than just an insult One of the major misunderstandings that you have is that you didn't know that all the atmospheric gases can store energy via their heat capacity, and not just water as latent heat. That should have cleared up the meaning of the diagram you posted.

So does the surface of the earth warm as a result of absorbed backradiaton or does it not?

I have answered that several times. Your diagram makes your question clear. It is so simple. It is the SUN that warms the earth. The earth stays warm because it retains the energy from the sun by emitting long wave radiation which is scattered back to earth.

 

[Lagboltz]

Those "careful controlled" experiments show all manner of phenomena, but not a greenhouse effect....and none of them demonstrate that a 100ppm increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause anything at all.

You are criticizing experiments when you don't even know what the experiments are! The experiments were designed to eliminate all other "manner of phenomena". Perhaps you didn't understand dogtowner's question. He was only asking about the experimental veracity of thermal backscattering causing heat retention, not what effect it may have in the atmosphere.