Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[IanC]

That is not IR warming the atmosphere...that is convection warming the atmosphere and convection is not the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

The media does a poor job by giving over simplified explanations for the greenhouse effect. This is compounded by climate science not giving laymen easily accessible explanations that are more in-depth.

Is this a realist representation of what happens near the surface or at height in the atmosphere? No. But it does illustrate the concept that CO2 can absorb and can emit. Saying that 15 micron radiation from the surface is absorbed and reemited in a random direction is not specifically true in all cases but the actual effect is very nearly true. Adding the alternate pathways due to molecular collision, etc is far more complicated and most people aren't interested in anything complicated.

Now you are splitting hairs by saying the energy absorbed by CO2 isn't measurable as 'heat' until it has been thermalized by molecular collision. But it IS thermalized by molecular collision!

That energy can only leave the atmosphere by conduction at the boundary into the surface, by radiation into the surface, or by radiation to space. You can pick any of those choices but you can't say it disappears with no effect.

 

[SSDD]

N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

A non-GHG atmosphere of O2 and N2 can only store and release energy via conduction at the surface/air boundary. There is no loss to space because it cannot convert stored energy into IR radiation, nor can it absorb surface emitted IR. There is only one pathway in and out.

Poor terminology...in an atmosphere where there are no radiative gasses...greenhouse is a misnomer since there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

 

[SSDD]

Loschmidt's gravito thermal effect says that there will be a temperature gradient that matches the gravity gradient.

Boltzmann, using the second law of thermodynamics said there should be no gradient.

The mathematics for both positions appear to be correct. The controversy lives on to this day.

Boatsman was wrong...Graeff has demonstrated temperature gradients in columns of air.

 

[IanC]

The water cycle of evaporation, convection and release of latent heat during precipitation is a very efficient way of moving energy away from the surface and into the atmosphere. Once it is into the atmosphere, you are again left with three choices of getting rid of it. Conduction back to the surface, radiation to the surface, or radiation to space. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the liquid and ice phases of water have the ability to produce a bigger variety of radiation than water vapour. Clouds are somewhat like a second surface, although they radiate both up and down

 

[sedwin]

N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

A non-GHG atmosphere of O2 and N2 can only store and release energy via conduction at the surface/air boundary. There is no loss to space because it cannot convert stored energy into IR radiation, nor can it absorb surface emitted IR. There is only one pathway in and out.

Poor terminology...in an atmosphere where there are no radiative gasses...greenhouse is a misnomer since there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

When discussing Science I like to side with the actual scientists who are expert in that field. In this case 95% hold a certain view based upon their expert knowledge of this specific scientific process.

 

[SSDD]

This is yet another area were you make mutually exclusive claims.

You have no difficulty understanding how GHGs can convert stored energy into radiation, which will cool the atmosphere if it escapes to space.

One the other hand you say that GHGs that absorb radiation and convert it into stored energy do not warm the atmosphere.

the only gas known to man that absorbs, and retains energy at the atmospheric temperatures on earth is water vapor.

 

[SSDD]

I identified where the graphics came from....But here are the links to the pages...You sure are a f'ing whining milquetoast baby, aren't you...Since you claim to be thoroughly versed in the "science" of climate change...I would have thought you could identify simple graphics...and not become a whining baby over the sources..

Here is a link to the page from the University of Washington...

ATM S 211 - Notes

For this graphic...

Here is the link for the graphic from Harvard...

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Here is the link to Penn State...

One-Layer Energy Balance Model | METEO 469: From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming D7

Now buzz off...maybe an adult will come around who actually wants to discuss this...

I'm not sure what you want to discuss and frankly who "warmers" are? You have identified a mechanism in Natural Science. Do you have a question or argument to make because that's what's lacking in this post.

I was pointing out that the claimed mechanism for a greenhouse effect as described by cliamte science is flawed...terribly terribly flawed.

 

[IanC]

Loschmidt's gravito thermal effect says that there will be a temperature gradient that matches the gravity gradient.

Boltzmann, using the second law of thermodynamics said there should be no gradient.

The mathematics for both positions appear to be correct. The controversy lives on to this day.

Boatsman was wrong...Graeff has demonstrated temperature gradients in columns of air.

I tend to agree with you there. There is also a lapse rate in most layers of the atmosphere.

I disagree with Loschmidt that there is an infinite supply of energy that could be tapped by harnessing the gradient because you would lose the energy bringing it back down the gravity gradient. I certainly could be wrong though. Entropy is a bitch but it can sometimes be harnessed.

 

[IanC]

N2 and O2 are the vast majority of the atmosphere. They have almost no reactivity to IR, they neither absorb not emit it.

But the energy can be transferred to O2 and N2 via collision.

A non-GHG atmosphere of O2 and N2 can only store and release energy via conduction at the surface/air boundary. There is no loss to space because it cannot convert stored energy into IR radiation, nor can it absorb surface emitted IR. There is only one pathway in and out.

Poor terminology...in an atmosphere where there are no radiative gasses...greenhouse is a misnomer since there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

So you would prefer me to use the term 'radiative gases' rather than GHGs?

Hmm....no.

Do you agree that an atmosphere that does not contain radiative gases (hahahaha, just this one time) cannot lose its energy except through conduction at the boundary? If you disagree, how else does it shed energy? Be specific.

 

[IanC]

This is yet another area were you make mutually exclusive claims.

You have no difficulty understanding how GHGs can convert stored energy into radiation, which will cool the atmosphere if it escapes to space.

One the other hand you say that GHGs that absorb radiation and convert it into stored energy do not warm the atmosphere.

the only gas known to man that absorbs, and retains energy at the atmospheric temperatures on earth is water vapor.

It looks like I posted my answer just before you asked the question.

 

[sedwin]

I identified where the graphics came from....But here are the links to the pages...You sure are a f'ing whining milquetoast baby, aren't you...Since you claim to be thoroughly versed in the "science" of climate change...I would have thought you could identify simple graphics...and not become a whining baby over the sources..

Here is a link to the page from the University of Washington...

ATM S 211 - Notes

For this graphic...

Here is the link for the graphic from Harvard...

CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

Here is the link to Penn State...

One-Layer Energy Balance Model | METEO 469: From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming D7

Now buzz off...maybe an adult will come around who actually wants to discuss this...

I'm not sure what you want to discuss and frankly who "warmers" are? You have identified a mechanism in Natural Science. Do you have a question or argument to make because that's what's lacking in this post.

I was pointing out that the claimed mechanism for a greenhouse effect as described by cliamte science is flawed...terribly terribly flawed.

How exactly? CO2 goes into the atmosphere and then comes down to be absorbed by natural "sinks" like forests or the ocean. Scientists can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and it keeps increasing every year for decades due to the fact that the oceans and what's left of forests are overtaxed. Too much CO2 not enough "sinks" left to absorb it. This makes sense. We have cut down much of our forests killing that natural "sink." This puts our system in an imbalance. This coupled with the fact that we dig up oil/coal (ancient carbon locked in the soil from ancient sources) and put this additional carbon from millions of years ago back into our current system. Yet another source causing an imbalance.

The fact is, more and more, carbon is staying in the atmosphere. This is a measurable fact regardless of the well established mechanism.

 

[SSDD]

[

So you would prefer me to use the term 'radiative gases' rather than GHGs?

Had the term radiative gasses been used rather than a misnomer like greenhouse gasses been used, the sham never would have got off the ground..

Do you agree that an atmosphere that does not contain radiative gases (hahahaha, just this one time) cannot lose its energy except through conduction at the boundary? If you disagree, how else does it shed energy? Be specific.

I have never said that the atmosphere didn't contain so called greenhouse gasses...the fact, however, is that there isn't a bit of measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere..

And I have stated over and over that until you get to the upper troposphere where molecules are further apart, convection and conduction rule...radiation only has a key role in the upper atmosphere transporting energy out to space.

 

[SSDD]

How exactly? CO2 goes into the atmosphere and then comes down to be absorbed by natural "sinks" like forests or the ocean. Scientists can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and it keeps increasing every year for decades due to the fact that the oceans and what's left of forests are overtaxed. Too much CO2 not enough "sinks" left to absorb it. This makes sense. We have cut down much of our forests killing that natural "sink." This puts our system in an imbalance. This coupled with the fact that we dig up oil/coal (ancient carbon locked in the soil from ancient sources) and put this additional carbon from millions of years ago back into our current system. Yet another source causing an imbalance.

First, look back in history...at 400ppm, the atmosphere is literally starved for CO2 relative to history. Second, ice ages, even the one the earth is presently exiting began with atmospheric CO2 near 1000ppm. Third, atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm with no run away global warming.

Forth, and most important, there is not a single bit of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. You are assuming that CO2 does something beyond feed plants when there isn't the first piece of evidence that it does.

The fact is, more and more, carbon is staying in the atmosphere. This is a measurable fact regardless of the well established mechanism.

So the earth is exiting an ice age and the atmospheric CO2 levels are beginning to return to their pre ice age levels...what exactly do you find surprising about that? And what is it about this increase that scares you. The scientific literature has the climate sensitivity to CO2 steadily trending towards zero where it belongs..what is it about CO2 that scares you so badly?

 

[IanC]

Do you agree that an atmosphere that does not contain radiative gases (hahahaha, just this one time) cannot lose its energy except through conduction at the boundary? If you disagree, how else does it shed energy? Be specific

This is an important point, and I wish you would address it.

N2 and O2 have emissivities approaching zero in the IR bands. That means they can neither absorb not emit IR. How can they shed their energy except through the surface/air boundary by conduction?

N2 and O2 do absorb some solar insolation at visible and UV bands. The low temperature of the atmosphere precludes these molecules from actually producing visible or UV radiation from the available thermal energy, so any absorbed solar is either reemited in a random direction (scattered), or transformed into a different form by molecular collision which warms the air. This solar warming must exit to the surface by conduction. There is no other pathway without GHGs.

Is the surface warmer than it would have been if all the solar insolation reached the surface? No, if you only consider the daytime temps that are lower because of the loss of scattered radiation. Yes, if you only consider the stored energy available to reduce the temperature decrease at night. Overall the average temperature is warmer because the two extremes have been reduced.

 

[IanC]

The scientific literature has the climate sensitivity to CO2 steadily trending towards zero where it belongs..what is it about CO2 that scares you so badly?

The climate sensitivity is trending towards a positive value of around 1C/2xCO2.

It is an asymptote approaching a value. Not a linear trend that crosses the y axis and continues to ever increasing negative values.

 

[SSDD]

Do you agree that an atmosphere that does not contain radiative gases (hahahaha, just this one time) cannot lose its energy except through conduction at the boundary? If you disagree, how else does it shed energy? Be specific

This is an important point, and I wish you would address it.

N2 and O2 have emissivities approaching zero in the IR bands. That means they can neither absorb not emit IR. How can they shed their energy except through the surface/air boundary by conduction?

N2 and O2 do absorb some solar insolation at visible and UV bands. The low temperature of the atmosphere precludes these molecules from actually producing visible or UV radiation from the available thermal energy, so any absorbed solar is either reemited in a random direction (scattered), or transformed into a different form by molecular collision which warms the air. This solar warming must exit to the surface by conduction. There is no other pathway without GHGs.

Is the surface warmer than it would have been if all the solar insolation reached the surface? No, if you only consider the daytime temps that are lower because of the loss of scattered radiation. Yes, if you only consider the stored energy available to reduce the temperature decrease at night. Overall the average temperature is warmer because the two extremes have been reduced.

I hardly think it is proper to say that O2 and N2 absorb "some" energy from the surface. If the air were still, then you could say "some" but since the atmosphere is constantly moving, O2 and N2 take up a great deal of energy via conduction...which is then moved on up to the top of the troposphere where it is moved on out of the atmosphere via radiation when the molecules become far enough apart to allow radiation to be the primary method of energy movement.

 

[SSDD]

The climate sensitivity is trending towards a positive value of around 1C/2xCO2.

No ian...it is not...the value has already dropped below half a degree according to quite a few papers and observation tells us that it is zero or less.

 

[IanC]

Do you agree that an atmosphere that does not contain radiative gases (hahahaha, just this one time) cannot lose its energy except through conduction at the boundary? If you disagree, how else does it shed energy? Be specific

This is an important point, and I wish you would address it.

N2 and O2 have emissivities approaching zero in the IR bands. That means they can neither absorb not emit IR. How can they shed their energy except through the surface/air boundary by conduction?

N2 and O2 do absorb some solar insolation at visible and UV bands. The low temperature of the atmosphere precludes these molecules from actually producing visible or UV radiation from the available thermal energy, so any absorbed solar is either reemited in a random direction (scattered), or transformed into a different form by molecular collision which warms the air. This solar warming must exit to the surface by conduction. There is no other pathway without GHGs.

Is the surface warmer than it would have been if all the solar insolation reached the surface? No, if you only consider the daytime temps that are lower because of the loss of scattered radiation. Yes, if you only consider the stored energy available to reduce the temperature decrease at night. Overall the average temperature is warmer because the two extremes have been reduced.

I hardly think it is proper to say that O2 and N2 absorb "some" energy from the surface. If the air were still, then you could say "some" but since the atmosphere is constantly moving, O2 and N2 take up a great deal of energy via conduction...which is then moved on up to the top of the troposphere where it is moved on out of the atmosphere via radiation when the molecules become far enough apart to allow radiation to be the primary method of energy movement.

????

We were talking about an atmosphere without GHGs. Therefore no shedding of energy via IR emission. Most of the energy going into the non-GHG atmosphere would come from conduction at the surface boundary but all that left would have to go back to the surface.

No convection from the water cycle. Only fluffing up during the day as energy was stored in the gravity field, followed by a contraction at night as the energy was returned to the surface.

All the radiation loss to space would come from the surface, except for the minor loss from scattering of UV and visible solar insolation in the atmosphere.

Why do you think there would be a troposphere, and how would it radiate without radiative gases?

 

[IanC]

The climate sensitivity is trending towards a positive value of around 1C/2xCO2.

No ian...it is not...the value has already dropped below half a degree according to quite a few papers and observation tells us that it is zero or less.

Yes, they are dropping. But they are converging to a limit value. Probably 1.1 or 1.2 for transient, and slightly higher for equilibrium. Don't let the linear lines fool you into thinking that the values will continue to drop indefinitely over time, and cross the x axis into negative territory.

It is interesting that although the climate sensitivities have dropped over the last decade, the amount of warming predicted for 2100 has not. At least in the media. When was the last time you heard a story saying thing are better than we thought?

 

[SSDD]

[

We were talking about an atmosphere without GHGs. Therefore no shedding of energy via IR emission. Most of the energy going into the non-GHG atmosphere would come from conduction at the surface boundary but all that left would have to go back to the surface.

Ian...if you want to know what a planet without greenhouse gasses is like, there are several you can refer to in the solar system...and they have temperatures, remarkably similar to earth at the point in their atmospheres where the pressure is 1 bar...your hypotheses fail again and again when you compare them to actual observation.