It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.
Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.
Speaking of physics, to claim that CO2 "forces" the heat that rises through entropy (cold to hot) and is trapped in the atmosphere back to the ground would violate the laws of thermodynamics. CO2 can not "force" the temperatures on the ground to become warmer. The wavelengths of energy passing back into the atmosphere excites the carbon dioxide, which will cause a further release of energy. This process happens in seconds, not days, months, years or centuries. It's the same process that allows us to create lasers by exciting atoms of a certain type of gas, which will then emit a photon (which determines the color of the light), except in this case, the energy is a form of heat. To think that this energy can be somehow "forced" back to the ground to warm the Earth's surface is not how things work.
MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. – NASA scientists have successfully completed flight tests in preparation for deployment of a multi-year airborne science campaign to study the humidity and chemical composition of air entering the tropical tropopause layer of the atmosphere. NASA's Airborne Tropical TRopopause EXperiment (ATTREX) will conduct the science campaign over the Pacific Ocean from three locations in 2013 and 2014.
Studies have shown that even small changes in stratospheric humidity may have climate impacts that are significant compared to those of decadal increases in greenhouse gases. Predictions of stratospheric humidity changes are uncertain, due to gaps in the understanding of the physical processes occurring in the tropical tropopause layer, which ranges from about eight to 11 miles above the ground.
Because there is 99.97% additional gas that will absorb and irradiate the heat from hot to cold in the immediate space surrounding the carbon dioxide.
It would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because any mechanism that transfer heat from a low temperature reservoir (stratosphere) to a high temperature reservoir (atmosphere) without some type of external "work" or other force, such as a machine or heat pump of some kind, can not exist under the current laws of physics. Heat does not move from cold to hot, it moves in the opposite direction.
Please see section 3 of the first referenced source I offered in my OP for a better explanation. I appreciate your conjecture and your feedback, thank you.
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.
The first of these claims in GT09 is the assertion that Clausius’ statement of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids transfer of heat from a colder atmosphere
to a warmer surface. However, the Second Law requires consideration of all heat
flows in a process, so one must simultaneously include the larger transfer of ther-
mal energy from the surface to the atmosphere. Clausius’ statement also does not
impede temperature changes resulting from a change in system properties such as
adding glass to a greenhouse, or adding infrared-absorbing gases to the atmosphere.
Any warming under such a change comes from the gradual build-up of energy and
heat flows to a new steady-state, not the transfer of energy from cold to warm
Yes, but where will the heat be irradiated? Not up (into space), but to all directions. Thus it slows down the cooling by redirecting upward photons sideways and back.
Indeed, but greenhouse effect does not move any heat from cold place to hot place. It merely slows down the movement of heat from hot place (lower atmosphere and ground) to cold place (space). This slowing down of radiative cooling is enough to raise the total net energy budget of the planet, given unchanged influx of energy.
You're missing the point I think. Heat will always move following entropy, so yes, it will radiate mostly into space, and the rest will effect a very small amount of the surrounding gas IF there is enough heat to do so, which there isn't. Just because the heat radiates, it also doesn't mean it's going to reach the surface because as the paper points out, that would take some form of "work" to pump the heat back to a different pressure and lower temperature.
You can test this theory yourself. Take a heating element that is horizontal. Turn it on. Please your hand 6 inches above it and 6 inches below it. Which feels hotter? This is demonstrated on page 74 of the paper.
This "slowing down" as you put it does not raise the net energy, please show how that is true.
This is exactly why it is silly to call it a greenhouse effect in the first place. Table 5 of section 1.1 clearly shows that the thermal conductivity of CO2 is HALF AS LOW as that of the other gases which are more abundant, such as oxygen and nitrogen. This is what blew the debate away. Physics doesn't lie, and CO2 has a strict physical ability to retain heat.
Obviously, it is far too complex to explain the entire climate model in the language of physics alone, however the one part that can be considered is the thermal radiative capacity of CO2 along with the amount found in the atmosphere. Water vapor has a higher thermal capacity and is more abundant, so by nature of the global warming alarmists, should we stop evaporation? We can't, but technically, by adding water to the environment, we are doing more damage than with CO2.
The last part of your post is just a quote from the response on the violation of thermodynamics. I think you need to consider the other information I presented, such as the exclusion of clouds (feedback sensitivity) and the NASA satellite data confirming that the heat released into space is far more than the IPCC and alarmist calculations, as cited in the paper I referenced.
Originally posted by eriktheawful
Nothing to contribute to this thread as it is mostly out of my field of knowledge except for physics.
However I did want to applaud your efforts in your presentation and the wealth of information that you provided in your OP.
We're obviously not going to turn into Venus, because we have clouds and Venus does not.
The heat is not moved or pumped back. Part of it is radiated back (IR radiation). There is nothing preventing that in thermodynamics, if the net flux is still directed from warmer to colder area (which it is, its just lower than without the greenhouse effect).
What does it have in common with the greenhouse effect?
Exactly analogous as slowing down the movement of heat from your skin by clothing makes you warmer (only clothing slows more convective movement of heat, and CO2 slows radiative movement of heat, but the effect is the same). Its obvious that if you decrease the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere, and keep the incoming energy constant, the temperature will increase, just like when you decrease the amount of energy leaving the skin, and keep the incoming energy constant, your temperature will increase, as opposed to situation with no clothing.
Greenhouse effect is about radiative heat transfer, not conductive or convective heat transfers. And Earth is in space, it can only radiate heat away.
I am not going to argue about quantitative calculations, since I have insufficient knowledge to do so. The actual level of resulting warming is still not determined, so it is indeed possible it will be very minor.
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
We're obviously not going to turn into Venus, because we have clouds and Venus does not.
Point of information: Venus is entirely covered by clouds. In fact, it has the highest albedo of the terrestrial planets. (Artificially increasing Earth's albedo might actually make the greenhouse effect worse.)
Its obvious that if you decrease the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere, and keep the incoming energy constant, the temperature will increase, just like when you decrease the amount of energy leaving the skin, and keep the incoming energy constant, your temperature will increase, as opposed to situation with no clothing.
The second law of thermodynamics is completely about entropy and you seem to not understand how heat and light work at the atomic level. Heat is carried by conduction, convection and radiation, but at the Earth's surface, is 99% convection and conduction because the radiation would not be enough alone to warm the surface.
Heat does not travel to hotter, no matter what you think, and I don't know how else to explain that to you if you don't understand the laws regarding entropy.
The radiative transfer of heat that you are referring to will NEVER make it from the atmosphere to the Earth's surface because it is not strong enough.
The rate of transfer is irrelevant for the discussion because quantitatively, it has been completely demolished by the German physicists.
ALL gases absorb heat, not just CO2. It is insane to believe that you can acknowledge one gas, and not the others that are more abundant. By that proxy, the whole planet would be a ball of hot steam by now and we'd all be dead.
If you're right about radiative back-heating, your hand will get just as hot under the heating element as it would above it, but it won't because that would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, which is what I was trying to explain.
Incorrect. Across the surface of your skin, conduction and convection is occurring between your skin and your clothing as you move. There is also radiation occurring as your body expels heat, but you can NOT exclude convection and conduction.
To help you understand the flaw, please read The Hidden Flaw in the Greenhouse Theory by Allan Siddons.
This is incorrect. All three processes are involved. You can not exclude any by inclusion of another..
This is where I believe your understanding is falling quite short. If you kept the energy constant, than temperature would not increase due to equilibrium. Eventually, the temperature would match the amount of energy produced. In order to gain more temperature, you would have to therefore increase the amount of energy.
There is only so much heat that CO2 molecules could absorb simply due to their mass and the number of existing CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, and any increase in temperature will ALWAYS require an increase in energy.
That is why I keep questioning your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, because this is a well-understood aspect of entropy. (reaching equilibrium)
This leads to the next question to help you understand the discussion a bit more... how can the energy in your climate model equation be constant? This is where you would get blistered in a discussion with academics. What happens for the other 12 or so hours in a day?
Therefore, you can not use that as part of the argument because the energy is not constant and will change, which means that the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere will INCREASE at night as a result of the reduction of radiation from the sun, whereas the CO2 will continue to radiate without the additional energy from the sun effecting the net change in energy.
Physics dictates the amount of heat CO2 is able to retain as well as the length of time it can be retained, and has clearly shown that even with a DOUBLING of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would theoretically only allow for a .03-.07 degree temperature change.