Why does the greenhouse effect only work in one direction?

[jc456]

What else could they use?
What's you view about climate changes existence.

People are water skiing in the Arctic? holy crap, when did that happen?

 

[jc456]

The basic theory is based on the Earth's reflectivity index. Mind you this is still only a theory but this is how they think it works. A certain percentage of the Sun's light is reflected back out into space from the surface of the Earth both by water and by certain types of mineral-laden deposits that make up the surface of the Earth. As it makes its way back up through the atmosphere different molecules interact with the light in different ways. Nitrogen is mostly inert and has a very low heat index. CO2 on the other hand can absorb energy from the light passing through the atmosphere which translates into temperature. So the theory is that the denser the CO2 PPM in the atmosphere the more the solar energy trying to escape back into outer space becomes trapped as a heat transfer to the gases in the atmosphere. This is probably a sound scientific principle. The real question that the anthropogenic argument is based on is whether or not we are responsible for the CO2 increase that we have a detected over the past 100 years. It really is virtually impossible to tell but what's not impossible is continuously finding false information, tampered facts and doctored data in pursuit of an alternate energy agenda which is really just another money vhase no different from the hydrocarbon industry.

Jo

i'm still waiting for a warmer to prove CO2 heats the earth. They can't say how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is. So does it heat, or do plants just eat it.

 

[justoffal]

i'm still waiting for a warmer to prove CO2 heats the earth. They can't say how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is. So does it heat, or do plants just eat it.

Yeah their entire theory is based on a lot of presupposition and guess work.
Most of their opinion has been formed on behalf of money not on behalf of science. World history is full of mass extinction. What makes any of them think that that has changed?

 

[Crick]

Yeah their entire theory is based on a lot of presupposition and guess work.
Most of their opinion has been formed on behalf of money not on behalf of science. World history is full of mass extinction. What makes any of them think that that has changed?

Both of you are incorrect. The greenhouse gases absorb CO2 is an established fact. That, via the greenhouse effect, that absorption warms the planet is a concept accepted by very close to every single scientist on the planet. That you two want to reject that because of your bad feelings about science is not an effective argument.

 

[jc456]

Both of you are incorrect. The greenhouse gases absorb CO2 is an established fact. That, via the greenhouse effect, that absorption warms the planet is a concept accepted by very close to every single scientist on the planet. That you two want to reject that because of your bad feelings about science is not an effective argument.

well sure, but you haven't told us how hot 120 PPM of CO2 is. Why?

 

[Crick]

Can someone explain it to this lump.
I can't believe it.

If no one has explained this to you yet: The atmosphere will indeed absorb any infrared coming in from the sun but keep in mind that the amount of that direct solar radiation is essentially constant. However, visible light gets through unscathed. The visible light is absorbed by the Earth's land and water which warms them. Having temperatures above absolute zero, the land and water then radiate away their excess thermal energy as infrared radiation (IR). This energy gets quickly absorbed by the greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere: carbon dioxide and methane (CO2 and CH4). The GHGs reradiate the energy as more IR, going in all directions, which gets reabsorbed by other GHG molecules or returns to the surface. As the IR gets higher and higher, the decreasing density of the atmosphere allows it to travel further and further before it gets reabsorbed. And, of course, eventually it escapes to space. The longer it takes for that IR to get from the surface to space, the more opportunity for that energy to transfer to other gases, liquids and solids of the Earth and the warmer the planet will become. The increase of GHGs from human emissions has made it more and more difficult for that energy to escape to space, so, just as a blanket makes you warm by trapping your own body heat, GHGs in the atmosphere warm the planet. Questions?

 

[jc456]

If no one has explained this to you yet: The atmosphere will indeed absorb any infrared coming in from the sun but keep in mind that the amount of that direct solar radiation is essentially constant. However, visible light gets through unscathed. The visible light is absorbed by the Earth's land and water which warms them. Having temperatures above absolute zero, the land and water then radiate away their excess thermal energy as infrared radiation (IR). This energy gets quickly absorbed by the greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere: carbon dioxide and methane (CO2 and CH4). The GHGs reradiate the energy as more IR, going in all directions, which gets reabsorbed by other GHG molecules or returns to the surface. As the IR gets higher and higher, the decreasing density of the atmosphere allows it to travel further and further before it gets reabsorbed. And, of course, eventually it escapes to space. The longer it takes for that IR to get from the surface to space, the more opportunity for that energy to transfer to other gases, liquids and solids of the Earth and the warmer the planet will become. The increase of GHGs from human emissions has made it more and more difficult for that energy to escape to space, so, just as a blanket makes you warm by trapping your own body heat, GHGs in the atmosphere warm the planet. Questions?

so how warm is 120 PPM of CO2? you still haven't answered.

 

[Crick]

This warm and, since we have yet to reach equilibrium, even warmer.

 

[jc456]

This warm and, since we have yet to reach equilibrium, even warmer.

View attachment 533631

this warm? how warm? that doesn't say shit. how warm is 120 PPM of CO2? you still haven't answered.

Funny, you don't have the balls to just admit you don't know. you make things up. too funny.

 

[Crick]

I thought you could read a graph. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Why don't you get back to us when you've finished the 7th grade.

 

[jc456]

I thought you could read a graph. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Why don't you get back to us when you've finished the 7th grade.

what is the land mass of the earth?

 

[ding]

I thought you could read a graph. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Why don't you get back to us when you've finished the 7th grade.

Do you have any confidence in the radiative forcing equation? Do you believe it is valid?

What would the associated temperature that the radiative forcing equation would predict for an initial and final atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 ppm and 400 ppm, respectively?

 

[justoffal]

Both of you are incorrect. The greenhouse gases absorb CO2 is an established fact. That, via the greenhouse effect, that absorption warms the planet is a concept accepted by very close to every single scientist on the planet. That you two want to reject that because of your bad feelings about science is not an effective argument.

I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas assumption man. What I said is we have no control over the PPM.... We really never did. Also there's no way to establish whether or not the PPM is on the rise because of warming or if warming is on the rise because of PPM. Argue screech and howl all you like....you cannot change that fact. Additionally the Earth's temperature is not subject only to the atmosphere's CO2 content. We have had higher temperatures with lower PPM and lower temperatures with higher PPM in the past. Every attempt to ignore the numerous other inputs to the Earth's temperature control solely in behalf of CO2 PPM only does not speak of science it speaks of narrow-minded lysenkoism.

Jo

 

[Crick]

Do you have any confidence in the radiative forcing equation? Do you believe it is valid?

What would the associated temperature that the radiative forcing equation would predict for an initial and final atmospheric CO2 concentration of 280 ppm and 400 ppm, respectively?

If you've finished the 7th grade, you can answer that yourself. I'm not here to be your foil.

 

[Crick]

I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas assumption man. What I said is we have no control over the PPM.... We really never did. Also there's no way to establish whether or not the PPM is on the rise because of warming or if warming is on the rise because of PPM. Argue screech and howl all you like....you cannot change that fact. Additionally the Earth's temperature is not subject only to the atmosphere's CO2 content. We have had higher temperatures with lower PPM and lower temperatures with higher PPM in the past. Every attempt to ignore the numerous other inputs to the Earth's temperature control solely in behalf of CO2 PPM only does not speak of science it speaks of narrow-minded lysenkoism.

Jo

Since both bookkeeping and isotopic analysis show that the increase from 280 to 420 ppm is entirely due to human emissions, we demonstrably have some control over the levels in our atmosphere. Since CO2 absorbs IR energy that the Earth's surface radiates and that no other atmospheric gas absorbs, basic science tells us that increased CO2 will warm the planet and that the amount of CO2 we have put there will produce what has been seen. NO OTHER FACTOR has been discovered with sufficient forcing to have caused the observed warming. Claims that the behavior of the climate in the pre-human past proves that humans cannot be responsible for global warming is a blatant logical failure many deniers make.

 

[jc456]

Since both bookkeeping and isotopic analysis show that the increase from 280 to 420 ppm is entirely due to human emissions, we demonstrably have some control over the levels in our atmosphere. Since CO2 absorbs IR energy that the Earth's surface radiates and that no other atmospheric gas absorbs, basic science tells us that increased CO2 will warm the planet and that the amount of CO2 we have put there will produce what has been seen. NO OTHER FACTOR has been discovered with sufficient forcing to have caused the observed warming. Claims that the behavior of the climate in the pre-human past proves that humans cannot be responsible for global warming is a blatant logical failure many deniers make.

Probable is all you got. That's it. too funny.

 

[ding]

If you've finished the 7th grade, you can answer that yourself. I'm not here to be your foil.

I'm a degreed engineer. I worked 37 years as an engineer.

The obvious reasons for your reluctance is that either you don't know how to do it or you don't like the answer it gives.

 

[ding]

NO OTHER FACTOR has been discovered with sufficient forcing to have caused the observed warming.

That's bullshit logic. There has been increased climate fluctuation environmental uncertainty ever since the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. You can see it with your own eyes.

The increased climate fluctuation environmental uncertainty is due to different thresholds for extensive continental glaciation at the polar regions with the northern hemisphere being the primary cause because of it's higher threshold for glaciation.

So arguing that it must be CO2 - which is a minor greenhouse gas and has never been shown to drive the earth's climate - is flawed logic.

There have been over 66 major climate changes in the past 2,7 million years. Not one of them was due to CO2.

We are still in the NORMAL range of temperature and sea level rise for an interglacial. The warming we are seeing is natural.

Sea level and temperature have not followed CO2. The correlation between CO2 and sea level and temperature is broken because CO2 does not drive the climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Real science is bound by the scientific method. Pseudo science, is not. Climatologists pushing the global warming fraud, are Pseudo science aficianados.

LOL And that is why all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. A statement from the American Geophysical Union, the largest Scientific Society on Earth;


The Challenge

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate, causing increasingly disruptive societal and ecological impacts. Such impacts are creating hardships and suffering now, and they will continue to do so into the future - in ways expected as well as potentially unforeseen. To limit these impacts, the world’s nations have agreed to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels.

To achieve this goal, global society must promptly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must reach net-zero by around 2070 to have a good chance of limiting warming to a 2° C increase and by about 2050 to achieve a more protective limit of a 1.5°C (2.7°F) increase. Either target will require a substantial near-term transition to carbon-neutral energy sources, adoption of more carbon-efficient food systems and land use practices, and enhanced removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through a combination of ecological and technological approaches.

Society must also prepare to cope with and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. Done strategically, efficiently, and equitably, the needed transformations provide a pathway toward greater prosperity and well-being, while inaction will prove very costly for humans and other life on the planet.

AGU Position Statement on Climate Change

www.agu.org

A statement from the Geological Society of America;

Rationale​

The Geological Society of America (GSA) adopted a Position Statement on Climate Change in 2006 that recognized that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of global warming since 1880, and that this warming has significant impact on humans and global ecosystems1. Revisions and updates to the GSA Position Statement on Climate Change in 2010, 2013, and 2015 are consistent with the findings of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine2 and position statements of professional societies that deal with geoscience and climate change, such as the American Geophysical Union3, American Meteorological Society4, American Chemical Society5, American Association for the Advancement of Science6, and the Geological Society of London7.

GSA Position Statements

www.geosociety.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL And that is why all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger.

And Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann.