What is the Greenhouse Effect?

[SSDD]

Carl Brehmer asks a damned fine question when he asks what is the greenhouse effect.

Is it a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?
Is it an increase in downwelling IR radiation from the atmosphere?
Is it an increase in the R-value of the atmosphere, i.e., greenhouse gases act like insulation?
Is it a decrease in upper atmospheric temperatures which forces an increase in lower atmospheric temperatures?
Is it an increase in the atmosphere's temperature lapse rate?
Is it a warming of the entire atmosphere while the temperature lapse rate remains unchanged?
Is it simply the difference between the Earth's "effective radiating temperature" and surface level air temperatures?
Is it when greenhouse gases force heat to move back towards the Earth's surface against the temperature gradient?
Is it simply when greenhouse gases slow the rate at which the surface cools?
Is it when greenhouse gases cause the outgoing longwave radiation to be emitted from progressively higher and higher altitudes?
Is it when greenhouse gases essentially turn the many mile thick, fluid, compressible, gaseous atmosphere into a solid piece of glass?
Does it only exist at night like John Tyndall said?
Is it "when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere [and] it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and
retarding the escape of reflected heat." Mass vs EPA 2007 (This is this definition that got carbon dioxide classified as a "pollutant".)
Is it the effect without which the surface of the Earth would be the same temperature as if there were no atmosphere at all?
Is it the effect without which the surface of the Earth would be the same temperature as Mars?
Is it the effect that is assumed to have caused the Earth to come out of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800's simply because carbon dioxide levels
have increased since then as well?
Is it the effect that threatens to "runaway" causing the oceans to boil, convert to steam and kill everything?

Or:

Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to melt all of the glaciers if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to decrease crop yields if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase desertification if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to decrease the supply of fresh water if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase flooding if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase coastal erosion if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase heat waves if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase the intensity of cyclones if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to raise the sea level by more than 20 feet if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase heavy precipitation if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase the intensity and frequency of war if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to kill the world's coral reefs if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause the ecosystem to collapse if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause the global economy to collapse if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more droughts if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more rain if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more storms if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase death by disease if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to eliminate snowfall if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to kill almost everything on Earth if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?

Or:

Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a global carbon tax?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a draconian global energy policy?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten Western nations into willingly submitting to deindustrialization?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to prevent third-world economic development?
Is it a boogyman that is being used by "renewable energy" companies to fleece the government of billions of dollars in subsidies?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a restructuring of the global political order?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to population reduction?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a global system under which every
human being and every resource is inventoried and controlled by a central global authority?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting a massive wealth redistribution scheme?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to global fascism?

Or:

Is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) which is presumably being caused by the greenhouse effect a moral yardstick?
If you believe in CAGW are you a moral person?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you an immoral person?
If you believe in CAGW do you want to protect the environment?
If you don't believe in CAGW do you want to destroy the environment?
If you believe in CAGW will Gaia love you?
If you don't believe in CAGW will Gaia show you her wrath?
If you believe in CAGW are you a good person?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you a bad person?
If you believe in CAGW are you a selfless person who only wants to serve humanity?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you a selfish person who only wants to satisfy your own needs?
If you believe in CAGW are your motives pure?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you on the payroll of the greedy oil companies who are spreading disinformation?
If you believe in CAGW are you one who knows true science?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you one who denies true science?
If you believe in CAGW will you go to heaven when you die?
If you don't believe in CAGW will you go to hell when you die?

I'm just asking because I know what the "greenhouse effect" isn't. It isn't science, because scientific laws have a singular, succinct definition that is quantified by a singular succinct mathematical formula, they don't conflict with the other known laws of physics and they cannot be falsified by empirical observation. Beyond that, science does not have a political agenda nor does it make moral judgments.

Questions posed by Carl Brehmer.....any answers?

 

[mamooth]

SSDD, nobody is obligated to respond to an avalanche o' crap, and only intellectual cowards use the tactic. Like you did.

Honest people state a point succinctly. Cult liars cut and paste vast volumes of garbage, and then, in their mewling lisping voices, whimper that you have to ANSWER IT ALL, otherwise they'll cry extra hard at you.

SSDD, you may proceed to cry now. jc, make sure you jump in and suck his ass extra hard, as he'll need the support.

 

[jc456]

SSDD, nobody is obligated to respond to an avalanche o' crap, and only intellectual cowards use the tactic. Like you did.

Honest people state a point succinctly. Cult liars cut and paste vast volumes of garbage, and then, in their mewling lisping voices, whimper that you have to ANSWER IT ALL, otherwise they'll cry extra hard at you.

SSDD, you may proceed to cry now. jc, make sure you jump in and suck his ass extra hard, as he'll need the support.

Hey you're one of those intellectual cowards. Oh no you aren't, you're just a coward. We could call you lost in space!!!!!!! get it? Lost in Space...hahaahahahahahahahaahaha

Edit: BTW, great minds just think alike!!!!

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, nobody is obligated to respond to an avalanche o' crap, and only intellectual cowards use the tactic. Like you did.

Honest people state a point succinctly. Cult liars cut and paste vast volumes of garbage, and then, in their mewling lisping voices, whimper that you have to ANSWER IT ALL, otherwise they'll cry extra hard at you.

SSDD, you may proceed to cry now. jc, make sure you jump in and suck his ass extra hard, as he'll need the support.

Of course they do....you on the other hand can only hurl your bitterness....a succinct statement was made...can you prove it wrong? I know reading for comprehension isn't your thing so let me post it again...

I'm just asking because I know what the "greenhouse effect" isn't. It isn't science, because scientific laws have a singular, succinct definition that is quantified by a singular succinct mathematical formula, they don't conflict with the other known laws of physics and they cannot be falsified by empirical observation. Beyond that, science does not have a political agenda nor does it make moral judgments.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Influences on climate The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect Other Greenhouse Gases Roger Revelle's Discovery Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate Changing Sun, Changing Climate? Interview with Jack Eddy Ocean Currents and Climate Climate data The Modern Temperature Trend Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change Uses of Radiocarbon Dating Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth) Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages Temperatures from Fossil Shells Theory Simple Models of Climate Change Chaos in the Atmosphere Venus & Mars General Circulation Models of Climate Basic Radiation Calculations Arakawa's Computation Device

Climate and society Impacts of Climate Change Ice Sheets and Rising Seas The Public and Climate Change (1) (2) Wintry Doom Government: The View from Washington Climate Modification Schemes Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels International Cooperation Climatology as a Profession Reflections on the Scientific Process Conclusions: A Personal Note Talking Points (pdf) About this site/Reference/Utilities History in Hypertext - methods, sources TIMELINE of milestones BIBLIOGRAPHY by author Bibliography by year LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Please contribute comments, corrections. Author, Spencer Weart PDF files to download and print LINKS to basic and current information

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Global Warming Timeline

Timeline (Milestones)Introduction: summary history.) This list of milestones includes major influences external to the science itself. Following it is a list of other external influences.

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.Simple modelsOther gases

Simple modelsSimple models

1870-1910
Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.

1914-1918
World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

1920-1925
Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energyModern temp'sClimate cyclesCO2 greenhouse

1939-1945
World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

Government

Simple modelsModels (GCMs)Radiation math

InternationalCO2 greenhouseVenus & MarsModern temp's

CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.

Radiation math

Chaos theory

Climate cyclesInternational

Radiation math

Really fellows, here are real scientists to read, not undegreed ex-TV weathermen and fake english Lords.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming Timeline

1968
Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically. =>Sea rise & ice

Public opinionSimple modelsGovernment

Public opinionGovernmentAerosols

International

Venus & Mars

Rapid changePublic opinion

Government

Public opinion

Other gasesModels (GCMs)

Other gasesClimate cyclesBiosphereSolar variationPublic opinionGovernmentPublic opinionModels (GCMs)International

1981
Government

IBM Personal Computer introduced. Advanced economies are increasingly delinked from energy.AerosolsModern temp's

Rapid changeModern temp's

Government

Other gasesInternationalCO2The oceansInternationalPublic opinionInternationalOther gasesInternational

1989Public opinion

1990InternationalAerosolsSolar variationRapid changeInternationalModels (GCMs)Rapid changeInternationalPublic opinion

1997Toyota introduces Prius in Japan, first mass-market electric hybrid car; swift progress in large wind turbines and other energy alternatives.International

Even more reading material for our ignorant.

 

[westwall]

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Influences on climate The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect Other Greenhouse Gases Roger Revelle's Discovery Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate Changing Sun, Changing Climate? Interview with Jack Eddy Ocean Currents and Climate Climate data The Modern Temperature Trend Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change Uses of Radiocarbon Dating Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth) Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages Temperatures from Fossil Shells Theory Simple Models of Climate Change Chaos in the Atmosphere Venus & Mars General Circulation Models of Climate Basic Radiation Calculations Arakawa's Computation Device

Climate and society Impacts of Climate Change Ice Sheets and Rising Seas The Public and Climate Change (1) (2) Wintry Doom Government: The View from Washington Climate Modification Schemes Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels International Cooperation Climatology as a Profession Reflections on the Scientific Process Conclusions: A Personal Note Talking Points (pdf) About this site/Reference/Utilities History in Hypertext - methods, sources TIMELINE of milestones BIBLIOGRAPHY by author Bibliography by year LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Please contribute comments, corrections. Author, Spencer Weart PDF files to download and print LINKS to basic and current information

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Global Warming Timeline

Timeline (Milestones)Introduction: summary history.) This list of milestones includes major influences external to the science itself. Following it is a list of other external influences.

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.Simple modelsOther gases

Simple modelsSimple models

1870-1910
Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.

1914-1918
World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

1920-1925
Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energyModern temp'sClimate cyclesCO2 greenhouse

1939-1945
World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

Government

Simple modelsModels (GCMs)Radiation math

InternationalCO2 greenhouseVenus & MarsModern temp's

CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.

Radiation math

Chaos theory

Climate cyclesInternational

Radiation math

Really fellows, here are real scientists to read, not undegreed ex-TV weathermen and fake english Lords.

Five year averages are indicative of nothing. Has to be at least 30 years...remember? Well at least that's what you clowns always tell us, and yet here you are trotting out a 5 year average as if it means something. How about trotting out the decadal average from the 1930's. Let's see what that was.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming Timeline 1998 "Super El Niño" causes weather disasters and warmest year on record (approximately matched by 2005, 2007 and 2010). Borehole data confirm extraordinary warming trend. =>Modern temp'sclimate. =>Models (GCMs)Modern temp'sAerosolsPublic opinionBiosphereInternationalInternationalRapid changeModels (GCMs)AerosolsSea rise & icePublic opinionPublic opinionInternationalSea rise & iceModern temp's The rise could not be attributed to changes in solar energy. =>Solar variationPublic opinionInternationalSea rise & iceInternationalPublic opinionInternationalImpactsModern temp's Mean global temperature is 14.6°C, the warmest in thousands of years. Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 397 ppm, the highest in millions of years. TOP OF PAGE This is a reference list of miscellaneous significant developments that don't fit into any of the other essays: scientific-technical matters that arose altogether independently of the scientific fields covered, and are not included above in the list of major "milestones," but that did have a significant influence on climate change studies. Before the 1950s there were practically no global warming studies as such, and all the important discoveries (the ice ages, the infrared absorption of carbon dioxide, etc.) were effectively "external." Radiation math — Studies conducted largely for military applications give accurate values of infrared absorption by gases =>CO2 greenhouse — Nuclear physicists and chemists develop Carbon-14 analysis, useful for dating ancient climate changes=>Carbon dates, for detecting carbon from fossil fuels in the atmosphere, and for measuring the rate of ocean turnover =>CO2 greenhouse — Development of digital computers affects many fields including the calculation of radiation transfer in the atmosphere =>Radiation math, and makes it possible to model weather processes =>Models (GCMs) — Geological studies of polar wandering help provoke Ewing-Donn model of ice ages =>Simple models — Improvements in infrared instrumentation (mainly for industrial processes) allow very precise measurements of atmospheric CO2 =>CO2 greenhouse. Other gases — Research on urban air pollution, and related industrial and military applications,improves knowledge of aerosols and atmospheric turbidity =>Aerosols — Studies of fallout from nuclear weapons tests give improved picture of circulation of aerosols in the stratosphere =>Aerosols— Studies of fallout and pesticides foster worries that human technology can bring world-wide disaster =>Public opinion — Research on small-scale phenomena in various fields of geophysics (cloud formation, soil moisture, etc.) provides information useful for setting crucial parameters in global computer models=>Models (GCMs) — Studies of rice paddies and other biological and agricultural entities show emission of large quantities of methane =>Other gases. Solar variation — Models of glacier flow, developed by generations of glaciologists, reveal a possibly catastrophic instability in the Antarctic ice sheet =>Sea rise & ice — Fallout from nuclear weapons tests, slowly penetrating the oceans, reveals deep circulation patterns =>The oceans — Studies of ancient reversals of the Earth's magnetic field, measured in continental rocks and the ocean floor, provide a time-marker for climate changes =>Climate cycles — Ocean geologists find huge deposits of methane-bearing ices in the world’s seabeds =>Other gases — Continued rapid improvement of digital computers and software makes possible fairly realistic models of complex systems like climate =>Models (GCMs) — Nimbus-III and other satellites, designed chiefly for weather prediction, provide global data essential for climate modelling =>Models (GCMs). After about 1980, efforts that would be relevant to global warming were generally undertaken with an awareness of potential connections. Home There you have it, massive information from the biggest single Scientific Society in the world.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Old Rocks]

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Influences on climate The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect Other Greenhouse Gases Roger Revelle's Discovery Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate Changing Sun, Changing Climate? Interview with Jack Eddy Ocean Currents and Climate Climate data The Modern Temperature Trend Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change Uses of Radiocarbon Dating Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth) Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages Temperatures from Fossil Shells Theory Simple Models of Climate Change Chaos in the Atmosphere Venus & Mars General Circulation Models of Climate Basic Radiation Calculations Arakawa's Computation Device

Climate and society Impacts of Climate Change Ice Sheets and Rising Seas The Public and Climate Change (1) (2) Wintry Doom Government: The View from Washington Climate Modification Schemes Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels International Cooperation Climatology as a Profession Reflections on the Scientific Process Conclusions: A Personal Note Talking Points (pdf) About this site/Reference/Utilities History in Hypertext - methods, sources TIMELINE of milestones BIBLIOGRAPHY by author Bibliography by year LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Please contribute comments, corrections. Author, Spencer Weart PDF files to download and print LINKS to basic and current information

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Global Warming Timeline

Timeline (Milestones)Introduction: summary history.) This list of milestones includes major influences external to the science itself. Following it is a list of other external influences.

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.Simple modelsOther gases

Simple modelsSimple models

1870-1910
Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.

1914-1918
World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

1920-1925
Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energyModern temp'sClimate cyclesCO2 greenhouse

1939-1945
World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

Government

Simple modelsModels (GCMs)Radiation math

InternationalCO2 greenhouseVenus & MarsModern temp's

CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.

Radiation math

Chaos theory

Climate cyclesInternational

Radiation math

Really fellows, here are real scientists to read, not undegreed ex-TV weathermen and fake english Lords.

Five year averages are indicative of nothing. Has to be at least 30 years...remember? Well at least that's what you clowns always tell us, and yet here you are trotting out a 5 year average as if it means something. How about trotting out the decadal average from the 1930's. Let's see what that was.

OK, Phd Geologist, Fellow of the Royal Society, and American Geophysical Union, these are premier Physicists writing these articles. Why don't you write an article for a real peer reviewed journal and get it published rebutting what they have to say? With your credentials and intellect, that should be an easy assignment. How about a lecture from the podium in San Francisco this December, rebutting all those other lectures we have seen there?

You know that neither will ever happen, because you have to have real evidence to do either. And you have none.

 

[westwall]

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Influences on climate The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect Other Greenhouse Gases Roger Revelle's Discovery Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate Changing Sun, Changing Climate? Interview with Jack Eddy Ocean Currents and Climate Climate data The Modern Temperature Trend Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change Uses of Radiocarbon Dating Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth) Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages Temperatures from Fossil Shells Theory Simple Models of Climate Change Chaos in the Atmosphere Venus & Mars General Circulation Models of Climate Basic Radiation Calculations Arakawa's Computation Device

Climate and society Impacts of Climate Change Ice Sheets and Rising Seas The Public and Climate Change (1) (2) Wintry Doom Government: The View from Washington Climate Modification Schemes Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels International Cooperation Climatology as a Profession Reflections on the Scientific Process Conclusions: A Personal Note Talking Points (pdf) About this site/Reference/Utilities History in Hypertext - methods, sources TIMELINE of milestones BIBLIOGRAPHY by author Bibliography by year LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Please contribute comments, corrections. Author, Spencer Weart PDF files to download and print LINKS to basic and current information

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Global Warming Timeline

Timeline (Milestones)Introduction: summary history.) This list of milestones includes major influences external to the science itself. Following it is a list of other external influences.

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.Simple modelsOther gases

Simple modelsSimple models

1870-1910
Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.

1914-1918
World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

1920-1925
Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energyModern temp'sClimate cyclesCO2 greenhouse

1939-1945
World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

Government

Simple modelsModels (GCMs)Radiation math

InternationalCO2 greenhouseVenus & MarsModern temp's

CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.

Radiation math

Chaos theory

Climate cyclesInternational

Radiation math

Really fellows, here are real scientists to read, not undegreed ex-TV weathermen and fake english Lords.

Five year averages are indicative of nothing. Has to be at least 30 years...remember? Well at least that's what you clowns always tell us, and yet here you are trotting out a 5 year average as if it means something. How about trotting out the decadal average from the 1930's. Let's see what that was.

OK, Phd Geologist, Fellow of the Royal Society, and American Geophysical Union, these are premier Physicists writing these articles. Why don't you write an article for a real peer reviewed journal and get it published rebutting what they have to say? With your credentials and intellect, that should be an easy assignment. How about a lecture from the podium in San Francisco this December, rebutting all those other lectures we have seen there?

You know that neither will ever happen, because you have to have real evidence to do either. And you have none.

And they're breaking your rules. So either the rules don't matter or they are just making crap up. Which is it?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Influences on climate The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect Other Greenhouse Gases Roger Revelle's Discovery Aerosols: Volcanoes, Dust, Clouds Biosphere: How Life Alters Climate Changing Sun, Changing Climate? Interview with Jack Eddy Ocean Currents and Climate Climate data The Modern Temperature Trend Rapid Climate Change Abrupt climate change Uses of Radiocarbon Dating Greenland Ice Drilling (J. Genuth) Past Climate Cycles and Ice Ages Temperatures from Fossil Shells Theory Simple Models of Climate Change Chaos in the Atmosphere Venus & Mars General Circulation Models of Climate Basic Radiation Calculations Arakawa's Computation Device

Climate and society Impacts of Climate Change Ice Sheets and Rising Seas The Public and Climate Change (1) (2) Wintry Doom Government: The View from Washington Climate Modification Schemes Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Levels International Cooperation Climatology as a Profession Reflections on the Scientific Process Conclusions: A Personal Note Talking Points (pdf) About this site/Reference/Utilities History in Hypertext - methods, sources TIMELINE of milestones BIBLIOGRAPHY by author Bibliography by year LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Please contribute comments, corrections. Author, Spencer Weart PDF files to download and print LINKS to basic and current information

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Global Warming Timeline

Timeline (Milestones)Introduction: summary history.) This list of milestones includes major influences external to the science itself. Following it is a list of other external influences.

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.Simple modelsOther gases

Simple modelsSimple models

1870-1910
Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.

1914-1918
World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

1920-1925
Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energyModern temp'sClimate cyclesCO2 greenhouse

1939-1945
World War II. Military grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

Government

Simple modelsModels (GCMs)Radiation math

InternationalCO2 greenhouseVenus & MarsModern temp's

CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.

Radiation math

Chaos theory

Climate cyclesInternational

Radiation math

Really fellows, here are real scientists to read, not undegreed ex-TV weathermen and fake english Lords.

Five year averages are indicative of nothing. Has to be at least 30 years...remember? Well at least that's what you clowns always tell us, and yet here you are trotting out a 5 year average as if it means something. How about trotting out the decadal average from the 1930's. Let's see what that was.

OK, Phd Geologist, Fellow of the Royal Society, and American Geophysical Union, these are premier Physicists writing these articles. Why don't you write an article for a real peer reviewed journal and get it published rebutting what they have to say? With your credentials and intellect, that should be an easy assignment. How about a lecture from the podium in San Francisco this December, rebutting all those other lectures we have seen there?

You know that neither will ever happen, because you have to have real evidence to do either. And you have none.

And they're breaking your rules. So either the rules don't matter or they are just making crap up. Which is it?

What rules are they breaking, oh great intellect? Creating solar panels that are more efficient than 24%?

 

[Crick]

Five year averages are indicative of nothing. Has to be at least 30 years...remember? Well at least that's what you clowns always tell us, and yet here you are trotting out a 5 year average as if it means something. How about trotting out the decadal average from the 1930's. Let's see what that was.

Here you go.

 

[SSDD]

Five year averages are indicative of nothing. Has to be at least 30 years...remember? Well at least that's what you clowns always tell us, and yet here you are trotting out a 5 year average as if it means something. How about trotting out the decadal average from the 1930's. Let's see what that was.

Five years when it was warming...then it stopped and suddenly it would take 10 years...then 14 years....and finally, 17 years....now that the 17 year mark has come and gone, suddenly it needs 30 years....enough time for the present crop of frauds to be safely retired by the time the chickens come home to roost.

 

[IanC]

no atmosphere- solar in (minus albedo) and IR directly out. very hot and very cold.

N2 atmosphere (eg no GHGs)- solar in (minus albedo and some atmospheric absorption) and IR directly out minus conduction/convection which warms the atmosphere. because the atmosphere is above 0 degreesK it has blackbody radiation and roughly half is downward to the planet. even without GHGs the atmosphere is a heat sink which mediates both the extreme temperatures of the surface.

atmosphere with GHGs- solar in (minus albedo and some atmospheric absorption) and some IR directly escapes while other IR is absorbed by GHGs and warms the atmosphere even more. water vapour also carries latent heat from evaporation upwards which increases the conduction/convection portion of surface energy that is carried aloft into the atmosphere. the warmer atmosphere produces even more blackbody radiation and some directly re-emitted IR back to the surface.

to reiterate: any atmosphere will warm the surface and smooth out the temperature extremes by being a heat sink. an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases will be even more efficient at raising the surface temp and smoothing out the extremes.

many of the points in SSDD's OP are important BUT the atmosphere has already come to near equilibrium and we are only interested in the small effects caused by the tiny changes in GHG composition.

 

[SSDD]

no atmosphere- solar in (minus albedo) and IR directly out. very hot and very cold.

N2 atmosphere (eg no GHGs)- solar in (minus albedo and some atmospheric absorption) and IR directly out minus conduction/convection which warms the atmosphere. because the atmosphere is above 0 degreesK it has blackbody radiation and roughly half is downward to the planet. even without GHGs the atmosphere is a heat sink which mediates both the extreme temperatures of the surface.

atmosphere with GHGs- solar in (minus albedo and some atmospheric absorption) and some IR directly escapes while other IR is absorbed by GHGs and warms the atmosphere even more. water vapour also carries latent heat from evaporation upwards which increases the conduction/convection portion of surface energy that is carried aloft into the atmosphere. the warmer atmosphere produces even more blackbody radiation and some directly re-emitted IR back to the surface.

to reiterate: any atmosphere will warm the surface and smooth out the temperature extremes by being a heat sink. an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases will be even more efficient at raising the surface temp and smoothing out the extremes.

many of the points in SSDD's OP are important BUT the atmosphere has already come to near equilibrium and we are only interested in the small effects caused by the tiny changes in GHG composition.

The sensitivity keeps being adjusted down...in less than 20 years, that sensitivity will be adjusted down to zero or very near zero where it belongs....the only effect CO2 has on climate is the weight it adds to the atmosphere. Sooner or later real science always replaces the belief in magic.

 

[Crick]

And the hits just keep on coming.

Billy Bob, you seem to have a strong affinity (or a durable stomach) for ol' SSDD here. What do you think of his idea that compression creates heat forever? That's what he's referring to when he says the only effect of the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere has been due to its weight. He thinks that the added gas have increased air pressure and THAT is what has caused this warming we've observed over the last 150 years.

That scuba tank out in the garage? The air inside is at, like, 10,000C and will stay that way till the end of time. You could submerge it in ice water for the next thousand years. SSDD says it will still be 10,000C in there. Do you buy that Billy Bob?

 

[IanC]

no atmosphere- solar in (minus albedo) and IR directly out. very hot and very cold.

N2 atmosphere (eg no GHGs)- solar in (minus albedo and some atmospheric absorption) and IR directly out minus conduction/convection which warms the atmosphere. because the atmosphere is above 0 degreesK it has blackbody radiation and roughly half is downward to the planet. even without GHGs the atmosphere is a heat sink which mediates both the extreme temperatures of the surface.

atmosphere with GHGs- solar in (minus albedo and some atmospheric absorption) and some IR directly escapes while other IR is absorbed by GHGs and warms the atmosphere even more. water vapour also carries latent heat from evaporation upwards which increases the conduction/convection portion of surface energy that is carried aloft into the atmosphere. the warmer atmosphere produces even more blackbody radiation and some directly re-emitted IR back to the surface.

to reiterate: any atmosphere will warm the surface and smooth out the temperature extremes by being a heat sink. an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases will be even more efficient at raising the surface temp and smoothing out the extremes.

many of the points in SSDD's OP are important BUT the atmosphere has already come to near equilibrium and we are only interested in the small effects caused by the tiny changes in GHG composition.

The sensitivity keeps being adjusted down...in less than 20 years, that sensitivity will be adjusted down to zero or very near zero where it belongs....the only effect CO2 has on climate is the weight it adds to the atmosphere. Sooner or later real science always replaces the belief in magic.

I agree that the sensitivity will continue to come down but even with negative feedbacks I dont think doubling CO2 will ever be zero.

 

[Bfgrn]

Carl Brehmer asks a damned fine question when he asks what is the greenhouse effect.

Is it a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?
Is it an increase in downwelling IR radiation from the atmosphere?
Is it an increase in the R-value of the atmosphere, i.e., greenhouse gases act like insulation?
Is it a decrease in upper atmospheric temperatures which forces an increase in lower atmospheric temperatures?
Is it an increase in the atmosphere's temperature lapse rate?
Is it a warming of the entire atmosphere while the temperature lapse rate remains unchanged?
Is it simply the difference between the Earth's "effective radiating temperature" and surface level air temperatures?
Is it when greenhouse gases force heat to move back towards the Earth's surface against the temperature gradient?
Is it simply when greenhouse gases slow the rate at which the surface cools?
Is it when greenhouse gases cause the outgoing longwave radiation to be emitted from progressively higher and higher altitudes?
Is it when greenhouse gases essentially turn the many mile thick, fluid, compressible, gaseous atmosphere into a solid piece of glass?
Does it only exist at night like John Tyndall said?
Is it "when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere [and] it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and
retarding the escape of reflected heat." Mass vs EPA 2007 (This is this definition that got carbon dioxide classified as a "pollutant".)
Is it the effect without which the surface of the Earth would be the same temperature as if there were no atmosphere at all?
Is it the effect without which the surface of the Earth would be the same temperature as Mars?
Is it the effect that is assumed to have caused the Earth to come out of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800's simply because carbon dioxide levels
have increased since then as well?
Is it the effect that threatens to "runaway" causing the oceans to boil, convert to steam and kill everything?

Or:

Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to melt all of the glaciers if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to decrease crop yields if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase desertification if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to decrease the supply of fresh water if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase flooding if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase coastal erosion if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase heat waves if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase the intensity of cyclones if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to raise the sea level by more than 20 feet if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase heavy precipitation if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase the intensity and frequency of war if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to kill the world's coral reefs if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause the ecosystem to collapse if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause the global economy to collapse if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more droughts if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more rain if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more storms if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase death by disease if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to eliminate snowfall if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to kill almost everything on Earth if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?

Or:

Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a global carbon tax?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a draconian global energy policy?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten Western nations into willingly submitting to deindustrialization?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to prevent third-world economic development?
Is it a boogyman that is being used by "renewable energy" companies to fleece the government of billions of dollars in subsidies?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a restructuring of the global political order?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to population reduction?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a global system under which every
human being and every resource is inventoried and controlled by a central global authority?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting a massive wealth redistribution scheme?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to global fascism?

Or:

Is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) which is presumably being caused by the greenhouse effect a moral yardstick?
If you believe in CAGW are you a moral person?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you an immoral person?
If you believe in CAGW do you want to protect the environment?
If you don't believe in CAGW do you want to destroy the environment?
If you believe in CAGW will Gaia love you?
If you don't believe in CAGW will Gaia show you her wrath?
If you believe in CAGW are you a good person?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you a bad person?
If you believe in CAGW are you a selfless person who only wants to serve humanity?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you a selfish person who only wants to satisfy your own needs?
If you believe in CAGW are your motives pure?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you on the payroll of the greedy oil companies who are spreading disinformation?
If you believe in CAGW are you one who knows true science?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you one who denies true science?
If you believe in CAGW will you go to heaven when you die?
If you don't believe in CAGW will you go to hell when you die?

I'm just asking because I know what the "greenhouse effect" isn't. It isn't science, because scientific laws have a singular, succinct definition that is quantified by a singular succinct mathematical formula, they don't conflict with the other known laws of physics and they cannot be falsified by empirical observation. Beyond that, science does not have a political agenda nor does it make moral judgments.

Questions posed by Carl Brehmer.....any answers?

Start here, at you level...

 

[SSDD]

Carl Brehmer asks a damned fine question when he asks what is the greenhouse effect.

Is it a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation?
Is it an increase in downwelling IR radiation from the atmosphere?
Is it an increase in the R-value of the atmosphere, i.e., greenhouse gases act like insulation?
Is it a decrease in upper atmospheric temperatures which forces an increase in lower atmospheric temperatures?
Is it an increase in the atmosphere's temperature lapse rate?
Is it a warming of the entire atmosphere while the temperature lapse rate remains unchanged?
Is it simply the difference between the Earth's "effective radiating temperature" and surface level air temperatures?
Is it when greenhouse gases force heat to move back towards the Earth's surface against the temperature gradient?
Is it simply when greenhouse gases slow the rate at which the surface cools?
Is it when greenhouse gases cause the outgoing longwave radiation to be emitted from progressively higher and higher altitudes?
Is it when greenhouse gases essentially turn the many mile thick, fluid, compressible, gaseous atmosphere into a solid piece of glass?
Does it only exist at night like John Tyndall said?
Is it "when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere [and] it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and
retarding the escape of reflected heat." Mass vs EPA 2007 (This is this definition that got carbon dioxide classified as a "pollutant".)
Is it the effect without which the surface of the Earth would be the same temperature as if there were no atmosphere at all?
Is it the effect without which the surface of the Earth would be the same temperature as Mars?
Is it the effect that is assumed to have caused the Earth to come out of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800's simply because carbon dioxide levels
have increased since then as well?
Is it the effect that threatens to "runaway" causing the oceans to boil, convert to steam and kill everything?

Or:

Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to melt all of the glaciers if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to decrease crop yields if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase desertification if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to decrease the supply of fresh water if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase flooding if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase coastal erosion if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase heat waves if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase the intensity of cyclones if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to raise the sea level by more than 20 feet if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase heavy precipitation if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase the intensity and frequency of war if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to kill the world's coral reefs if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause the ecosystem to collapse if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause the global economy to collapse if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more droughts if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more rain if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to cause more storms if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to increase death by disease if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to eliminate snowfall if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?
Is it the mechanism by which carbon dioxide and water vapor are going to kill almost everything on Earth if we don't abandon the use of fire as an energy source?

Or:

Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a global carbon tax?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a draconian global energy policy?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten Western nations into willingly submitting to deindustrialization?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to prevent third-world economic development?
Is it a boogyman that is being used by "renewable energy" companies to fleece the government of billions of dollars in subsidies?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a restructuring of the global political order?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to population reduction?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to a global system under which every
human being and every resource is inventoried and controlled by a central global authority?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting a massive wealth redistribution scheme?
Is it a boogyman that is being used to frighten humanity into willingly submitting to global fascism?

Or:

Is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) which is presumably being caused by the greenhouse effect a moral yardstick?
If you believe in CAGW are you a moral person?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you an immoral person?
If you believe in CAGW do you want to protect the environment?
If you don't believe in CAGW do you want to destroy the environment?
If you believe in CAGW will Gaia love you?
If you don't believe in CAGW will Gaia show you her wrath?
If you believe in CAGW are you a good person?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you a bad person?
If you believe in CAGW are you a selfless person who only wants to serve humanity?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you a selfish person who only wants to satisfy your own needs?
If you believe in CAGW are your motives pure?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you on the payroll of the greedy oil companies who are spreading disinformation?
If you believe in CAGW are you one who knows true science?
If you don't believe in CAGW are you one who denies true science?
If you believe in CAGW will you go to heaven when you die?
If you don't believe in CAGW will you go to hell when you die?

I'm just asking because I know what the "greenhouse effect" isn't. It isn't science, because scientific laws have a singular, succinct definition that is quantified by a singular succinct mathematical formula, they don't conflict with the other known laws of physics and they cannot be falsified by empirical observation. Beyond that, science does not have a political agenda nor does it make moral judgments.

Questions posed by Carl Brehmer.....any answers?

Start here, at you level...

you think the sky is made of glsss?

 

[Crick]

I suspect he thinks the transparency lies in your thought processes. Wispy. Ephemeral. Lacking in substance or content.