First direct observation of carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface

[jc456]

jc, since you claim so badly to want to discuss the science, then do so. Answer the question, without any of your usual deflections.

Does backradiation exist? Yes or no.

So manmouth show me evidence that back radiation occurs. No wiki links, an experiment that shows back radiation is present. Again, i move to Herr Koch in 1901. Never been debunked by evidence, only verbally.

 

[mamooth]

jc, the grownups are trying to talk. You just run along and play. Billy will call for you when he wants your servicing.

However, if you'd like to discuss the science instead of trying to evade it and derail honest discussions, I'll help you get started.

Does backradiation exist? Yes or no.

Do you agree with Billy's theory which says that much of the energy that strikes the earth just magically vanishes? Yes or no.

You have to do more than sulk about how your seething jealously drives you to hate those scientists. You have to show us your own science. The climate scientists created a theory that explains all of the observed evidence. Nobody else has done that. It's not much of a competition, the world's best and brightest against some pouting village idiots.

And jc, I showed a chart of measured backradiation on this thread, which you were participating in. Why did you lie and claim I'd never done so?

I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

 

[Old Rocks]

jc, since you claim so badly to want to discuss the science, then do so. Answer the question, without any of your usual deflections.

Does backradiation exist? Yes or no.

So manmouth show me evidence that back radiation occurs. No wiki links, an experiment that shows back radiation is present. Again, i move to Herr Koch in 1901. Never been debunked by evidence, only verbally.

Greenhouse Effect Background Material

Greenhouse Gases

Carbon dioxide (

) is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space.

Carbon dioxide, water vapor (

), methane (

), nitorus oxide (

), and a few other gases are greenhouse gases. They all are molecules composed of more than two component atoms, bound loosely enough together to be able to vibrate with the absorption of heat. The major components of the atmosphere (

and

) are two-atom molecules too tightly bound together to vibrate and thus they do not absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Greenhouse Effect

Atmospheric scientists first used the term 'greenhouse effect' in the early 1800s. At that time, it was used to describe the naturally occurring functions of trace gases in the atmosphere and did not have any negative connotations. It was not until the mid-1950s that the term greenhouse effect was coupled with concern over climate change. And in recent decades, we often hear about the greenhouse effect in somewhat negative terms. The negative concerns are related to the possible impacts of an enhanced greenhouse effect. This is covered in more detail in the Global Climate Change section of this Web site. It is important to remember that without the greenhouse effect, life on earth as we know it would not be possible.

While the earth's temperature is dependent upon the greenhouse-like action of the atmosphere, the amount of heating and cooling are strongly influenced by several factors just as greenhouses are affected by various factors.

Nice and simple, so you can understand it. There are all kinds of sites that give you the scientific explanation of backradiation. That you play ******* stupid and ask for one is simply evidence that you are not at all interested in the science of this, but rather, the politics.

 

[jc456]

jc, the grownups are trying to talk. You just run along and play. Billy will call for you when he wants your servicing.

However, if you'd like to discuss the science instead of trying to evade it and derail honest discussions, I'll help you get started.

Does backradiation exist? Yes or no.

Do you agree with Billy's theory which says that much of the energy that strikes the earth just magically vanishes? Yes or no.

You have to do more than sulk about how your seething jealously drives you to hate those scientists. You have to show us your own science. The climate scientists created a theory that explains all of the observed evidence. Nobody else has done that. It's not much of a competition, the world's best and brightest against some pouting village idiots.

And jc, I showed a chart of measured backradiation on this thread, which you were participating in. Why did you lie and claim I'd never done so?

I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

I see you still can't produce an experiment to prove your position. A new one at that, yet, you haven't got one and your normal tactic of avoiding it by showing everyone how unscientific you really are.

Here read this article..Why It s Not Carbon Dioxide
Abstract:
"But to maintain a certain temperature there must be an input of thermal energy (usually called "heat") which balances the natural heat losses. James Hansen incorrectly assumed that radiation from the colder atmosphere could transfer the extra thermal energy into the surface. But radiation mostly transfers thermal energy out of the warmer surface, not into it. The actual process involves energy being transferred during molecular collisions, as with conduction. You are familiar with this diffusion process which can be observed if your car is left in the Sun and then driven into your garage. Close the garage door and open the car doors and gradually you will feel the temperature of the air in the garage warming and that of the air in the car cooling. Warm air molecules (with more kinetic energy than cooler ones) have shared that extra energy with others from outside the car. You may not feel the air moving out of the car, but some of the thermal energy is being transferred by diffusion and maybe some net air movement away from the hotter source inside the car. The overall process is called convective heat transfer in physics, whether or not you can detect actual air movement."

Again prove your back radiation or you are just mumbo jumboing again.

 

[jc456]

jc, since you claim so badly to want to discuss the science, then do so. Answer the question, without any of your usual deflections.

Does backradiation exist? Yes or no.

So manmouth show me evidence that back radiation occurs. No wiki links, an experiment that shows back radiation is present. Again, i move to Herr Koch in 1901. Never been debunked by evidence, only verbally.

Greenhouse Effect Background Material

Greenhouse Gases

Carbon dioxide (

) is one of the greenhouse gases. It consists of one carbon atom with an oxygen atom bonded to each side. When its atoms are bonded tightly together, the carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule starts to vibrate. Eventually, the vibrating molecule will emit the radiation again, and it will likely be absorbed by yet another greenhouse gas molecule. This absorption-emission-absorption cycle serves to keep the heat near the surface, effectively insulating the surface from the cold of space.

Carbon dioxide, water vapor (

), methane (

), nitorus oxide (

), and a few other gases are greenhouse gases. They all are molecules composed of more than two component atoms, bound loosely enough together to be able to vibrate with the absorption of heat. The major components of the atmosphere (

and

) are two-atom molecules too tightly bound together to vibrate and thus they do not absorb heat and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

Greenhouse Effect

Atmospheric scientists first used the term 'greenhouse effect' in the early 1800s. At that time, it was used to describe the naturally occurring functions of trace gases in the atmosphere and did not have any negative connotations. It was not until the mid-1950s that the term greenhouse effect was coupled with concern over climate change. And in recent decades, we often hear about the greenhouse effect in somewhat negative terms. The negative concerns are related to the possible impacts of an enhanced greenhouse effect. This is covered in more detail in the Global Climate Change section of this Web site. It is important to remember that without the greenhouse effect, life on earth as we know it would not be possible.

While the earth's temperature is dependent upon the greenhouse-like action of the atmosphere, the amount of heating and cooling are strongly influenced by several factors just as greenhouses are affected by various factors.

Nice and simple, so you can understand it. There are all kinds of sites that give you the scientific explanation of backradiation. That you play ******* stupid and ask for one is simply evidence that you are not at all interested in the science of this, but rather, the politics.

see my previous post.

 

[jc456]

jc, the grownups are trying to talk. You just run along and play. Billy will call for you when he wants your servicing.

However, if you'd like to discuss the science instead of trying to evade it and derail honest discussions, I'll help you get started.

Does backradiation exist? Yes or no.

Do you agree with Billy's theory which says that much of the energy that strikes the earth just magically vanishes? Yes or no.

You have to do more than sulk about how your seething jealously drives you to hate those scientists. You have to show us your own science. The climate scientists created a theory that explains all of the observed evidence. Nobody else has done that. It's not much of a competition, the world's best and brightest against some pouting village idiots.

And jc, I showed a chart of measured backradiation on this thread, which you were participating in. Why did you lie and claim I'd never done so?

I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

you know I get a kick out of your posts. You make a statement at me that you are unwilling to comply with yourself. So old grown up, where is the experiment that shows your science? you wish to make the statement "you have to show us your own science" well let's see yours. Logical science, not made up science. Back radiation, you have yet to show back radiation measurements. It is a discussion that is at the heart of CO2 PPM in the atmosphere. And you sir/ maam, are unwilling to supply your science. Not models, experiments ones that actually confirm your position. now run along old person until you have that proof.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, JC, I skimmed that nonsense site, "Why It's not CO2". Damned easy to see why it has never been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. It is nonsense, beginning to end.

 

[jc456]

Yes, JC, I skimmed that nonsense site, "Why It's not CO2". Damned easy to see why it has never been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. It is nonsense, beginning to end.

right? peer review nonsense as you like to hold onto. It can't be peer reviewed with your peers because they don't believe it. So none of what I'd supply would ever you fool. It is what Peering is about! It doesn't take away from the material and you lose.

 

[mamooth]

jc, your previous post did not explain why you think backradiation doesn't exist. You have no idea of what your previous post even meant. You thought you saw something you could copy to get yourself out of trouble, so you did a copy and paste, and you have no idea of what your pasted garbage meant. You're incapable of understanding the concepts being discussed here, you demonstrate that over and over, and that's why I tell you to stop bothering the grownups. You add nothing of value to any discussion. You are poison to rational discourse. When you stop posting, the average IQ level here jumps sharply. And there's a lot less sulking.

If you wish to prove you're not ignorant, simply explain what that paragraph you pasted meant ... in your own words.

Then, explain why you claimed I never presented evidence of backradiation to you, given how I just linked to me doing exactly that.

Anybody can go outside at any time, point an infrared spectrometer at the sky, and directly measure the backradiation. Yet you claim it's not there. Since it can be directly measured at any time, why are you telling everyone it doesn't exist?

 

[jc456]

jc, your previous post did not explain why you think backradiation doesn't exist. You have no idea of what your previous post even meant. You thought you saw something you could copy to get yourself out of trouble, so you did a copy and paste, and you have no idea of what your pasted garbage meant. You're incapable of understanding the concepts being discussed here, you demonstrate that over and over, and that's why I tell you to stop bothering the grownups. You add nothing of value to any discussion. You are poison to rational discourse. When you stop posting, the average IQ level here jumps sharply. And there's a lot less sulking.

If you wish to prove you're not ignorant, simply explain what that paragraph you pasted meant ... in your own words.

Then, explain why you claimed I never presented evidence of backradiation to you, given how I just linked to me doing exactly that.

Anybody can go outside at any time, point an infrared spectrometer at the sky, and directly measure the backradiation. Yet you claim it's not there. Since it can be directly measured at any time, why are you telling everyone it doesn't exist?

if you wish to show you're not ignorant show us your experiments! Look dude/ dudette I can play your game, you always want but never wish to deliver. Here's your chance. You prove it does rather than me prove it doesn't. fair?

 

[mamooth]

jc, quit running. In your own words, what does this peculiar rant mean? Summarize it. I could summarize the stupidity of it easily enough, but we all want to see you attempt it. You claim it's an amazing refutation of something, so you must understand it, right?

But to maintain a certain temperature there must be an input of thermal energy (usually called "heat") which balances the natural heat losses. James Hansen incorrectly assumed that radiation from the colder atmosphere could transfer the extra thermal energy into the surface. But radiation mostly transfers thermal energy out of the warmer surface, not into it. The actual process involves energy being transferred during molecular collisions, as with conduction. You are familiar with this diffusion process which can be observed if your car is left in the Sun and then driven into your garage. Close the garage door and open the car doors and gradually you will feel the temperature of the air in the garage warming and that of the air in the car cooling. Warm air molecules (with more kinetic energy than cooler ones) have shared that extra energy with others from outside the car. You may not feel the air moving out of the car, but some of the thermal energy is being transferred by diffusion and maybe some net air movement away from the hotter source inside the car. The overall process is called convective heat transfer in physics, whether or not you can detect actual air movement."

When you get done with that, explain why you keep lying about all the experiments you've been shown, and why you deny that backradiation exists, even though it can be directly measured.

The point, again, is:
A. You have no idea of what the crap you say even means. Yes, it is that obvious.
B. You have no testicles. Yes, that's also that obvious.

 

[jc456]

jc, quit running. In your own words, what does this peculiar rant mean? Summarize it. I could summarize the stupidity of it easily enough, but we all want to see you attempt it. You claim it's an amazing refutation of something, so you must understand it, right?

But to maintain a certain temperature there must be an input of thermal energy (usually called "heat") which balances the natural heat losses. James Hansen incorrectly assumed that radiation from the colder atmosphere could transfer the extra thermal energy into the surface. But radiation mostly transfers thermal energy out of the warmer surface, not into it. The actual process involves energy being transferred during molecular collisions, as with conduction. You are familiar with this diffusion process which can be observed if your car is left in the Sun and then driven into your garage. Close the garage door and open the car doors and gradually you will feel the temperature of the air in the garage warming and that of the air in the car cooling. Warm air molecules (with more kinetic energy than cooler ones) have shared that extra energy with others from outside the car. You may not feel the air moving out of the car, but some of the thermal energy is being transferred by diffusion and maybe some net air movement away from the hotter source inside the car. The overall process is called convective heat transfer in physics, whether or not you can detect actual air movement."

When you get done with that, explain why you keep lying about all the experiments you've been shown, and why you deny that backradiation exists, even though it can be directly measured.

The point, again, is:
A. You have no idea of what the crap you say even means. Yes, it is that obvious.
B. You have no testicles. Yes, that's also that obvious.

tomorrow I'll give you my read. good night!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Less than 30% of re-emitted radiation impacts the earths surface. Of that only 1.5% is actually absorbed as the matter it strikes does not absorb in that wavelength. The Oceans do not absorb any of it due to its properties.

So, you're crazily violating conservation of energy. According to you, the energy of the backradiation hits the earth or oceans, and then simply vanishes into Billy's mystery dimension.

Backradaiton is a figment of alarmist imagination..

Your cult pseudoscience is profoundly stupid. It's not even worth laughing at.

Why do you keep bothering the grownups? A dim sixth grader is better at science than you. Even the other deniers are embarrassed by how stupid you are.

You, Crick And old crock dont have a dam clue.. A molecule will re-radiate in indiscriminate directions and that emitted wave length can not be absorbed by the ocean... Its Physics moron..

 

[Old Rocks]

RealClimate Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a ‘smoking gun’ for human-caused greenhouse gases.

However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.

- See more at: RealClimate Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

Well, Billy Boob, you have once again flapped yap, and repeated a lie told by the 'deniers'. The whole experiment and explanation is in that article.

 

[jc456]

RealClimate Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a ‘smoking gun’ for human-caused greenhouse gases.

However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.

- See more at: RealClimate Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

Well, Billy Boob, you have once again flapped yap, and repeated a lie told by the 'deniers'. The whole experiment and explanation is in that article.

this has so little validity it's funny. Just more BS that has no merits. LoSiNg............

 

[CrusaderFrank]

RealClimate Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a ‘smoking gun’ for human-caused greenhouse gases.

However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.

- See more at: RealClimate Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

Well, Billy Boob, you have once again flapped yap, and repeated a lie told by the 'deniers'. The whole experiment and explanation is in that article.

In other words, just take our word for it that the ocean 700M deep is "Warming" from CO2

 

[Billy_Bob]

RealClimate Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a ‘smoking gun’ for human-caused greenhouse gases.

However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.

- See more at: RealClimate Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

Well, Billy Boob, you have once again flapped yap, and repeated a lie told by the 'deniers'. The whole experiment and explanation is in that article.

Ah yes... the "backradiaiton theroy"... one that is disproven by physical properties of the oceans and physical laws of thermodynamics..

 

[Billy_Bob]

A friend of mine stated this about the paper.

"If you look at the paper it describes "sensitive equipment" but doesn't really describe it...you must go to the source to get the description of the equipment itself. Look here:

ARM - Feature Stories and Releases Article

And even that doesn't tell you the pertinent facts regarding this supposedly groundbreaking new research....to get that, you must look at the specs of the instrumentation...here:

Instrument Marine-Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer SST - MAERI Air and SST BCO-DMO

The instrument uses two infrared detectors cooled to 78 K by a Stirling cycle cooler. The IR detectors are cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere so the "back radiation" that is supposedly being measured is in fact not back radiation at all...it is energy from the atmosphere radiating to a cooler detector, not to the warmer surface of the earth. Energy flows from warm to cool and the second law predicts that energy will flow to the detector from the atmosphere if it is cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere.

All supposed measurements of back radiation are made with instruments that are cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere and therefore are not measuring back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface but are instead measuring radiation from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument."

He is absolutely correct in that they dont have a clue what it is they are measuring. Given basic thermodynamics the moment they cooled the receptors below atmosphere they measured natural flow of warming from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler one a paradox which does not exist in our atmosphere. What then did they measure?

 

[mamooth]

We lost SSDD, but we now have Billy to to carry on his "photons can't move from cold to hot" cult fairy tales.

Yes, Billy here is claiming that molecules are intelligent entities which know if they're emitting towards a warmer surface, and which put on the brakes if they see such a warmer surface ahead of them, even if it's a thousand light years away. Violates pretty much every law of physics and causality out there, but when has that ever stopped a denier?

Sky Dragon Slayers are among the dumbest human beings on the planet. Billy is their representative here. He's a openly nuts, yet most of the deniers here still kiss his ass. In Denierstan, cult loyalty overrides everything else. It doesn't matter how stupid, crazy or immoral a fellow denier is, you are still required to back him up, period.

 

[jc456]

We lost SSDD, but we now have Billy to to carry on his "photons can't move from cold to hot" cult fairy tales.

Yes, Billy here is claiming that molecules are intelligent entities which know if they're emitting towards a warmer surface, and which put on the brakes if they see such a warmer surface ahead of them, even if it's a thousand light years away. Violates pretty much every law of physics and causality out there, but when has that ever stopped a denier?

Sky Dragon Slayers are among the dumbest human beings on the planet. Billy is their representative here. He's a openly nuts, yet most of the deniers here still kiss his ass. In Denierstan, cult loyalty overrides everything else. It doesn't matter how stupid, crazy or immoral a fellow denier is, you are still required to back him up, period.

hey pot how's kettle doing?