Arctic ice thins dramatically

[wirebender]

You're missing the point. Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted. Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it. Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat. It's simple logic, really!!!

Statistically? Tell me, if you drew rays from a sphere suspended over the earth, what percentage of those rays would actually be pointing towards the earth? Remember, you have a sphere suspended above a sphere. The earth is not flat no matter what the simulations of your priests say.

Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions? What percentage of the radiation that any given CO2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?

Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm its heat source (the earth). Once again, that would constitute free energy. Energy that is recycled back to its source that increases the net output of the source without the input of additional work. Sorry guy, but that simply can not happen. If it could, we could put reflectors in front of heaters in our homes and induce those heaters to put out more energy than they recieve from our electrical outlets. Feel free to try it but it won't work in your home any more than it works in the atmosphere.

The heat source is the sun. That is all of the energy you have. Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done. You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.

 

[Big Fitz]

you're missing the point. Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by co2 and then re-emitted. Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it. Couple that with the increase of co2 and other ghgs since the advent of the industrial revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat. It's simple logic, really!!!

statistically? Tell me, if you drew rays from a sphere suspended over the earth, what percentage of those rays would actually be pointing towards the earth? Remember, you have a sphere suspended above a sphere. The earth is not flat no matter what the simulations of your priests say.

Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions? What percentage of the radiation that any given co2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?

Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm its heat source (the earth). Once again, that would constitute free energy. Energy that is recycled back to its source that increases the net output of the source without the input of additional work. Sorry guy, but that simply can not happen. If it could, we could put reflectors in front of heaters in our homes and induce those heaters to put out more energy than they recieve from our electrical outlets. Feel free to try it but it won't work in your home any more than it works in the atmosphere.

The heat source is the sun. That is all of the energy you have. Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done. You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.

damn you second law of thermodynamics!!!! Daaaaammmn youuuuuuuu!!!!!!!

 

[konradv]

you're missing the point. Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by co2 and then re-emitted. Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it. Couple that with the increase of co2 and other ghgs since the advent of the industrial revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat. It's simple logic, really!!!

statistically? Tell me, if you drew rays from a sphere suspended over the earth, what percentage of those rays would actually be pointing towards the earth? Remember, you have a sphere suspended above a sphere. The earth is not flat no matter what the simulations of your priests say.

Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions? What percentage of the radiation that any given co2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?

Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm its heat source (the earth). Once again, that would constitute free energy. Energy that is recycled back to its source that increases the net output of the source without the input of additional work. Sorry guy, but that simply can not happen. If it could, we could put reflectors in front of heaters in our homes and induce those heaters to put out more energy than they recieve from our electrical outlets. Feel free to try it but it won't work in your home any more than it works in the atmosphere.

The heat source is the sun. That is all of the energy you have. Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done. You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.

damn you second law of thermodynamics!!!! Daaaaammmn youuuuuuuu!!!!!!!

Don't know what you're crowing about, Fitz, except perhaps your woeful lack of knowledge of the 2nd Law. You don't even have to quote it to prove wirebender's analysis is false. CO2 acts like the lid on a pot, keeping heat in. That's the WHOLE DEAL. There is no "greater energy input". Some energy is retained as the sun keeps pouring in more, resulting in increased temps.

 

[Big Fitz]

statistically? Tell me, if you drew rays from a sphere suspended over the earth, what percentage of those rays would actually be pointing towards the earth? Remember, you have a sphere suspended above a sphere. The earth is not flat no matter what the simulations of your priests say.

Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions? What percentage of the radiation that any given co2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?

Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm its heat source (the earth). Once again, that would constitute free energy. Energy that is recycled back to its source that increases the net output of the source without the input of additional work. Sorry guy, but that simply can not happen. If it could, we could put reflectors in front of heaters in our homes and induce those heaters to put out more energy than they recieve from our electrical outlets. Feel free to try it but it won't work in your home any more than it works in the atmosphere.

The heat source is the sun. That is all of the energy you have. Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done. You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.

damn you second law of thermodynamics!!!! Daaaaammmn youuuuuuuu!!!!!!!

Don't know what you're crowing about, Fitz, except perhaps your woeful lack of knowledge of the 2nd Law. You don't even have to quote it to prove wirebender's analysis is false. CO2 acts like the lid on a pot, keeping heat in. That's the WHOLE DEAL. There is no "greater energy input". Some energy is retained as the sun keeps pouring in more, resulting in increased temps.

And if this was the case we would have burned up millions of years ago because the CO2 has been higher than now, and you're talking massive changes happening in mere years. Millions of years of absorbed energy... everything should be a molten smoking ball.

I deride the importance you place both on absorbed energy AND CO2's power, let alone man's production of it.

And will continue to do so, because it's fun and stays crunchy in milk.

 

[konradv]

damn you second law of thermodynamics!!!! Daaaaammmn youuuuuuuu!!!!!!!

Don't know what you're crowing about, Fitz, except perhaps your woeful lack of knowledge of the 2nd Law. You don't even have to quote it to prove wirebender's analysis is false. CO2 acts like the lid on a pot, keeping heat in. That's the WHOLE DEAL. There is no "greater energy input". Some energy is retained as the sun keeps pouring in more, resulting in increased temps.

And if this was the case we would have burned up millions of years ago because the CO2 has been higher than now, and you're talking massive changes happening in mere years. Millions of years of absorbed energy... everything should be a molten smoking ball.

I deride the importance you place both on absorbed energy AND CO2's power, let alone man's production of it.

And will continue to do so, because it's fun and stays crunchy in milk.

That's what I thought. No real knowledge, just FAITH. I think I'll stick with the majority of scientists, thank you.

 

[RollingThunder]

You're missing the point. Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted. Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it. Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat. It's simple logic, really!!!

Statistically? Tell me, if you drew rays from a sphere suspended over the earth, what percentage of those rays would actually be pointing towards the earth? Remember, you have a sphere suspended above a sphere. The earth is not flat no matter what the simulations of your priests say.

Your visualization of the situation is based on your ignorance, not reality. From space, Earth is a huge sphere, 8000 miles in diameter, with an atmosphere that's relatively about the thickness of the skin of an apple. The atmosphere is effectively only about a hundred miles thick, with 3/4 of it within 7 miles of the Earth's surface. In relation to the greenhouse effect, it's all happening in about the lowest ten miles of atmosphere. So, From the perspective of a single molecule of CO2, the Earth looks pretty flat.

Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions? What percentage of the radiation that any given CO2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?

LOL. And "what percentage of the radiation that any given CO2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to" outer space, "considering the number of molecules between itself and the" effective 'top' of the atmosphere. It works both ways, dumbass.

Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm its heat source (the earth). Once again, that would constitute free energy. Energy that is recycled back to its source that increases the net output of the source without the input of additional work. Sorry guy, but that simply can not happen. If it could, we could put reflectors in front of heaters in our homes and induce those heaters to put out more energy than they recieve from our electrical outlets. Feel free to try it but it won't work in your home any more than it works in the atmosphere.

This has been explained to you at least a half a dozen times but I guess you're just too much of flaming retard to get it. Why do you keep trying to claim that the "heat source" is "(the earth)"? The Earth doesn't produce any radiated heat. The Earth is heated by the sun. Greenhouse gases trap some of the sun's energy that the Earth has absorbed and is then re-radiating. That's it. NO "free energy", that's just your stupidity and ignorance talking.

The heat source is the sun. That is all of the energy you have.

That's what everybody has been telling you so why do you persist in insisting, as you just did in the previous paragraph, that the "heat source" is "(the earth)". All of your rather lame-brained 'reasoning' is based on faulty assumptions, ignorance and rank stupidity.

Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done.

No, dimwit, it is not "done". The Earth absorbs the sun's radiation and emits infrared radiation which then has to make it's way up through the atmosphere. On its way to outer space the radiation is absorbed and re-emitted multiple times by the greenhouse gas molecules in a process that retains more of the heat energy in the lower atmosphere and on the Earth's surface than would be the case if the atmosphere were totally transparent to IR radiation. In the absence of any greenhouse gases, the Earth's surface would be about 33 degrees C cooler than it is currently.

You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.

No you can't but then no one is saying that is how it works. That's just another of your 'straw-man' arguments, apparently based only on your ignorance and stupidity.

Here's a more detailed explanation of the processes.

Greenhouse effect

Basic mechanism

The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 50% is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.

The solar radiation spectrum for direct light
at both the top of the Earth's atmosphere
and at sea level (enlarge)

This highly simplified picture of the basic mechanism needs to be qualified in a number of ways, none of which affect the fundamental process.

* The incoming radiation from the Sun is mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths, largely in the range 0.2–4 μm, corresponding to the Sun's radiative temperature of 6,000 K.[11] Almost half the radiation is in the form of "visible" light, which our eyes are adapted to use.[12]

* About 50% of the Sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface and the rest is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The reflection of light back into space—largely by clouds—does not much affect the basic mechanism; this light, effectively, is lost to the system.

* The absorbed energy warms the surface. Simple presentations of the greenhouse effect, such as the idealized greenhouse model, show this heat being lost as thermal radiation. The reality is more complex: the atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas. It is more realistic to think of the greenhouse effect as applying to a "surface" in the mid-troposphere, which is effectively coupled to the surface by a lapse rate.

* Within the region where radiative effects are important the description given by the idealized greenhouse model becomes realistic: The surface of the Earth, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength, infrared heat in the range 4–100 μm.[11] At these wavelengths, greenhouse gases that were largely transparent to incoming solar radiation are more absorbent.[11] Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. To maintain its own equilibrium, it re-radiates the absorbed heat in all directions, both upwards and downwards. This results in more warmth below, while still radiating enough heat back out into deep space from the upper layers to maintain overall thermal equilibrium. Increasing the concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and re-radiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the surface below.[7]

* Greenhouse gases—including most diatomic gases with two different atoms (such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atoms—are able to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Though more than 99% of the dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituents—N2, O2, and Ar—are not able to directly absorb or emit infrared radiation), intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases.

* The simple picture assumes equilibrium. In the real world there is the diurnal cycle as well as seasonal cycles and weather. Solar heating only applies during daytime. During the night, the atmosphere cools somewhat, but not greatly, because its emissivity is low, and during the day the atmosphere warms. Diurnal temperature changes decrease with height in the atmosphere.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Trakar]

Statistically? Tell me, if you drew rays from a sphere suspended over the earth, what percentage of those rays would actually be pointing towards the earth? Remember, you have a sphere suspended above a sphere. The earth is not flat no matter what the simulations of your priests say.

Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions? What percentage of the radiation that any given CO2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?

Which is perfectly in accord with how radiation transfer physics calculations are done. How large a sphere, and how high are you suspending it?

If you are trying to work your way toward a calculation of what percentage of absorbed and re-emitted longwave (IR) radiation is returned on average to the Earth by GHGs, the most important factor revolves around my second question. When the source is quite close to the earth the figure approaches 50% if the sphere is within the mean-free path in our atmosphere or the re-absorption radius, as you move the sphere further away the rate drops till at the upper atmosphere it is approximately (1/4*0.7 or about 0.175) 18% since the Earth is a sphere). Of course, to complicate the process further we have to bring in a bit more advanced mathematics and calculate all of the other absorptions and re-emissions of those long-wave IR photons. Ultimately all of this IR escapes the Earth, but while it is bouncing around it creates an ambient/latent heat in our atmosphere.

Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm its heat source (the earth). Once again, that would constitute free energy.

What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?

The heat source is the sun. That is all of the energy you have. Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done. You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.

The sun is a source of photons. The earth, itself, emits long-wave IR as the heat from its formation and radioactive decay slowly dissipates through the crust, but, yes, the Sun's radiated energy is the primary source of energy in our biome. most of the Sun's energy is emitted in the visible light range. Conveniently, our atmosphere is largely transparent in the visible light ranges so most of the energy from the Sun zips right through our atmosphere and is absorbed as it impacts the surface (albedo considerations cover the reflected %). The absorption of this energy creates thermal energy in the surface and the surface re-emits this energy in the form of IR photons. Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, CH4, Ozone, etc.,) are particularly opaque to IR radiation. They absorb and then re-emit this long wave radiation,...which takes us back to where we were.

 

[wirebender]

What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?

Second Law of Thermodynamics (in Clausius’ formulation) - Warmth can never pass from a colder to a warmer body unless another related change occurs at the same time - Baehr, H. D., Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1973, p. 33

Warmth can never spontaneously pass from a body of low temperature to a body of higher temperature - Schmidt, E., Einführung in die Technische Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg, 1953, p.68

It is interesting to note that the energy budget that NASA endorses now doesn't make any claim of backradiation. The fact is that physicists (actual scientists) began writing papers questioning the phenomenon of backradiation and climate "scientists" are simply not prepared to defend thier position. The idea of backradiation is nothing more than a fabrication designed explicitly to satisfy a political agenda.

Recent published studies demonstrating empirically that the sun has a far greater effect than climate scientists have been prepared to acknowledge are going to further degrade the already tenuous backradiation hypothesis.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, a man who has stated that he is as sure of back radiation as he has ever been of anything in his life has stated in response to the recent papers on the sun and its effect on climate recently said:

If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.

When the myth of backradiation is finally put to bed, CO2 finally becomes what it has always been in reality, a beneficial trace gas that can not and does not drive the climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're missing the point. Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted. Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it. Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat. It's simple logic, really!!!

Statistically? Tell me, if you drew rays from a sphere suspended over the earth, what percentage of those rays would actually be pointing towards the earth? Remember, you have a sphere suspended above a sphere. The earth is not flat no matter what the simulations of your priests say.

Second, are you under the impression that the re emitted radiation travels in an unimpeded line towards the earth or does a percentage of that radiation absorbed and re emitted in all directions? What percentage of the radiation that any given CO2 molecule emits do you believe actually makes it to the ground considering the number of molecules between itself and the surface of the earth?

Third, you are claiming that a passively warmed object (the atmosphere) can warm its heat source (the earth). Once again, that would constitute free energy. Energy that is recycled back to its source that increases the net output of the source without the input of additional work. Sorry guy, but that simply can not happen. If it could, we could put reflectors in front of heaters in our homes and induce those heaters to put out more energy than they recieve from our electrical outlets. Feel free to try it but it won't work in your home any more than it works in the atmosphere.

The heat source is the sun. That is all of the energy you have. Once the earth absorbs it and then emits it, it is done. You can't reflect any of that emitted energy back to the earth and thus have a greater energy input into the earth than the sun alone is capable of producing.

Sorry, Bentwire, but Joseph Fourier demonstrated that your little theory is totally without merit in 1820. The GHGs in the atmosphere do absorb heat and re-emit it. Just because you are willfully ignorant does not mean that others are.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?

Second Law of Thermodynamics (in Clausius’ formulation) - Warmth can never pass from a colder to a warmer body unless another related change occurs at the same time - Baehr, H. D., Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1973, p. 33

Warmth can never spontaneously pass from a body of low temperature to a body of higher temperature - Schmidt, E., Einführung in die Technische Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg, 1953, p.68

It is interesting to note that the energy budget that NASA endorses now doesn't make any claim of backradiation. The fact is that physicists (actual scientists) began writing papers questioning the phenomenon of backradiation and climate "scientists" are simply not prepared to defend thier position. The idea of backradiation is nothing more than a fabrication designed explicitly to satisfy a political agenda.

Recent published studies demonstrating empirically that the sun has a far greater effect than climate scientists have been prepared to acknowledge are going to further degrade the already tenuous backradiation hypothesis.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, a man who has stated that he is as sure of back radiation as he has ever been of anything in his life has stated in response to the recent papers on the sun and its effect on climate recently said:

If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.

When the myth of backradiation is finally put to bed, CO2 finally becomes what it has always been in reality, a beneficial trace gas that can not and does not drive the climate.

What is mythical is your belief that you are demonstrating any logic. Of course the sun is our source of heat. And the balance between that which is absorbed or reflected is what we are speaking of. The sun in the last few decades has not demonstrated any increase in TSI at all, in fact, the last solar cycle has the lowest number of sunspots in about a century, and the TSI has been lower as well.

In fact, in 2008, the TSI was at a minimum, hardly a sunspot all year, and a strong La Nina, yet 2008 was at least the tenth warmest year on record. So how does that fit in your silly theory?

 

[elvis]

What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?

Second Law of Thermodynamics (in Clausius’ formulation) - Warmth can never pass from a colder to a warmer body unless another related change occurs at the same time - Baehr, H. D., Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1973, p. 33

Warmth can never spontaneously pass from a body of low temperature to a body of higher temperature - Schmidt, E., Einführung in die Technische Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg, 1953, p.68

It is interesting to note that the energy budget that NASA endorses now doesn't make any claim of backradiation. The fact is that physicists (actual scientists) began writing papers questioning the phenomenon of backradiation and climate "scientists" are simply not prepared to defend thier position. The idea of backradiation is nothing more than a fabrication designed explicitly to satisfy a political agenda.

Recent published studies demonstrating empirically that the sun has a far greater effect than climate scientists have been prepared to acknowledge are going to further degrade the already tenuous backradiation hypothesis.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, a man who has stated that he is as sure of back radiation as he has ever been of anything in his life has stated in response to the recent papers on the sun and its effect on climate recently said:

If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.

When the myth of backradiation is finally put to bed, CO2 finally becomes what it has always been in reality, a beneficial trace gas that can not and does not drive the climate.

What is mythical is your belief that you are demonstrating any logic. Of course the sun is our source of heat. And the balance between that which is absorbed or reflected is what we are speaking of. The sun in the last few decades has not demonstrated any increase in TSI at all, in fact, the last solar cycle has the lowest number of sunspots in about a century, and the TSI has been lower as well.

In fact, in 2008, the TSI was at a minimum, hardly a sunspot all year, and a strong La Nina, yet 2008 was at least the tenth warmest year on record. So how does that fit in your silly theory?

how far back do the records go? do they have any idea about temperatures prior to when they started keeping records?

 

[Trakar]

What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?

Second Law of Thermodynamics (in Clausius’ formulation) - Warmth can never pass from a colder to a warmer body unless another related change occurs at the same time - Baehr, H. D., Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1973, p. 33...

This isn't an issue of transmitting "warmth," this is a matter of an IR photon being absorbed by an electron in the atom of some surface material. If the first electron the photon approaches is in a high energy state and cannot accept the photon, it will simply keep going until it reaches a electron in a low energy state and is absorbed. 99.9% of these IR photons will be absorbed in the top few centimeters of soil, rock or water (or any incident biological matter)

It is interesting to note that the energy budget that NASA endorses now doesn't make any claim of backradiation. The fact is that physicists (actual scientists) began writing papers questioning the phenomenon of backradiation and climate "scientists" are simply not prepared to defend thier position. The idea of backradiation is nothing more than a fabrication designed explicitly to satisfy a political agenda.

pretty pictures only tell a very generalized story, and shouldn't be relied upon as complete or detailed renditions of the data.

NASA understandings fully incorporate backradiation components.

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/ceres/images/ceres_brochure.pdf
(for those that like pretty pictures)

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles
(a bit more literary)

...When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules absorb the heat, their temperature rises, and the amount of heat they radiate increases. At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.

Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.

Effect on Surface Temperature

The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.

Why doesn’t the natural greenhouse effect cause a runaway increase in surface temperature? Remember that the amount of energy a surface radiates always increases faster than its temperature rises—outgoing energy increases with the fourth power of temperature. As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat—equivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow, then, is equivalent to 17 percent of incoming sunlight (117 percent up minus 100 percent down).

Some of the heat escapes directly to space, and the rest is transferred to higher and higher levels of the atmosphere, until the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the amount of incoming solar energy. Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant (which depends only on Earth’s distance from the Sun and very small variations during the solar cycle), the natural greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in surface temperature on Earth...

Recent published studies demonstrating empirically that the sun has a far greater effect than climate scientists have been prepared to acknowledge are going to further degrade the already tenuous backradiation hypothesis.

cite or reference?

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, a man who has stated that he is as sure of back radiation as he has ever been of anything in his life has stated in response to the recent papers on the sun and its effect on climate recently said:

If this is anywhere close to being correct, it supports the claim that the sun has a much larger potential role (and therefore humans a smaller role) in climate change than what the “scientific consensus” states.

When the myth of backradiation is finally put to bed, CO2 finally becomes what it has always been in reality, a beneficial trace gas that can not and does not drive the climate.

Cite or reference?

Dr. Spencer's reputation and gravitas are not very high in either academic circles or mainstream science currently, but I'd be interested in seeing both the information he is somewhat cryptically referring to and his full and unedited considerations concerning that information.

 

[Old Rocks]

Very simple, the absorption spectra for CO2

I can only surmise in your near complete ignorance of the actual science, you failed to note that the emission spectra of the CO2 molecule proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a given CO2 molecule is immediately emitted proving that CO2 does not, and can not retain or trap energy.

Hmmm...... That is correct. The CO2 molecule absorbs the outgoing photon, then re-emits it at a longer wavelengh, half of the photons of which go off into space, the other half back to the earth. So half of what going out into space is returned to the earth.

All it takes to falsify a really dumbass hypothesis is on example. The coastal area of Chile is a desert, and exhibits all the features of a desert in spite of being next to the ocean. You hypothesis is falsified.

You doofus. Are you referrring to the Atacama Desert? In your zeal to try to win an argument, you invariably fail to familiarize yourself with the very information that would prevent a rational person from arguing in the first place. Clearly, you are completely unaware of the Humbolt current that runs just off shore of the land. The presence of this current prevents clouds from making landfall and thus creates the desert in the first place. The Humbolt current is as obvious a barrier to the normal coastal humidity as the miles of land one might encounter between most coastal areas and inland deserts. Observe

Aso, I clearly stated that one should pick a coastal area and a desert area in the same lattitude and roughly the same ALTITUDE. I suppose you are equally unaware that the elevation of the Atacama desert is about 25,000 feet. Had you a hint of geography, you would have known that the land assends almost immediately into high mountains. Mountain areas almost universally have less humidity than lowlands.

Geez guy, learn something and you won't be subject to nearly so much public humiliation.

Very interesting. The Atacama Desert goes right down to the water, doofus.

Atacama Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You stated that the atmosphere would carry water and cool and cause precipitation on any nearby coast. There, and in several other places on this planet, Africa, Australia, that is clearly not the case. You stupidity is showing once again.

At one time the atmosphere of the Earth was considerably denser than it is today. The weathering of rock and the action of life is what gave us the present atmosphere. While I do not believe the Venus hypothesis is possible here, a repeat of the Permiam-Triassic Extinction is quite possible, were all the clathrates to let go.

So tell me what you believe the maximum atmospheric pressure to have been during this time of a "considerably" denser atmosphere?

What I would believe to be the atmospheric pressure for the first two billion years of this planets existance does not matter. The people to ask that question are the men and women of science that study such things.

THE ATMOSPHERE

EVOLUTION OF EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE


>4.5 billion years ago

Gravitational field too weak and atmosphere lost to space



~4.5 billion years ago

A thin atmosphere formed by outgasing (volcanoes, meteorites), and atmosphere has similar content to current eruptions (CO2, H2O, SO2, N2 etc.). No free oxygen (O or O2). CO2-rich atmosphere



[H2O may also have come from “cosmic snow balls”]



This CO2-rich atmosphere was more dense and warmer than current atmosphere (even if sunlight weaker).



~4 billion years ago

Cooling of the planet lead to water condensing, and formation of clouds and rain, and eventually oceans. This resulted in a reduction of atmospheric H2O and CO2 (dissolved). N2-rich atmosphere



~3.5-2.5 billion years ago

Existence of life forms that photosynthesis: removal of CO2 and release of O2. Fromation of current N2- and O2- rich atmosphere.



Note that only small amount of N2 produced from outgasing, but has very long lifetime.



Ozone layer (and protection from UV radiation) developed naturally from interaction of UV light and O2 molecules
..........................................................................................................

And the Permian extinction happened during a time of catastrophic volcanic activity. I suppose if you get volcanoes the likes of which we have never seen to go unabated for a few thousand years, and were somehow able to bring most of the continents into a single land mass agin along with the accompanying sluggish ocean currents, and the low atmospheric oxygen content of the time, you might get the same sort of extinction as during the permian, but then again, man wouldn't be responsible.

Yes, the Permian was the time that the Siberian Traps were formed. However, the Colombia Basalts was also a massive outpouring of volcanics, with little effect. The differance was that the Siberian Traps were extruded on ocean clathrates and intruded massive coal formations.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/01/massive-volcanic-eruptions-coal-fires-the-great-dying.ar

That released huge amounts of CH4, which reduced the O2 level in the atmosphere from a point higher than that of today, to about 11%. Equivelant to breathing at 14,000 feet. So the Great Dying of the Permian-Triassic boundry was a global warming event. And that was not the only one the in the history of geologic time.

Methane catastrophe

And the gathering of the plates into one primary continent at that time was not due to that eruption, but, rather, the normal Wilsonian Cycle.

However, just a very rapid change in the weather patterns is enough to make life very difficult for the 7 billion on this planet, enough difficult to significantly reduce that number.

There is no rapid change in weather patterns. Neither the weather nor the climate is in any way exceptional nor unprecedented when viewed in the context of the climate for the relatively recent past. Wringing your hands hysterically is not going to alter the observable facts and bring about your imagined catastrophe. You should be more concerned about the present cooling trend and the effects that will bring on. A warmer climate would be welcome everywhere while an extended cooling trend is something to be genuinely concerned about. Cold kills far more than warm.

So you say. But that is not what the scientists are telling us. And what the scientist to say has far more weight than an ignorant anamous poster on a message board has.

 

[RWatt]

The fact is that physicists (actual scientists) began writing papers questioning the phenomenon of backradiation and climate "scientists" are simply not prepared to defend thier position. The idea of backradiation is nothing more than a fabrication designed explicitly to satisfy a political agenda.

The existence of backradiation is a directly observed fact. All you do is point an IR measuring device (a pyrometer) at the sky to see it. Not only is it theoretically impossible for the atmosphere to not be emitting infrared, but unsurprisingly it's directly observed to be doing so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers Credibility Thins Dramatically!!

Still unable to reproduce their results in a lab, the Warmers are making Cold fusion look like a realistic energy source.

Moreover, if the ice is melting, where is it going? How come Micronesia isn't under water?

 

[RollingThunder]

What prevents the earth from absorbing IR photons?

Second Law of Thermodynamics (in Clausius’ formulation) - Warmth can never pass from a colder to a warmer body unless another related change occurs at the same time - Baehr, H. D., Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1973, p. 33

Warmth can never spontaneously pass from a body of low temperature to a body of higher temperature - Schmidt, E., Einführung in die Technische Thermodynamik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg, 1953, p.68

You quote Dr. Roy Spencer in this post. If you believe him enough to quote him, why don't don't you believe him when he says this:

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
July 23rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Recent published studies demonstrating empirically that the sun has a far greater effect than climate scientists have been prepared to acknowledge are going to further degrade the already tenuous backradiation hypothesis.

LOLOL....you are such a loon, wiredbent. Just where did these supposed "recent published studies" appear and just when? LOL. Svensmark's cosmic ray theories were pretty thoroughly refuted by the rest of the climate science community years ago and they still don't hold water, but even if they did, the studies show that any cosmic ray effect would have had a cooling effect over the past 20 years, just the opposite of what actually happened.

Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
(excerpt)

Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality.


Rebuttal to Svensmark assertions
(very small excerpt - much, much more on the website)

"While the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces. Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong. Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes." Dr. Rasmus Benestad, Norwegian Meteorological Institute

When the myth of backradiation is finally put to bed, CO2 finally becomes what it has always been in reality, a beneficial trace gas that can not and does not drive the climate.

Well, at least the myth of you having a functional brain has finally been put to bed.

 

[wirebender]

The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.

This statement cuts to the heart of the issue, and it is a lie. The greenhouse is a story concocted in an attempt to tie together two facts. They are, number one, is that our atmosphere is much warmer than radiant energy calculations predict; and number two, our atmosphere contains certain gasses that react to infrared. It is an assumption that the two must be connected and to date, no empirical evidence exists that proves a connection. A great deal of empirical evidence exists, however, that proves that they need not be connected.

I haven't spoken to you very much but you strike me as a smart enough person. Smart enough to read and regurgitate published information anyway. I wonder though, if you are smart enough to look at evidence that proves that the story you have been told about the way things are isn't necessarily the way they are at all.

I don't have time to build a host of charts and graphs to illustrate what I am going to point out, but will gladly give you all the numbers you care to crunch and give them to you from a credible source. Nearly every number and fact I am going to mention can be found here at NASA's planetary fact sheet.

As I said, the greenhouse effect is a story pieced together in an attempt to tie together two things that are not necessarily connected. To see proof that they need not be necessarily connected and, in fact, are not connected in the planets in our solar system with enough atmosphere to manage 1 bar of atmospheric pressure all one need do is look around the local neighborhood of the Earth.

Specifically, I mention Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. All of these have atmospheres dense enough to reach at least 1 bar of atmospheric pressure and here are some not highly advertised facts about these planets. Feel free to put them into any sort of graph form you like if it makes absorbing them any easier.

Naturally each of these planets recieves a different amount of energy from the sun. Respectively they receive, in terms of Watts per square meter: Venus 2613.9, Earth 1368, Jupiter 50.5, Saturn 14.9, Uranus 3.71, and Neptune 1.51.

As I said, the greenhouse effect is an attempt to explain why the atmosphere of the earth is considerably warmer than radiant energy (black body) calculations predict. According to the black body model, the temperatures of the planets I mention should be, respectively (in Kelvin); Venus 231.7K, Earth 254.3K, Jupiter 110K, Uranus 58.2K, and Neptune 46.6K.

I mentioned that these all have an atmospheric pressure of at least 1 bar so that we can be sure that we are comparing apples to apples. At the depth within the atmospheres of the mentioned planets in which the atmospheric pressure reaches 1 bar, the temperatures of the atmosphere's of the planets is, respectively (in Kelvin) Venus 350K, Earth 288K, Jupiter 165K, Saturn 134K, Uranus 76K, and Neptune 72K.

On the same planets at a point in the atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure is 0.1 bar the atmospheric temperatures of the planets is respectively (in Kelvin) Venus 250K, Earth 220K, Jupiter 112K, Saturn 84K, Uranus 53K, and Neptune 55K.

From 0.1 bar of pressure to 1.0 bar of pressure, the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus rises 100 C. On Earth it rises 68C. On Jupiter it rises 53 C. On Saturn it rises 50 C. On Uranus it rises 23 C, and on Neptune it rises 17 C.

Note that on Neptune, even though the planet receives less than 2 Wm2 of energy from the sun, at 1 bar of pressure, the temperature is 54% greater than a black body calculation predicts, and the atmosphere of the planet is 99% hydrogen and helium; neither of which is a "greenhouse" gas.

Uranus, which receives less than 4 Wm2 of solar energy at 1 bar of pressure is 17% greater than a black body calculation predicts and again the atmosphere is nearly 98% hydrogen and helium. Saturn sees a 65.2% increase in atmospheric temperature at 1 bar above that predicted by a black body calculation and again, the atmosphere is nearly all hydrogen and helium.

The atmospheric temperature on jupiter at 1 bar of pressure is 50% higher than that predicted by a black body calculation and once more, the atmosphere is nearly all hydrogen and helium, not greenhouse gasses.

Earth, which receives a far greater amount of solar radiation has an atmospheric temperature at 1 bar of pressure of only 13% greater than a black body calculation predicts.

Looking at these figures, it is more than obvious that the black body calculations are not adequate to the task they claim to perform. A black body calculation only calculates for radiant energy and completely misses any thermal effect that comes along with having an atmosphere.

How this heating happens is open to any number of interpretations that don't require the mythical back radiation that other planets don't seem to need in order to see atmospheric temperature increases far greater than earth with less solar radiation present. Personally, I subscribe to the hypothesis that the difference between atmospheric expansion on the sun side of the planet in combination with atmospheric contraction on the dark side of the planet causes a "pumping" type effect that sets convection currents into motion which would result in cool desending air to come under greater atmospheric pressure and thus aquire a higher temperature; the natural effect of putting a gas under greater pressure.

The how in this case, however isn't as important as the what; and the what is that atmospheric pressure due to gravity will generate heat even when the amount of solar energy being recieved is less than 2 Wm2. Perhaps if no solar energy is present at all. The evidence scattered throughout our solar system clearly indicates that something as far fetched as backradiation is not necessary to explain the fact that our atmosphere is warmer than black body calculations predict.

Backradiation and it's evil accomplice CO2 are a fabrication put forward to satisfy political machinations and have little, if anything to do with actual science.

So there are the numbers and the fact that all of the planets in our system that have atmospheres sufficiently dense to achieve 1 bar of pressure is warmer than blackbody calculations would predict and some of these a large percentage higher than earth when backradiation could not possibly be the culprit.

The question is, can you be convinced to alter your thinking when presented with a set of facts that call your present belief into question?

 

[Big Fitz]

Don't know what you're crowing about, Fitz, except perhaps your woeful lack of knowledge of the 2nd Law. You don't even have to quote it to prove wirebender's analysis is false. CO2 acts like the lid on a pot, keeping heat in. That's the WHOLE DEAL. There is no "greater energy input". Some energy is retained as the sun keeps pouring in more, resulting in increased temps.

And if this was the case we would have burned up millions of years ago because the CO2 has been higher than now, and you're talking massive changes happening in mere years. Millions of years of absorbed energy... everything should be a molten smoking ball.

I deride the importance you place both on absorbed energy AND CO2's power, let alone man's production of it.

And will continue to do so, because it's fun and stays crunchy in milk.

That's what I thought. No real knowledge, just FAITH. I think I'll stick with the majority of scientists, thank you.

I suggest you scrutinize what you're pimping a bit closer.

 

[Old Rocks]

Be nice if ol' Fritz would ever consider learning anything at all.

 

[Trakar]

The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation&#8221 is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.

This statement cuts to the heart of the issue, and it is a lie.

This is simply incorrect

The greenhouse is a story concocted in an attempt to tie together two facts. They are, number one, is that our atmosphere is much warmer than radiant energy calculations predict; and number two, our atmosphere contains certain gasses that react to infrared. It is an assumption that the two must be connected and to date, no empirical evidence exists that proves a connection. A great deal of empirical evidence exists, however, that proves that they need not be connected.

I am unaware of any compelling empirical evidences that refute atmospheric greenhouse effects, I am, however, intimately familiar with nearly a couple of centuries worth of multipley confirmed and intergrated physics and chemsitry that are foundational in the understanding of many aspects of radiation transfer physics and atmospheric chemistry which directly support and depend upon these understandings. Here are some of the high points:

We can start with Joseph Fourier's work in the 1820s. Most scientists prior to this had a vague understanding that there were gases in the atmosphere that somehow interacted with energy from the sun to produce warming but is was very uncertain and imprecise. Until Fourier focussed on the issue, and published the results of his studies in his 1824 paper "Remarques Générales sur les Températures Du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Planétaires." . He is the first to have compared the Earth's atmosphere to that of a glass box with regrads to its ability to trap solar radiations and convert them to heat. Of course, his was an over simple and somewant improper model and it was largely left to others to refine, but he is credited with discovering the later named "atmospheric greenhouse effect."

Pouillet, Claude (1838) "Memoir on Solar Heat, the Radiative Effects of the Atmosphere, and the Temperature of Space."

Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..."

Tyndall, John (1863). "On Radiation through the Earth's Atmosphere."

Tyndall, John (1863). "On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous Vapor."

Croll, James (1864). "On the Physical Cause of the Change of Climate During Geological Epochs."

Tyndall, John (1873). "Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat."

Tyndall, John (1873). "Further Researches on the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gaseous Matter"

Croll, James (1875). Climate and Time in Their Geological Relations. A Theory of Secular Changes of the Earth's Climate.

then we have the multiple works of Svante Arrhenius who refined and defined the actual components and mechnanicsm by which this process actually worked in "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground" (1896). This is also the first work to calculate variation in temp die to variation in CO2 %, calculate the ERB (to include measuring back radiation), and postulate that humanity's CO2 emissions from the combustion of coal would lead to a warming climate.

Wood, R.W. (1909). "Note on Theory of the Greenhouse."

(and this is just the high points of the 1800s)

I haven't spoken to you very much but you strike me as a smart enough person. Smart enough to read and regurgitate published information anyway.
I wonder though, if you are smart enough to look at evidence that proves that the story you have been told about the way things are isn't necessarily the way they are at all.

My impressions, and questions, regarding you, are nearly identical

I don't have time to build a host of charts and graphs to illustrate what I am going to point out, but will gladly give you all the numbers you care to crunch and give them to you from a credible source. Nearly every number and fact I am going to mention can be found here at NASA's planetary fact sheet.

As I said, the greenhouse effect is a story pieced together in an attempt to tie together two things that are not necessarily connected. To see proof that they need not be necessarily connected and, in fact, are not connected in the planets in our solar system with enough atmosphere to manage 1 bar of atmospheric pressure all one need do is look around the local neighborhood of the Earth.

Specifically, I mention Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. All of these have atmospheres dense enough to reach at least 1 bar of atmospheric pressure and here are some not highly advertised facts about these planets. Feel free to put them into any sort of graph form you like if it makes absorbing them any easier.

Naturally each of these planets recieves a different amount of energy from the sun. Respectively they receive, in terms of Watts per square meter: Venus 2613.9, Earth 1368, Jupiter 50.5, Saturn 14.9, Uranus 3.71, and Neptune 1.51.

As I said, the greenhouse effect is an attempt to explain why the atmosphere of the earth is considerably warmer than radiant energy (black body) calculations predict.

Actually, the effects and understandings of the mechanisms are not arbitrarily attributed but rather directly measured and tested, as demonstrated particularly in the works of Tyndall and Arrhenius above.

According to the black body model, the temperatures of the planets I mention should be, respectively (in Kelvin); Venus 231.7K, Earth 254.3K, Jupiter 110K, Uranus 58.2K, and Neptune 46.6K.

I mentioned that these all have an atmospheric pressure of at least 1 bar so that we can be sure that we are comparing apples to apples.

Well, at the least crab-apples to grapefruit, pumpkin, cantelope and honeydew mellon as all of the heavenly bodies you mention have massively in excess of the Earth normal 1 Bar atmosphere. In this same vein, I have to wonder why you are omitting Titan (~1.45 Bar)?

At the depth within the atmospheres of the mentioned planets in which the atmospheric pressure reaches 1 bar, the temperatures of the atmosphere's of the planets is, respectively (in Kelvin) Venus 350K, Earth 288K, Jupiter 165K, Saturn 134K, Uranus 76K, and Neptune 72K.

On the same planets at a point in the atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure is 0.1 bar the atmospheric temperatures of the planets is respectively (in Kelvin) Venus 250K, Earth 220K, Jupiter 112K, Saturn 84K, Uranus 53K, and Neptune 55K.

From 0.1 bar of pressure to 1.0 bar of pressure, the temperature in the atmosphere of Venus rises 100 C. On Earth it rises 68C. On Jupiter it rises 53 C. On Saturn it rises 50 C. On Uranus it rises 23 C, and on Neptune it rises 17 C.

Note that on Neptune, even though the planet receives less than 2 Wm2 of energy from the sun, at 1 bar of pressure, the temperature is 54% greater than a black body calculation predicts, and the atmosphere of the planet is 99% hydrogen and helium; neither of which is a "greenhouse" gas.

Uranus, which receives less than 4 Wm2 of solar energy at 1 bar of pressure is 17% greater than a black body calculation predicts and again the atmosphere is nearly 98% hydrogen and helium. Saturn sees a 65.2% increase in atmospheric temperature at 1 bar above that predicted by a black body calculation and again, the atmosphere is nearly all hydrogen and helium.

The atmospheric temperature on jupiter at 1 bar of pressure is 50% higher than that predicted by a black body calculation and once more, the atmosphere is nearly all hydrogen and helium, not greenhouse gasses.

And none of this includes the immense thermal stores these supermassive planets are still trying to shed from the collisional processes of their formation and gravitational compression. All of these planets still radiate much more thermal energy than they receive from the sun [edit - all of the major outer system giants,...except Uranus, which actually emits slightly less than it receives from the Sun - end edit] and this is quite simply demonstrated and calculated and yet I see no discussion of this aspect at all in your considerations? But this does provide me with a clue as to why you have omitted Titan, as it is a small cold body without the formation heat to generate the temps your speculations indicate it should.

Earth, which receives a far greater amount of solar radiation has an atmospheric temperature at 1 bar of pressure of only 13% greater than a black body calculation predicts.


Looking at these figures, it is more than obvious that the black body calculations are not adequate to the task they claim to perform. A black body calculation only calculates for radiant energy and completely misses any thermal effect that comes along with having an atmosphere.

How this heating happens is open to any number of interpretations that don't require the mythical back radiation that other planets don't seem to need in order to see atmospheric temperature increases far greater than earth with less solar radiation present. Personally, I subscribe to the hypothesis that the difference between atmospheric expansion on the sun side of the planet in combination with atmospheric contraction on the dark side of the planet causes a "pumping" type effect that sets convection currents into motion which would result in cool desending air to come under greater atmospheric pressure and thus aquire a higher temperature; the natural effect of putting a gas under greater pressure.

Speculations that are contradicted by compelling evidences, ignore significant factors and lack even any experimentally demonstrable supportive mechanisms or understandings, are not science, and certainly aren't rationally compelling. It is good to muse and explore possibilitiies and if you can make the time to properly organize, research and support your musings, some good science may eventually be derived from your efforts, it is unlikely to overturn the science you seem to think it negates, but there are certainly some science related concepts in aspects of your considerations. If you focus on addressing the issues I've raised so far, it will go a long ways to helping you to develop a more comprehensive understanding of these issues.

...The question is, can you be convinced to alter your thinking when presented with a set of facts that call your present belief into question?

As an original, and active member of CSICOP (now called CSI), I have no problems with critical thinking and challenging my own beliefs as well as those of others. On the issue of AGW, I, myself, was originally and truly skeptical of some of the claims and assertions I had heard. At that point I did what a true Skeptic does, I dove into the science to see for myself what the data indicated. My original intentions and perceptions were that I'd spend a weekend or so digging, reading and comparing, find the flaws or machinations and then confirm my suspicions and move on to more interesting and important issues. After about 2 weeks my former suspicions began to seem almost completely without foundation (and this was at a time when the supportive evidences for AGW were much more scarce and tentative in nature). After about six months I felt the evidence I understood was compelling enough that I began accepting the reality of AGW. Of course, I've got a strong academic and professional background in math and the physical sciences which probably made my acceptance easier than for people who really lack such a background and must rely upon other means to make their personal evaluations of the evidences. But I'm only speaking for myself, and as I stated before, I'm not here to convince or win-over anyone, I just come by to take note of the opinions, perspectives and comments of others and to share my opinions, perspectives and understandings with anyone who is interested in them.