@NoelFuller

Quote:

Your true belief?

What's that? I have no belief: I am convinced or not, as every true scientist.

First, I read the PierreHumbert's articles long ago: he did the same error as most of climatologists, that is considering GHGs follow the classical law of Planck's blackbody/greybody. If you want to improve your Physics, see for example here where one can read: Quote:

Remember, Wien's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law apply only to continuous thermal emission.

As CO² obviously absorbs and emits as discrete lines and not full spectrum, you then need to use quantum physic instead. This is exactly what the Gerlich and Tscheuschner's review paper is about.: Quote:

"The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it illegitimate to deduce prédictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernemental policy".

A more fundamental analysis of Physics also suggest that Quote:

"As a result, claims of universality can no longer be supported on the basis of Einstein's derivation of the Planckian relation. A solid is required. Therefore, blackbody radiation remains exclusively a property of the solid state. The application of the laws of Planck [3], Stefan [7] and Wien [8] to non-solids is without both experimental and theoretical justification."

- Pr Pierre-Marie Robitaille (source)

Second, what Dr Wood did in 1909 to rebut the greenhouse view of Arrhenius and Co? A very simple experiment: he used a standard greenhouse with glass (opaque to IR) and noted temperature after some time. He then replaced the glass with solid NaCl called halite which is transparent to IR and, after same time, measured again temperature: it turned out that both temperatures were identical:

Conclusion: greenhouse effect is not the result of a radiative process. Everyone having a greenhouse knows that greenhouse temperature can be regulated by opening upper windows: thus this is lack of convection that enhances temperature in a greenhouse, not IR.

Third, the so-called back-radiation to surface shown in the IPCC cartoons is physically impossible because thermodynamics formally prohibits it: 2nd Law applies to radiative transfer (Clausius, R, 1865 The Mechanical Theory of Heat – with its Applications to the Steam Engine and to Physical Properties of Bodies). To get ride of this small annoyance, modellers have set the thermal conductivity in atmosphere of CO² null. The 2nd law is expressed as follows (note the '-' before the C):
q = -C.gradT where
q: heat flow vector,
C: thermal conductivity in atmosphere
gradT: temperature gradient vector
Between 2 points with T1 and T2 temperatures respectively and separated by a length L, vector gradT has a length of (T2-T1)/L and a direction given by (T2-T1). For q to be positive, gradT must be negative that is T2<T1 ie the endpoint is to be colder than the startpoint. In other words, again, that heat will always flow from hotter to colder.The formula simply states that the heat flow vector is always in the opposite direction of the temperature gradient. It is obvious that when C is null, q is null whatever is the temperature gradient. That means they consider CO² molecule behave like in the absolute vaccum. It also means that the CO² molecules can have any temperature you want. This magic wand can be originated from Hansen, 1983 where a new concept was invented (with C null, CO² is not subjected to 2nd law and can radiate as strong as modellers need): it was called "radiative forcing".

So please, keep the physics of Lego climatologists in the RealTrashcan where it comes from and get a good Physics book to begin with.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

What study are you talking about? I searched more than 2 hours on NASA's webpage for something related to sun and GW - the most insteresting I could find was this - and it has nothing about GW being due to the sun.

Here, dated May 7 2008 but reported only in June 2009 at some blogs. Took me under 1 minute to find it.

Edit: you might also be interested by this one: Quote:

These coherencies corroborate strong visual correlations and provide convincing evidence for solar forcing of east-central North American droughts and strengthen the case for solar modulation of mid-continent climates.

Edit2: see the link in post also.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 08-Jul-2009 at 12:10 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 07-Jul-2009 at 10:34 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Everyone having a greenhouse knows that greenhouse temperature can be regulated by opening upper windows: thus this is lack of convection that enhances temperature in a greenhouse, not IR.

Alas still using the false premise that when scientists define the 'Greenhouse effect' for the atmosphere they really mean the exact same principles as what occurs in an actual Greenhouse. How about you work the actual definition instead of trying to play the misnomer.

@Dandy

Quote:

I think you drew the graphs yourself (to fit your argument?) - given that you didn't mention any source, which you normally did when you quoted diagrams...

Sure. This is why I have written Univ of Colorado on the plot: to dupe the gullible.

Quote:

Furthermore the latest study on the development of the antarctic ice sheet does point in exactly the opposite direction...

You already post this link here, to which I replied here. You are cycling alarmism faster than BrianK or Fuller with about one hundred posts circumference: congratulations! Also note BrianK's diversion below my post to actually avoiding discussing the Mannian-like statistics of the Steig's paper.

I will let you absorb all the material provided: enjoy and come back in two weeks.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Also note BrianK's diversion below my post to actually avoiding discussing the Mannian-like statistics of the Steig's paper

Of course this is nothing but some silly wishfulness on your part.

Your post #141 was easily refuted by my #143. G&T, your point 1, along with your conclusion in point 2 are based on the false assumption that the atmospheric effects are exactly the same as a Greenhouse.

If you feel bad I left off your point #3. Well, your claim that the law of thermodyamics is broken is simply another false claim.

So discuss the Mannian (whatever that means it's not in any dictionary) statistics is. If you think #141 does this well your belief is wrong.

@BrianK

Quote:

Alas still using the false premise that when scientists define the 'Greenhouse effect' for the atmosphere they really mean the exact same principles as what occurs in an actual Greenhouse.

I am not discussing the misnomer but the effect at work. Care to show me an experience that demonstrates the heating by CO² IR radiation in a greenhouse?

Quote:

How about you work the actual definition instead of trying to play the misnomer.

What actual definition?

NASA
There are many greenhouse gases, but the most abundant greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Shortwave radiation from the sun passes through greenhouse gases, but longwave radiation is absorbed by them. Greenhouse gases absorb longwave radiation that is emitted by the surface of the earth. Subsequently, they re-emit the energy as longwave radiation in all directions. About half of the re-emitted longwave radiation does escape into space, and contributes to the planet’s radiative equilibrium.
About half of the longwave radiation emitted by the gases is directed back toward the surface of the earth. As a result, a continual exchange of longwave radiation takes place between the surface of the earth and the atmosphere above it. The longwave radiation contained in this exchange causes the warming effect known as the greenhouse effect. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect because, like the glass on a greenhouse, the atmosphere traps some of the energy beneath it.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/PlanetEarthScience/GlobalWarming/GW_Movie3.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
What is the Greenhouse Effect? The glass walls and roof of a greenhouse allow most of the sun's light in, but do not allow most of the heat to escape. This causes the temperature inside the greenhouse to be warmer than outside. The earth's atmosphere, and in particular carbon dioxide (CO²) and water vapor (H²O), acts like a greenhouse, trapping heat and making the earth warmer.
http://wdc.obs-mip.fr/globalwarming/greeneffect.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The greenhouse effect occurs when the atmosphere of a planet acts much like the glass in a greenhouse. Like the greenhouse glass, the atmosphere allows visible solar energy to pass through, but it also prevents some energy from radiating back out into space. The greenhouse effect insures that the surface of a planet is much warmer than interplanetary space because the atmosphere traps heat in the same way a greenhouse traps heat. Certain gases in our atmosphere, called greenhouse gases, tend to reflect radiant energy from the Earth's atmosphere back to the Earth's surface, improving the atmosphere's ability to trap heat.
http://www.fsl.noaa.gov/outreach/education/sam1/Activity5.html
http://www.fsl.noaa.gov/outreach/education/samii/SAMII_Act6.pdf

Draft of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
The name "greenhouse effect" comes from the analogy with a greenhouse made of glass which allows sunlight to enter but restricts infrared energy from leaving, thus warming the interior. [...] The natural greenhouse effect is neither harmful nor mysterious. Its basic principles are well-understood and are firmly based on fundamental physics.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/drafts/AR4WG1_Ch01_FOD.pdf

Hunan University, China
• Light from the sun includes the entire visible region and smaller portions of the adjacent UV and infrared regions.
• Sunlight penetrates the atmosphere and warms the earth’s surface.
• Longer wavelength infrared radiation is radiated from the earth’s surface.
• A considerable amount of the outgoing IR radiation is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and reradiated back to earth.
The gases in the atmosphere that act like glass in a greenhouse are called greenhouse gases.
http://jpkc.lzjtu.edu.cn/hjhx/jpkc/7.ppt

The Public Broadcasting Service
In part, we owe our existence to a process called the greenhouse effect. Inside an artificial greenhouse filled with plants, the surrounding glass traps the sun's energy, making it warm inside, even while outside the temperature may be much colder. This same effect happens every day on the Earth. Gases within the atmosphere act like glass, trapping the sun's heat.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/greenhouse.html

BBC
A greenhouse works because of the glass panels that line the roof and walls. The glass is transparent to the visible light from the sun, so sunlight can shine in and warm things inside the greenhouse. Now a body at about 35°C emits mostly infrared radiation. (On the other hand our sun, with a surface temperature of about 5500°C, emits mostly visible light.) The glass panels are opaque to infrared light. The result is that the glass lets the energy of the sun in, but won't let it back out. This keeps the inside of a greenhouse warm. Replace the greenhouse with Earth and glass panels with atmosphere in the above example, and that is how the Earth's greenhouse effect works.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A283277

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)
Have you ever been inside a greenhouse on a cold winter day? It might be cold outside, but inside the greenhouse lush green plants flourish in the warmth and sunshine. Greenhouses are made of glass and are designed to hold heat inside. The atmospheres of some planets are able to trap energy just like a greenhouse. Energy from the Sun can enter the atmosphere, but not all of it can easily find its way out again. What blocks the Sun’s energy from escaping a planet’s atmosphere? Unlike a greenhouse, planets do not have a layer of glass over them! Instead, molecules in the atmosphere called greenhouse gases absorb the heat.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/greenhouse_effect.html

University of Michigan
The "greenhouse effect" is the heating of the Earth due to the presence of greenhouse gases. It is named this way because of a similar effect produced by the glass panes of a greenhouse. Shorter-wavelength solar radiation from the sun passes through Earth's atmosphere, then is absorbed by the surface of the Earth, causing it to warm. Part of the absorbed energy is then reradiated back to the atmosphere as long wave infared radiation. Little of this long wave radiation escapes back into space; the radiation cannot pass through the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases selectively transmit the infared waves, trapping some and allowing some to pass through into space. The greenhouse gases absorb these waves and re-emits the waves downward, causing the lower atmosphere to warm.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

Cary Academy, North Carolina
The term "greenhouse effect" describes how the gasses in Earth's atmosphere retain the radiant energy from the sun instead of letting it fly back out into space. The glass of the greenhouse works the same way. In short, the gasses in the atmosphere let energy in and don't let all the energy back out.
http://web1.caryacademy.org/chemistry/rushin/StudentProjects/CompoundWebSites/2000/CarbonDioxide /greenhouse_effect.htm

Appalachian State University, North Carolina
Selective Absorbers and Greenhouse Effect. Our atmosphere is a selective filter since it is transparent to some wavelengths and absorbs others. The greenhouse effect occurs when the energy absorbed is not all be radiated because of the filtering of the atmosphere. Some of the earth’s radiated energy is reflected back to the surface. Consequently the earth’s atmosphere has an increased temperature. This process is much like the action of glass in a greenhouse.
http://www.physics.appstate.edu/courses/FirstExamReview.rtf

The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
3. greenhouse effect
a. transmission can depend on wavelength of radiation
b. glass
1) readily transmits shortwave radiation but not longwave radiation
2) that’s why heat builds up in a closed automobile
c. greenhouse effect: the trapping of heat in the lower troposphere because of differential transmissivity for short and long waves
1) greenhouse gases readily transmit incoming shortwave radiation from the sun but do not easily transmit outgoing longwave terrestrial radiation
2) most important greenhouse gases: water vapor and CO²
3) terrestrial radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases and reradiated back toward the surface
http://web.uccs.edu/geogenvs/ges100-online/Chapt4.doc

Nathan Phillips, Associate Professor, Geography and Environment Boston University
A simple greenhouse effect model
A. Glass represents the ‘normal’ greenhouse effect on earth and is at top of atmosphere
B. Solar shortwave radiation S largely makes it to surface
C. For energy balance, top of glass must send S back out
D. Greenhouse gases don’t have a preferred direction; they send S units in both directions – up and down
E. Thus, the surface of the earth recieves 2S due to the greenhouse effect – instead of 1S if there were no atmosphere!
G. Thermal radiation emitted from earth = 2S
http://people.bu.edu/nathan/ge510_06_6.pdf

ThinkQuest Education Foundation
In a greenhouse, heat from the sun enters the glass. The heat in the form of infra-red light bounces and heads back up towards the glass. The glass then allows only some of this heat to escape, but reflects back another portion. This heat remains bouncing within the greenhouse. In the case of planet Earth, there is no glass, but there is an atmosphere which retains heat or releases heat.
http://library.thinkquest.org/11353/greenhouse.htm

Moorland School, Earth Science (UK)
Imagine that Earth has been encircled by a giant glass sphere. The heat of the sun penetrates through the glass. Some of the heat is absorbed by the Earth, and some of it is radiated back towards space. The radiated heat reaches the glass sphere and is prevented from dispersing any further. Similarly, the earth is surrounded by a blanket of gases. This blanket traps energy in the atmosphere, much the same way as glass traps heat inside a greenhouse. This results in an accumulation of energy, and the overall warming of the atmosphere. The 'greenhouse effect' is the popular expression for the above process.
http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/greenhou.htm

Eli Rabett
What happens in a greenhouse is the same mechanism that heats a car up when you close the windows. The sun’s light (radiation) shines through the glass. The light energy checks in, but it can’t get out because both air flow (most important) and conduction are closed off. The fancy name for air flow is convection. We might fall into the habit of using that below. That leaves radiation. The wavelength of radiation emitted from a surface depends on the temperature of the surface according to a formula first derived by Max Planck. It turns out that the emission from the sun is peaked in the green which can pass through the glass windows, but the radiation from surfaces at 300 C is peaked at much longer wavelengths in the infrared (IR), which is absorbed by the glass. The IR radiation inside the car can heat the air inside the car, but, because it is adsorbed by the glass windows and the metal, it cannot get out.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2005/10/people-who-tell-you-that-greenhouse.html

Grandview High School, Missouri
Have you ever walked through a green house in late January? The temperature on the outside may have been quite cold but the temperature on the inside might have felt almost balmy! This is not because of a giant furnace located in the back of the green house, but because of the green house effect. When rays from the sun travel through the glass, it strikes all materials within the greenhouse. Because of this, the objects will heat up as does everything that comes in contact with the suns infrared rays (heat). These rays generally bounce back towards where they came from unless there is a barrier to keep them in. Yes that’s right, a barrier such as glass!
The Green House Effect
Once the infrared rays bounce off of the objects contained in the green house, some of the rays get trapped inside of the greenhouse because of the glass. The rays then bounce off of the glass and back towards all of the objects in the green house. As the rays of infrared radiation (found in sunlight) bounce all over the greenhouse, the greenhouse heats up.
http://www.csd4.k12.mo.us/egits/MAP%20TAP/Andy%20Leech/greenhouse.ppt

Science Encyclopedia
The greenhouse effect is the retention by the Earth's atmosphere in the form of heat some of the energy that arrives from the Sun as light. Certain gases, including carbon dioxide (CO²) and methane (CH4), are transparent to most of the wavelengths of light arriving from the Sun but are relatively opaque to infrared or heat radiation; thus, energy passes through the Earth's atmosphere on arrival, is converted to heat by absorption at the surface and in the atmosphere, and is not easily re-radiated into space. The same process is used to heat a solar greenhouse, only with glass, rather than gas, as the heat-trapping material.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/3148/Greenhouse-Effect.html

California Environmental Protection Agency
Simply put, the greenhouse effect compares the earth and the atmosphere surrounding it to a greenhouse with glass panes. Plants in a greenhouse thrive because the glass panes keep the air inside at a fairly even temperature day and night, and throughout the four seasons of the year. Just as the glass lets heat from sunlight in and reduces the heat escaping, greenhouse gasesand some particles in the atmosphere keep the
Earth at a relatively even temperature.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/ccbackground.pdf

The Atmosphere, Climate & Environment (ACE) Information Programme (UK)
The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere act in a similar way to panes of glass in a greenhouse (see Figure 2 below). Radiation from the Sun (consisting mainly of visible and ultraviolet (UV) radiation) can travel through glass into the greenhouse. When this radiation is absorbed by objects in the greenhouse, it is re-radiated as infrared (IR) radiation, or heat. This heat cannot escape through the glass, so the greenhouse warms up.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/01p.html (look at the self-contradictory illustration!)

The University of Winnipeg
As glass in a greenhouse traps heat inside, gases in the upper atmosphere trap some of the heat escaping the Earth, creating a greenhouse effect.
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node204.html

The University of the Western Cape, South Africa
A greenhouse is made entirely of glass. When sunlight (shortwave radiation) strikes the glass, most of it passes through and warms up the plants, soil and air inside the greenhouse. As these objects warm up they give off heat, but these heat waves have a much longer wavelength than the incoming rays from the sun. This longwave radiation cannot easily pass through glass, it is re-radiated into the greenhouse, causing everything in it to heat up.
http://www.botany.uwc.ac.za/envfacts/facts/gwarming.htm

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa
Energy coming from the sun passes through the atmosphere and warms the Earth - but the emitted infra-red radiation coming from the Earth's surface is partly absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and some of it is re-emitted downwards, further warming the surface of the Earth and the lower levels of the atmosphere. This effect has been called the 'greenhouse effect' because of a similar effect caused by glass in a greenhouse: it
lets sunlight into the greenhouse but in turn traps a portion of infra-red radiation (heat) inside the greenhouse.
http://www.environment.gov.za/ClimateChange2005/Greenhouse_Gases_and_the_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
The gases that encircle the Earth allow some of this heat to escape into space, but absorb some and reflect another portion back to the Earth. The process is similar in Mountain View, only, the greenhouse there is made of glass instead of gas.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_10_22.html

The Institute for Educational Technology, Italy
Just as it happens in a greenhouse where the function carbon dioxide performs in the atmosphere is played by glass-rafters, the sun's energy arrives down at the earth, where it is partially absorbed and partially reflected. Such reflected heat, however, is reflected again, by glass as for the greenhouse, by carbon dioxide as for the atmosphere, down on earth: it is as if a part of the heat were entrapped, thus determining a growth of temperature on the ground.
http://www.itd.cnr.it/ge8/rivista/inglese/num_2/galil3.htm

University of Cincinnati College of Engineering, Ohio
Greenhouses are much warmer inside than the air is outside because the glass is transparent to light and allows short-wavelength light to pass through and heat the contents of the greenhouse. It also reflects back the longer wavelength heat radiating within the greenhouse, thus preventing if from passing back out. In a glass greenhouse, heat builds up and gets trapped due to presence of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gases in the upper atmosphere. CO² is analogous to glass.
http://www.eng.uc.edu/~pbishop/Chapter-3-Slides.ppt

Miami-Dade Environmental Resources Department, Florida
The phenomenon gets its name from the similarity to a garden greenhouse. Visible light passes through the glass ceiling and walls of a greenhouse. Some of the light is absorbed, some is reflected back, and a portion of it is radiated out as heat. Glass, like carbon dioxide (CO²) and other "greenhouse gases" doesn't allow heat to escape back out.
http://www.miamidade.gov/derm/climate_change_greenhouse_effect.asp

University of Washington, School of Oceanography
Greenhouse effect: a blanket of water vapor and CO² and methane CH4 traps the upward infra-red ‘longwave’ or ‘heat’ radiation. The pane-of-glass model assumes total absorption of upward infrared waves yet no absorption of visible light..both of which are not completely accurate, hence the numbers are not applicable to the real atmosphere, yet demonstrate the effect. — incoming solar radiation, I in watts/meter² — some is simply reflected back to space the rest is absorbed by ocean and land and atmosphere yet reradiated as infrared heat, both upward and downward (red arrows) — The net effect of the ‘blanket’ of atmosphere is to have more downward radiation toward the Earth’s surface than just the incident sunlight.
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/as222d/lecture2(6)-slides07.pdf

Saskatchewan Schools and School Divisions, Canada
The heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere behave like the glass of a greenhouse. They let much of the Sun’s rays in, but keep most of that heat from directly escaping. This is why they are called greenhouse gases. Without these gases, heat energy absorbed and reflected from the Earth’s surface would easily radiate back out to space, leaving the planet with an inhospitable temperature close to –19°C (2°F), instead of the present
average surface temperature of 15°C (59°F).
http://www.saskschools.ca/~greenall/scienceprojects/greenhouse_effect.htm

U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
Just like the glass of a greenhouse traps warm air inside, certain gases in the atmosphere trap heat that would otherwise escape into space.
http://globalwarming.house.gov/issues/globalwarming?id=0002

The Austrian JI/CDM- Programme
The Earth's atmosphere is comparable to a glass roof of a greenhouse: the short-wave solar radiation passes through nearly unhindered and warms the Earth's surface. From the Earth's surface, the short-wave radiation is partly absorbed and partly reflected back as long-wave thermal radiation. However, this longwave thermal radiation cannot pass the atmosphere unhindered due to the greenhouse gases but is partly reflected back again to the Earth's surface. In absence of this natural greenhouse effect the average temperature on the Earth would not reach the present level of about plus 15 degrees Celsius, but about minus 18 degrees Celsius.
http://www.ji-cdm-austria.at/en/portal/kyotoandclimatechange/ourclimate/greenhouseeffect/

Torfaen County, Environment and Planning, Wales
Some of the energy from the sun is trapped inside our atmosphere as it is reflected back from the earth towards space. This natural process is called the greenhouse effect, as the atmosphere acts like the glass walls of a greenhouse, which allows the sun's rays to enter but keeps the heat in.
http://www.torfaen.gov.uk/EnvironmentAndPlanning/EnergyEfficiencyAdviceAndAssessment/ClimateChange/GreenhouseEffect.aspx

Fort Lewis College, Physics Department, Colorado
This partial trapping of solar radiation is known as the greenhouse effect. The name comes from the fact that a very similar process operates in a greenhouse. Sunlight passes relatively unhindered through glass panes, but much of the infrared radiation reemitted by the plants is blocked by the glass and cannot get out. Consequently, the interior of the greenhouse heats up, and flowers, fruits, and vegetables can grow even on
cold wintry days.
http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT307/HTML/AT30702.HTM

The National Assessment Synthesis Team, US Global Change Research Program
The composition of the atmosphere is particularly important because certain gases (including water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, halocarbons, ozone, and nitrous oxide) absorb heat radiated from the Earth's surface. As the atmosphere warms, it in turn radiates heat back to the surface, to create what is commonly called the "greenhouse effect."
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewclimate.htm

One can feel the common pattern of crackpot Physics now.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Many claims with no support at all are just that, claims. Until you can come up with supporting material, you claims are as substantiated as mist at sun rise.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Many claims with no support at all are just that, claims. Until you can come up with supporting material, you claims are as substantiated as mist at sun rise. I am not discussing the misnomer but the effect at work. Care to show me an experience that demonstrates the heating by CO² IR radiation in a greenhouse?

Naming the atmosphere 'Greenhouse effect' is an analogy not a scientific proof. There is no need to show that CO2 heats by IR radiation in a Greenhouse. Because the functioning of the atmosphere is not contingent upon a proof of the functioning of the greenhouse. Again analogy not dependency.

Greenhouses function by convection. The atmospheric effects work with IR. You already provided us the famous work from this in 1909. When one breaks down the layman's descriptions to the actual science one realizes there is no dependency here and the problem is in the poor analogy or misnomer.

Demonstrating heating of CO2 via IR in a greenhouse is not how a greenhouse works therefore the atmospheric greenhouse doesn't exist is the fallacy of an unstated major premise. You created an imaginary relationship that the actual science never claimed. Then you further knocked down your own claim it's another fallicous argument, strawman.

Your list of quotes is the politic not the science. An important distinction you've drawn out before but somehow missed. The unsupported claims are your own. Waxing poetic about the mist doesn't save your proof of a misnomer.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Jul-2009 at 03:50 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Naming the atmosphere 'Greenhouse effect' is an analogy not a scientific proof. There is no need to show that CO2 heats by IR radiation in a Greenhouse. Because the functioning of the atmosphere is not contingent upon a proof of the functioning of the greenhouse. Again analogy not dependency.

Quite. I was going to describe the attack on a nominal greenhouse effect as a strawman argument. All the climate science books I'm reading refer to the greenhouse effect but say it is a misnomer as we are really talking about radiative transfer concerning which there is plenty of evidence, the science being built into the climate models. The denialists cannot allow this because their case, weak as it is, collapses utterly - hence denialist.

Concerning the various laws refered to I am interested to notice that climate science uses them throughout.

Noel

My transmission is gone on my car, again, do I fix it or throw it away? Where is a long range , affordable electric car when I want one? Have you noticed the latest on Lithium-Air batteries?
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22926/
10 times capacity, cheaper. Always coming in a few years, argh!

Noel

@TMTisFree

Quote:

A solid is required. Therefore, blackbody radiation remains exclusively a property of the solid state

I take it those esteemed scientists have never visited Hawaii?

@TMTisFree

Quote:

What's that? I have no belief: I am convinced or not, as every true scientist.

If only this were true we could have much more constructive discussions. I regret I do not consider you a scientist in the areas of this discussion, but an advocate, else you would not recycle so prolifically such cherry picked or mislabelled graphs as the last ones or be guilty of presenting so many strawman arguments.

INoel

@TMTisFree

Quote:

This means that the recorded sea levels have been corrected for atmospheric pressure, which can make quite a bit of difference

From the Boulder site itself: Quote:

The inverted barometer does not have much apparent effect on the global mean sea level because the ocean as a whole is not compressible.

Obviously true, but the ocean is a lumpy place quite apart from waves; highs and lows make a lot of local difference to readings, the more so when the rise in sea-level is being measured in 2 to 3.5 mm / year. Did you look at the graph with inverse barometer applied? The long term trend is clearer and there is obviously less room for cherry picking.

Noel

@umisef

Quote:

I take it those esteemed scientists have never visited Hawaii?

LOL Your avatar looks much to serious for this reply.

Noel

@umisef

Quote:

umisef wrote: @TMTisFree Quote: A solid is required. Therefore, blackbody radiation remains exclusively a property of the solid state I take it those esteemed scientists have never visited Hawaii?

Heck they don't even need to get to Hawaii. They just have to look at the nearest star, we call it the Sun. Since stars have no surface any radiation that enters is absorbed and lost. The Sun itself is very close to the theoretically perfect black body radiator. (Do note that a black body radiator is a theoretical object. No perfect bbr exists.) The sun is also not a solid.

Umisef provided a very strong example of a non-solid, eg lava flow , which is a bbr. If we need more evidence well stars are clearly big enough and numerous enough to do that. With real life examples the claim, blackbody radiation remains exclusively a property of the solid state, has been demonstrated to not be true.

@BrianK

Quote:

Umisef provided a very strong example of a non-solid, eg lava flow ,

Actually, a much nicer example can be observed wherever metal with a sufficiently high melting point is being melted --- i.e. where one can see the (lack of) change in radiation between the solid of a given temperature and the liquid of the same temperature.

However, few people ever have the chance to get close to such a process (I cherish the experience of touring a big steel production facility in Slovenia back in the 80s, when concerns for the physical safety of visiting tourists were rather less developed than they are today. Electro-smelting is impressive, too!), whereas the lava on Hawaii is a tourist attraction.

@BrianK

Quote:

Naming the atmosphere 'Greenhouse effect' is an analogy not a scientific proof.

You should reread the quotes I gave because they are more than analogy: they use the greenhouse as an explanation. So your claim is false.

Quote:

Your list of quotes is the politic not the science

So true BrianK, so true: NASA, NOAA, IPCC, EPA, etc explanations are all political nowadays, not scientific.

Quote:

Waxing poetic about the mist doesn't save your proof of a misnomer.

I gave support for my claim at least. Your claims are orphan.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

they use the greenhouse as an explanation. So your claim is false

None make the claim that there is a definitive relationship or dependency between the operation of the atmosphere and the operation of a greenhouse.

Quote:

So true BrianK, so true: NASA, NOAA, IPCC, EPA, etc explanations are all political nowadays, not scientific

If one reads the descriptions and not the papers, as in your long listing, this is exactly true.

Quote:

I gave support for my claim at least. Your claims are orphan.

Of course my claims aren't orphan I simply didn't care to repeat the details of this disagreement all over again. Since you insisted this relationship was true. I did a repeat of what had already been covered in a previous thread.

Proving the greenhouse effect and an actual greenhouse are not related does not disprove the 'greenhouse effect' it simply proves the analogy is bad and the term is a misnomer.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

If only this were true we could have much more constructive discussions.

I understand you are so frustrated I rebut your unsupported scares or junk claims each time I saw one that this ends the discussion. My bad...

Quote:

I regret I do not consider you a scientist in the areas of this discussion, but an advocate

Your consideration weights peanut. But certainly for alarmists a scientist is now mainly a computer fraudster who can twist real world data to fit his tuned model. So certainly I am an advocate of proper use of Science/scientific methods and surely I am also biased towards integrity because of that. So evidently we will never reconcile our views or opinions and it is good because ethics and morality are not negotiable.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@umisef

Quote:

I take it those esteemed scientists have never visited Hawaii?

Where is the (continuous) curve of the spectral intensity distribution of the black-body radiation?

Bye
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

the ocean is a lumpy place quite apart from waves; highs and lows make a lot of local difference to readings

The plot is a global one, so irrelevant.

Quote:

Did you look at the graph with inverse barometer applied? The long term trend is clearer and there is obviously less room for cherry picking.

Take the one you want. I don't see acceleration of sea level rise as suggested by your alarmist article. On the contrary, the sea level rise has slightly decreased in 2008 from 3.3 to 3.2mm/y. Anyway this sea rising scare is only an attempt from fear-mongers to divert the naives from their real agenda as the rising is almost stable since 8000 years, well correlated with the stabilization of temperature:







Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".