Evidence supporting AGW

is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?

I suppose the very small amount we have put in the atmosphere may increase the weight of the atmosphere by some unmeasurably small amount and that might result in some unmeasurably small increase in temperature due to pressure...but that is all. You seem to to fully grasp how small our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is....Here stop being a dupe and have a look what our CO2 actually looks like in the big picture......


wow she is a very intelligent first grade teacher. What does this have to do with anything? Where are her facts from? Bush's texas changed text books? Not to mention, ,increasing your cianide intake by four parts per million could have a big affect. I don't follow nor believe this silly video made by what you believe is over paid teachers. This would have been better if you put a few phds in front of her name and told me how much they were making off oil stocks. lool


CO2, the new cyanide

The AGWCult, membership limited only by your gullibility and ability to lie on a 24/7 basis

i was pointing out that part per million is relevant to the substances affect you babbling moron. go back to this third grade teacher and learn that ;poisons and toxins with carbon monoxide and dioxide are have negative affects even at low levels. ie asthma rate rising etc...


You AGWCult sickos think CO2 is a some lethal poison.

The fact is additional 120PPM CO2 in the atmosphere has NO EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE OR CLIMATE
 
SSDD - I am one who has said from the beginning that pressure is a factor in surface temperature. But it is not the only factor. This planet is in near equilibrium so pressure is no longer the important influence in small changes. But the escape of surface radiation is. How warm the atmosphere is, and how opaque it is to the relevant wavelengths is more important than the pressure.

If the 16kW on Venus were free to escape then the surface there would quickly cool.likewise with earth. CO2 interferes with the escape of radiation here but it is only one factor out of many so its effect is small but real.


Check Maxwell Ian....he said (but didn't prove) that while such equilibrium might happen in static columns of air, it could never happen in an atmosphere...not the atmosphere here on earth and certainly not in an atmosphere as unsettled as that of venus...

Maxwell said:
This result is by no means applicable to the case of our atmosphere. Setting aside the enormous direct effect of the sun’s radiation in disturbing thermal equilibrium, the effect of winds in carrying large masses of air from one height to another tends to produce a distribution of temperature of a quite different kind, the temperature at any height being such that a mass of air, brought from one height to another without gaining or losing heat, would always find itself at the temperature of the surrounding air. In this condition of what Sir William Thomson has called the convective equilibrium of heat, it is not the temperature which is constant, but the quantity ϕ [entropy], which determines the adiabatic curves.

And Graeff has demonstrated experimentally that the temperature of a static column of air does not reach an equilibrium where the top and bottom are the same temperature.


CO2 does not interfere with the escape of radiation here...it is just goofy to claim that the presence of a radiative gas will decrease the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.


???? what are you talking about?

this planet is in near equilibrium. the heatsinks are charged, air and ocean currents are in place, solar input is matched by radiative output to a fine degree. what we areleft with are small perturbations such as increased CO2 by fossil fuels or tiny solar variations.

while the surface is just another location along the pathway from solar in to IR out, it is special to us because that is where we live. the surface temp at this time in the earth's history is about 15C due to the particular order of the equilibrium. it can be naturally higher or lower depending on conditions that affect the equilibrium, but there has been a rather narrow range of temps since the earth formed mostly because of hydrological cycle.

if there were no atmosphere it would get much warmer and much cooler during day and night. if the atmosphere had no GHGs to impede the surface radiation from escaping directly to space it would be cooler because the energy trapped in the heatsink of the atmosphere would be much less. the surface temp is affected by the temp of the atmosphere above it, because of blackbody radiation returning a portion of the energy to the surface, and even a small amount of re-radiated IR by CO2 near the surface (after ~10 meters CO2 has almost completely dispersed its favourite wavelengths and you cannot make a deck of cards more random by shuffling 1000 times rather than just 7). CO2 is much more likely to absorb IR and then collide with another molecule which then turns that absorbed energy into kinetic energy, potential energy, or/and blackbody radiation.

you believe pressure is the main determinant of surface temp but I only believe it is a long established factor with little relevance other than yet another heatsink where sunlight puffs up the atmosphere by turning kinetic energy into potential energy.
 
this planet is in near equilibrium. the heatsinks are charged, air and ocean currents are in place, solar input is matched by radiative output to a fine degree. what we areleft with are small perturbations such as increased CO2 by fossil fuels or tiny solar variations.

Are you saying that ocean and air currents are perfectly stable and never change? Good one.
 
What was it about "what we are left with are small perturbations" that you failed to comprehend?
 
What was it about "what we are left with are small perturbations" that you failed to comprehend?


Small perturbations which you and yours like to blame for the failure of the models...interesting.
 
Doesn't it bother you that wrt science fundamentals, EVERYONE disagrees with you? No one here thinks you know what you're talking about. NO ONE. No one is on your side (re science). No one wants you on their side (re science).

See how nice I'm being?
 
this planet is in near equilibrium. the heatsinks are charged, air and ocean currents are in place, solar input is matched by radiative output to a fine degree. what we areleft with are small perturbations such as increased CO2 by fossil fuels or tiny solar variations.

Are you saying that ocean and air currents are perfectly stable and never change? Good one.


Nope. That's not what I said. The earth is trying to shed its energy. Air and ocean currents help facilitate that. Air changes quickly but has standard patterns like the Hadley cell. Oceans have much more inertia and change slowly.

You say atmospheric pressure controls the surface temp. I say you have it backwards. Any atmosphere contracts, giving up gravitational potential energy, until it reaches equilibrium where the energy input matches energy loss. A planet with no solar or radioactive heat source would have no atmosphere.
 
Nope. That's not what I said. The earth is trying to shed its energy. Air and ocean currents help facilitate that. Air changes quickly but has standard patterns like the Hadley cell. Oceans have much more inertia and change slowly.

The earth is cooling...the energy is going right out of the ToA in spite of steadily increasing CO2. There is no santa...tooth fairy, or magic property to CO2. Don't you find it odd that the ideal gas laws predict the temperature here better than the greenhouse hypothesis?
 
Nope. That's not what I said. The earth is trying to shed its energy. Air and ocean currents help facilitate that. Air changes quickly but has standard patterns like the Hadley cell. Oceans have much more inertia and change slowly.

The earth is cooling...the energy is going right out of the ToA in spite of steadily increasing CO2. There is no santa...tooth fairy, or magic property to CO2. Don't you find it odd that the ideal gas laws predict the temperature here better than the greenhouse hypothesis?


The TOA measurements seem to show a slight decrease in LW and a slight increase in SW going out. This is consistent with CO2 interfering with LW but compensated by increased clouds or the timing of cloud formation.

You haven't addressed the issue of atmosphere height to energy input. Change in pressure affects temp but once it is in near equilibrium it is only a heatsink to smooth out small fluctuations.
 
The TOA measurements seem to show a slight decrease in LW and a slight increase in SW going out. This is consistent with CO2 interfering with LW but compensated by increased clouds or the timing of cloud formation.

You haven't addressed the issue of atmosphere height to energy input. Change in pressure affects temp but once it is in near equilibrium it is only a heatsink to smooth out small fluctuations.

The ToA measurements show a notable increase in outgoing LW since the 70's which is in no way consistent with the claim that CO2 interferes with LW.

Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B342013%2B72040%2BPM.jpg


As to pressure...again, the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even do it here without constant tweaking.
 
The TOA measurements seem to show a slight decrease in LW and a slight increase in SW going out. This is consistent with CO2 interfering with LW but compensated by increased clouds or the timing of cloud formation.

You haven't addressed the issue of atmosphere height to energy input. Change in pressure affects temp but once it is in near equilibrium it is only a heatsink to smooth out small fluctuations.

The ToA measurements show a notable increase in outgoing LW since the 70's which is in no way consistent with the claim that CO2 interferes with LW.

Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B342013%2B72040%2BPM.jpg


As to pressure...again, the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even do it here without constant tweaking.
LIBERALS think the earth would be a better place if 6 billion + people WERE TO BE KILLED OR JUST DIE OFF. Can you feel the love?

Look at my sig line...crick hypothesized that it would be expedient to simply kill off those who disagree with him.
 
The TOA measurements seem to show a slight decrease in LW and a slight increase in SW going out. This is consistent with CO2 interfering with LW but compensated by increased clouds or the timing of cloud formation.

You haven't addressed the issue of atmosphere height to energy input. Change in pressure affects temp but once it is in near equilibrium it is only a heatsink to smooth out small fluctuations.

The ToA measurements show a notable increase in outgoing LW since the 70's which is in no way consistent with the claim that CO2 interferes with LW.

Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B342013%2B72040%2BPM.jpg


As to pressure...again, the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even do it here without constant tweaking.
LIBERALS think the earth would be a better place if 6 billion + people WERE TO BE KILLED OR JUST DIE OFF. Can you feel the love?

Look at my sig line...crick hypothesized that it would be expedient to simply kill off those who disagree with him.

If that wasn't the clearest and most idiotic attempt to change the subject, I'll eat my hat.
 
As to pressure...again, the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even do it here without constant tweaking.

I posted links to more than a few technical articles and peer reviewed studies that showed that statement to be complete horseshit. The idea gas laws are universal and so is the greenhouse effect. Where greenhouse gases exist in the universe, they trap infrared radiation and increase temperatures.

Let's see a peer reviewed study that shows the greenhouse effect failing on the Earth or any other planet.
 
As to pressure...again, the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature on every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even do it here without constant tweaking.

I posted links to more than a few technical articles and peer reviewed studies that showed that statement to be complete horseshit. The idea gas laws are universal and so is the greenhouse effect. Where greenhouse gases exist in the universe, they trap infrared radiation and increase temperatures.

Let's see a peer reviewed study that shows the greenhouse effect failing on the Earth or any other planet.
again, you have no eveidence that greenhouse gases increase temperatures. You just haven't. No matter how many times you want a post your nonsense.
 
This is the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect. Do you see the word "theory" anywhere?

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.[1][2]
 
From Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth. It happens because certain gases absorb infrared heat that would normally be radiated into space.

Again, the word theory doesn't appear.
 
From The Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the short wavelengths ofvisible light from the sun pass through a transparent medium and are absorbed, but the longer wavelengths of the infrared re-radiation from theheated objects are unable to pass through that medium. The trapping of the long wavelength radiation leads to more heating and a higher resultant temperature. Besides the heating of an automobile by sunlight through the windshield and the namesake example of heating the greenhouse by sunlight passing through sealed, transparent windows, the greenhouse effect has been widely used to describe the trapping of excess heat by the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared and does not allow as much of it to escape into space.

Again, the word "theory" does not appear
 
Greenhouse effect climatechange.gov.au

The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth’s surface. When the Sun’s energy reaches the Earth’s atmosphere, some of it is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed and re-radiated by greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and some artificial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

The absorbed energy warms the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. This process maintains the Earth’s temperature at around 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be, allowing life on Earth to exist.

The word "theory" does not appear
 
So, Elektra, how about you find us a reliable source that states the Greenhouse Effect is a theory. Or you could admit your error.
 

Forum List

Back
Top