It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Earth Is NOT A Greenhouse

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
The Greenhouse effect is an analogy, its not that the Earth is a huge greenhouse.



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.[1][2]

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.


How would it violate the laws of thermodynamics? Elaborate. I dont see any violation in CO2 forcing part of the IR radiation back.




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Interesting thread, with some really good information. I enjoy reading about recent studies, as that is how we learn things. What I have learned is that it will be really difficult to produce a perfect model of the climate, because there are too many variables that we do not control. We can not predict when volcanoes will erupt, or at least not yet, along with many other cycles that we are still studying.

I think the ATTREX project by NASA is interesting and it also shows that NASA is still studying the atmosphere and the climate.

NASA Gears Up For Airborne Study of Earth's Radiation Balance


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.


ATTREX home page

It seems like what is said publicly is based on politics and not on actual experiments or science. Science is difficult to put in a five second sound bite, but that is what most people pay attention to. I am sure that some things we are doing are having an effect on the earth, but natural cycles will continue, just like they always have.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


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 do not confuse energy with heat, they are different in regard to physics. The differences between heat, energy and work need to be understood in order to fully understand the second law of thermodynamics, because that is exactly what the law is defining. It would create a paradox otherwise.

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.


Also, just to point out... your definition of the greenhouse effect that you described and quoted is also misunderstood and taken originally from the IPCC reports in the 80's when radiative forcing was first introduced, which several scientists wrongly re-use. This is one of my main arguments in my post, and is explained in depth in section 1 of the paper.

A scientific consensus, as is used in the IPCC, is not a scientific truth, it is a political one, and we all know where that leads.

~Namaste

edit on 15-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


I'm with you on the CO2 not being a major player, in fact it is a minor player compared to the other stuff that is going on. The consensus of the world is that you can buy CO2 rights to protect a forest and claim you are saving the environment. It gives the corporations the right to pollute instead of reforming environmentally poor practices as long as they pay money to someone else, big money. This does nothing to solve the problems.

It doesn't seem like anyone does anything to discourage cutting the trees that purify the air here in the USA. I understand we need to cut some trees but our over-consumption of trees just to create more furniture that only lasts a short time because of built in flaws to promote the progression of capitalistic growth is not acceptable. Using trees to make fuel pellets for industrial applications is another idiotic venture. Take away the trees and everything gets worse. Thinning and caring for the forest is one thing but clear-cutting it and taking every piece of wood is crazy.

The whole thing is really a feeble attempt to make people think they are doing something for the environment by giving money. A serious approach would be for people to tell companies...You can't have those trees. Why do the Elite think we have to pay to conserve. Tell the companies to fix their practices and raise their price. It will be a lot cheaper than having a middle man involved that wastes half the money on paperwork and high wages of it's staffs. Money paid to a fund will not fix the environment. Too many high paid scientists on that project. Put some employees of the Fish and wildlife service in charge and have them fix this mess. Not necessarily the big wheels, only the conscientious people.

I'm not even an Environmentalist, just a concerned citizen who wants what's good for his grandchildren. I will burn wood if I need to. I will build a shed if I need to. I cause the death of trees but only if there is a real need.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




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.


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.



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.


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.



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.


Here is a peer-reviewed response to your source:
COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"



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
regions.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


First, let me state that the peer-reviewed response is just that, a response. It is not a published paper, it is merely a rebuttal to the original published paper that is allowed to be added. When a paper is peer-reviewed, and there is any disagreement whatsoever, a response is allowed to be added providing it is also peer-reviewed. In some cases, if you have "friends" in the field, you can get something peer-reviewed for a response (even if it shouldn't be), but this is much harder to do for being published in a journal.

I'm aware of the response that was added to the original publication, and have considered both sides of the argument before posting. I'm not trying to argue the thermodynamics, that isn't the point of the OP. The reason I posted their paper is because they are able to quantify how much heat CO2 is able to capture and at what rate it is released. This is critical and damning to the debate, and those specific calculations are not disputed in the response, only how they are referenced later on.



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.


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. This is why the theory violates the second law of thermodynamics, even when you consider the other parts of the system. (air pressure, solar radiation, ground emitted infrared)

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. Just because a small fraction of the heat released from the CO2 travels outward, it will very quickly release into space. This has been confirmed by NASA by showing that the amount of heat being released is far greater than anticipated by global warming alarmists.

I am thinking that you may be confusing energy and quanta with heat, which are different.



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.


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. They clearly show that a doubling in CO2 does increase temperatures... by .03-.07%...
That's not even remotely close to the IPCC projections, or the global alarmists expectations.

They go on to illustrate a huge problem, which is that conventional physics were never applied to climate models, calculations or even discussions, yet at the end of the day, it is the physics that matters most. 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. That is why the paper I cited, regardless of the response, made waves in the climatology circles.

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.

This science is solid, there is no AGW, but there is global climate change. Once a theory is disproven, there is no need to continue to try and prove it.

~Namaste
edit on 15-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
For anyone interested in the science, it's all here in this thread.

I will continue to add more reference material or explain it in more detail if necessary, but to put it simply...

The greenhouse effect in regard to atmospheric physics has been disproven. There are no supported arguments for it anymore. It has been clearly shown that CO2 does NOT back radiate heat.

The current debate has shifted completely from man-made global warming and from CO2 as having any relationship to it. Many papers have been peer-reviewed and published that destroy the carbon dioxide effect on warming.

The paper I referenced is backed by 130 German physicists and has been widely accepted in the climate science community in an almost renaissance-ish way, and led to several other papers that further demonstrate how little CO2 effects temperatures.

Alan Siddons wrote a paper called 'A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?' that was co-authored by Martin Hertzberg and Hans Shreuder which completely embarrasses anyone who still holds on to the greenhouse gas theory.

This is why I want this information to hit the airwaves, because you're not going to hear the media talk about this, as it ruins their chances of being able to snow the masses into believing that they are going to kill the planet.

I hope that anyone who reads the thread will actually read the science behind it as well.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




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.


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).



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.


What does it have in common with the greenhouse effect?



This "slowing down" as you put it does not raise the net energy, please show how that is true.


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.



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.


Greenhouse effect is about radiative heat transfer, not conductive or convective heat transfers. And Earth is in space, it can only radiate heat away.



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.


This is true, ultimately the real threat is water vapor. CO2 is merely the "fuse", water vapor (and methane) can increase temperature far more by positive feedback. Still, just because we "only" lighted the fuse does not mean we are not responsible for the bomb boing off. You cant stop evaporation, but you can stop releasing 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.


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. I merely corrected the qualitative claims - that greenhouse effect violates thermodynamics and that it is impossible for CO2 to cause warming, or increase heat retention in the atmosphere.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
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.

S&F



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

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.

S&F


Thank you very much.


~Namaste



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
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.)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Maslo, I can see that you are quite intelligent based on your responses, but I think you are missing a few critical concepts around the argument.

The second law WOULD be clearly violated, it is not difficult to understand, and only AGW proponents would continue to argue that claim because it is dead and buried. Qualitatively, the argument stands and holds up to scrutiny across the entire scientific community.



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).


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.



What does it have in common with the greenhouse effect?


What do you mean? Is that an attempt to derail? It's a simple household experiment to prove that your understanding of radiative heat is incorrect. 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.



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.


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.

Here is a deeper explanation of what I've been discussing. I highly recommend you read both papers, and then consider reading "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory". It's a highly-acclaimed book that is recognized by a majority of the community.



Greenhouse effect is about radiative heat transfer, not conductive or convective heat transfers. And Earth is in space, it can only radiate heat away.


This is incorrect. All three processes are involved. You can not exclude any by inclusion of another. Please see the referenced material, I am starting to think you haven't looked at it all yet.



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.


I can assure you, the calculations are correct. Oxygen and nitrogen retain heat more than CO2, CO2 is .03% of the gas in the atmosphere. The amount of warming is negligible and as physics has proven time and time again, it has done so this time as well. The amount of warming would be .03-.07% even if you doubled the current CO2 levels.

Please take some time to look through all of the references I've made. I can almost guarantee that once you put it all together, you'll see what a sham AGW was to begin with and all it took was some deep, critical thinking and some minor physics.

~Namaste
edit on 16-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: correction



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

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.)


I apologize for not clarifying... clouds as they exist terrestrially, ie - water vapor, which Venus does NOT have.

For Earth to have a runaway greenhouse effect similar to Venus, would not occur because our clouds contain water vapor, not 96.5% CO2 and 3.5% nitrogen as in the Venus atmosphere. While there is much speculation about the past atmospheric conditions on Venus that led to the current atmosphere, and that speculation includes the presence of water vapor as we have on Earth, this simply can not be determined and stands to be objectively argued.

Good feedback though, thanks for keeping me on my toes. The devil is in the details!

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
The earth can repair itself if we just quit messing with it's functions and slow down the industrial age. We use too much chemistry in the world that messes with the ecosystem. The Ecosystem is what fixes things for free. We have to start using restraint on our way of living. Buy products that last for a minimum of thirty years and most important, start making these products. Illegalize death dating or planned obsolescence. This is the most destructive practice on this planet. Second is to stop making chemistry that causes problem with the Ecosystem. A little is ok, a lot is bad. Recycle everything we can. I see what goes into the dumps. Drive only if we need to, one vacation every five years out of the area. We have got so used to taking cruises and flying around that they have become normal everyday lifestyle and not a treat. There are too many people doing it.

Everything needed to fix this flows back to normal lifestyles by most people in America fourty years ago. Except we have to watch what we do with these chemicals better. And quit tearing up the earth looking for unnecessary metals. Ones that are used to make TVs and monitors that are planned obsolescence products.

I sound more and more like a broken record.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I also wanted to point out one specific thing that you've mentioned a couple of times about the amount of energy remaining constant and net flux...




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.


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) The bigger problem is that we are talking about a planet, so the second law can't be applied with a brush across the entire climate discussion, but is extremely relevant for understanding the capacity for CO2 to retain heat.

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? What about clouds? (HUGE piece of the puzzle as it relates to feedback sensitivity and is not included in IPCC models) Does the amount of energy remain constant? Absolutely not... 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. This can not be left out of the equation, because as I've pointed out in other referenced material, satellite readings have shown that the amount of heat released into space is much greater than what climate models predicted. This demonstrates that the CO2 will reach equilibrium and temperatures will change as a result.

Again, this is the heart of the discussion.... 1) CO2 holds no more heat than ANY other gas, because ALL gases retain heat. 2) CO2 is less than .03% of the total atmosphere and does not have the capacity to create a measurable change in temperature. 3) 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.

These facts are not disputed, and that is why CO2 has been dropped from the global warming discussion and also why human emissions of CO2 have fallen apart, thus proving that A) the greenhouse effect is a misnomer for the atmospheric effect demonstrated on Earth and B) humans can not change the climate simply based on CO2 alone.

I really hope you'll thoroughly read all of the material, because I'd rather have a proponent than an opponent any day of the week, but I can certainly understand your skepticism if you haven't been informed of the climate science progress over the last 1-2 years... that's what I'm attempting to do here is bring it to the forefront so that people are aware and educated.

~Namaste

edit on 16-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


The majority of the problems with CO2 emmissions isn't so much cars per say or even fossil fuel fired power plants. Coal fired plants put mercury into lakes but the technology can easily be fixed. Trees would take care of most of the effects of these things. NO2 levels from cars burning Gasahol is much worse because NO2 is more than ten times as bad. The quantity of high flying Jets is the most critical problem. There aren't any trees up there in the jetstream. That CO2 and their other emissions is the big problem. That is what needs to be addressed. Allowing everyone to fly cheaply to build up the airline industry to create jobs for the economy is the worst thing we can do. Oil companies sell jet fuel at hardly any profit and are then allowed to profit more from automobile and heating fuels. Our government subsidizes airports and airline companies and creates a bigger problem where everyone pays higher taxes. This keeps airfare for the Elite down through competition and mass use. If most people drove and the subsidies were gone the cost of airfare for the top 10 percent would skyrocket. This would hurt their pocketbooks. These people influence the present policies of the world.
edit on 16-4-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
At this point, I guess a valid question would be, does anyone still really believe in man-made global warming through CO2 emissions or greenhouse gas?

I'm getting hints that some people still believe it but want to ask directly....

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I have yet to hear a solid explanation of why the earth is not warming just because of Solar radiation when other planets of the solar system are warming.

seoblackhat.com...

I believe the AGW people know that this climate change is normal and are faking data to make it look worse and to make it look man made.

The AGW people are using it as a proxy for environmental things they want like getting rid of gas cars and what they call pollution sources.
to de industrialize the US then the world.

luddites in the supreme
but dumb luddites that believe anything is doable where it is or not.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




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.


But the Greenhouse effect is only about radiation. You can ignore conduction and convection, as they have no effect on it.



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.


Heat does not travel from colder to hotter, but it is certainly possible to slow down the heat transfer from hotter to colder. Clothing in winter is a good example.



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.


Even one IR proton is "strong enough" to make it from the stratosphere to the ground or lower atmosphere. Intensity is not important, just the fact that the photons no longer travel straight to space. Photon that does not travel to space will NOT carry away the energy from Earth.



The rate of transfer is irrelevant for the discussion because quantitatively, it has been completely demolished by the German physicists.


My argument is qualitative. Quantitatively, it is indeed possible that the Greenhouse effect will be found to be very small. But there is no violation of thermodynamics.



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.


I dont know whats you point, I never claimed other gases do not absorb heat. But the only gas that strongly absorbs IR radiation and can be directly influenced by humans is CO2 (and partly methane).



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.


Of course my hands will get equally hot if they are equally spaced apart from the IR radiation source. Why do you think it wont?

I cant find the experiment on the page 74, but there is another experiment (water pot on the stove). But this is commpletely unrelated to the Greenhouse effect, since the heat leaves the water by conduction and convection (evaporation of the hottest molecules), whereas heat in the atmosphere leaves only by radiation (there is gravity holding all molecules to the surface).
Besides, how do they know that the surface of the stove is not hotter when boiling greenhouse liquid (gas), than if there was a substance with equal properties except poor IR spectral absorbtion/emission (transparent to IR)?



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..


I am not saying it does not exist. But heating by conduction and convection applies equally to all gases in the atmosphere. But its only greenhouse gases that can be heated by IR in addition to this. Your link implies this additional increase would somehow have no effect, just because there is also conduction and convection. Yes, conduction and convection can transfer heat inside the atmosphere. But radiation also, and its only radiation that can ultimately shed the heat energy into space. Its logical that is you add more radiation absorbing gas in the atmosphere, this radiative transfer would be slowed down (larger portion of the photons that would leave the atmospere is absorbed and reradiated in random direction, which might not be into space.
edit on 17/4/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




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.


But the equilibrium temperature will be higher with greenhouse gases than without them. If I kept the incoming energy constant, and lowered the outgoing energy, temperature has to increase. You can reach arbitrarily high temperatures with arbitrarily low energy influx, if you decrease the leaving energy accordingly. Thats how nuclear meltdown happens - even when the output of the fission products is a small fraction of the full power, once the cooling fails, temperature can increase to very high levels. Or try to insulate your processor, and see what happens, even if you keep it idle.

Temperature is a function of incoming and outgoing energy. Absolute energy levels dont matter, only the diference between the two.



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 limit is very high, in order to break down the CO2 molecule you need very high temperatures. And as shown above, you dont need increase in energy to increase temperature. Just decrease in outgoing 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)


And another well understood aspect is that if you insulate something, temperature increases until its again at equilibrium (gradient is again enough to shed all incoming energy).



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?


Its constant over larger time scales. This regular predictable variation can be averaged out and thus ignored. Climate is not weather.



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.


Absolute amount of energy leaving the atmosphere will remain constant and even slightly decrease at night (since the gases are colder and emit less IR). But what hugely decreases during the night is incoming energy.

If you dont believe CO2 can cause warming, how do you explain the results of this experiment?:
www.espere.net...



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.


As I said, I am not going to argue about quantitative claims. But still, this is only the warming due to CO2. The problem is possibility of positive feedback. Water vapor is far stronger greenhouse gas, and any increase in temperature also increases vapor concentration. The same with permafrost methane.
If we only light the fuse, arent we still responsible for the bomb going off?
edit on 17/4/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join