Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bringiton, Jan 31, 2021.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, but that's just not true.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because it was published four years ago, and thus didn't include any of the research done after it was published....? True. Too bad the research done since then has only confirmed that early ECS estimates were absurdly high.

    :lol:
     
    Jack Hays and Sunsettommy like this.
  3. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    My original post: The water vapor feedback alone would result in a climate sensitivity slightly higher than 2.0 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 and if we add in the albedo positive feed back and the cloud positive feedback the climate sensitivity can't be much less than 2.5 degrees C for a doubling of CO2.

    It wasn't made-up nonsense.

    NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

    Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

    "The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

    Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature. That's because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth's troposphere -- the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth's surface to about 10 miles in altitude.

    AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

    “This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

    Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).
    .
    Two other studies cited in the article below also confirm the powerful effect of water vapor feedback. The water vapor feedback is also
    supported by climate models and evidence from thermodynamic theory.

    Water‐vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008 - Dessler - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

    The water-vapor feedback is one of the most important in our climate system, with the capacity to about double the direct warming from greenhouse gas increases [Manabe and Wetherald, 1967; Randall et al., 2007]. In this paper, we observe and quantify the behavior of atmospheric water vapor and the water-vapor feedback during variations of the Earth's climate between 2003 and 2008.


    The most recent IPCC AR6 report finds a +0.23 watts per square meter for cloud feedback as of the year 2019. The surface refectance or surface albedo change was found to be slightly negative at -0.06 wats/square meter and that is related to land use and black carbon. The Arctic ice albedo feedback is positive and will
    be positive in the near future. If the earth's surface continues to warm, then there
    will be a positive feedback from the melting of Southern Hemisphere ice surrounding Antarctica.

    A positive cloud feedback of 0.4 watts per square meter for a doubling of carbon dioxide is supported by empirical and theoretical evidence. There is much
    uncertainty in that feedback, but the best evidence supports a positive cloud feedback. This is related to a reduction in lower and middle tropospheric
    clouds. Sherwood and others cite 4 studies supporting this conclusion.
    An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence (illinois.edu)
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  4. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    One site in Greenland does not represent a global average. The graph below represents 6 different ice core sites on Greenland. There are many factors that can affect the temperature at a specific site on Greenland other than changing
    levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Factcheck: What Greenland ice cores say about past and present climate change (carbonbrief.org)

    Scientists reconstructing past Greenland temperatures now use estimates from many different ice cores, which reduces the uncertainties associated with any single one and gives a more accurate picture of changes over Greenland as a whole.

    Alley made this point explicitly, telling Revkin:

    “So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

    Multi-core reconstructions
    A more modern Greenland temperature reconstruction, based on six different ice cores, was published by Prof Bo Vinther of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen and colleagues in Nature in 2009.

    Speaking to Carbon Brief, Vinther suggests that this multi-core Holocene reconstruction provides a number of advantages over the old GISP2 series, using ice core 18O data corrected for past elevation change and “tuned” to fit ice core borehole temperatures at four locations.




    [​IMG]

    Greenland temperature reconstruction from Vinther et al. (2009) using proxy data from six ice cores. Data spans the past 12,000 years with a resolution of 20 years. Observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth is shown at the end in black, with a 20-year smooth applied to match the proxy resolution. Proxy records and observations are aligned over the 1880-1960 period.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  5. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I skimmed through the paper and I found it interesting that even with evidence for greenhouse gas saturation, the paper still concluded
    that the climate sensitivity was 2.3 degrees C. for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, assuming a constant relative humidity.
    That result conflicts greatly with the results from the David Coe paper that was introduced to us by Jack Hays. In that paper the
    climate sensitivity was found to be 0.45 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  6. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    In-depth Q&A: The IPCC’s sixth assessment report on climate science | Carbon Brief

    A negative cloud feedback is very unlikely.
    The climate sensitivity is expected to rise as the Earth heats up because feedbacks are expected to become stronger and amplify radiative forcings - with high confidence.

    Also mentioned in the IPCC AR6 report is the fact that the Earth's energy imbalance has become greater in recent decades (more positive)
    and that means more global warming is in the pipeline.
    Earth's energy imbalance was +0.79 watts per sq. meter during 2006 - 2018, +0.72 watts per sq. meter during 1993 - 2018, and +0.57 watts per
    sq. meter during 1971 - 2018.

    Everything below is from The Carbon brief article.

    The report gives a best estimate of the cloud feedback of +0.42 Watts per metre squared per degree C (W/m2/C) with a very likely range of -0.10 to +0.94W/m2/C. This compares with the best estimate and range given in AR5 (pdf) of +0.60 (-0.20 to +2.0) W/m2/C.

    It adds that there is “agreement” between its estimates of cloud feedback and what can be inferred directly from observations.

    While there is high confidence that clouds remain the largest part of the uncertainty in feedbacks overall, AR6 says that a negative cloud feedback that dampens future warming is now thought to be very unlikely.

    The findings are fully in line with a major study of cloud feedbacks, based on satellite observations and published just weeks before the AR6 report came out.

    Finally, AR6 emphasises that climate feedbacks are expected to become more powerful over time, with high confidence, further amplifying warming as the Earth heats up. It explains:

    “Feedback processes are expected to become more positive overall (more amplifying of global surface temperature changes) on multi-decadal timescales as the spatial pattern of surface warming evolves and global surface temperature increases.”

    The potential for climate feedbacks to change, depending on the state of the Earth system and the spatial pattern of warming, has long been recognised, the report says, but “the implications for projected future warming have been investigated only recently”.

    This new understanding helps to explain why estimates of ECS based on the instrumental record of warming since 1870 are too low, with high confidence, compared to the range presented in AR6.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Carbon Brief = advocacy site, i.e. not science.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Carbon Brief is a pure anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda site.
    That is almost literally a claim that white is black. It's nonsense no matter how you torture the data.
     
    Jack Hays and Sunsettommy like this.
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Being made up by NASA doesn't mean it wasn't made up.
    Which is why they have to concoct some rationalization for assuming strong water vapor feedback.
    But only microscopically.
    Which is absurd, as water vapor's IR absorption is already massively oversaturated and the effect is logarithmic.
    As long as you ignore facts that prove it isn't.
    "Inferred" = post hoc fallacy.
    "Finds" = fabricates.
    Bingo. Overestimates of water vapor feedback are based on assuming additional evaporated water won't condense out as cloud, and positive cloud feedback is based on assuming reduced condensation at lower altitude will not be balanced by increased condensation at higher altitude.

    It's all bull$#!+.
     
    Jack Hays and Sunsettommy like this.
  10. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Incredible since they keep ignoring the failure of the "Hot Spot" prediction, thus the absurd end run attempts, this is classic Pseudoscience bullcrap!

    [​IMG]

    Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

    LINK

    ======

    Positive Water Vapor feedback is tiny and has been for the decades since it was being searched for.
     
    bringiton and Jack Hays like this.
  11. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The Carbon brief was just reporting what was in the IPCC AR6 report, which is based on the best available science; the most
    cited and influential published scientific reports.

    It seems hypocritical for you to talk about mainstream scientific sources as not being science, and at the same time you are
    always posting articles from "fringe" websites like "The No Tricks Zone" and others that downplay human-caused global-warming
    like "Whats Up With That" and the Heartland Institute. Aren't those websites or groups advocating against mainstream climate science?

    Everything that you post seems to be from an advocacy website.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In almost every case the Sites I reference base their posts on peer-reviewed research or publicly available data. Carbon Brief has an agenda. Meanwhile:
    The IPCC has a problem with AR6.
    There's Trouble in the IPCC
     
  13. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reading more of his science-denying article is not going to somehow make him correct. He is still a science denier.

    Define "greenhouse gas".

    It is impossible to trap heat. This is the precise moment that you should be asking Jason Smerdon to provide you with a real life example of a perfect insulator. Only then will one be "trapping heat". Until then, there is no reason to believe that heat can be "trapped".

    These words should be a major red flag to you, clearly identifying Jason Smerdon as a science denying moron. Anytime you see some form of the words "might have otherwise", science is NOT being discussed. There is no "might have otherwise" in science.

    And, like I said before, and this actually IS science, the Stefan Boltzmann Law tells us that an object's radiance is proportionate to its temperature. IOW, if radiance increases, then temperature increases. Therefore, if Earth's radiance is being decreased via "trapped heat", then Earth's temperature is now COLDER, not warmer.

    No. That's just scientifically illiterate gibberbabble on Jason's part.

    Heat cannot be trapped. It doesn't happen anywhere in nature. Heat can be SLOWED, but it cannot be trapped.

    It absorbs SOME of that IR energy. A very narrow bandwidth of it, actually. Not all IR energy is the same. -- But yes, this warms up the CO2 molecule somewhat... big hairy deal.

    It doesn't "re-emit"; it just emits. It emits, as anything with a temperature emits.

    Nope... You cannot heat a warmer object (Earth's surface) with a colder object (CO2 molecule). Heat does NOT flow uphill... It only flows from hot to cold. Obviously, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is another bit of science that your "expert source" Jason Smerdon is denying.

    Heat from Earth's surface flows out into its atmosphere and then out into space. Half of this heat does not somehow "reverse course" and start flowing back "uphill" to Earth's surface.

    It is not possible to trap heat, even for a microsecond.

    You can't make mention of something that is outside of your chosen and clearly defined system (a "closed system"). In an earth-atmosphere system, there is no such thing as "space".

    There is no such thing as "space" in an earth-atmosphere system. You cannot switch back and forth between systems. You must clearly define it and stick with it (not referencing anything outside of it).

    It is not possible to accurately measure atmospheric CO2 content.

    Continued denial of the 2nd LoT.

    No, it is a stupid phrase. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator.

    "Greenhouse gas" is an undefined term. It remains a buzzword. It remains meaningless.

    How does this "greenhouse gas" (whatever THAT is) warm the atmosphere?

    There is no such thing as "space" in an earth-atmosphere system. You cannot reference anything that is outside of the clearly defined boundaries of your system. You cannot switch back and forth between different systems. -- Again, IF Earth WERE radiating less energy into space, then Earth would be COLDER, not warmer. See the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

    An unknown value, as it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy.

    More gibberbabble. Not science.

    Outside of whatever a "greenhouse gas" is, this is correct. A gas molecule's temperature will rise somewhat. Big whoop.

    Guess what happens to those "greenhouse gas" molecules that have "radiated IR energy in all directions"?? THEY COOL!!!!!!! You are conveniently (purposefully?) leaving that part out in your void-of-all-science fear mongering...

    Nope. Continued denial of the 2nd LoT. Heat cannot flow uphill... Heat cannot flow from cold to hot. Ice cubes do not make one's previously cool coffee hot.

    No, it doesn't. --- And here are more code words which clearly give away that science is not being discussed --- There is no presence of "than it [otherwise] would be" in science.

    Continued science denial.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  14. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it isn't. CO2 is not a blanket. It is a life essential gas.
     
  15. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's just what gases can do... what is "greenhouse" about that?
     
  16. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Indeed we have, yet you keep denying what is actually happening.

    Correct, and they don't have to be perfect insulators in order to usefully function. Neither does a thermos or a water cooler.

    WRONG. This is where you continue to deny what is actually happening. The blanket is not warming anything. This is where I, yet again, explain to you that putting a blanket over a rock does not make the rock any warmer. --- What is ACTUALLY happening, as I've already explained to you before, is a reduction of heat... IOW, the blanket is acting as a COUPLING REDUCER between the warmer trapped air underneath the blanket and the colder outside air. It is the person himself who is warming the trapped air underneath the blanket.

    What the blanket does for him is it allows him to consume less energy in order to maintain his body temperature (this is why blankets are useful for warm blooded creatures and why they are not useful for cold blooded creatures and rocks and other such objects). --- Without the blanket, his body couldn't keep up with maintaining his body temperature in his current surroundings. With the blanket (and the coupling reduction that it provides), he can now maintain his body temperature.

    So please stop acting as if the blanket somehow "warms" one's body, because it absolutely doesn't.
     
  17. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you or anyone else on this forum name a single climate scientist or physicist who denies the natural "greenhouse effect"? The phrase "greenhouse effect"
    is a misnomer since the physics of how the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface is very different from the way a greenhouse used for growing plants heats
    and controls the climate. I am using the phrase "greenhouse effect" to describe how some trace gases in the Earth's atmosphere can warm the Earth's surface.

    Don't you find it strange that you are disagreeing with every, or virtually every physicist in the world, not just Jason Smerdon?
    Have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong and those scientists are right?

    The Earth's radiance isn't being decreased because of trapped heat. Its radiance increases. Also an objects's radiance is not proportionate to its temperature.
    Its radiance is proportional to the 4th power of its temperature.

    The net flow of heat is from hot (Earth's surface) to cold (Earth's atmosphere) and that is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. One-half of the radiation emitted by a particular layer of the atmosphere is in the direction of the surface of the earth. The "back radiation" from all layers is almost as great as the radiation emitted by the surface of the earth and has been measured. It accounts for the Earth's surface temperature being on the average about 35 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without these trace gases.

    The effective temperature is about 255 degrees C; that is the Earth's surface temperature with no atmosphere. The Earth's surface and atmosphere together
    emit the same amount of energy as an earth with no atmosphere. Since a very large portion of that energy is emitted by the atmosphere, which is much
    cooler than the Earth's surface, this allows the Earth's surface temperature to be 35 degrees C. warmer without there being any violation of the 1st law
    of thermodynamics. Only about 10% of the Earth's radiant energy makes its way to space without being absorbed. That is 40.1 watts per square meter through the atmospheric window out of 398 watts per square meter.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  18. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The image below shows that carbon dioxide, ozone, and water vapor emit radiation at a lower temperature than the Earth's effective temperature, 255 degrees C.



    [​IMG]
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    17,357
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not denied, just not considered determinative. Here is the view of the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.
    . . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).
    [​IMG]
    Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I have proved you objectively wrong in every case, and will continue to do so. Watch:
    Or a "greenhouse" gas.
    No, you do.
    Then why do people buy them?
    No, this is where I yet again explain to you that the rock is not a source of heat. The body is, and so is the sun. Almost all heat from the sun PASSES THROUGH greenhouse gases because they do not absorb the short wavelengths of visible light, and then when that visible light from the sun is absorbed by the oceans and the ground, it heats them. The oceans and ground then emit infrared radiation that greenhouse gases DO absorb and re-emit, much like a blanket absorbs heat from the body and re-emits it.
    And I proved you wrong.
    Just as greenhouse gases do between the warmth of the earth and the cold of outer space. AS I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES IN CLEAR, SIMPLE, GRAMMATICAL ENGLISH AND YOU ALWAYS REFUSE TO KNOW.
    Just as it is the sun warming the earth. And just as the person under the blanket would be colder without it, so would the earth be colder without greenhouse gases.
    Wrong. His energy consumption is unchanged. He just feels more comfortable with warmer skin, just as the earth is more comfortable when its surface is warmed by greenhouse gases.
    No, I already proved you objectively wrong on that claim. Some people put sweaters on their pet iguanas in the winter precisely because it warms them and makes them more active.
    The rock is not getting any energy from outside. The earth is, and so is the body under the blanket (i.e., food).
    It could keep up his core temperature, just not his surface temperature JUST LIKE THE EARTH could without greenhouse gases.
    Wrong. It is his SURFACE temperature that the blanket increases, just as greenhouse gases increase the earth's SURFACE temperature.
    It absolutely does, as proved above, and that is the only reason people buy them.
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it is.
    Yes it is.
    It is both.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2021
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When a gas does not absorb incident short wavelengths of EM radiation from the sun but does absorb IR radiation emitted by the earth, that is what makes it a greenhouse gas.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have defined it for you a number of times: a gas that absorbs much more readily in the IR wavelengths preferentially emitted by the earth's surface than the visible wavelengths preferentially emitted by the sun.

    Continued science denial snipped.
     
  24. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    When I said the "natural greenhouse effect" I meant the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate to warm it by about 33 degrees C. before
    humans started burning fossil fuels. The human effect is called the "enhanced greenhouse effect". gfm7175 is arguing against both.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  25. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A "climate scientist or physicist" is NOT science, dude. I have provided you with THE SCIENCE that refutes your position (well, the position of Jason, anyway).

    No trace gas can warm the Earth's surface. You cannot warm coffee with ice cubes. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    You don't speak for "virtually every physicist in the world". -- Physicists are not science, dude.

    I did, but then I looked at SCIENCE (laws of thermodynamics, stefan boltzmann law, plank's law, ideal gas law, etc.) and determined that Jason Smerdon is a complete and utter idiot who denies science and peddles wacky religious nuttery instead.

    LOLOLOLOLOL, you (well, Jason Smerdon) just got done saying that it IS being DECREASED because of "trapped heat" (iow, that it is not escaping into space). Now you are locked in paradox.

    [1] Earth is radiating LESS due to "trapped heat".
    [2] Earth is radiating MORE due to "trapped heat".

    You must clear your paradox to continue. I will label this as 'Paradox A' from here on out, until you clear it.

    Paradox A.

    Yes, it is.

    Correct, or to simplify, radiance is proportionate to temperature.

    There is NO SUCH THING as "net flow" of heat. Heat cannot flow from cold to hot. Ice cubes cannot warm up coffee.

    RAAA. (repetitive argumentation already addressed) -- I am not going to type out the same thing a hundred times because you refuse to acknowledge my counterargumentation.

    Once again, to anyone reading this, if you see words similar to what I have bolded, then science is NOT being discussed. There is NO "than it [otherwise] would be" in science.

    Made up numbers... meh.
     

Share This Page