What explanation of the Greenhouse Effect do you use?

[toobfreak]

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.

I'll ignore this since you obviously haven't read post 318 yet.

 

[toobfreak]

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?

Bad show, JC. A greenhouse in a garden is a lot different from the Earth. The sunlight hits the Earth over a wide range of incidence from head on to barely above the horizon. The greenhouse effect is real, and it raises some parts of the Earth to hotter than hell and other parts still cold enough that they still have ice, but ALL places are warmer than they would be otherwise. History shows us what the Earth is like without the comfort of GHGs, just look back to the Snowball Earth or the Huronian Ice Age.

 

[IanC]

Then you must be dumber than a fence post.

I went back and reread the first pages of this thread.

Nothing I said would have triggered the intense dislike that you have shown. At least not in a normal person.

I said that I could not find reasonable descriptions of the GHE by a simple google search. Adding IPCC to the seach term brought up broken links and directions to blogs like Tallbloke and Climate Audit. I thought I made it clear that I was looking for searchable articles describing GHE.

When you added your personal interpretation I reiterated what I was looking for. When you asked what was wrong with your version, I told you.

Since then you have been bragging about yourself and insulting me. While I am not blameless in this bitching, I am certainly more the victim of slander than you are.

Post the supposed insult that sent you into the tirade against me.

 

[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?

Bad show, JC. A greenhouse in a garden is a lot different from the Earth. The sunlight hits the Earth over a wide range of incidence from head on to barely above the horizon. The greenhouse effect is real, and it raises some parts of the Earth to hotter than hell and other parts still cold enough that they still have ice, but ALL places are warmer than they would be otherwise. History shows us what the Earth is like without the comfort of GHGs, just look back to the Snowball Earth or the Huronian Ice Age.

That’s where I separate! It’s not greenhouse like, and why my analogy

 

[toobfreak]

Then you must be dumber than a fence post.

<snip>
I went back and reread the first pages of this thread. Nothing I said would have triggered the intense dislike that you have shown. Since then you have been bragging about yourself and insulting me.

Maybe I overestimated you Ian. Apparently you didn't read the one thing you should have. You couldn't get past your own ego and the fence post. I don't "brag" about myself, have only stated a very few simple facts merely to qualify my opinions a little bit. Believe me, if I were bragging about myself, you'd know it. You have no idea who I am or the things I've actually done. Try reading my WHOLE post next time.

 

[toobfreak]

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?

Bad show, JC. A greenhouse in a garden is a lot different from the Earth. The sunlight hits the Earth over a wide range of incidence from head on to barely above the horizon. The greenhouse effect is real, and it raises some parts of the Earth to hotter than hell and other parts still cold enough that they still have ice, but ALL places are warmer than they would be otherwise. History shows us what the Earth is like without the comfort of GHGs, just look back to the Snowball Earth or the Huronian Ice Age.

That’s where I separate! It’s not greenhouse like, and why my analogy

But it IS greenhouse like. I say that both as a scientist and a gardener. The panes of glass work to contain the heat from the warming effects of the Sun much as the GH gases do with the Earth. The only question here is the output from man sufficiently modifying the atmosphere to cause eventual long term and catastrophic changes in Earth's climate?

 

[Olde Europe]

I think the IPCC is biased and hypocritical. I think the temperature records are skewed by improper manipulation. The list is practically endless.

Ah, I remember what I found most annoying about you. Regurgitating that mendacious propaganda crap is shameful.

Lefties consider me conservative. Righties think I'm liberal. Perhaps Im just a devil's advocate.

Naw, you just hang out with the denialingdong goofs at WUWT way too much. Otherwise you're quite okay.

 

[IanC]

don't "brag" about myself, have only stated a very few simple facts merely to qualify my opinions a little bit. Believe me, if I were bragging about myself, you'd know it. You have no idea who I am or the things I've actually done

More bragging.

 

[IanC]

You couldn't get past your own ego and the fence post.

I went back and reread just to make sure. You are the asshat. Actually I was beginning to let it go but seeing it again pisses me off more now than the first time.

 

[IanC]

Ah, I remember what I found most annoying about you. Regurgitating that mendacious propaganda crap is shameful

Hahahahaha. I read both sides of an issue and decide which makes more sense. You go in with a preconceived conclusion and judge the veracity of evidence not by its own worth but by whether it supports your position.

Not unusual for the human condition but a very poor way to judge science.

 

[Olde Europe]

You are the asshat. Actually I was beginning to let it go but seeing it again pisses me off more now than the first time.

You do know that you are helping the attention-seeking braggart to derail your thread, right?

 

[Olde Europe]

Ah, I remember what I found most annoying about you. Regurgitating that mendacious propaganda crap is shameful

Hahahahaha. I read both sides of an issue and decide which makes more sense. You go in with a preconceived conclusion and judge the veracity of evidence not by its own worth but by whether it supports your position.

Not unusual for the human condition but a very poor way to judge science.

All the charges of illicit manipulation fell apart under scrutiny, Ian. Regurgitating these slanderous charges is shameful. That remains so even while you try to hide behind the "read both sides" BS.

 

[IanC]

You are the asshat. Actually I was beginning to let it go but seeing it again pisses me off more now than the first time.

You do know that you are helping the attention-seeking braggart to derail your thread, right?

He thought he was being magnanimous by dialing down his insults but increasing his condescension.

He's a blowhard in the style of polarbear. Fuck 'im.

 

[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).

Did you want to discuss this OE?

 

[IanC]

Ah, I remember what I found most annoying about you. Regurgitating that mendacious propaganda crap is shameful

Hahahahaha. I read both sides of an issue and decide which makes more sense. You go in with a preconceived conclusion and judge the veracity of evidence not by its own worth but by whether it supports your position.

Not unusual for the human condition but a very poor way to judge science.

All the charges of illicit manipulation fell apart under scrutiny, Ian. Regurgitating these slanderous charges is shameful. That remains so even while you try to hide behind the "read both sides" BS.

Pick a specific incidence, then I'll pick another in the category and we'll discuss them at the same time.

If that goes well we could choose another pair.

And pretty soon youll become a skeptic! Hahahahaha

 

[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.

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

Sorry. The question is about the greenhouse effect. Written down and hopefully presented on an education website. Got one?

 

[Olde Europe]

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).

Did you want to discuss this OE?

I am not at all clear what you mean, or how two bands would increase the layperson's understanding of the GHE. How about you re-work the text?

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.

Remember, too, that IR radiation escaping through the Atmospheric Window does not contribute to the GHE, and thus doesn't belong into the definition.

 

[toobfreak]

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

Sorry. The question is about the greenhouse effect. Written down and hopefully presented on an education website. Got one?

Man, Jo, that was a pretty cogent analysis of the broader picture of why many doubt the believers they would like see answered! Too bad you only got slammed by a guy who first ASKED for your opinion, claims to be a skeptic as well while slamming other skeptics and arguing for common GHT, but then, what can you really expect from an idiot who ridicules a person 40 times just for making a passing 2-word qualification of himself entering a debate then turns around and amazingly says he can't imagine for the life of himself why you don't like him? Then when you start to change your mind about him and compliment him and start liking the guy and offer the hand of friendship and well-intended advice thinking you're going to start having normal dialog with the guy, calls you an asshat, a bragger and condescending instead. Pretty bizarre.

Tis the norm for USMB.

IanC has real mental and emotional issues like a lot of people here, probably an Aspergers type high functioning Autistic and probably has never actually worked a day of his life in anything remotely related to climate, Earth Science or the like, which might explain his bizarre frenetic attitudes and behavior.

 

[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

Sorry. The question is about the greenhouse effect. Written down and hopefully presented on an education website. Got one?

Read it again....it is just such an explanation.
True it only deals with one of the elements
CO2....

Aside from that 98% of radiative atmospheric heat retention is done by water vapor....the other 2% by methane, Nox, Sox, co2 and a dozen or so other minor gases.

So yeah you're correct to have doubts about CO2.

Don't be fooled by the grade school appearance of the site. It is one of the best explanations on the net.

What Is the Greenhouse Effect? | NASA Climate Kids

Here's another one that is as scholarly as it needs to be.

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

Note that most of them are also infected with AGW propaganda.

Jo

 

[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

Sorry. The question is about the greenhouse effect. Written down and hopefully presented on an education website. Got one?

Man, Jo, that was a pretty cogent analysis of the broader picture of why many doubt the believers they would like see answered! Too bad you only got slammed by a guy who first ASKED for your opinion, claims to be a skeptic as well while slamming other skeptics and arguing for common GHT, but then, what can you really expect from an idiot who ridicules a person 40 times just for making a passing 2-word qualification of himself entering a debate then turns around and amazingly says he can't imagine for the life of himself why you don't like him? Then when you start to change your mind about him and compliment him and start liking the guy and offer the hand of friendship and well-intended advice thinking you're going to start having normal dialog with the guy, calls you an asshat, a bragger and condescending instead. Pretty bizarre.

Tis the norm for USMB.

IanC has real mental and emotional issues like a lot of people here, probably an Aspergers type high functioning Autistic and probably has never actually worked a day of his life in anything remotely related to climate, Earth Science or the like, which might explain his bizarre frenetic attitudes and behavior.

Meh .... I just mention some of the things that should be obvious to a child....
They choose not to see it.... Oh well.

Jo