Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

[Old Rocks]

In other words, Bent, you are just as full of shit as those fellows that are constantly showing reams of math demonstrating that Einstein had it all wrong. And then complaining that the scientific establishment has a conspiracy going to suppress their nonsense.

 

[wirebender]

You state that the increase in CO2 has no effect on the heat of the earth and the atmosphere. A degreed physicist states that you are completely wrong. Now whom should I believe? LOL

It doesn't really matter which you believe rocks. Your belief isn't based on any sort of actual knowledge of the science on your part. Your position, and who you choose to believe is a product of your political leanings.

There are plenty of degreed physicists who state adamantly that CO2 does not effect the climate and unlike this clown you reference, those who state that CO2 does not effect the climate back their positions up with actual math supported and predicted by the laws of physics.

Your guy proves himself a hack when he broaches the topic of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with his talk of "net" energy flows. The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't mention "net" energy flows. "Net" energy flows are just so much claptrap fabricated by those to whom the actual second law of thermodynamics presents a problem.

Just take a look at how he glosses over the fact that the energy budget doesn't jibe with his claims. He states:

"To satisfy the second law of thermodynamics, the *net* energy flow is from the surface to the atmosphere. Now let’s just move past a simple example of “greenhouse gases warm because of more downward energy.” On net, the radiation from the surface is greater than the back-radiation from the greenhouse effect. "

He makes this statment just below this graphic:

Look at what he says: "On net, the radiation from the surface is greater than the back-radiation from the greenhouse effect."

And compare that to what the graphic says: 168 watts per square meter absorbed by the surface of the earth from its only energy source, ie THE SUN and 324 watts per square meter of energy absorbed by the surface of the earth due to backradiation. Now explain to me rocks, and explain in terms of physical laws and be prepared to do the math, how one can make the statement that on "net" the radiation from the surface is greater than the backradiation from the greenhouse effect when the energy budget he refers to shows nearly twice as much energy being absorbed by the surface of the earth in the form of backradiation as it absorbs from its only energy source and while you are at it, explain how that does not violate the law of conservation of energy.

In short, rocks, your physicist is full of crapola. It does show that people will prostitue their inellects if enough money is up for grabs.

 

[wirebender]

In other words, Bent, you are just as full of shit as those fellows that are constantly showing reams of math demonstrating that Einstein had it all wrong. And then complaining that the scientific establishment has a conspiracy going to suppress their nonsense.

Still waiting for you to prove me wrong rocks. You bring a blog from a physicist who contradicts his own visuals and then say that I am full of shit? I am laughing out loud at you rocks. Laughing out loud.

 

[flacaltenn]

You state that the increase in CO2 has no effect on the heat of the earth and the atmosphere. A degreed physicist states that you are completely wrong. Now whom should I believe? LOL

It doesn't really matter which you believe rocks. Your belief isn't based on any sort of actual knowledge of the science on your part. Your position, and who you choose to believe is a product of your political leanings.

There are plenty of degreed physicists who state adamantly that CO2 does not effect the climate and unlike this clown you reference, those who state that CO2 does not effect the climate back their positions up with actual math supported and predicted by the laws of physics.

Your guy proves himself a hack when he broaches the topic of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with his talk of "net" energy flows. The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't mention "net" energy flows. "Net" energy flows are just so much claptrap fabricated by those to whom the actual second law of thermodynamics presents a problem.

Just take a look at how he glosses over the fact that the energy budget doesn't jibe with his claims. He states:

"To satisfy the second law of thermodynamics, the *net* energy flow is from the surface to the atmosphere. Now let’s just move past a simple example of “greenhouse gases warm because of more downward energy.” On net, the radiation from the surface is greater than the back-radiation from the greenhouse effect. "

He makes this statment just below this graphic:

Look at what he says: "On net, the radiation from the surface is greater than the back-radiation from the greenhouse effect."

And compare that to what the graphic says: 168 watts per square meter absorbed by the surface of the earth from its only energy source, ie THE SUN and 324 watts per square meter of energy absorbed by the surface of the earth due to backradiation. Now explain to me rocks, and explain in terms of physical laws and be prepared to do the math, how one can make the statement that on "net" the radiation from the surface is greater than the backradiation from the greenhouse effect when the energy budget he refers to shows nearly twice as much energy being absorbed by the surface of the earth in the form of backradiation as it absorbs from its only energy source and while you are at it, explain how that does not violate the law of conservation of energy.

In short, rocks, your physicist is full of crapola. It does show that people will prostitue their inellects if enough money is up for grabs.

THere's no doubt Wirebender that the tan (or red) numbers are either ALL WRONG -- or -- they are in different units. I'm late to arrive here.. Where did this turkey come from?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now.

CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.

"Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.
.
.
.
.

CERN's CLOUD is headed by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature, which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.

"Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth - in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia - always knew that Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases," Nigel Calder, well-known science writer wrote about the CERN findings. "In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk - and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise."

Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN - International Business Times

I'm reading the letter right now
Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

it doesn't make the claims Solomon seems to suggest it does. It in fact makes no claim about what the cause of the warming of the last 100 years is.


Your link is entirely bullshit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm just curious how man of you actually bothered to check out and read the actual Nature Letter that the article is referring to. I'm guessing - zero - but go ahead and prove me wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

However __ Don't get confused by the diff between POWER (like watts/sqmeter) and ENERGY which implies rate of power over time. We STORE ENERGY -- not power..

So the colored paths in tan (red) also include the stored THERMAL CAPACITY of either the atmosphere or the earth.

If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.

I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..

 

[wirebender]

THere's no doubt Wirebender that the tan (or red) numbers are either ALL WRONG -- or -- they are in different units. I'm late to arrive here.. Where did this turkey come from?

I don't know. He is just one of the host of minor priests that folks like rocks bow down to at the alter of the church of AGW. The numbers are trenberth's or a very close approximation of trenberth's.

 

[k2skier]

weather 101 for neocons...this is basic so kooks and bentwire can comprehend.

When you change any one the basic elements for weather, you get a different outcome. Rather simple really...but oh so hard to predict accurately.

Basic Ingredients for Weather

Building Blocks of Weather

 

[wirebender]

]
If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.

It would never reach a point where it could radiate more energy than it receives from its power source. The law of conservation of energy states explicitly that energy can never be created or destroyed. In order to radiate more than it receives, the excess (energy beyond what is received from the only energy source) would have to come from somewhere.

We go back to the electric heater radiating 1000 watts per square meter. No matter how many reflectors you put around that heater, or how much insulation you wrap it with, you will never get a single watts worth of energy that you don't pay the electric company for. You can not multiply energy. If you could, you would have a power supply for a perpetual motion machine in defiance of the law of conservation of energy.

Describe a situation on earth where energy might be constantly received but none radiated back out.

]I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..

That is an accurate representation of the energy budget upon which climate alarmism is based. It represents exactly what it looks like it represents. If you accept climate alarmism in whole or in part, then you must accept that energy budget as it represents the basis of alarmism. To reject that energy budget and the flows it represents is to reject the alarmist claim of a greenhouse effect.

If you recognize that those numbers can't actually represent reality, then you recognize the fraud that is AGW.

 

[wirebender]

weather 101 for neocons...this is basic so kooks and bentwire can comprehend.

When you change any one the basic elements for weather, you get a different outcome. Rather simple really...but oh so hard to predict accurately.

Basic Ingredients for Weather

Building Blocks of Weather

In order to participate rationally in this conversation, you must first understand the basic elements. At the foundation is the fact that weather is not climate. This discussion is about the climate, not the weather. Now, if you care to tie atmospheric CO2 to the weather, by all means do it but do it within the context of the laws of physics. Name the law(s) of physics that support and predict your claims and be prepared to show your math.

 

[IanC]

However __ Don't get confused by the diff between POWER (like watts/sqmeter) and ENERGY which implies rate of power over time. We STORE ENERGY -- not power..

So the colored paths in tan (red) also include the stored THERMAL CAPACITY of either the atmosphere or the earth.

If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.

I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..

dont confuse wirebender with simple physics. he stakes his case on some esoteric version of 'electromagnetic fields' which make it impossible for CO2 molecules to emit radiation towards earth. or he states thermodynamic laws in inappropriate examples and ways. or he just tries to excessively simplify or make complex his position to produce a strawman which he then demands that only mathematical formulas can disprove.

this is one of the few areas that Old Rocks is actually perceptive about. wirebender is a crackpot who cloaks his nonsense with some truthful aspects which he trots out when people call him on his BS.

 

[flacaltenn]

However __ Don't get confused by the diff between POWER (like watts/sqmeter) and ENERGY which implies rate of power over time. We STORE ENERGY -- not power..

So the colored paths in tan (red) also include the stored THERMAL CAPACITY of either the atmosphere or the earth.

If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.

I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..

dont confuse wirebender with simple physics. he stakes his case on some esoteric version of 'electromagnetic fields' which make it impossible for CO2 molecules to emit radiation towards earth. or he states thermodynamic laws in inappropriate examples and ways. or he just tries to excessively simplify or make complex his position to produce a strawman which he then demands that only mathematical formulas can disprove.

this is one of the few areas that Old Rocks is actually perceptive about. wirebender is a crackpot who cloaks his nonsense with some truthful aspects which he trots out when people call him on his BS.

Understood.. I do this on the faith that MANY crackpots I've met in science/engineering actually HAVE a valid point -- and that SOMETIMES with a correction of semantics or a simple change in statement of theory -- they turn out to be quite brilliant..

What are the odds eh??

 

[flacaltenn]

]
If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.

It would never reach a point where it could radiate more energy than it receives from its power source. The law of conservation of energy states explicitly that energy can never be created or destroyed. In order to radiate more than it receives, the excess (energy beyond what is received from the only energy source) would have to come from somewhere.

No magic here. A reservoir of energy can radiate power at a rate to either INCREASE the reservoir capacity or diminish it. When the sun goes down -- the reservoir discharges a certain rate depending on thermal conduction and actual IR.. When the sun comes up, the reservoir recharges at a rate similiar to yesterday if the weather is similiar. So when you introduce the TIME variable (rate of charge or discharge) and the conduction variables (atmospheric content, clouds, weather, ect) the rate of discharge (watts/sq meter) COULD exceed the daily rate of charge (watts/sq meter)because of the capacity of the reservoir. At least for a period of time. OR GHG model model, the the rate of discharge OUT of the whole system (atmosphere included) could be less than the rate of daytime charge causing energy to be stored. (up to the capacity of the reservoir -- and this is where we are NOT gonna get back into whether "CO2 stores heat" )

We go back to the electric heater radiating 1000 watts per square meter. No matter how many reflectors you put around that heater, or how much insulation you wrap it with, you will never get a single watts worth of energy that you don't pay the electric company for. You can not multiply energy. If you could, you would have a power supply for a perpetual motion machine in defiance of the law of conservation of energy.

That's correct -- if you look at it from energy in/out standpoint. But if I turn that heater off, it's ability to MAINTAIN a watts/sq meter Power stream would depend on it's capacity to store heat. Fill it with oil and the thermostat won't click on/off as often to maintain temperature. If I toss a thermal blanket over it (PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME) I can't change the total energy budget -- but I sure can RAISE the temperature of the heater surface over time. Time RATES of power flow is the difference between power flow and energy capacity.

Describe a situation on earth where energy might be constantly received but none radiated back out.

Can't really do it that way. But I CAN describe a situation where power is constantly radiated and virtually none comes in --- it's called nighttime.. And to your favor -- some brilliant scientists have used that trick to show NO correlation between desert night-time lows and increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Essentially taking the sun forcing function completely out of the equation. That one experiment has done more to make me a skeptic denier than any other single piece of evidence.

]I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..

That is an accurate representation of the energy budget upon which climate alarmism is based. It represents exactly what it looks like it represents. If you accept climate alarmism in whole or in part, then you must accept that energy budget as it represents the basis of alarmism. To reject that energy budget and the flows it represents is to reject the alarmist claim of a greenhouse effect.

If you recognize that those numbers can't actually represent reality, then you recognize the fraud that is AGW.

Like I said -- I BELIEVE -- the paths on the right side of that graphic are not meant to balance the left side flows. Using my reservoir analogy, the left side is the "charging" function and the right side seems to be the "discharge" function.. Because I care WireBender -- I'll sleuth out the source and see if that's correct.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

]
If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.

It would never reach a point where it could radiate more energy than it receives from its power source. The law of conservation of energy states explicitly that energy can never be created or destroyed. In order to radiate more than it receives, the excess (energy beyond what is received from the only energy source) would have to come from somewhere.

We go back to the electric heater radiating 1000 watts per square meter. No matter how many reflectors you put around that heater, or how much insulation you wrap it with, you will never get a single watts worth of energy that you don't pay the electric company for. You can not multiply energy. If you could, you would have a power supply for a perpetual motion machine in defiance of the law of conservation of energy.

Describe a situation on earth where energy might be constantly received but none radiated back out.

]I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..

That is an accurate representation of the energy budget upon which climate alarmism is based. It represents exactly what it looks like it represents. If you accept climate alarmism in whole or in part, then you must accept that energy budget as it represents the basis of alarmism. To reject that energy budget and the flows it represents is to reject the alarmist claim of a greenhouse effect.

If you recognize that those numbers can't actually represent reality, then you recognize the fraud that is AGW.

The heat retained by global warming is trapped heat.


Without it we'd all freeze to death.

The heat radiates into space - but is replaced by the incoming radiation from the sun. If you make the atmosphere more able to absorb infrared radiation, the equilibrium temperature will rise.

 

[wirebender]

dont confuse wirebender with simple physics. he stakes his case on some esoteric version of 'electromagnetic fields' which make it impossible for CO2 molecules to emit radiation towards earth. or he states thermodynamic laws in inappropriate examples and ways. or he just tries to excessively simplify or make complex his position to produce a strawman which he then demands that only mathematical formulas can disprove.

You keep saying that Ian all the while remaining unable to point out any specific error on my part. What is "esoteric" about anything I have said regarding EM fields? Do you not believe that vectors accurately represent EM fields? Do you not believe that EM fields are, in fact, vectors? Do you believe that energy can pass in two directions at once along any vector? What exactly do you believe about EM fields that is in opposition to anything I have said?

And by all means, point out any thermodynamic law that I have stated in an "inappropriate" way? And Ian, if you can't prove a position that is subject to the laws of physics mathematically, then you can't prove your position and likewise if you can't disprove someone else's position that is based on the laws of physics, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

this is one of the few areas that Old Rocks is actually perceptive about. wirebender is a crackpot who cloaks his nonsense with some truthful aspects which he trots out when people call him on his BS.

And yet you remain unable to do more than call names. If I am wrong, then prove it. If calling names is all you have then you are in the same position as rocks in that your position must be one of faith as well.

 

[wirebender]

No magic here. A reservoir of energy can radiate power at a rate to either INCREASE the reservoir capacity or diminish it. When the sun goes down -- the reservoir discharges a certain rate depending on thermal conduction and actual IR.. When the sun comes up, the reservoir recharges at a rate similiar to yesterday if the weather is similiar.

But the earth could never, under any circumstance radiate more energy than it receives. The earth could never, ever, ever, ever, achieve a position where it's energy output was greater than that of its primary energy source.

So when you introduce the TIME variable (rate of charge or discharge) and the conduction variables (atmospheric content, clouds, weather, ect) the rate of discharge (watts/sq meter) COULD exceed the daily rate of charge (watts/sq meter)because of the capacity of the reservoir. At least for a period of time. OR GHG model model, the the rate of discharge OUT of the whole system (atmosphere included) could be less than the rate of daytime charge causing energy to be stored. (up to the capacity of the reservoir -- and this is where we are NOT gonna get back into whether "CO2 stores heat"

So are you saying that you believe trenberth when he says that the earth absorbs nearly twice as many watts per square meter from the atmosphere as it receives from the sun? That is the only relevant question here as that is the premise upon which alarmism is based. If you don't accept that the atmosphere is capable of delivering nearly twice as manyt watts per square meter to the surface of the earth as the sun and that the surface of the earth, as a result, radiates more than twice as many watts per square meter as it receives from the sun then you, by definition, reject the basis of climate alarmism.

That's correct -- if you look at it from energy in/out standpoint. But if I turn that heater off, it's ability to MAINTAIN a watts/sq meter Power stream would depend on it's capacity to store heat. Fill it with oil and the thermostat won't click on/off as often to maintain temperature. If I toss a thermal blanket over it (PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME) I can't change the total energy budget -- but I sure can RAISE the temperature of the heater surface over time. Time RATES of power flow is the difference between power flow and energy capacity.

No. You can never RAISE the temperature of the heater especially after you turn it off. With adequate reflectors, you can slow down its rate of cooling but never RAISE its temperature. If you toss a thermal blanket on it, you will immediately reduce its temperature precisely as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Heat will flow away from the warmer surface of the heater into the cooler blanket. How quickly the temperature of the heater falls after that is dependent on how much heat the blanket is able to trap and HOLD.

Can't really do it that way. But I CAN describe a situation where power is constantly radiated and virtually none comes in --- it's called nighttime.. And to your favor -- some brilliant scientists have used that trick to show NO correlation between desert night-time lows and increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Essentially taking the sun forcing function completely out of the equation. That one experiment has done more to make me a skeptic denier than any other single piece of evidence.

Are you aware that trenberth's energy budget and the models spawned from it don't recognize the fact of nighttime? According to trenberth's budget, and the models used by the IPCC, the earth is represented as a flat disk being irradiated to a state of twilight 24 hours a day. Are you also aware that if you model the earth as a sphere illuminated across 180 degrees of its surface for 12 hours and dark for 12 hours that a greenhouse effect is not necessary to account for the temperature of the earth?

When you say that you are a "skeptic denier" does that mean that you are a skeptic or a skeptic/denier or are a warmist?

Like I said -- I BELIEVE -- the paths on the right side of that graphic are not meant to balance the left side flows. Using my reservoir analogy, the left side is the "charging" function and the right side seems to be the "discharge" function.. Because I care WireBender -- I'll sleuth out the source and see if that's correct.

It is an accurate representation of the way that trenberth et. al claim the earth's energy budget works. It can not be otherwise because his models represent the earth as a flat disk being radiated across its entirety 24 hours a day to an intensity of something like twilight.

They model the earth as a black body, which it is not. They divide the radiation received by the earth from the sun in the form P/4 just as you would treat a black body. That works for a black body because no matter which direction you look at it from, the energy output is the same because it is a 3D 360 degree SELF ILLUMINATED sphere. You can represent a blackbody as a flat disk because the energy output is more or less the same across its entire surface.

The earth, however is a 3D 360 degree sphere that is ILLUMINATED across only 180 degrees of its surface at any given time. As a result, the input and output of energy on such a sphere must be represented in a way that approximates this:

Note the highest temperature is reached shortly after noon and the lowest temperature is reached very shortly after sunrise. A model that represents the reality of earth can not divide energy in the form of P/4 as trenberth et al do. It must divide energy in the form P/2 because only half of the earth is receiving energy at any given time. From there, it gets more complicated because the input from the sun is not uniform across the whole 180 degrees that is being illuminated at any given time. If I were able to represent the graphic above in 3D, it would show an increase in power received from sunrise till noon and a decrease in power received from just after noon till nightfall.

When the earth is modeled in a fashion that represents reality, a greenhouse effect is not necessary to account for the temperature on earth. trenberth et all need a greenhouse effect to account for the temperature of the earth because they are not representing the earth as it actually is. The flat disk being constantly irradiated across its entire surface that they propose needs a greenhouse effect but it does not represent the reality of earth.

 

[wirebender]

The heat retained by global warming is trapped heat.

There is one so called greenhouse gas that can actually absorb and retain heat. It is water vapor and water can absorb and retain heat due to its ability to alter between its various phases in the open atmosphere.

When IR is absorbed by any of the other so called greenhouse gasses, it is absorbed and emitted at, or very near the speed of light. There is no trapping. To the contrary, energy absorbed by the other so called greenhouse gasses is scattered. Far from being insulators, the other so called greenhouse gasses are radiative conductors and act to cool the atmosphere rather than keep it warm.

Without it we'd all freeze to death.

Or burn. Look at the moon OoPooPahDoo. It is roughly the same distance from the sun as earth and therefore receives roughly the same amount of energy from the sun per square meter as the earth. The moon, of course, has no atmosphere.

During the day, the temperature on the surface of the moon is over 200 degrees F because it has no atmosphere. At night, the temperature falls to below -200 degrees F. So you see, the atmosphere doesn't simply keep us from freezing, it also keeps us from burning to a crisp.

The heat radiates into space - but is replaced by the incoming radiation from the sun. If you make the atmosphere more able to absorb infrared radiation, the equilibrium temperature will rise.

That is true, except that CO2 can not absorb and retain heat. IR passes through CO2 and all the other so called greenhouse gasses (except water vapor) at, or very near the speed of light and is, in fact scattered where it can be more efficiently dissipated rather than being trapped.

 

[editec]

So assuming that the sun is responsible for more energy reaching the earth, and assuming that the GREENHOUSE effect is also contributing to the warming of the atmosphere and ocean by trapping more of that additional energy from the sun?

We're in a world of hurtin' of certain.

 

[daveman]

No, actually, we do not know that.

Really?...Where and when was that one performed and repeated?

The proof that GHGs can absorb IR is a SIMPLE experiment. Anyone with a specrophotometer can do it. Since there's a principle called Conservation of Energy, where does that energy go, if not to keep heat on earth? Now it's your turn to answer a question. BTW, statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space. What would the other half be doing?

So you're claiming that an experiment consisting of a small box of air with maybe two variables will accurately reflect what goes on in an entire planetary atmosphere and ocean system with millions of variables.

Really?