What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[jc456]

What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

3) What is the coupling/relationship of IR radiation with temperature?
4) What has the given temperature of the earth to do with anything, it is left hanging like an irrelevant factoid.
5) How does an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere lead to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature?

I agree; those are important points at some level. I think part of this whole exercise is what is the target audience. High school level? General college level? Basic college physics level. My interest is involved in the down and dirty math, but I think that's beyond the scope of this forum.

My problem is that as IanC said in his OP there is a dearth of information. I tried looking at the general level of the OP, but it's buried in references that are impossible to get unless you pay $10 to $30 for a reprint of one paper that may not have what you thought it was. The IPCC only lightly summarizes the theory behind GHG's in what I could find.


.

if the real information was available, it would show what a scam all of this is!!

 

[toobfreak]

I know the answer!!! Choose me! Choose me!

What is it? Tell us.

 

[toobfreak]

I know the answer!!! Choose me! Choose me! I can tell you without looking it up.

Here is one for you prove e^ix = cos x + i sin x
No fair looking it up.

.

And I thought you dislike pissing contests.

The "solution" is, of course, x^-1/3. There's nothing to "solve" there.

Wrong. There are actually valid TWO solutions for X.

 

[toobfreak]

I think he is looking for a descriptive sentence, like the inverse of the cube root of X.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "solve" when maybe "solution" to my question might have been better. I was looking for anyone to show me how X could be reworked into different forms to match up with other terms in an equation and like I suspected, you were the one that actually got one of them right. Congratulations, Wu, you are the first person in almost two years here to successfully give another form that X could be written in to say the same thing.

I choose this because fractional exponents and radicals in general are often a weak spot for many people.

 

[toobfreak]

What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

3) What is the coupling/relationship of IR radiation with temperature?
4) What has the given temperature of the earth to do with anything, it is left hanging like an irrelevant factoid.
5) How does an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere lead to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature?

I agree; those are important points at some level. I think part of this whole exercise is what is the target audience. High school level? General college level? Basic college physics level. My interest is involved in the down and dirty math, but I think that's beyond the scope of this forum.

My problem is that as IanC said in his OP there is a dearth of information. I tried looking at the general level of the OP, but it's buried in references that are impossible to get unless you pay $10 to $30 for a reprint of one paper that may not have what you thought it was. The IPCC only lightly summarizes the theory behind GHG's in what I could find.

.

if the real information was available, it would show what a scam all of this is!!

Wait, JC, are you telling me that no one here has even access to the actual, real information in this field much less actually WORKS in the field to know first hand? Is that why I found a similar thread about the same debate from two years ago here debating the same thing still unresolved? While I agree there are certain trends and changes in our climate, there have ALWAYS been trends and changes, and while I agree that carbon pollution certain has an effect, there are a number of incongruities with other facts, history, the fact that warming has not tracked along with predictions, not the least of which is to mention NO ONE KNOWS the future for how man will be polluting 20 years from now, 50 years from now, yet we keep predicting how ice will melt and oceans will rise in the distant future as if all of this were settled constants.

Historically, science has a rather poor track record in predictions and expectations; more great scientists, inventions and theories have been laughed at, later to be found true and vise versa. Climate Change has to be among the most inexact and flaky "sciences" out there on par with psychology almost, partly because we have so little to base it on, no other planets to study, no other past events, and the one we are on now is constantly evolving and changing in form and change only really began to be noticed after 1975, a rather short sampling period! Yet we are prepared to make draconian and wholesale actions based on it. IMO, it would be a miracle if climate predictions for 80 years in the future actually turn out to be true; if history is any teacher, then things will likely turn out rather different, maybe not nearly as bad, perhaps worse, unfortunately, I won't be around to find out.

I like big pictures. "Climate Science" deals in too short a time periods to suit me. One thing fairly certain though is that sometime in the future, we are going to see another Ice Age as has been the pattern throughout the Quaternary over 2.5 million years since the PETM brought in the Cenozoic Era------ maybe our efforts today will weaken its impact or delay it------ indeed, we may rue the day we complained about rising temperatures!

Man DEPENDS on fossil fuels. Carbon is an inseparable and inescapable part of life. Perhaps this is why we don't find other technological societies in space, they destroy themselves or nature destroys them, either way, man is not going to willingly live in the Dark Ages again to save the planet, whatever effects man causes, the Earth will clearly heal from us once we evolve technologically over perhaps the next century to move beyond the need for carbon pollution. ITMT, the best solution is to trend population back downward closer to 1960 levels so that there are simply less polluters on the planet. But I suspect man isn't wise enough to do any of the above and Earth itself will make the decision for us in the coming years and find a way of scaling back human society itself through plague, disease, drought, flooding, food shortage, war, weather, space impactor, something, to rebalance man in accord with his planet.

 

[IanC]

Ok then Mr 'trained physicist '.

Roughly 1360 w/m2 of solar radiation reaches the Earth orbit distance. The amount intercepted by the Earth would be equal to a disk with the same diameter as the Earth. The Earths surface has four times the area as that disk. 1360 divided by four is 340w/m2.

The Earth has an albedo of 0.3. That means it reflects 30 percent of the solar radiation back into space. That drops the solar insolation to 240w/m2. If you are complaining that I subtracted all of the albedo at once rather than cumulatively through the different layers, then I plead quilty. Tell you what. You can have the whole 340w outside the atmosphere figure to calculate tha amount of solar produced CO2 IR reaching the Earth. It is still insignificant.

Anyone educated in physics and astronomy should already know all of this. Why don't you?

the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating, it's where you loose your argument, you attempt to stabilize it which isn't what's happening. anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this.

the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating,

Would that make the number more than 340w/m2 or less than 340w/m2?

anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this

Irony is ironic.

The Spherical Shape of the Earth

"Because the Earth is a sphere, the surface gets much more intense sunlight, hence heat, at the equator than at the poles. On the equinox, the Sun passes directly overhead at noon on the equator and a square centimeter of ground receives about 1 calorie of heat energy (see solar constant). On the same day, at 60°N, the latitude of Anchorage, Alaska, or Oslo, Norway, or St. Petersburg, Russia, the Sun rises no higher than 30° above the horizon at noon and heats a given parcel of ground with only a half the intensity as at the equator. At the poles, the Sun appears to sit on the horizon for periods upwards of 24 hours, and its rays skim horizontally over the surface."

You tell me, it's your crazy equation made up as if the earth was a disk fully exposed to the sun flat side? hahahahaha, you crack me up dude.

Answer Todd's question. Does a spinning spheroid collect more incoming solar radiation than a flat disk pointed at the Sun.

If you answer is anything but 'they are equal' then explain.

make me

Make you? I am still shocked that you used the word spheroid in a sentence. You don't have the brain power to understand the connotations of the question. An answer is simply out of the realm of possibilities.

 

[IanC]

Yeah, I guess I'm being sucked into the spirit of things here. It's too bad this thread is disintegrating beyond repair.

So, let's try to get it back on track. Here's what I found to be a good explanation of the GHE (as provided earlier):

Greenhouse effect

1. Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds.

2. 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 greenhouse effect.

3. Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height.

4. 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.

5. 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 that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.

Definition courtesy of IPCC AR4.

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.​

I've divided it up into five sections and added enumeration, so as to facilitate reference to the respective portions of the text. What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

Although we have seen that definition before, it is really useful to break it up into pieces.

I personally have a big problem with #4. At the very least, IR from the surface should be divided into two groups. The bands which have little affinity for the GHGs (emissivity =0), and the bands that are absorbed to extinction by the atmosphere (emissivity =1).

 

[toobfreak]

the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating, it's where you loose your argument, you attempt to stabilize it which isn't what's happening. anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this.

the earth isn't a disk, it is a spheroid, and it is constantly rotating,

Would that make the number more than 340w/m2 or less than 340w/m2?

anyone with any kind of science knowledge should know this

Irony is ironic.

The Spherical Shape of the Earth

"Because the Earth is a sphere, the surface gets much more intense sunlight, hence heat, at the equator than at the poles. On the equinox, the Sun passes directly overhead at noon on the equator and a square centimeter of ground receives about 1 calorie of heat energy (see solar constant). On the same day, at 60°N, the latitude of Anchorage, Alaska, or Oslo, Norway, or St. Petersburg, Russia, the Sun rises no higher than 30° above the horizon at noon and heats a given parcel of ground with only a half the intensity as at the equator. At the poles, the Sun appears to sit on the horizon for periods upwards of 24 hours, and its rays skim horizontally over the surface."

You tell me, it's your crazy equation made up as if the earth was a disk fully exposed to the sun flat side? hahahahaha, you crack me up dude.

Answer Todd's question. Does a spinning spheroid collect more incoming solar radiation than a flat disk pointed at the Sun.

If you answer is anything but 'they are equal' then explain.

make me

Make you? I am still shocked that you used the word spheroid in a sentence. You don't have the brain power to understand the connotations of the question. An answer is simply out of the realm of possibilities.

You know what I like about you Ian? You argue science the way all Leftards argue politics---- with an utter intransigence, smug certainty and utter contempt for those whom disagree with you. Why, I'm surprised you haven't brought Trump into the conversation! I wonder how many climate-believers here are left-leaning vs, right leaning. If there is a correlation found, that politics influences views on "climate science," that would kind of invalidate the certainty of it all, don't you think? At the very least it would suggest congitive bias might be a factor in BOTH sides.

But I'll give you this: at least you finally got something right-- -- -- -- the Earth is NOT a sphere. It is a rather an oblate spheroid.

 

[Wuwei]

If some of you don't mind. I think I might ask a moderator to move this to a clean debate zone. It's still being cluttered with alt-science and pissing contests. Or maybe those of us that want to stick strictly to the aspects of the GHE could start anew in the CDZ. However the last time that was done it was moved back to the Environment forum because it disintegrated there too, but I'm finished here.


.

 

[toobfreak]

If some of you don't mind. I think I might ask a moderator to move this to a clean debate zone. It's still being cluttered with alt-science and pissing contests. Or maybe those of us that want to stick strictly to the aspects of the GHE could start anew in the CDZ. However the last time that was done it was moved back to the Environment forum because it disintegrated there too, but I'm finished here.
.

Alt-science and pissing contests---- is that the new catch phrase for "differences of opinions?"

Is that the only way the climate-believing people can win an argument or resolve disputed matters, to isolate themselves in a vacuum with only like-minded people where they shut out (read: silence) different points of view?

Oddly enough, YOU seem to be the alternate science here and all the pissing contests were started by the OP!!

The rest of us have merely tried to endure his constant attacks.

"Alt-Science," is that what you call the climatological chart above?

 

[jc456]

What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

3) What is the coupling/relationship of IR radiation with temperature?
4) What has the given temperature of the earth to do with anything, it is left hanging like an irrelevant factoid.
5) How does an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere lead to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature?

I agree; those are important points at some level. I think part of this whole exercise is what is the target audience. High school level? General college level? Basic college physics level. My interest is involved in the down and dirty math, but I think that's beyond the scope of this forum.

My problem is that as IanC said in his OP there is a dearth of information. I tried looking at the general level of the OP, but it's buried in references that are impossible to get unless you pay $10 to $30 for a reprint of one paper that may not have what you thought it was. The IPCC only lightly summarizes the theory behind GHG's in what I could find.

.

if the real information was available, it would show what a scam all of this is!!

Wait, JC, are you telling me that no one here has even access to the actual, real information in this field much less actually WORKS in the field to know first hand? Is that why I found a similar thread about the same debate from two years ago here debating the same thing still unresolved? While I agree there are certain trends and changes in our climate, there have ALWAYS been trends and changes, and while I agree that carbon pollution certain has an effect, there are a number of incongruities with other facts, history, the fact that warming has not tracked along with predictions, not the least of which is to mention NO ONE KNOWS the future for how man will be polluting 20 years from now, 50 years from now, yet we keep predicting how ice will melt and oceans will rise in the distant future as if all of this were settled constants.

Historically, science has a rather poor track record in predictions and expectations; more great scientists, inventions and theories have been laughed at, later to be found true and vise versa. Climate Change has to be among the most inexact and flaky "sciences" out there on par with psychology almost, partly because we have so little to base it on, no other planets to study, no other past events, and the one we are on now is constantly evolving and changing in form and change only really began to be noticed after 1975, a rather short sampling period! Yet we are prepared to make draconian and wholesale actions based on it. IMO, it would be a miracle if climate predictions for 80 years in the future actually turn out to be true; if history is any teacher, then things will likely turn out rather different, maybe not nearly as bad, perhaps worse, unfortunately, I won't be around to find out.

I like big pictures. "Climate Science" deals in too short a time periods to suit me. One thing fairly certain though is that sometime in the future, we are going to see another Ice Age as has been the pattern throughout the Quaternary over 2.5 million years since the PETM brought in the Cenozoic Era------ maybe our efforts today will weaken its impact or delay it------ indeed, we may rue the day we complained about rising temperatures!

View attachment 262235

Man DEPENDS on fossil fuels. Carbon is an inseparable and inescapable part of life. Perhaps this is why we don't find other technological societies in space, they destroy themselves or nature destroys them, either way, man is not going to willingly live in the Dark Ages again to save the planet, whatever effects man causes, the Earth will clearly heal from us once we evolve technologically over perhaps the next century to move beyond the need for carbon pollution. ITMT, the best solution is to trend population back downward closer to 1960 levels so that there are simply less polluters on the planet. But I suspect man isn't wise enough to do any of the above and Earth itself will make the decision for us in the coming years and find a way of scaling back human society itself through plague, disease, drought, flooding, food shortage, war, weather, space impactor, something, to rebalance man in accord with his planet.

I don't have to be a scientist to know that CO2 does nothing to temperature, if it actually did what the warmers contend, then I wouldn't have experienced the temperature patterns of this spring. The time sunlight actually increases in the Northern hemisphere, and yet temperatures did not go up. CO2 is up and temperatures didn't go up. So, until someone can explain to me how on a bright sunny day in April with the Sun fully up in a clear sky, the temperature was below 20 degrees F when normal temp was expected to be 60 degrees, I believe absolutely no one about AGW. Fk, I thought CO2 was magic and kept the surface warm from its magic LWIR back radiation? Oh, and it took until last week to get two days even close to normal temps for May. Observance is what I use. so, until someone actually observes what they talk about, it's garbage.

 

[IanC]

You know what I like about you Ian? You argue science the way all Leftards argue politics---- with an utter intransigence, smug certainty and utter contempt for those whom disagree with you. Why, I'm surprised you haven't brought Trump into the conversation! I wonder how many climate-believers here are left-leaning vs, right leaning. If there is a correlation found, that politics influences views on "climate science," that would kind of invalidate the certainty of it all, don't you think? At the very least it would suggest congitive bias might be a factor in BOTH sides.

I must admit that you amuse me when you go into an impotent frothing rant like a guard dog behing a fence. I have no idea why you have taken such a dislike to me but I really don't care.

I am a climate skeptic. I don't believe in large feedbacks or predictions of doom. I think the IPCC is biased and hypocritical. I think the temperature records are skewed by improper manipulation. The list is practically endless.

And what do I get for all the hard work of bringing evidence forward against the 'consensus '? Not much. The warmists know that staying out of the fight is the best way to not lose. Did the skeptic and denier sides of the message board show any support? Tepid at best.

But when I excoriate deniers for rejecting the GHE then everybody is interested. They never fail to respond. I get the chance to refute them in more and more ways. I get to discard semi-mistakes and refine my position. Boring but familiar. Like rewatching a favourite TV series.

I think you may have the wrong idea about my executive function. Lefties consider me conservative. Righties think I'm liberal. Perhaps Im just a devil's advocate.

 

[IanC]

If some of you don't mind. I think I might ask a moderator to move this to a clean debate zone. It's still being cluttered with alt-science and pissing contests. Or maybe those of us that want to stick strictly to the aspects of the GHE could start anew in the CDZ. However the last time that was done it was moved back to the Environment forum because it disintegrated there too, but I'm finished here.


.

It will be you and the crickets. If you don't like the unwashed and uncouth then perhaps this message board is not the right place for you.

SSDD rocks. Never change

 

[toobfreak]

What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

3) What is the coupling/relationship of IR radiation with temperature?
4) What has the given temperature of the earth to do with anything, it is left hanging like an irrelevant factoid.
5) How does an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere lead to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature?

I agree; those are important points at some level. I think part of this whole exercise is what is the target audience. High school level? General college level? Basic college physics level. My interest is involved in the down and dirty math, but I think that's beyond the scope of this forum.

My problem is that as IanC said in his OP there is a dearth of information. I tried looking at the general level of the OP, but it's buried in references that are impossible to get unless you pay $10 to $30 for a reprint of one paper that may not have what you thought it was. The IPCC only lightly summarizes the theory behind GHG's in what I could find.

.

if the real information was available, it would show what a scam all of this is!!

Wait, JC, are you telling me that no one here has even access to the actual, real information in this field much less actually WORKS in the field to know first hand? Is that why I found a similar thread about the same debate from two years ago here debating the same thing still unresolved? While I agree there are certain trends and changes in our climate, there have ALWAYS been trends and changes, and while I agree that carbon pollution certain has an effect, there are a number of incongruities with other facts, history, the fact that warming has not tracked along with predictions, not the least of which is to mention NO ONE KNOWS the future for how man will be polluting 20 years from now, 50 years from now, yet we keep predicting how ice will melt and oceans will rise in the distant future as if all of this were settled constants.

Historically, science has a rather poor track record in predictions and expectations; more great scientists, inventions and theories have been laughed at, later to be found true and vise versa. Climate Change has to be among the most inexact and flaky "sciences" out there on par with psychology almost, partly because we have so little to base it on, no other planets to study, no other past events, and the one we are on now is constantly evolving and changing in form and change only really began to be noticed after 1975, a rather short sampling period! Yet we are prepared to make draconian and wholesale actions based on it. IMO, it would be a miracle if climate predictions for 80 years in the future actually turn out to be true; if history is any teacher, then things will likely turn out rather different, maybe not nearly as bad, perhaps worse, unfortunately, I won't be around to find out.

I like big pictures. "Climate Science" deals in too short a time periods to suit me. One thing fairly certain though is that sometime in the future, we are going to see another Ice Age as has been the pattern throughout the Quaternary over 2.5 million years since the PETM brought in the Cenozoic Era------ maybe our efforts today will weaken its impact or delay it------ indeed, we may rue the day we complained about rising temperatures!

View attachment 262235

Man DEPENDS on fossil fuels. Carbon is an inseparable and inescapable part of life. Perhaps this is why we don't find other technological societies in space, they destroy themselves or nature destroys them, either way, man is not going to willingly live in the Dark Ages again to save the planet, whatever effects man causes, the Earth will clearly heal from us once we evolve technologically over perhaps the next century to move beyond the need for carbon pollution. ITMT, the best solution is to trend population back downward closer to 1960 levels so that there are simply less polluters on the planet. But I suspect man isn't wise enough to do any of the above and Earth itself will make the decision for us in the coming years and find a way of scaling back human society itself through plague, disease, drought, flooding, food shortage, war, weather, space impactor, something, to rebalance man in accord with his planet.

I don't have to be a scientist to know that CO2 does nothing to temperature, if it actually did what the warmers contend, then I wouldn't have experienced the temperature patterns of this spring. The time sunlight actually increases in the Northern hemisphere, and yet temperatures did not go up. CO2 is up and temperatures didn't go up. So, until someone can explain to me how on a bright sunny day in April with the Sun fully up in a clear sky, the temperature was below 20 degrees F when normal temp was expected to be 60 degrees, I believe absolutely no one about AGW. Fk, I thought CO2 was magic and kept the surface warm from its magic LWIR back radiation? Oh, and it took until last week to get two days even close to normal temps for May. Observance is what I use. so, until someone actually observes what they talk about, it's garbage.

Careful, JC, you are throwing this entire thread for a loop. The OP ASKED US WHAT GREENHOUSE MODEL EFFECTS WE USE, expecting only the ones which support man-made climate warming. He never asked you for any theories which do not FULLY SUPPORT man as the cause of everything.

I live in the mid-Atlantic and like you, ALL of April and May up until NOW (Memorial weekend?) has been COLDER THAN SHIT. (sorry if shit is more an emotional vernacular than a scientific one) with most days in the 50s and 60s only rarely reaching the 70s and barely ever the 80s until now.

But it has been real good for grass mowing.

I can actually understand the cool weather though, colder in some areas, warmer and wetter in others; there is a physical process that affects most systems called hysteresis which is why August is usually the warmest month north, but I get your point, if all this ppm of CO2 (I guess we ignore all the other GH agents like methane, aerosols, water vapor, etc.) was really doing its job, you'd think it would be warmer rather than colder (in most cases around here in the Ohio Valley its been about 10° below normal for at least since March), rather than just warmer toward the Ferrel and Polar cells at high latitudes.

I'm rather enjoying climate change: milder winters AND summers!

 

[IanC]

Careful, JC, you are throwing this entire thread for a loop. The OP ASKED US WHAT GREENHOUSE MODEL EFFECTS WE USE, expecting only the ones which support man-made climate warming. He never asked you for any theories which do not FULLY SUPPORT man as the cause of everything

So you deny the obvious presence of the Greenhouse Effect?

I have more than a few quibbles about what happens when you increase the level of existing GHGs.

But to deny the entire effect is absurd.

Without Ghgs all of the surface radiation would leave at the spped of light. Even if all the solar radiation reached the surface and was absorbed, then the system would radiate at 340w. A lot less than the nearly 400w now.

 

[jc456]

Careful, JC, you are throwing this entire thread for a loop. The OP ASKED US WHAT GREENHOUSE MODEL EFFECTS WE USE, expecting only the ones which support man-made climate warming. He never asked you for any theories which do not FULLY SUPPORT man as the cause of everything

So you deny the obvious presence of the Greenhouse Effect?

I have more than a few quibbles about what happens when you increase the level of existing GHGs.

But to deny the entire effect is absurd.

Without Ghgs all of the surface radiation would leave at the spped of light. Even if all the solar radiation reached the surface and was absorbed, then the system would radiate at 340w. A lot less than the nearly 400w now.

show me a greenhouse that has ice in it. Let's forget that variable right?

 

[Olde Europe]

What's wrong with it, where are things inaptly put, where do we need clarification?

3) What is the coupling/relationship of IR radiation with temperature?
4) What has the given temperature of the earth to do with anything, it is left hanging like an irrelevant factoid.
5) How does an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere lead to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature?

3) Look up Stefan–Boltzmann law.

4) Just denoting the temperature difference courtesy of the GHE.

5) Higher CO₂ concentration means that photons escape to space at lower pressure (fewer CO₂ molecules between emitting molecule and space), and that means higher up. With more radiation trapped at the lower atmosphere, less radiation warms up the upper level. So, energy escapes at higher levels, at lower temperatures.

 

[toobfreak]

I have no idea why you have taken such a dislike to me

Then you must be dumber than a fence post.

I am a climate skeptic. I don't believe in large feedbacks or predictions of doom. I think the IPCC is biased and hypocritical. I think the temperature records are skewed by improper manipulation. The list is practically endless.
And what do I get for all the hard work of bringing evidence forward against the 'consensus '? Not much. The warmists know that staying out of the fight is the best way to not lose. Did the skeptic and denier sides of the message board show any support? Tepid at best.
But when I excoriate deniers for rejecting the GHE then everybody is interested. They never fail to respond. I get the chance to refute them in more and more ways. I get to discard semi-mistakes and refine my position. Boring but familiar. Like rewatching a favourite TV series.
I think you may have the wrong idea about my executive function. Lefties consider me conservative. Righties think I'm liberal. Perhaps Im just a devil's advocate.

Good. Finally some discussion I can actually respect and relate to. I know nothing of your past efforts, I usually don't get involved in climate threads because as I've said, it doesn't even interest me. I mainly came here to talk politics to save my own astronomy forum the ardors of my occasional political rants. But I wish you'd write better explaining labels such as "GHE" to us non-initiates on the climate battle; I guess it refers to the Green House Effect? Not that I can't understand anything that's been debated here, I'm just used to things I can put my hands on rather than how this or that wavelength sunlight might impinge on a CO2 atom somewhere in the troposphere and what, where and when it does something with it.

The Greenhouse effect is a given. We wouldn't be here without it. The atmosphere's ability to raise the surface of the planet about 50°F above what it would be otherwise is key to life as we know it. What's at question obviously is how, why and to what degree we may be affecting it. Again, the question is NOT IF we are affecting it---- ---- OF COURSE we are affecting the planet. Man is Big Time. But the planet also naturally produces much more than we do, so the question is are we adding just enough to push ourselves over some threshold? And again, even if we are, the Earth has clearly demonstrated an ability to bounce back from FAR worse than anything we'll ever throw at it.

One of the things I do now is write. I've written four textbooks on various science topics since the late 80s from professional to consumer. People have told me many times that I have a knack for taking difficult, complex subjects and expressing them in easy-to-relate-to ways. I often do that by reducing a complexity down to its most salient elements. I used to get paid very well by an employer to find solutions to problems in a very direct and immediate way, as their downtime cost them $10,000 a minute. They were a Defense subcontractor. So I tend to take the shortest line between two points and be rather direct and blunt. If you have that in you, perhaps if you take your views on GHE and expatiate them in more metaphorical ways as I often do that have broader interest and relatable appeal to more people, you might get more people to listen and understand. I've won more than a few grants and at least sold one public observatory/planetarium construction project in the region to their county's Dept. of Parks & Recreation that way.

I'm neither a skeptic nor a believer. I'm simply skeptical of everything until convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt by hard facts and solid science that is irrefutable that I can lay my hands actually on (passes the Common Sense Test). If anyone here has that, I'm all ears.

BTW, if you are actually interested in astronomy, you might enjoy a Jupiter photo just sent me by one of the people I mentor on my group. It was taken with an 11" Catadioptric:

A Personal View Of Jupiter

 

[Olde Europe]

If some of you don't mind. I think I might ask a moderator to move this to a clean debate zone. It's still being cluttered with alt-science and pissing contests. Or maybe those of us that want to stick strictly to the aspects of the GHE could start anew in the CDZ. However the last time that was done it was moved back to the Environment forum because it disintegrated there too, but I'm finished here.


.

Yep, I understand but hope you'll reverse that decision. CDZ doesn't help excluding alt-science. Not that I'd venture to tell you what to do, but shoving the worst feces-peddlers out of sight does help.

 

[justoffal]

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.

Here's the rub.... This is where the Gaia worshipers go wrong every time. No field of science stands alone all by itself especially in our ecosystem. CO2 concentrations are affected by many different sources and sinks. Ask any oceanographer and he will tell you that the water temperature is directly related to how much CO2 can remain dissolved in the seawater at any given time.

Since the oceans cover 2/3 of the Earth's surface they are a far more significant source and far more significant sink of CO2 than any other single source or sink. 1/10 degree temperature increase in the average sea water temperature globally would release hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. What is causing the oceans to heat up? No one is really quite sure of that However astronomers who study the sun, and vulcanologists who study tectonic movements of the Earth together with its volcanic systems both on land and on the sea... each have contributions to make to that particular mystery.

AGW Climatologists are the only ones that shut the door on all the other branches of science insisting that only their input matters when it comes to the very complex analysis of the CO2 cycle in our ecosystem.

Jo