What is the Greenhouse Effect?

[SSDD]

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

And yet, he provided an example that compares the sky to a plate of glass....I guess you can't differentiate the problem with claiming the sky is like a sheet of glass when it isn't, any more than you can differentiate the difference between being asked to hold your breath indefinitely and public calls for imprisonment and execution of skeptics.

 

[Crick]

You are so incredibly stupid.

 

[IanC]

....considering two planets with equal albedo. Both planets are dry and one has a non-absorbing Nitrogen (N2) atmosphere, the other has an absorbing Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmosphere. They experience the same solar input and all other features are the same. Doug has proclaimed the truth of Loschmidt’s temperature gradient which matches the dry adiabatic lapse rate so we agree in the existence of the gradient, he has agreed that the planets each emit at the same temperature when viewed from space, and he admits that the average emission altitude of the CO2 planet is higher than the ground level emission of our Nitrogen planet.

If the atmosphere is cooler as we go higher in altitude, and the emission temperatures of both are the same yet the average emission altitude of the CO2 planet is non-zero, then the ground temperature of the CO2 planet must be warmer than the N2 planet – global warming theory is proven.

this is for a dry planet. water acts both as a GHG and a conveyor belt to lift heat up to the cloud tops.

anyone who denies that there is a greenhouse effect just doesnt understand basic physics. arguing over the size of that effect is reasonable given that there are a whole lot of other important mechanisms at work as well.

 

[SSDD]

this is for a dry planet. water acts both as a GHG and a conveyor belt to lift heat up to the cloud tops.

anyone who denies that there is a greenhouse effect just doesnt understand basic physics. arguing over the size of that effect is reasonable given that there are a whole lot of other important mechanisms at work as well.

Anyone who believes there is a greenhouse effect as described by climate science believes in magic.

 

[Politico]

What is the Greenhouse Effect?

Well it is two things depending on how lockstep nuts you are. The thing that Carter said was going to kill us by the year 2000. Or the thing that Al Gore in his desperate attempt at attention said was going to kill us a few years ago.

 

[IanC]

this is for a dry planet. water acts both as a GHG and a conveyor belt to lift heat up to the cloud tops.

anyone who denies that there is a greenhouse effect just doesnt understand basic physics. arguing over the size of that effect is reasonable given that there are a whole lot of other important mechanisms at work as well.

Anyone who believes there is a greenhouse effect as described by climate science believes in magic.

I dont believe in the numbers assigned by climate science but I do believe in the greenhouse effect. as you have often accused me of believing in magic I can only assume that you have lumped me in with them. true or no?

 

[SSDD]

I dont believe in the numbers assigned by climate science but I do believe in the greenhouse effect. as you have often accused me of believing in magic I can only assume that you have lumped me in with them. true or no?

If the climate were sensitive to CO2, but less sensitive as you believe, then we would be seeing less warming but some warming none the less....for the past 2 decades, if you subtract the chicanery that is going on with the temperature data, it has been cooling in the face of ever increasing CO2.

At some point, even luke warmers are going to have to wake up to the fact that the physics that you believe in are simply wrong. How long does what you believe should be happening have to not happen before you go back to the basics to see where you left the tracks and what you believe no longer jibes with observations?

 

[IanC]

I dont believe in the numbers assigned by climate science but I do believe in the greenhouse effect. as you have often accused me of believing in magic I can only assume that you have lumped me in with them. true or no?

If the climate were sensitive to CO2, but less sensitive as you believe, then we would be seeing less warming but some warming none the less....for the past 2 decades, if you subtract the chicanery that is going on with the temperature data, it has been cooling in the face of ever increasing CO2.

At some point, even luke warmers are going to have to wake up to the fact that the physics that you believe in are simply wrong. How long does what you believe should be happening have to not happen before you go back to the basics to see where you left the tracks and what you believe no longer jibes with observations?

lukewarmers state that CO2 has an effect by interfering with the escape of LW radiation. we never said it was big enough to overpower other natural variations. calculations for a doubling of CO2 gives an answer of ~1C if everything else remains the same! if natural forces over the timespan needed to double CO2 would have dropped the temp by 2C then there would only be a 1C drop, if natural forces would have ordinarily warmed the temp by 2C then the net warming would be 3C.

I also believe that the climate is non linear, that new factors join in and other factors drop out, at least in part, when the temperature range changes.

 

[SSDD]

lukewarmers state that CO2 has an effect by interfering with the escape of LW radiation.

Except that isn't what is happening...if it were, then the tropospheric hot spot would be in evidence and the outgoing LW at the TOA would not be ever increasing...

The missing heat has left the stadium....It isn't being slowed down, it is in the express lane leaving at ever increasing rates as CO2 increases.

Luke warmers are as wrong as warmers, you just believe in smaller numbers....like being a little bit pregnant.

 

[Judicial review]

Can I effect greenhouse gases if I fart?

 

[SSDD]

Can I effect greenhouse gases if I fart?

Oh yeah....according to old rocks methane is going to kill us all. He is more afraid of methane than of lucifer himself.

 

[IanC]

lukewarmers state that CO2 has an effect by interfering with the escape of LW radiation.

Except that isn't what is happening...if it were, then the tropospheric hot spot would be in evidence and the outgoing LW at the TOA would not be ever increasing...

The missing heat has left the stadium....It isn't being slowed down, it is in the express lane leaving at ever increasing rates as CO2 increases.

Luke warmers are as wrong as warmers, you just believe in smaller numbers....like being a little bit pregnant.

I dont trust the way satellite data is spliced together over many instruments. the CERES data shows a slight shift from LW to SW over its timespan, while remaining fairly constant in output.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can I effect greenhouse gases if I fart?

Oh yeah....according to old rocks methane is going to kill us all. He is more afraid of methane than of lucifer himself.

Since Lucifer does not exist, and clathrate methane does, you have a point.

SWERUS-C3 First observations of methane release from Arctic Ocean hydrates

Örjan Gustafsson thinks that the mechanism behind the presence of methane seeps at these depths may have something to do with the ”tongue” of relatively warm Atlantic water, presumably intruding across the Arctic Ocean at 200–600 m depths.” Some evidence have shown that this water mass has recently become warmer. As this warm Atlantic water, the last remnants of the Gulf Stream, propagates eastward along the upper slope of the East Siberian margin, it may lead to destabilization of methane hydrates on the upper portion of the slope. This may be what we are now seeing for the first time,” writes Örjan Gustafsson.

SWERUS-C3 scientists could determine the depth from which methane plumes were bubbling up with the help of precise sonar instruments commonly used to map the bottom of the deep ocean and detect gas seeps in the water column. ”We mapped out an area of several kilometers where bubbles were filling the water column at depths of 200 to 500 m,” writes Örjan Gustafsson. Additional observations include the discovery of over 100 new methane seep sites in the shallower waters of the Laptev shelf (at 60–70m depth), a likely consequence of the thawing subsea permafrost.

”SWERUS-C3 researchers have on earlier expeditions documented extensive venting of methane from the subsea permafrost system to the atmosphere over the East Siberian Arctic Shelf,” writes Örjan Gustafsson. He continues: ”On this expedition we have gathered a strong team to assess these methane releases in greater detail than ever before to substantially improve our collective understanding of the methane sources and the functioning of these systems.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists seem to be worried, also.

Arctic Ocean Gas Hydrate Stability in a Changing Climate

Research Article
Arctic Ocean Gas Hydrate Stability in a Changing Climate
Michela Giustiniani,1 Umberta Tinivella,1 Martin Jakobsson,2 and Michele Rebesco1
1National Institute of Oceanography and Experimental Geophysics (OGS), Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/C, 34010 Trieste, Italy
2Department of Geological Sciences, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

Received 26 June 2013; Accepted 17 September 2013

Academic Editor: Xuewei Liu

Copyright © 2013 Michela Giustiniani et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract
Recent estimations suggest that vast amounts of methane are locked in the Arctic Ocean bottom sediments in various forms of gas hydrates. A potential feedback from a continued warming of the Arctic region is therefore the release of methane to the atmosphere. This study addresses the relationship between a warming of the Arctic ocean and gas hydrate stability. We apply a theoretical model that estimates the base of the gas hydrate stability zone in the Arctic Ocean considering different bottom water warming and sea level scenarios. We model the present day conditions adopting two different geothermal gradient values: 30 and 40°C/km. For each geothermal gradient value, we simulate a rise and a decrease in seafloor temperature equal to 2°C and in sea level equal to 10 m. The results show that shallow gas hydrates present in water depths less than 500 m would be strongly affected by a future rise in seafloor temperature potentially resulting in large amounts of gas released to the water column due to their dissociation. We estimate that the area, where there could be complete gas hydrate dissociation, is about 4% of the area where there are the conditions for gas hydrates stability.

 

[Old Rocks]

Note that my sources are actual research scientists, not ex-TV weathermen or fake English Lords.

Geologic methane seeps along boundaries of Arctic permafrost thaw and melting glaciers Nature Geoscience Nature Publishing Group

Arctic permafrost thaw and melting glaciers

• Katey M. Walter Anthony,
• Peter Anthony,
• Guido Grosse
• & Jeffrey Chanton

• Affiliations
• Contributions
• Corresponding author

Nature Geoscience

5,

419–426

(2012)

doi:10.1038/ngeo1480
Received

01 August 2011
Accepted

19 April 2012
Published online

20 May 2012
Full text

• PDF

• Citation

• Reprints

• Rights & permissions

• Article metrics

Abstract

• Abstract•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information

Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, accumulates in subsurface hydrocarbon reservoirs, such as coal beds and natural gas deposits. In the Arctic, permafrost and glaciers form a ‘cryosphere cap’ that traps gas leaking from these reservoirs, restricting flow to the atmosphere. With a carbon store of over 1,200Pg, the Arctic geologic methane reservoir is large when compared with the global atmospheric methane pool of around 5Pg. As such, the Earth’s climate is sensitive to the escape of even a small fraction of this methane. Here, we document the release of 14C-depleted methane to the atmosphere from abundant gas seeps concentrated along boundaries of permafrost thaw and receding glaciers in Alaska and Greenland, using aerial and ground surface survey data and in situmeasurements of methane isotopes and flux. We mapped over 150,000 seeps, which we identified as bubble-induced open holes in lake ice. These seeps were characterized by anomalously high methane fluxes, and in Alaska by ancient radiocarbon ages and stable isotope values that matched those of coal bed and thermogenic methane accumulations. Younger seeps in Greenland were associated with zones of ice-sheet retreat since the Little Ice Age. Our findings imply that in a warming climate, disintegration of permafrost, glaciers and parts of the polar ice sheets could facilitate the transient expulsion of 14C-depleted methane trapped by the cryosphere cap.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is a lot to learn about the effect of another 1 ppm of CH4 in the atmosphere, are we are going to learn it the hard way.

Methane and Frozen Ground National Snow and Ice Data Center

What are the sources of methane in the Arctic?
There are two potential sources of methane in the Arctic. The first source of methane is called methyl clathrate. Methyl clathrates are molecules of methane that are frozen into ice crystals. They can form deep in the Earth or underwater, but it takes very special conditions, with high pressure and low temperature, to make them. If the temperature or pressure changes, the ice that imprisons the methane will break apart, and the methane will escape. We're not sure how much methane is trapped in methyl clathrates, or how much is in danger of escaping.

The other major source of methane in the Arctic is the organic matter frozen in permafrost. This is the source of methane that I study. The organic matter in permafrost contains a lot of carbon. It is made of dead plants and animals that have been frozen deep in permafrost for thousands of years. As long as this organic matter remains frozen, it will stay in the permafrost. However, if it thaws, it will decay, releasing carbon dioxide or methane into the atmosphere. This is why permafrost carbon is important to climate study.

 

[SSDD]

Can I effect greenhouse gases if I fart?

Oh yeah....according to old rocks methane is going to kill us all. He is more afraid of methane than of lucifer himself.

Since Lucifer does not exist, and clathrate methane does, you have a point.

I hear that there will not be a single atheist in hell.

 

[SSDD]

There is a lot to learn about the effect of another 1 ppm of CH4 in the atmosphere, are we are going to learn it the hard way.

Methane and Frozen Ground National Snow and Ice Data Center

What are the sources of methane in the Arctic?
There are two potential sources of methane in the Arctic. The first source of methane is called methyl clathrate. Methyl clathrates are molecules of methane that are frozen into ice crystals. They can form deep in the Earth or underwater, but it takes very special conditions, with high pressure and low temperature, to make them. If the temperature or pressure changes, the ice that imprisons the methane will break apart, and the methane will escape. We're not sure how much methane is trapped in methyl clathrates, or how much is in danger of escaping.

The other major source of methane in the Arctic is the organic matter frozen in permafrost. This is the source of methane that I study. The organic matter in permafrost contains a lot of carbon. It is made of dead plants and animals that have been frozen deep in permafrost for thousands of years. As long as this organic matter remains frozen, it will stay in the permafrost. However, if it thaws, it will decay, releasing carbon dioxide or methane into the atmosphere. This is why permafrost carbon is important to climate study.

Methane is no more able to cause warming than CO2...both rely on the same magical thinking.

 

[jc456]

I dont believe in the numbers assigned by climate science but I do believe in the greenhouse effect. as you have often accused me of believing in magic I can only assume that you have lumped me in with them. true or no?

If the climate were sensitive to CO2, but less sensitive as you believe, then we would be seeing less warming but some warming none the less....for the past 2 decades, if you subtract the chicanery that is going on with the temperature data, it has been cooling in the face of ever increasing CO2.

At some point, even luke warmers are going to have to wake up to the fact that the physics that you believe in are simply wrong. How long does what you believe should be happening have to not happen before you go back to the basics to see where you left the tracks and what you believe no longer jibes with observations?

lukewarmers state that CO2 has an effect by interfering with the escape of LW radiation. we never said it was big enough to overpower other natural variations. calculations for a doubling of CO2 gives an answer of ~1C if everything else remains the same! if natural forces over the timespan needed to double CO2 would have dropped the temp by 2C then there would only be a 1C drop, if natural forces would have ordinarily warmed the temp by 2C then the net warming would be 3C.

I also believe that the climate is non linear, that new factors join in and other factors drop out, at least in part, when the temperature range changes.

And this is what I learned happens as CO2 increases.

Do you have any different info regarding how the photosynthesis happens as the percentage increase?

Edit: and why I'm always asking for the experiment that disproves that graph. And BTW, not one person on here has provided any evidence to disprove it. Not one!! So if there are all of the scientists all over this earth so smart why can't they dispute this, as a result I refuse to accept anything about AGW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Have you see the avalanche of crap we get whenever we ask you to post one single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature 2-7 degrees?