Does the Greenhouse effect really exist?

[longview]

Can you provide any evidence to support your hypothesis?

In a graph of earth IR emission spectra, we see the dip at 15 um,
if much of the CO2 re-emitted at the same 15 um, the dip would not be deep.
For CO2, excitation is like a spinning top.
it does not have a smooth path to ground state, and the last stage emissions are a collection of far IR and RF.
Think about the spinning top, when it finally comes to rest, which way is it pointing?
the answer is random, because, each spin produces a slightly different set of conditions.
Did the top smoothly come to a stop, or did it bounce several times.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpre...e_near_the_ground-geiger-2003-499px.png?w=500
Notice what happens to the emission spectra of CO2 after 10 um, it is almost full,
these are the many small steps of the top bouncing randomly to a halt.

 

[Deuce]

In a graph of earth IR emission spectra, we see the dip at 15 um,
if much of the CO2 re-emitted at the same 15 um, the dip would not be deep.
For CO2, excitation is like a spinning top.
it does not have a smooth path to ground state, and the last stage emissions are a collection of far IR and RF.
Think about the spinning top, when it finally comes to rest, which way is it pointing?
the answer is random, because, each spin produces a slightly different set of conditions.
Did the top smoothly come to a stop, or did it bounce several times.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpre...e_near_the_ground-geiger-2003-499px.png?w=500
Notice what happens to the emission spectra of CO2 after 10 um, it is almost full,
these are the many small steps of the top bouncing randomly to a halt.

Why do you think this is somehow contrary to AGW?

You keep insisting diurnal asymmetry is unexpected. I would say that it was underestimated, but not unexpected.

 

[Deuce]

yes, you are right here. I am talking convection indeed. ir is not involved in the process.

...heat doesn't escape the atmosphere via convection. Nor conduction. Both would be impossible. Convection occurs via motion or circulation of a fluid, and space has no fluid. Conduction requires direct contact, and space has nothing in it to contact.

The only heat that escapes into space is via radiation. There's no other way that "normal heat" can get into space.

I should also point out that carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, etc don't stop or slow convection.

 

[Pin dÁr]

...heat doesn't escape the atmosphere via convection.

I didn't say it does!



Man o man o man.

 

[Deuce]

I didn't say it does!



Man o man o man.

But that's what the greenhouse effect is about: slowing the escape of heat into space. This only happens via radiation, which is why we talk about infrared.

 

[Pin dÁr]

But that's what the greenhouse effect is about: slowing the escape of heat into space. This only happens via radiation, which is why we talk about infrared.

there is a lot wrong with the greenhouse effect. For starters the atmosphere isn't a greenhouse. Not at all.
The greenhouse analogy is very wrong.

 

[Deuce]

there is a lot wrong with the greenhouse effect. For starters the atmosphere isn't a greenhouse. Not at all.
The greenhouse analogy is very wrong.

You're changing your argument. As described by the scientific community, infrared radiation is definitely involved. So, instead of saying IR isn't involved, now you're just saying the theory is wrong?

You'll have to elaborate: does an increasing concentration of CO2, methane, water vapor, etc, cause a planet's average temperature to increase? And I mean by any amount, could be tiny, could be a lot, it's the concept we're after.

 

[Jane]

Or, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

From the looks of this thread, I'm afraid the only answer could be: Uranus.

 

[Pin dÁr]

You're changing your argument.

Not really.

As described by the scientific community, infrared radiation is definitely involved. So, instead of saying IR isn't involved, now you're just saying the theory is wrong?

Both. I don't care what the 'scientific community'. Why parotting them? Think for yourself!
The 'scientific community' is wrong on so many things.

But it is the fallacy of appeal to authority combined with the appeal to popularity.
Of course the "scientific community" is sometimes right, but most of the time very wrong.

You'll have to elaborate: does an increasing concentration of CO2, methane, water vapor, etc, cause a planet's average temperature to increase? And I mean by any amount, could be tiny, could be a lot, it's the concept we're after.

Hmmmm, migh the sun have anything to do with an increase in temperature?

Might be a coincidence of course.

 

[Deuce]

Hmmmm, migh the sun have anything to do with an increase in temperature?

Might be a coincidence of course.

Of course the sun affects temperature. Is there a reason you are dodging the question regarding CO2? Surely you don't think the sun is the only thing that affects temperature.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Of course the sun affects temperature. Is there a reason you are dodging the question regarding CO2? Surely you don't think the sun is the only thing that affects temperature.

dodging co2??? why?

No, of course the sun is not the most important thing at all.
Oh btw the sun is cold. No kidding.

Yes, we here feel warmth, I agree with that, however, the sun self is very cold.

Sound strange I understand, but truth is truth.

Just google on "sun" and "cold" and you will be surprised, if you are honest that is.

 

[Deuce]

dodging co2??? why?

No, of course the sun is not the most important thing at all.
Oh btw the sun is cold. No kidding.

Yes, we here feel warmth, I agree with that, however, the sun self is very cold.

Sound strange I understand, but truth is truth.

Just google on "sun" and "cold" and you will be surprised, if you are honest that is.

You didn't answer my question regarding whether or not CO2, methane, etc, can affect temperature.

"Hot" and "cold" are relative terms. The sun's surface is quite a bit hotter than you or I would be comfortable with.

 

[Pin dÁr]

You didn't answer my question regarding whether or not CO2, methane, etc, can affect temperature.

ah well, nobody really knows, you know

"Hot" and "cold" are relative terms. The sun's surface is quite a bit hotter than you or I would be comfortable with.

Relative? lol. ah well, everything is relative, right? so you are not saying anything here.

The sun is COLD. period. Do some research into that.

 

[Deuce]

ah well, nobody really know, you know

Another dodge.

CO2 does trap infrared radiation, which does affect the earth's temperature.

Relative? lol. ah well, everything is relative, right? so you are not saying anything here.

The sun is COLD. period. Do some research into that.

What is the sun's surface temperature?

 

[Pin dÁr]

Another dodge.

CO2 does trap infrared radiation, which does affect the earth's temperature.




What is the sun's surface temperature?

Nobody really knows exactly. Stop parotting the official fairy tales.

 

[Deuce]

Nobody really knows exactly. Stop parotting the official fairy tales.

Give a ball park. Could a human survive the sun's surface temperature or would they be burned alive? Would water evaporate, stay liquid, or freeze at that temperature?

 

[Pin dÁr]

Give a ball park. Could a human survive the sun's surface temperature or would they be burned alive? Would water evaporate, stay liquid, or freeze at that temperature?

well, if the sun is cold....

And, now we are at it, isn't it very very odd that if you extract energy from water (freezing), it has more energy and can break pipes etc. Very very odd that is. And not explained by science.
And no, those 'bridges' are no explaining at all. They just shift the problem!

Or how about light that enters glass and then slows down, and when it exits the glass and is back into the air it has the same speed as before, No one can explain why.Where on earth is the energy coming from. The whole of physics ois full of these riddles. physics can explain nearly nothing,

Thar is why I am writing , even about the greenhouse, science has no idea at all.

science has no idea what time is.Yet they use it in their equations. And so on and so forth.

Look closely at 'science' and you see 'circular reasoning' all over the place.

Sheer propaganda.

 

[spud_meister]

well, if the sun is cold....

And, now we are at it, isn't it very very odd that if you extract energy from water (freezing), it has more energy and can break pipes etc. Very very odd that is. And not explained by science.
And no, those 'bridges' are no explaining at all. They just shift the problem!

Or how about light that enters glass and then slows down, and when it exits the glass and is back into the air it has the same speed as before, No one can explain why.Where on earth is the energy coming from. The whole of physics ois full of these riddles. physics can explain nearly nothing,

Thar is why I am writing , even about the greenhouse, science has no idea at all.

science has no idea what time is.Yet they use it in their equations. And so on and so forth.

Look closely at 'science' and you see 'circular reasoning' all over the place.

Sheer propaganda.

This is hilarious! Keep going!

 

[Pin dÁr]

This is hilarious! Keep going!

Really? is that all you can write? Or can you point out what is hilarious and why?


I can guess what...

 

[longview]

Why do you think this is somehow contrary to AGW?

You keep insisting diurnal asymmetry is unexpected. I would say that it was underestimated, but not unexpected.

Diurnal asymmetry could not have been unexpected as it was mentioned in the 19th century papers,
but as Hansen and others have shown they clearly did not account for it in the models.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1995/1995_Hansen_ha09800r.pdf

We can safely predict that on the long run the effect of the diurnal damping
on maximum temperatures will be small, for the following three reasons.
First,even during the past four decades the 0.56°C damping of the diurnal cycle
did not eliminate daytime warming, but rather reduced it from 0.56°C to 0.28°C.

So in 1994 Hansen believed diurnal asymmetry was not a long run effect,
yet it was mentioned in the 1896 paper by Svante Arrhenius.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
The opening statement points out that Tyndail, thought the effect was,

Chiefly the diurnal and anual variation of the temperature that were lessened by the circumstance.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

Venus

/thread

 

[cabse5]

Greenhouse gases do warm the earth's atmosphere. There are just a few greenhouse gases prevalent in earth's atmosphere. The most abundant is water vapor which is, at least, 95% of all greenhouse gases.

Environmentalists drill down on reducing the greenhouse gas CO2. I don't know why. CO2 is about 4% of all greenhouse gases. That would be like using an umbrella to prevent hail damage...Having negligible effect, really, on the amount of greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere.
If it weren't for environmentalists' ideology that man and man's creations have warmed the earth.....

So, environmentalists say water damage and heat damage to the earth is imminent. Strange way of showing their concern for that imminence by trying to prevent about 4% of all greenhouse gases.
Until environmentalists show me they are serious about slowing greenhouse gases, I'm not serious about greenhouse gases or global warming, either.




.

 

[Deuce]

well, if the sun is cold....

Yes, what temperature range? Will water freeze?

 

[Deuce]

Greenhouse gases do warm the earth's atmosphere. There are just a few greenhouse gases prevalent in earth's atmosphere. The most abundant is water vapor which is, at least, 95% of all greenhouse gases.

Environmentalists drill down on reducing the greenhouse gas CO2. I don't know why. CO2 is about 4% of all greenhouse gases. That would be like using an umbrella to prevent hail damage...Having negligible effect, really, on the amount of greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere.
If it weren't for environmentalists' ideology that man and man's creations have warmed the earth.....

So, environmentalists say water damage and heat damage to the earth is imminent. Strange way of showing their concern for that imminence by trying to prevent about 4% of all greenhouse gases.
Until environmentalists show me they are serious about slowing greenhouse gases, I'm not serious about greenhouse gases or global warming, either.




.

Your problem is thinking in absolute quantity versus delta.

 

[cabse5]

Your problem is thinking in absolute quantity versus delta.

Is the earth in imminent danger from water and heat damage? Yes? Do the thing(s) that will decrease those chances of water and heat damage.


It's pretty simple. Global warming is based on the effect greenhouse gases have on increases of temperature. Water vapor comprises 95% of all greenhouse gases. CO2 isn't even the strongest greenhouse gas. In other words, methane is about 23 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2.

If we are in imminent danger of water and heat damage due to global warming, do all the things we can possibly do to retard greenhouse gases in the environment. Your argument of absolute vs. delta examines the changes of amounts of greenhouse gases as if that's most important. It isn't unless your ideology is man creates global warming. It isn't if we are in imminent danger of water and heat damage from global warming.