Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Layman struggles with Science
I must admit I'm getting confused.   Smile

So how does a radiative gas in the atmosphere trap heat?
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
(03-29-2017, 03:32 AM)Richard111 Wrote: I must admit I'm getting confused.   Smile

So how does a radiative gas in the atmosphere trap heat?

A better question is how does a weak GHG like CO2 cause climate change (as opposed to just global warming)?  And how does limiting (so called) "carbon emissions" stop "climate change?"

Also, does the Sun's plasma count as a radiative gas and does the million or so years it takes photons to travel from the Sun's core to its surface count as a kind of heat trap?

Jim
Reply
Too many questions Jim.

I firmly believe there is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' in the atmosphere, not even a 'weak' one.

I also firmly believe CO2 supports life on planet Earth and helps maintain a suitable atmospheric temperature such that it hasn't boiled away into space.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
>>
Too many questions Jim.
<<

So many question; so few answers.

>>
I firmly believe there is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' in the atmosphere, not even a 'weak' one.
<<

Are you saying that the science of GHGs is wrong, the term "greenhouse gas" is wrong, or both?  Are we dealing with a new law?

>>
I also firmly believe CO2 supports life on planet Earth . . . .
<<

I don't disagree.

>>
. . . and helps maintain a suitable atmospheric temperature such that it hasn't boiled away into space.
<<

Your statement is rather confusing.  Liquids can "boil away."  Boiled's not a term usually associated with gases.  "Boiled away into space" is not exactly accurate either.  Venus's atmosphere is far hotter (and denser) than the Earth's, and it hasn't "boiled away into space" yet.

Jim
Reply
"Are you saying that the science of GHGs is wrong, the term "greenhouse gas" is wrong, or both?  Are we dealing with a new law?"

Goodness gracious, how can I say the 'science of GHGs' is wrong when I claim there is no such thing as a GHG?

I'm certainly not qualified to make any new laws. The existing laws seem quite adequate.

How about this one; some 70% of the planet is covered by water which is unable to absorb infrared radiation.
In fact infrared radiation causes evaporation of surface water which is a cooling effect.

CO2 can only emit in the infrared bands.

Then of course, there is the well known lapse rate. CO2 will only be able to start absorbing some limited photons from the surface when the local air temperature is approaching -30C and that only happens quite high up in the atmosphere.

Another amazing property of CO2 in the atmosphere is that it can radiate in any and all directions so slightly less than half the emitted radiation reaches the surface, of which some 70% is immune, and the remaining solid surface away from the poles is much too warm to absorb that radiation.

Slightly more than 50% of CO2 radiation escapes to space. Very effective cooling, especially above the tropopause where H2O is absent.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Everyone interested in the subject of this thread should have a read of this post;


The Paradox of Climate Science



Quote:Australian climate analyst explains why climate science may have got the effect of greenhouse gases back to front. Below we examine how the real “heat trapping” gases are Nitrogen (N2) and Oxygen (O2) and the Earth actually relies on “greenhouse gases” to keep cool.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
>>
Goodness gracious, how can I say the 'science of GHGs' is wrong when I claim there is no such thing as a GHG?
<<

Some people rail against the term "greenhouse" when used in conjunction with "gases."  That's because real greenhouses don't keep warm the same way that GHGs work.  The term is incorrect and misleading, but it's the term currently being used.  When you use quotes around greenhouse gas, I didn't know if you were opposed to the science, the term, or both.  Apparently you are only opposed to the science.

>>
I'm certainly not qualified to make any new laws. The existing laws seem quite adequate.
<<

Apparently not.

>>
How about this one; some 70% of the planet is covered by water which is unable to absorb infrared radiation.
In fact infrared radiation causes evaporation of surface water which is a cooling effect.
<<

I believe snow looks "black" when viewed in the infrared.  I also believe water easily absorbs IR.  As to whether it evaporates depends on the temperature of the water and the overlying pressure, humidity, and possibly the temperature of the air.  Water doesn't need to be heated to the boiling point to evaporate.

>>
CO2 can only emit in the infrared bands.
<<

I believe there are several bands.  I know of two off hand: one at about 4 microns and another at about 13.99 microns.

>>
Then of course, there is the well known lapse rate.
<<

Yes, and so?  I'm aware of lapse rate leading to stable and unstable configurations in the atmosphere.

>>
CO2 will only be able to start absorbing some limited photons from the surface when the local air temperature is approaching -30C and that only happens quite high up in the atmosphere.
<<

Well, this isn't exactly true.  Black bodies radiate at all frequencies.  According to Wien's Displacement Law, if a black body's peak radiation is at CO2's absorption band of 13.99 microns, it would represent a temperature of 207 Kelvin.   That would be around -65 degrees C or so.

>>
Another amazing property . . . .
<<

I don't know where to begin--so I won't.

Jim
Reply
Richard 111

Quote:Everyone interested in the subject of this thread should have a read of this post;



That's about ten minutes lost that I'll never get back.

Jim

Administrator:

Please use the Quote button,add the name of the person quoted above it, as I did in the above.
Reply
Ah well. Time for a beer. Cheers.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
(03-31-2017, 04:03 AM)jamesbat Wrote: >>
Everyone interested in the subject of this thread should have a read of this post;
<<

That's about ten minutes lost that I'll never get back.

Jim

You really mean you didn't learn anything........
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
Richard111,


Quote:Another amazing property of CO2 in the atmosphere is that it can radiate in any and all directions so slightly less than half the emitted radiation reaches the surface, of which some 70% is immune, and the remaining solid surface away from the poles is much too warm to absorb that radiation.


The Continental surface gets almost all of the energy from the suns VISIBLE light radiation, NOT back radiated, weak, cooler, low energy transferring radiation, which is supposed to be a Atmospheric effect anyway.

The Satellite lower troposphere data doesn't support the AGW conjecture anyway.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
(03-31-2017, 04:03 AM)jamesbat Wrote: Richard 111

Quote:Everyone interested in the subject of this thread should have a read of this post;



That's about ten minutes lost that I'll never get back.

Jim

Administrator:

Please use the Quote button,add the name of the person quoted above it, as I did in the above.

I'll go one better and stop commenting altogether.  It was a fun couple of weeks (I guess).  You may remove me from your approved list.

Thanks,
Jim
Reply
Kudos to Derek... see the link, a bit much to cut and paste I think. SST, you might be able to use this.

Dear Richard Lindzen Please Meet Lewis Fry Richardson

4/20/2017

http://principia-scientific.org/dear-ric...ichardson/
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
Thank you Richard111.
I have just commented on fb -
""the route" that gave us computer modelled AGW. LFR (Dines) -> Von Newman -> Charney (Strong / Gore 1972) -> Hansen (Schmidt / Mann)... More to follow, possibly as another PSI article, or 2nd Slayers book."
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)