Gather all ye Greenhouse Skeptics

[Abraham3]

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]

Wikipedia, "The Greenhouse Effect"

Why do YOU guys think the Earth is not -18C?

 

[Abraham3]

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro202/Mitchell_GRL89.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_08.pdf

 

[SwimExpert]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

 

[Abraham3]

History

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]

 

[Abraham3]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Then you should get out and meet the crew here. Most of the deniers here have rejected it, though I suppose some aren't aware they're doing so.

 

[SwimExpert]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Then you should get out and meet the crew here. Most of the deniers here have rejected it, though I suppose some aren't aware they're doing so.

See, this is why everything you say is bunk. You can't even be bothered to handle our position honestly. Nobody has said that the greenhouse effect does not exist. We reject the idea that greenhouse effect is the primary driving force behind climate change, or that the atmospheric CO2 levels have as substantial an impact on the overall greenhouse effect as people like you would claim.

Fun fact: Approximately 75% of the total greenhouse effect is caused by water.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Then you should get out and meet the crew here. Most of the deniers here have rejected it, though I suppose some aren't aware they're doing so.

That SO??? Not by my count.. Sorry man -- there's no call for this thread. But knock your self out.. Maybe you'll learn sumting..

 

[flacaltenn]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Then you should get out and meet the crew here. Most of the deniers here have rejected it, though I suppose some aren't aware they're doing so.

See, this is why everything you say is bunk. You can't even be bothered to handle our position honestly. Nobody has said that the greenhouse effect does not exist. We reject the idea that greenhouse effect is the primary driving force behind climate change, or that the atmospheric CO2 levels have as substantial an impact on the overall greenhouse effect as people like you would claim.

Fun fact: Approximately 75% of the total greenhouse effect is caused by water.

This thread only proves that Ole Abe doesn't listen to --- or cant comprehend -- or wont remember anything said by a USMB skeptic poster. His brain is mortgaged to the boys at skepticalscience...

 

[Abraham3]

Here's a true believer

Right, the "the big picture, I have a question.

Do you believe every Molecule of CO2 released into the atmosphere stays there forever?

No.



Sigh, this gets tiresome.

We never will have facts. Theories don't get proven. They are supported or refuted. They are accepted or rejected. No proofs in the natural sciences - they would require a comprehensive examination of the entire universe.

Here is a fact, any particle from space, as in radiation that strikes a molecule of CO2, radiation from the sun, solar radiation loses energy after striking CO2.

Stuff is not bouncing around making things hot, its as simple as Billiards, or even a nuclear reaction, it gets weak, quickly. Hell, one can actually stand next to spent nuclear fuel and not get burnt to a crisp, its a simple principle, once a molecule or neutron or whatever strikes something, it loses its strength, even its heat.

CO2, a freind of life, which makes it an enemy of....................

Wow... now there's an analysis I've never heard before. And I bet your bottom dollar I'll never hear it again. I'm not even sure I know what you're trying to say. You're not a young Coloradan are you?

Okay, here goes... jeez, where to start.

When particles - or anything else - collides, energy is transferred. In a simple collision, one particle usually gains energy while the other particle loses energy. Sometimes, there's no change in either particle's energy. Sometimes things get complicated because one of the particles breaks into multiple, smaller particles. But there is one thing that is ALWAYS true of these collisions and it is the key that allows physicists and scientists and students to figure out what happened or what will happen in any given collision: the total amount of energy in the system will remain constant. This comes from the physical law that tells us "energy can neither be created nor destroyed". Energy can only be tranferred from place to place or transformed from one type to another or even transformed into matter and back from matter. But you can't create it out of thin air and you can't destroy it no matter how hard you try.

So, when you have a collision, the particles will all leave it with some fraction of the total energy the system (the system = all the particles under examination) possessed prior to the collision. The sum of that post-collision energy: from the potential and kinetic energy of the particles, of any energy that tried to sneak off as ejected photons of light or heat or some other EM radiation, of the added mass - it all remains the same, no matter what.

Now this is related and I wouldn't bring it up but you did. What does it mean when we talk about the temperature of some mass? What is the difference between a cubic foot of air at 85F and one at -15F? The answer is in the energy content of the individual gas molecules that make up cube. Each of them in the warmer cube has more kinetic energy. They fly around inside the cube at higher speed and more energy is transferred about as they collide with each other. And since they are all moving faster, they collide more often. If we had the same number of molecules in each block, the increased number of collisions, particularly with the surface of whatever container we're using, would increase the pressure the gas exerted against its restraints. If the gas were uncontained - unrestrained - the increased kinetic energy and resultant increased collisions would cause the molecules to spread apart. The gas expands and becomes less dense.

So, what's happening with the CO2 in our atmosphere. Well, as you know, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs certain portions of the infrared light spectrum. It absorbs just these frequencies because, in effect, some of the dimensions of its molecule match the wavelengths of those 'colors' of light. That allows the molecule to resonate with those kinds of light and in doing so, absorb their energy almost perfectly. So, I am a CO2 molecule just floating along and what happens. The sun shines on, say, a nearby rock, and warms it up. Being warm, it emits some infrared photons (light). The photon strikes me and I suck it up like a dry sponge. Well, that increases my energy content. I am now warmer myself. That added warmth will make it more likely that I will emit my own photon and rid myself of that extra energy. The photon I emit might get soaked up by another rock, some water, some human's hand or maybe another CO2 molecule. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that if I - or some other GHG molecule hadn't absorbed that rock's emitted photon, it would have flown off into space. That energy would have been lost to the Earth. But instead I hung on to it. And over the long run, as energy comes in from the sun, but does not leave again because of CO2's absorption, the temperature of the Earth goes up.

Welcome to Global Warming.

Human are responsible for dang near every single molecule of CO2 that's been added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750 or so.

Welcome to Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW.

right, you can believe that theory, its your right, but all it is a belief, an opinion, of a theory, nothing more.

CO2, a beneficial molecule, without CO2 we all die. The so called scientist that dreamt this theory up got stuck in the ice, that is how much they actually understand of the real world, outside the laboratory.

 

[Abraham3]

Another true believer

The current cold air blast from the artic proves this whole global warming thing is nothing more than a big hoax. A hoax designed to tax nations with so called "Carbon tax", and enrich the western governments that designed this entire hoax for the rest of the world.

What we must all accept and belive is, Sun Solar cycles, not man made global warming.!

Cold temperature records are being recorded this week. Where are the global warming
extremist now?

 

[Abraham3]

Another

Next time you go swimming in a deep lake? Tie an anchor around your ankles and jump in.

This habit of making death threats is beginning to look like SOP for AGW deniers. This is the third or fourth in less than two weeks.

Tells me your desperate and I'm being successful.

BTW, I'm pretty sure I understand the behavior of oceans better than you do. I also seem to have a better grasp of the facts. That heat is accumulating in the deep ocean does not require that the deep ocean be at a higher temperature than the shallow. Oooh, "basic science".

There's been no warming in the past 15 to 20 years. the climate changes anyway, that's it way it is. We couldn't do anything about it regardless. The global warmest religionist, people like yourself, who would attempt to push some stupid, bullshit, carbon credit crap, that wouldn't do anything but hurt the poor and middle class, In this country for nothing. should be embarrassed an ashamed of the scam you're pushing. Don't be shocked when people are hostile toward you ....I'm freezing...-14 tonight

 

[Abraham3]

and another

And there, y'see, is the difference I couldn't give a rat's ass about your religious beliefs and you insist on fretting about saving the planet whilst spewing pollution through your computer usage.

Then why are you here talking to me?

WE are not here talking to you, we are mocking you because of AGW religion.

And the fact that CO2 does NOT nor ever has driven climate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

and another

Then why are you here talking to me?

WE are not here talking to you, we are mocking you because of AGW religion.

And the fact that CO2 does NOT nor ever has driven climate.

Co2 caused a majority of the great extinctions on earth. Look at my youtube embled links on the skooks winning thread to learn about it.

 

[IanC]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Then you should get out and meet the crew here. Most of the deniers here have rejected it, though I suppose some aren't aware they're doing so.

Hahahahahaha

I suppose you find it easier fighting against strawmen than actual posters. I certainly am not going to rehash hundreds of old posts but to simplify the greenhouse effect down to mankind's addition of extra CO2 is absurd. And to claim that 'deniers' deny it in any form just proves that you have no conception of the skeptical viewpoint.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Most extinctions were caused by green house gases.






Like 4 out of 6 of the biggest extinctions in the history of the earth was caused by volcanos spilling this shit into the atmosphere. Snowball earth was caused by methane being taken out of the atmosphere and ended by volcano's spilling co2 into atmosphere, PT around 250 million years ago and the other 200 million years ago was caused by co2.

10f increase in global temperatures killed 95% of all animals on earth.

55 million years is another co2 warming event.

This is what the palo record shows.

 

[SwimExpert]

You really should just not speak. You are proving that you are completely ignorant when it comes to this entire subject. None of those people say anything about the greenhouse effect. But it's not painfully clear that you seem to think that the greenhouse effect = man made global warming.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Oh yes they did, moron.

Volcano's spilling co2 into the atmosphere warming up the planet by 10f, 250 million years ago and again with the Atlantic split up around 200 million years ago. Oh'I guess you haven't watched the videos...You're the cluesless one anti-science fool.

 

[flacaltenn]

And all those USMB poster quotes are all LARGELY correct.

1) no significant warming in at least 15 yrs..

2) CO2 is a minor climate influence. Will never cause runaway warming of the planet short of major volcanic periods. Has as much power in FORCING as it has as a RESULT of warming.

3) Runaway thermal warming due SOLELY to CO2 IS a weak theory..

4) There is an undeniable socio-political agenda behind the focus of finding man-caused warming.

5) The models developed for AGW have INHIBITED a discussion of how the climate really works and how heat is stored and distributed around the globe. AND -- the effects of NATURAL forcings and cycles have been GRAVELY minimized and ignored.. Things like the fact that Total Solar Insolation is holding steady at a 300 relative maximum.. Or that the 1degC since 1900 is of the same approximate magnitude of the variance from natural cycles.. While effects of CO2 from anthro sources has been HIGHLY exaggerated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]

Wikipedia, "The Greenhouse Effect"

Why do YOU guys think the Earth is not -18C?

Are you, Old, Rocks, Matthew and Jake all the same person?

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]




Ooooooooops!!!!!!!