Team Deciphers Sea-Level Rise From Last Time Earth’s CO2 Was as High as Today

@gfm7175

You are denying the greenhouse effect and without it the earth would be a frozen planet. Read the free article published in Geophysical Research Letters. The atmospheric back-radiation can be

measured with a device called a pyrgeometer.

5. Conclusions [13] We have shown that longwave downward radiation flux increases at Earth’s surface can be accurately measured, subdivided and explicitly explained and backed with model
calculations as cloud-, temperature-, water vapour- and enhanced greenhouse gas radiative forcing effect. Large differences on uncorrected longwave downward radiation measurements, which are caused by local effects such as cloud variability and temperature and humidity variations can be properly accounted for. The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations.

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth’s surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect Rolf Philipona,1 Bruno Du¨ rr,1 Christoph Marty,1 Atsumu Ohmura,2 and Martin Wild2 Received 3 October 2003; revised 3 December 2003; accepted 23 December 2003; published 6 February 2004.

 

You are saying that carbon dioxide molecules and the atmosphere can only radiate in a direction away from the earth; radiating towards the earth is

forbidden because that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How can a molecule of carbon dioxide know in which direction to radiate a photon?

The 2nd law does not apply to individual molecules. The direction of emission by an individual CO2 molecule is a random event.

If what you are saying is true then why isn't the surface of the earth covered with ice?

The Greenhouse effect (from Wikipedia)

Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared radiation. About 26% of the incoming solar energy is reflected to space by the atmosphere and clouds, and 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds. Most of the remaining energy is absorbed at the surface of Earth. Because the Earth's surface is colder than the Sun, it radiates at wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and warms it. The atmosphere also gains heat by sensible and latent heat fluxes from the surface. The atmosphere radiates energy both upwards and downwards; the part radiated downwards is absorbed by the surface of Earth. This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere did not radiate.

An ideal thermally conductive blackbody at the same distance from the Sun as Earth would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C (41.5 °F). However, because Earth reflects about 30%[16][17] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C (0 °F).[18][19] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C (59 °F) below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C (57 °F).[20] The greenhouse effect is the contribution of greenhouse gases to this difference.

 

There are some whose grasp of science is so tenuous as to become ludicrous

 

Absolutely correct. I do deny it. There is no such thing, since a colder body cannot heat a warmer body.

The atmosphere is not a "magick blanket". You cannot make heat flow backwards. You cannot slow or trap heat.

 

And no one apart from you is attesting that this happens

 

Putting it another way

 

I didn't say that. It can radiate in all directions. However, if a photon is not of sufficient energy to elevate the body's energy state to the next higher energy state, then that new photon will not be absorbed. See Planck's Law.

Didn't say it did.

Because the sun heats it.

I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source for anything.

The authoritative source for this discussion is the theories of science themselves.

 

I agree.

A lot of them are here on this forum. I am attempting to educate them.

 

This very graphic is attesting that it supposedly happens.

It is also completely making up the 30% number...

 

This graphic is also making the same bogus claims...

 

Even myth busters have proven the co2 effect

 

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

Again PROVE they are wrong

 

I suppose this is wrong too?

 

Then pick a nice sunny day.... get in your car.....park in the sunlight.... roll up all the windows... and then convince yourself that a cooler body..... Windows ....... will not generate heat.

 

And don't be tellin me there is a difference and the atmosphere doesn't work like that. Cause it do.

 

You are equivocating 'heat' with 'thermal energy'. Heat is NOT thermal energy. Heat is the flow (movement) of thermal energy.

All that is happening in your above example is a reduction of heat. That reduction of heat is due to the clear windows of the vehicle limiting the convection to the outside air. In other words, the coupling between the vehicle air and the outside air has been reduced. This is precisely how greenhouses work...

Open up the windows fully, and the vehicle air will still be a bit warmer than the outside air (due to the vehicle frame still limiting convection), but the vehicle will now be cool enough to sit inside of, even with the sun shining down on it, due to increasing the size of the coupling between the vehicle air and the outside air (thus increasing heat).

 

Never mind.

 

I know - the level of “wrong” is rather astounding

 

What, the greenhouse gases you say are NOT heating the planet?

Let’s start with some definitions

http://www.biocab.org/Heat.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatra.html

 

What happens to a carbon dioxide molecule that emits a photon downwards towards slightly warmer carbon dioxide molecules? Can the warmer carbon dioxide molecule absorb the photon coming

from a cooler carbon dioxide molecule? Warmer carbon dioxide molecules can absorb photons coming from cooler carbon dioxide molecules and that is all that is necessary for

carbon dioxide molecules to transmit energy from high elevations in the atmosphere to very low elevations. A photon typically travels a short distance before it is absorbed except for the higher regions

of the troposphere. The carbon dioxide molecules that are closest to the earth's surface can transmit energy directly to the surface of the earth. Water is capable of absorbing photons.

The sun alone cannot provide enough energy to prevent the earth's surface from being covered with ice.

The earth is not a closed system, it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is about what happens to an isolated system over time. An isolated

system has a tendency to become more disordered with time. What you are talking about is the following (an isolated system or a closed system):

When a hot and a cold body are brought into contact with each other, heat energy will flow from the hot body to the cold body until they reach thermal equilibrium, i.e., the same temperature. However, the heat will never move back the other way; the difference in the temperatures of the two bodies will never spontaneously increase. Moving heat from a cold body to a hot body requires work to be done by an external energy source such as a heat pump.

The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[32] His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[33]

Heat can pass from a colder body to a warmer body if more heat flows in the other direction (from earth's surface to the atmosphere) and this process is driven by the sun.

When evaluating whether or not there is a violation of the second law, one has
to examine the change in entropy for the entire system, which would include
all parts that are in thermal equilibrium. You can't single out one portion of
the system.

 

The 2LOT says that heat flows from a warm body to a cool body in an isolated system. That last bit is extremely important is often overlooked by contrarians. An isolated system is one that has no transport of energy or mass across its boundaries. Other words or phrases used to describe this important and often ignored clause are spontaneously, left to its own means, without external stimuli, etc. Heat most certainly can move from a cool body to warm body if you manipulate the system. My HVAC and refrigerator do this everyday and they certainly aren't breaking the 2LOT. The reason...they are receiving an external injection of energy and work is being performed on those systems.

What's happening in the atmosphere is that there is an external injection of energy into the system (the Sun). This energy injection and the configuration in which the system exists allows entropy to decrease locally (geosphere) even though the entropy of the isolated system (solar system) is increasing. That is the lower atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and lithosphere are warming while the stratosphere is cooling. The 2LOT is perfectly consistent with this observation because the geosphere is not an isolated system.

 

The insulation in my house traps heat. It is a thermal barrier that acts to impede the flow of heat away from my house. But it does not prevent the ingress of energy (natural gas) into my home which is then used to raise the temperature. The furnace is a warm body that is heating the inside of my house which is a cool body. The insulation slows the rate of heat loss away from my house thus augmenting the furnaces ability to warm it. The furnace will bring my home to a higher equilibrium temperature in the presence of the insulation.

Similarly the atmosphere of Earth traps heat. It is a thermal barrier that acts to impede the flow of heat away from Earth. But it does not prevent the ingress of energy (shortwave radiation) into the geosphere which is then used to raise the temperature. The Sun is a warm body that is heating the geopshere which is a cool body. The atmosphere slows the rate of heat loss away from the geosphere thus augmenting the Sun's ability to warm it. The Sun will bring the geopshere to a higher equilibrium temperature in the presence of the atmosphere.

Neither scenario requires heat to flow backwards. You can, in fact, slow the transport of heat. You, I, and everyone else do it everyday.

 

If you reject the GHE then how do you explain the 150+ years of thermopile and spectroscopy experiments that clearly demonstrate that polyatomic gas species impede the transmission of radiation and instead return it back to the source?

If you reject the GHE then how do you explain the ABI instrument on the GOES-R satellites plus all of the other radiometers on various satellites in orbit ability to detect water vapor in the atmosphere?

If you reject the GHE then how do you explain the warming underneath and cooling above the GHG layer when the concentration of GHGs increases?

If you reject the GHE then how do you explain the faint young Sun problem?

If you reject the GHE then how do you explain the global mean temperature trend post WWII?

 

It lives...

I explain it by expressing what is obvious. Data manipulation. There is no other explanation necessary.