What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[IanC]

I looked for a reasonably scientific explanation of the GHE on Google and was very disappointed. You would think it would be everywhere but it isnt.

I then specifically searched for the IPCC version. Imagine my surprise when 'denier' sites were the major places of discussion.

How weak is their case if they are effectively hiding it? For the record, I believe in the GHE in principle as a very important part of atmospheric radiative physics. I don't see how the addition of more CO2 can cause huge changes though.

What is your reference site for the GHE? Or do you just know it?

I'll post up a few links later if no one cares to post theirs.

 

[toobfreak]

The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached. What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy. It is at that point the system stops heating.

 

[Likkmee]

The cow fart theory sounds good.
Ever been to India ?

 

[Wuwei]

I found that a rich source of information on climate is given by the American Institute of Physics (AIP). It is more accessible and succinct than the IPCC. Here is one link titled Basic Radiation Calculations, but they show no mathematics.
Basic Radiation Calculations

The paragraph above the last says,

Note: this Website does not cover developments from the 1980s forward in radiation models....
​

Look at the top of the page to see a link to the Table of Contents to other pages.

If you want more of the math for an idealized radiation aspect only, they refer to
Idealized greenhouse model - Wikipedia

However the model is a one layer atmosphere. They say,

The simple one-level atmospheric model can be readily extended to a multiple-layer atmosphere. In this case the equations for the temperatures become a series of coupled equations. ​

I have been working on the coupled equations and find that they are very easy to solve with simple assumptions for parameters, however it is a basis for making more complex computations. When I have time I will post what I got.

.

 

[IanC]

The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached. What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy. It is at that point the system stops heating.

Where is the link to your source? Or is that just your personal interpretation of what the GHE is?

I'm not trying to harass you. I want to look at 'official' explanations.

.

 

[IanC]

I found that a rich source of information on climate is given by the American Institute of Physics (AIP). It is more accessible and succinct than the IPCC. Here is one link titled Basic Radiation Calculations, but they show no mathematics.
Basic Radiation Calculations

The paragraph above the last says,

Note: this Website does not cover developments from the 1980s forward in radiation models....
​

Look at the top of the page to see a link to the Table of Contents to other pages.

If you want more of the math for an idealized radiation aspect only, they refer to
Idealized greenhouse model - Wikipedia

However the model is a one layer atmosphere. They say,

The simple one-level atmospheric model can be readily extended to a multiple-layer atmosphere. In this case the equations for the temperatures become a series of coupled equations. ​

I have been working on the coupled equations and find that they are very easy to solve with simple assumptions for parameters, however it is a basis for making more complex computations. When I have time I will post what I got.

.

I too have a lot of faith in the radiative models to calculate energy transfer for a specific set of atmospheric constituents. I think the water feedback assumptions are wrong though.

That said, I am looking for an explanation of the GHE that is suitable for laymen. And which hopefully doesn't include the phrase "97% of scientists agree".

 

[IanC]

An old IPCC explanation but the link is now broken-

"
From http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse gases effectively absorb infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the natural greenhouse effect.
Atmospheric radiation is strongly coupled to the temperature of the level at which it is emitted. In the troposphere the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C.

An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing, an imbalance that can only be compensated for by an increase of the temperature of the surface-troposphere system. This is the enhanced greenhouse effect."

Reasonably accurate? Maybe. Reasonably understandable? To me yes, but...

GHGs that exist right now have a large effect. Predictions of the effect caused by an increase is much less straight forward.

 

[Wuwei]

An old IPCC explanation but the link is now broken-

From http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm
.......

The last two paragraphs bother me. I would like an estimate of the altitude where the output radiation is in balance with the input. The pressure is dropping exponentially with altitude so the number of GHGs molecules radiating drops exponentially. The temperature in Kevin is relatively constant compared to the exponential change in altitude. So I would think the first sentence of the second paragraph would be

....Atmospheric radiation is strongly coupled to the altitude of the level at which it is emitted.....

The equipartition principle is always in effect so the radiation is proportional to the number of CO2 in excited states emitting their photons. That number follows the stronger density of CO2 function of altitude while temperature has a weaker linear function.

.

 

[SSDD]

The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.

 

[BlackFlag]

The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.

^ thinks a magic man in the clouds will return and make it go away

 

[SSDD]

The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.

^ thinks a magic man in the clouds will return and make it go away

People who believe a radiative greenhouse effect driven by CO2 is driving the global climate believe in magic in the clouds.

 

[BlackFlag]

The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.

^ thinks a magic man in the clouds will return and make it go away

People who believe a radiative greenhouse effect driven by CO2 is driving the global climate believe in magic in the clouds.

I've noticed that ever since the melting arctic became a national security threat, there have been a dramatic drop in threads created laughing about how there's so much ice up there. What a coincidence.

 

[SSDD]

The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.

^ thinks a magic man in the clouds will return and make it go away

People who believe a radiative greenhouse effect driven by CO2 is driving the global climate believe in magic in the clouds.

I've noticed that ever since the melting arctic became a national security threat, there have been a dramatic drop in threads created laughing about how there's so much ice up there. What a coincidence.

what we don’t see from warmers are any threads talking about the fact that there is more ice up there now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years... not much room for imminent disaster sky is falling stories if one is honest about the history of arctic ice.

 

[toobfreak]

The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached. What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy. It is at that point the system stops heating.

Where is the link to your source? Or is that just your personal interpretation of what the GHE is?

I'm not trying to harass you. I want to look at 'official' explanations.

That's my definition as a trained physicist. You don't find it "reasonably scientific?" You did not ask for "official" explanations in your OP, in fact, the word "official" never even appears in your OP. Anything about my definition you disagree with?

 

[BlackFlag]

The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.

^ thinks a magic man in the clouds will return and make it go away

People who believe a radiative greenhouse effect driven by CO2 is driving the global climate believe in magic in the clouds.

I've noticed that ever since the melting arctic became a national security threat, there have been a dramatic drop in threads created laughing about how there's so much ice up there. What a coincidence.

what we don’t see from warmers are any threads talking about the fact that there is more ice up there now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years... not much room for imminent disaster sky is falling stories if one is honest about the history of arctic ice.

Oh yeah? Would you have the U.S. ignore all the new shipping lanes formed from ice vanishing then?

 

[SSDD]

The fact that you warmers have your own “versions” which are different from the mainstream version speaks volumes.

^ thinks a magic man in the clouds will return and make it go away

People who believe a radiative greenhouse effect driven by CO2 is driving the global climate believe in magic in the clouds.

I've noticed that ever since the melting arctic became a national security threat, there have been a dramatic drop in threads created laughing about how there's so much ice up there. What a coincidence.

what we don’t see from warmers are any threads talking about the fact that there is more ice up there now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years... not much room for imminent disaster sky is falling stories if one is honest about the history of arctic ice.

Oh yeah? Would you have the U.S. ignore all the new shipping lanes formed from ice vanishing then?

No...I would have us use them as the open...and wouldn't it be great if everyone were well educated enough to know that their opening is a good thing and perfectly natural..and simply a movement back to the warm period that existed prior to the cold period which we are presently in the process of exiting...

Like I said...you seem to think that there has always been a great deal of ice up there...that could hardly be further from the truth. Here is a gold standard temperature reconstruction of the temperatures in the arctic for the past 10,000 years. It is, in fact, considerably cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here is a graph from a relatively recent study of ice in the arctic for the past few thousand years, as you can see, the ice extent is greater now than at any time in the past few thousand years except for the little ice age cooling...and the earth is still in the process of warming out of that period... There is no reason to think that the earth won't warm back to the temperatures prior to the little ice age which were considerably warmer than the present.

 

[Wuwei]

Wow. It didn't take long for this thread to be hijacked from GHE explanations to arctic ice.

 

[IanC]

The Greenhouse Effect, stated simply is any closed system where more infrared energy is trapped than released artificially raising the mean temperature above what it would be otherwise unless a thermal equilibrium is reached. What determines the equilibrium point or whether it becomes thermal runaway is the fact that as heat increases, so does the rate of radiative escape, hopefully to some point where the elevated rate of escape finally equals the incoming energy. It is at that point the system stops heating.

Where is the link to your source? Or is that just your personal interpretation of what the GHE is?

I'm not trying to harass you. I want to look at 'official' explanations.

That's my definition as a trained physicist. You don't find it "reasonably scientific?" You did not ask for "official" explanations in your OP, in fact, the word "official" never even appears in your OP. Anything about my definition you disagree with?

A 'trained physicist' wouldn't have called it a closed system.

 

[IanC]

Wow. It didn't take long for this thread to be hijacked from GHE explanations to arctic ice.

I should have made it more clear. There is a dearth of decent explanations for the GHE.

I have my own understanding of it but I would be hard pressed to pass it along to a layman because the literature is so poor.

I was hoping someone else had stumbled onto a good site.

 

[Wuwei]

Wow. It didn't take long for this thread to be hijacked from GHE explanations to arctic ice.

I should have made it more clear. There is a dearth of decent explanations for the GHE.

I have my own understanding of it but I would be hard pressed to pass it along to a layman because the literature is so poor.

I was hoping someone else had stumbled onto a good site.

OK. The AIP site is probably not good. Although it covers the science and avoids math, it is rather verbose.

The first paragraph at the Wiki site might be close to what you are looking for.
Idealized greenhouse model - Wikipedia

That paragraph is a bit simplistic and isn't as detailed as your defunct IPCC reference. Beyond the first paragraph the article goes into the thermodynamic math which is for the more technically inclined layman.

.