2014 hottest year on record

You need to get this information out there. I'm pretty sure that if you can prove it, you'll end up on the cover of Time magazine. Heck, you'll probably become one of the most noted people in the world for 2015! Might even get an honorary degree or two and a ton of job offers.

It is already out there, people smarter than I have already proved it. But they don't have access to the media like NASA and the IPCC. That is why Azure's description is different. In her description of the Greenhouse effect the Greengouse gases act like an insulator, slowing down the rate of cooling same as a thermos would, no extra warmth created. You can continue to be spoon fed by official sources if you prefer.
 
Everything in existence interacts with everything else, existence in and of itself is an interaction that produces matter and gravity, and heat. Until we accept and understand this function, all our models of existence will fail, as they do. We do not have one complete working model of any natural process.
 
Eh, I'm just sick of conspiracy theories about how the gubmint is coming for our money, guns, bibles, freedom etc. etc. and find it hilarious that so many of us here believe that the only time the government isn't a completely inept, impotent bureaucracy is when they're trying to take things from us. Not saying I trust them with much, but let's have some consistency in our criticism, no?


That's not a conspiracy or a theory. That's what governments have done throughout history at some stage of every society after the society loses control of their government.
 
That's not a conspiracy or a theory. That's what governments have done throughout history at some stage of every society after the society loses control of their government.


It all depends on whom the government is acting on behalf of. Government is just a conduit with value and power as fake as our money, it only exists because we allow it to.

The real problem is that we want to abdicate responsibility of our duties to each other, so we assign those duties to others. The problem arises in the fact that while we abdicate our duties to others, others are doing the same to us, so wee just all sell each other into servitude because we are lazy and selfish.
 
So the official sources of information, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, major universities, are giving explanations of the Greenhouse effect that aren't correct. All of their descriptions tell of the WARMING of the air or surface or both by back radiation.
You're playing semantical games now. "Warming" means, making warmer compared to what it would be otherwise, not making the temperature increase by direct transfer of heat.
Their descriptions violate the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics .
Right, because physicists are so stupid, they wouldn't recognize a violation of a law of physics if it bit them on the nose.
Am I playing divide and conquer becuase the organizations that we rely on for info are telling a different story than you? Their story has a feedback reinforcement mechanism, yours just a slowing down of cooling.
I don't think you know what the term means.
Like I said, who are we to believe, them or you? When you all come up with a single definitive definition of the Greenhouse effect, let us know.
If you really want to understand how it works, read a textbook on atmospheric physics. You probably won't get the full explanation at any simpler level than that. On that level there aren't two explanations, there is only one, but the details are anything but simple.
 
2014 is being reported as one of the 5 coldest years on record for the state of Arkansas. It was #3 through November.
 
IF the planet IS heating up,AND the Sea Ice is retreating at "historic levels," how come ocean front property is still where it was 25 years ago?
algore certainly disagrees with all his bull****. he just spent MILLIONS on a new ocean front home.
 
IF the planet IS heating up,AND the Sea Ice is retreating at "historic levels," how come ocean front property is still where it was 25 years ago?
algore certainly disagrees with all his bull****. he just spent MILLIONS on a new ocean front home.

Because we spend many many millions of dollars every year rebuilding coastline with dredges.
 
Because we spend many many millions of dollars every year rebuilding coastline with dredges.

..or much more likely, it isn't happening like all the mmgw alarmists claim.

It is very hard to imagine all necessary to keep all evidence of "rising" seas at a neutral level.
 
You're playing semantical games now. "Warming" means, making warmer compared to what it would be otherwise, not making the temperature increase by direct transfer of heat.

Right, because physicists are so stupid, they wouldn't recognize a violation of a law of physics if it bit them on the nose.

I don't think you know what the term means.

If you really want to understand how it works, read a textbook on atmospheric physics. You probably won't get the full explanation at any simpler level than that. On that level there aren't two explanations, there is only one, but the details are anything but simple.

You have consensus that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, surely there must be consensus on the theory.

All we have to go on is what NASA and the IPCC tell us it is. If the scientific consensus is different than what the official versions are, tell us what it is. Otherwise we have to assume what the IPCC says is the scientific consensus.

The actual mechanics of the theory shouldn't be all that difficult to explain with words . Or is this theory filled with so many abstract concepts it is just too difficult to understand? The NASA and IPCC explanations, while not detailed, do explain the basic mechanisms.
 
2014 is being reported as one of the 5 coldest years on record for the state of Arkansas. It was #3 through November.


And if you looked at only California as an example (like you did with Arkansas) of what's happening on a global scale we'd be running for the hills, It's more complex than that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You have consensus that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, surely there must be consensus on the theory.

All we have to go on is what NASA and the IPCC tell us it is. If the scientific consensus is different than what the official versions are, tell us what it is. Otherwise we have to assume what the IPCC says is the scientific consensus.

The actual mechanics of the theory shouldn't be all that difficult to explain with words . Or is this theory filled with so many abstract concepts it is just too difficult to understand? The NASA and IPCC explanations, while not detailed, do explain the basic mechanisms.
This is really getting tiresome VC. There IS consensus on the theory. There is not a consensus on how to explain it to lay people. How many times do I need to say it? The guvmint orgs dumb down the consensus theory and lose some accuracy in so doing. Their explanation is not really false, it is just inaccurate in the details and it emphasizes a part of the total picture that is not helpful in doing temperature predictions.

The book I'm using by Pierrehumbert devotes some 200 pages to explaining how it all works. He talks about blackbody radiation, atmospheric thermodynamics, the optical and radiative properties of GHGs, back radiation, lapse rates, and many other things. One thing that you learn very quickly is that a lot of complexity emerges from the way a few simple physical mechanisms interact. Everything affects everything else, but it all hangs together self-consistently. Do you really expect the IPCC to be able to distill all of that down to a few sentences and still have it all be perfectly accurate?
 
This is really getting tiresome VC. There IS consensus on the theory. There is not a consensus on how to explain it to lay people. How many times do I need to say it? The guvmint orgs dumb down the consensus theory and lose some accuracy in so doing. Their explanation is not really false, it is just inaccurate in the details and it emphasizes a part of the total picture that is not helpful in doing temperature predictions.

The book I'm using by Pierrehumbert devotes some 200 pages to explaining how it all works. He talks about blackbody radiation, atmospheric thermodynamics, the optical and radiative properties of GHGs, back radiation, lapse rates, and many other things. One thing that you learn very quickly is that a lot of complexity emerges from the way a few simple physical mechanisms interact. Everything affects everything else, but it all hangs together self-consistently. Do you really expect the IPCC to be able to distill all of that down to a few sentences and still have it all be perfectly accurate?


That's the problem with modern society, if it can't be explained in a meme, it's too much to learn.
 
Because we spend many many millions of dollars every year rebuilding coastline with dredges.

Not where I live. I haven't seen a dredge off shore here in years, if ever. And, if there was one, it would be to clean out the harbor.

And, yes, I do live on salt water. Budd Inlet, the southernmost extent of Puget Sound.
 
That's the problem with modern society, if it can't be explained in a meme, it's too much to learn.

That is not the issue with the Greenhouse theory. I'm sure scientists are always arguing about various theories. However, major policy decisions are being made on the basis of a theory. The theory has never been proven by experimentation or observation. Right now all we have are hysterics trying to link every conceivable weather event or heat spell to the theory.

If you try to find out how the theory works from official sources, you will see the same general description. But Azure is saying, no those are not accurate, but other people really know how it works and it is too complicated for the average person to understand. The IPCC reports supposedly represent the scientific consensus. But the IPCC description of the Greenhouse theory is not correct? WTF. You need a better argument than that some high priests in academia know the real answer.

It is a back asswards situation where the "skeptics" are in a position of having to disprove it, rather than the proponents prove it the normal scientific way.

There are very good arguments to say the Greenhouse effect doesn't exist. The proponents think they have it nailed on paper. Paper is not good enough. The final proof is in the pudding. There is no evidence. Actual observations on several fronts are contrary with the theory. If a theory is valid, you should have predictable results. The results are consistently wrong. How much do you need before you say it is time to reevaluate a theory? You could have a series of equations on paper that look great. If it doesn't match reality, they are worthless. At this point it has ceased to be science and is just politics.

How logical is it for people to continue to insist they are right when facts keep slamming them in the face?Very logical , if they don't really care if what they are saying is true or not.
 
This is really getting tiresome VC. There IS consensus on the theory. There is not a consensus on how to explain it to lay people. How many times do I need to say it? The guvmint orgs dumb down the consensus theory and lose some accuracy in so doing. Their explanation is not really false, it is just inaccurate in the details and it emphasizes a part of the total picture that is not helpful in doing temperature predictions.

The book I'm using by Pierrehumbert devotes some 200 pages to explaining how it all works. He talks about blackbody radiation, atmospheric thermodynamics, the optical and radiative properties of GHGs, back radiation, lapse rates, and many other things. One thing that you learn very quickly is that a lot of complexity emerges from the way a few simple physical mechanisms interact. Everything affects everything else, but it all hangs together self-consistently. Do you really expect the IPCC to be able to distill all of that down to a few sentences and still have it all be perfectly accurate?

I know how complicated it can be to make a fantasy look real. It's been done before.
 
This is really getting tiresome VC. There IS consensus on the theory. There is not a consensus on how to explain it to lay people. How many times do I need to say it? The guvmint orgs dumb down the consensus theory and lose some accuracy in so doing. Their explanation is not really false, it is just inaccurate in the details and it emphasizes a part of the total picture that is not helpful in doing temperature predictions.

The book I'm using by Pierrehumbert devotes some 200 pages to explaining how it all works. He talks about blackbody radiation, atmospheric thermodynamics, the optical and radiative properties of GHGs, back radiation, lapse rates, and many other things. One thing that you learn very quickly is that a lot of complexity emerges from the way a few simple physical mechanisms interact. Everything affects everything else, but it all hangs together self-consistently. Do you really expect the IPCC to be able to distill all of that down to a few sentences and still have it all be perfectly accurate?

Ok. Just answer one question. Does the back radiation of IR from CO2 in the atmosphere then strike the Earths' surface and impart heat to the surface?
 
Ok. Just answer one question. Does the back radiation of IR from CO2 in the atmosphere then strike the Earths' surface and impart heat to the surface?
Yes, of course it does. The energy is absorbed by the surface, it is part of the surface heat budget.

Let me ask you a question, actually three since I am trying to pin down where we disagree on the 2nd law.

Suppose you have a hot stove element at, say 600 C and another, hotter element close by at, say, 700 C. Hopefully we agree that they both emit thermal radiation, and that the radiation from each element strikes the other.

To make things simple, let's say that they are disconnected from any power source but are in a vacuum and isolated physically from each other, so the only way they can cool themselves or exchange heat is by radiation.

Does the 700 C element absorb any of the radiation from the 600 C element?

If so, does it impart any heat to it?

If your answer to either question is no, please explain why not without reference to the 2nd law.
 
Yes, of course it does. The energy is absorbed by the surface, it is part of the surface heat budget.

Let me ask you a question, actually three since I am trying to pin down where we disagree on the 2nd law.

Suppose you have a hot stove element at, say 600 C and another, hotter element close by at, say, 700 C. Hopefully we agree that they both emit thermal radiation, and that the radiation from each element strikes the other.

To make things simple, let's say that they are disconnected from any power source but are in a vacuum and isolated physically from each other, so the only way they can cool themselves or exchange heat is by radiation.

Does the 700 C element absorb any of the radiation from the 600 C element?

If so, does it impart any heat to it?

If your answer to either question is no, please explain why not without reference to the 2nd law.

No.,Short answer- the two coils are of different temperatures and so radiating at different frequencies and wavelengths. The cooler coil will accept the radiation of the warmer coil but not vice versa.

If the Earth is receiving constant radiation from the sun, and then recieves and absorbs additional radiation from another source ( back radiation from GHG) then the surface temperature must rise. The additional radiation would not slow the cooling but it must raise the temperature. This is why the back radiation would act like a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. This just doesn't occur in nature.

There are three thoughts on the Greenhouse theory- 1 the theory is real and accounts for 33C of temp, 2 the theory is real but the effect is negligible, 3 the effect doesn't exist.

I don't think there is a middle ground. If the effect accounts for 33C, then the effect is huge. Any significant increase in CO2 levels should have profound effects. CO2 levels have increased about 40% since pre industrial. But all we have seen are normal temperature variations, with temp sometimes behaving contrary to the theory. A lot of other things haven't happened according to theory also.

At least the way I see the data, you see it another way.
 
No.,Short answer- the two coils are of different temperatures and so radiating at different frequencies and wavelengths. The cooler coil will accept the radiation of the warmer coil but not vice versa.
Yeah, that's what I thought you would say. Well, as a physics professor I can tell you that you are dead wrong about that. There is nothing that will, or can, prevent the warmer coil from absorbing radiation from the cooler one. Exactly how much they absorb depends on their absorptivity at the frequencies in question, but those frequencies don't change that much from 600 C to 700 C. For galvanized iron the absorptivity is about 0.9. So the two coils will absorb roughly the same proportion of the radiation incident on them, i.e. all but about 10%.

The reason the 2nd law isn't violated is that the energy radiated at any frequency increases very rapidly with temperature. Because of that, the warmer coil emits a lot more energy than the cooler coil. So the cooler coil will receive much more energy from the warmer one than the warmer one receives from the cooler, and the net flow of heat will be from warmer to cooler.

If you don't accept that, write another physics professor at a major university and ask them the same question. See what they say. Heck, write Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen. If they don't tell you essentially the same thing I did, I'll send you a case of beer.

Seriously, if you are going to question the greenhouse theory on *physical* grounds, make sure you have the physics right. Otherwise, you're only going to look like a fool.
If the Earth is receiving constant radiation from the sun, and then recieves and absorbs additional radiation from another source ( back radiation from GHG) then the surface temperature must rise. The additional radiation would not slow the cooling but it must raise the temperature. This is why the back radiation would act like a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. This just doesn't occur in nature.
No, you're forgetting that the surface is also radiating, and therefore losing heat that way, as well as by conduction, convection, and evaporation. The temperature won't rise unless it absorbs heat energy at a greater rate than it loses it. That's why we talk about the "heat budget".

But I can see why you think of this as a perpetual motion machine and as a feedback mechanism, because if it worked that way, the temperature would run away and the extra heat energy produced that way could be used to drive a heat engine. It doesn't, because when GHGs are increased, the temperature only rises until the net outflow again balances the net inflow.

There are three thoughts on the Greenhouse theory- 1 the theory is real and accounts for 33C of temp, 2 the theory is real but the effect is negligible, 3 the effect doesn't exist.

I don't think there is a middle ground. If the effect accounts for 33C, then the effect is huge. Any significant increase in CO2 levels should have profound effects. CO2 levels have increased about 40% since pre industrial. But all we have seen are normal temperature variations, with temp sometimes behaving contrary to the theory. A lot of other things haven't happened according to theory also.
The effect accounts (according to theory) for most (at least) of the 33C but it's not all due to CO2 alone. A *lot* of that 33 degrees is due to the effect of water vapor. Without CO2 though, the temperature would be so low that there wouldn't be enough water vapor in the atmosphere to make a difference.

You're right that a lot of things haven't happened according to "theory", but that theory is a simulation model run on a computer that isn't based on just the greenhouse theory, but the greenhouse theory combined with a ton of assumptions and simplifications to make the computations feasible. The models are tuned to hindcast the recent climate history, which only works if the recent climate is representative of the real long-term climate with all its natural variability once all the external forcings like variations in the solar constant are accounted for.

Curry's blog has a lot of good discussion about the models and the reasons why they're unreliable. I think a lot of what she says is plausible - without knowing the magnitude or time scale of "internal" climate variability, we really have no way of determining how much, if any, of the recent warming is due to manmade CO2.

There is also the fact that it takes time for the surface temperature to "catch up" with increases in GHGs, due to the heat being sequestered in the ocean. How long? That paper I linked to on the end Pleistocene transition suggests the time could be in the hundreds of years. I don't think we have a good idea of the difference in timescale between what they call "transient climate response" and when the equilibrium is reached.
 
Yeah, that's what I thought you would say. Well, as a physics professor I can tell you that you are dead wrong about that. There is nothing that will, or can, prevent the warmer coil from absorbing radiation from the cooler one. Exactly how much they absorb depends on their absorptivity at the frequencies in question, but those frequencies don't change that much from 600 C to 700 C. For galvanized iron the absorptivity is about 0.9. So the two coils will absorb roughly the same proportion of the radiation incident on them, i.e. all but about 10%.

The reason the 2nd law isn't violated is that the energy radiated at any frequency increases very rapidly with temperature. Because of that, the warmer coil emits a lot more energy than the cooler coil. So the cooler coil will receive much more energy from the warmer one than the warmer one receives from the cooler, and the net flow of heat will be from warmer to cooler.

If you don't accept that, write another physics professor at a major university and ask them the same question. See what they say. Heck, write Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen. If they don't tell you essentially the same thing I did, I'll send you a case of beer.

Seriously, if you are going to question the greenhouse theory on *physical* grounds, make sure you have the physics right. Otherwise, you're only going to look like a fool.

No, you're forgetting that the surface is also radiating, and therefore losing heat that way, as well as by conduction, convection, and evaporation. The temperature won't rise unless it absorbs heat energy at a greater rate than it loses it. That's why we talk about the "heat budget".

But I can see why you think of this as a perpetual motion machine and as a feedback mechanism, because if it worked that way, the temperature would run away and the extra heat energy produced that way could be used to drive a heat engine. It doesn't, because when GHGs are increased, the temperature only rises until the net outflow again balances the net inflow.


The effect accounts (according to theory) for most (at least) of the 33C but it's not all due to CO2 alone. A *lot* of that 33 degrees is due to the effect of water vapor. Without CO2 though, the temperature would be so low that there wouldn't be enough water vapor in the atmosphere to make a difference.

You're right that a lot of things haven't happened according to "theory", but that theory is a simulation model run on a computer that isn't based on just the greenhouse theory, but the greenhouse theory combined with a ton of assumptions and simplifications to make the computations feasible. The models are tuned to hindcast the recent climate history, which only works if the recent climate is representative of the real long-term climate with all its natural variability once all the external forcings like variations in the solar constant are accounted for.

Curry's blog has a lot of good discussion about the models and the reasons why they're unreliable. I think a lot of what she says is plausible - without knowing the magnitude or time scale of "internal" climate variability, we really have no way of determining how much, if any, of the recent warming is due to manmade CO2.

There is also the fact that it takes time for the surface temperature to "catch up" with increases in GHGs, due to the heat being sequestered in the ocean. How long? That paper I linked to on the end Pleistocene transition suggests the time could be in the hundreds of years. I don't think we have a good idea of the difference in timescale between what they call "transient climate response" and when the equilibrium is reached.

Well, a lot of physicists disagree with you. Physicists seem to argue a lot of issues not just this one. For any serious scientist to declare MMGW settled science is beyond belief. Further nonsense of consensus, as if you vote to determine truth.

When I say the results haven't been correct I'm not just referring to model predictions. I mean there has been no connection to temperature, up or down , of CO2. The scientists can argue forever, but in the final analysis the only thing that matters is reality. The reality is there is absolutely no eveidence of MMGW . People like Lindzen have been astute enough to realize there isn't any connection to CO2 concentrations and temperature rise.

The fact that you are a professor doesn't impress me. Academia seems to be composed predominantly of rigidly minded people now a days. Seems like nothing but nonsense spews forth from college campuses. They believe in the fairy tale of MMGW, wind mills and on and on.

I knew also what your answer would be, further ramblings about net exchange. I will stick with the scientists that make sense, and the evidence. No point in telling everyone how smart you are, we would just like to see the evidence. Theories are nice, evidence better.

You won't be made to look the fool though, because with a few more years of temperatures misbehaving, it will all fade to memory.
 
Vintage Cessna: could you please explain why Azure is incorrect with the two burner thought experiment?
 
Vintage Cessna: could you please explain why Azure is incorrect with the two burner thought experiment?


"Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn't bother you any more."

Arnold Sommerfeld

For a layman to make a decision on climate change, you need to look at both sides of the debate. Physicists that argue heat never moves from cold to warm make more sense to me. As to the feasibility of the Greenhouse theory , the counter arguments prevail since they have the actual evidence on their side.

If you believe in the Greenhouse theory, the data makes no sense. If you drop the theory, it all makes sense. I think some people are trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole, for what ever reason. Given the amount of debate in the sciences on almost everything, to call something as complex as climate change settled science is the height of arrogance. Sounds more like propoganda than science.
 
Vintage Cessna: could you please explain why Azure is incorrect with the two burner thought experiment?

One reason it is difficult having a discussion with the MMGW people is they don't clearly define the terms they use. A simple word like "warmer" for example. In descriptions of the Greenhouse effect they will say the back radiation will make the surface warmer. We all know what that means. But someone like Azure will come along and say, no it doesn't mean that. What it really means is that some people think it makes the surface warmer, while others think it makes the surface warmer than it would be, but not warmer. It's hard to have a discussion when there is no fixed definition of the Greenhouse effect or the terms they are using. Amazing that on a theory so important that we must act on now, there is no definitive description.

Trying having a discussion with someone on any subject where the meaning of the words keep changing.
 
One reason it is difficult having a discussion with the MMGW people is they don't clearly define the terms they use. A simple word like "warmer" for example. In descriptions of the Greenhouse effect they will say the back radiation will make the surface warmer. We all know what that means. But someone like Azure will come along and say, no it doesn't mean that. What it really means is that some people think it makes the surface warmer, while others think it makes the surface warmer than it would be, but not warmer. It's hard to have a discussion when there is no fixed definition of the Greenhouse effect or the terms they are using. Amazing that on a theory so important that we must act on now, there is no definitive description.
No, the back radiation doesn't make the surface *warmer*, as in raise its temperature. As long as the lapse rate is positive that would be impossible, it really would be a cooler body warming a warmer one. That's why I was trying to be so careful earlier with my language, saying it doesn't cool it off as quickly. The problem is, you won't accept the greenhouse mechanism unless you really understand it. That's really admirable, and I mean that sincerely. But you don't know enough physics to understand the full explanation. So you're caught in the middle.

All I've been trying to do is fill in some of the gaps for you. What I've been telling you goes beyond the layman's explanation. It doesn't really contradict that explanation, but it sounds like it does to you because you're hung up on a mistaken idea of how radiative heat transfer works. So we're stuck. I wasn't trying to impress you with my credentials, I was trying to get you to think and maybe dig deeper, since apparently you aren't going to accept it until you understand the physics. My best advice to you is to file away the Sky Dragons book and G&T, and pick up a textbook on physics if you want to understand. The principles you'll read about are on extremely solid ground based on over two centuries of observations and experiments.

I hinted that maybe you should just ask some skeptical climate scientists you respect. It sounds like you respect Curry and Lindzen, that's why I suggested that you write them. But if you reject all arguments by authority (also admirable), then you're just going to have to study some physics.
 
Last edited:
No.,Short answer- the two coils are of different temperatures and so radiating at different frequencies and wavelengths. The cooler coil will accept the radiation of the warmer coil but not vice versa.
BTW, you do realize that this is experimentally testable, right? In principle, you could build two setups, both isolated and in a vacuum. In one, you put the two coils, in the other, just one coil at 700 C. All the coils are identical. Monitor the temperature of the two 700 C coils with a temperature gauge. If what I'm telling you is correct, the isolated coil will cool off more quickly than the one with a 600 C neighbor.
 
Last edited:
You know, it just hit me: the layman's explanations really do say that the radiation from the Earth gets trapped and the back radiation warms the surface, don't they? I don't think they mean that literally but I think I do see now why it comes across that way to you. If you take it literally, it IS wrong. Dead wrong. Energy trapped inside the system can't make the system warmer unless there's an internal heat source, and the Earth doesn't have one, at least not one capable of producing energy at the rates we are talking about. I think they mean that the GHE works like a blanket, but that's only half correct since your body generates heat. The correct part is that the blanket slows the body's cooling rate, just like the back radiation does for the planet's surface. But the analogy ends there.

The back radiation does NOT affect the heat balance of the planet as a whole. The surface and the atmosphere are both part of the planet system, and the back radiation is just part of the way heat is redistributed inside the system.

The greenhouse effect DOES affect the balance of the planet as a whole - that's why it is called a forcing.

The immediate effect of adding more GHGs is to reduce the outflow of radiated heat from the planet. That puts the planet out of balance, since now there is more energy coming in than going out.

The extra energy comes from the Sun, not from the back radiation.
 
No, the back radiation doesn't make the surface *warmer*, as in raise its temperature. As long as the lapse rate is positive that would be impossible, it really would be a cooler body warming a warmer one. That's why I was trying to be so careful earlier with my language, saying it doesn't cool it off as quickly. The problem is, you won't accept the greenhouse mechanism unless you really understand it. That's really admirable, and I mean that sincerely. But you don't know enough physics to understand the full explanation. So you're caught in the middle.

All I've been trying to do is fill in some of the gaps for you. What I've been telling you goes beyond the layman's explanation. It doesn't really contradict that explanation, but it sounds like it does to you because you're hung up on a mistaken idea of how radiative heat transfer works. So we're stuck. I wasn't trying to impress you with my credentials, I was trying to get you to think and maybe dig deeper, since apparently you aren't going to accept it until you understand the physics. My best advice to you is to file away the Sky Dragons book and G&T, and pick up a textbook on physics if you want to understand. The principles you'll read about are on extremely solid ground based on over two centuries of observations and experiments.

I hinted that maybe you should just ask some skeptical climate scientists you respect. It sounds like you respect Curry and Lindzen, that's why I suggested that you write them. But if you reject all arguments by authority (also admirable), then you're just going to have to study some physics.
I have a newbie/layman's question. The greenhouse effect is very apparent when you are talking about clouds which are water droplets. Anyone who lives in Colorado or the desert knows that it is markedly colder on a clear night than on a cloudy one because the heat radiates to the sky rather than being trapped under a cloud layer. That may not be a great scientific explanation but it's the way I understand it. So when you're talking about CO2, the question I have is whether or not it acts like a layer of clouds.
 
I have a newbie/layman's question. The greenhouse effect is very apparent when you are talking about clouds which are water droplets. Anyone who lives in Colorado or the desert knows that it is markedly colder on a clear night than on a cloudy one because the heat radiates to the sky rather than being trapped under a cloud layer. That may not be a great scientific explanation but it's the way I understand it. So when you're talking about CO2, the question I have is whether or not it acts like a layer of clouds.
On that level the principle is similar. The surface radiates in the infrared, and water droplets absorb infrared quite well. A water cloud also functions as a nice, "solid", radiating object. I think I've read that the back radiation increases by something like 20% on an overcast night vs a clear one. How much that varies depending on the humidity of the air underneath, I don't know. So I'm not sure how much of that enhancement is due to radiation directly from the cloud.

The other side of the equation though, of course, is that clouds during the day reflect sunlight and reduce solar heating. Also, part of their radiation goes out into space, which acts to enhance cooling. There is a lot of debate about whether clouds have a net warming or a net cooling effect.

edited to add: the greenhouse effect from gases is different in that they are transparent to visible light, which most of the Sun's energy is. So there is no question that they have a net warming effect.
 
Last edited:
You know, it just hit me: the layman's explanations really do say that the radiation from the Earth gets trapped and the back radiation warms the surface, don't they? I don't think they mean that literally but I think I do see now why it comes across that way to you. If you take it literally, it IS wrong. Dead wrong. Energy trapped inside the system can't make the system warmer unless there's an internal heat source, and the Earth doesn't have one, at least not one capable of producing energy at the rates we are talking about. I think they mean that the GHE works like a blanket, but that's only half correct since your body generates heat. The correct part is that the blanket slows the body's cooling rate, just like the back radiation does for the planet's surface. But the analogy ends there.

The back radiation does NOT affect the heat balance of the planet as a whole. The surface and the atmosphere are both part of the planet system, and the back radiation is just part of the way heat is redistributed inside the system.

The greenhouse effect DOES affect the balance of the planet as a whole - that's why it is called a forcing.

The immediate effect of adding more GHGs is to reduce the outflow of radiated heat from the planet. That puts the planet out of balance, since now there is more energy coming in than going out.

The extra energy comes from the Sun, not from the back radiation.

Here is your problem, and I tried to point it out to you before. The NASA and the IPCC explanations are impossible. I don't know how you couldn't think they meant it literally since they say it with words and diagrams showing radiation drilling into the surface. The IPCC explanation is put out to the world as consensus. You claim it is dumbed down for the masses. I disagree. Their explanation is the same as how people use to think a real Greenhouse worked. You and some others realize this is impossible , and so go with a reduced cooling effect. Just like a thermos, it can't increase the the temperature of the contents, just keep it from cooling faster. It would not be difficult for the IPCC to explain in laymans terms what you think the theory is.

The skeptics have a big job becuase they have to put down multiple versions of the theory. Frankly, since you had a problem with the Wood experiment, I think your own thoughts on the theory have evolved since the start of this thread.

I don't buy the CO2 as a blocking agent , slowing the cooling either. I feel CO2 is just another conduit to move heat. Even if it did what you say, how much of an effect would one molecule of CO2 out of every 2500 molecules in the atmosphere have? At least I now have a clearer idea of what you think the theory is.

BTW, no hard feelings on all this junk, Happy New Year!
 
On that level the principle is similar. The surface radiates in the infrared, and water droplets absorb infrared quite well. A water cloud also functions as a nice, "solid", radiating object. I think I've read that the back radiation increases by something like 20% on an overcast night vs a clear one. How much that varies depending on the humidity of the air underneath, I don't know. So I'm not sure how much of that enhancement is due to radiation directly from the cloud.

The other side of the equation though, of course, is that clouds during the day reflect sunlight and reduce solar heating. Also, part of their radiation goes out into space, which acts to enhance cooling. There is a lot of debate about whether clouds have a net warming or a net cooling effect.

edited to add: the greenhouse effect from gases is different in that they are transparent to visible light, which most of the Sun's energy is. So there is no question that they have a net warming effect.

Come on now. It is warmer on a cloudy night , lower thicker clouds not high wispy, becuase convective cooling is blocked by the clouds. Same thing the ceiling of a Greenhouse does.
 
You know, it just hit me: the layman's explanations really do say that the radiation from the Earth gets trapped and the back radiation warms the surface, don't they? I don't think they mean that literally but I think I do see now why it comes across that way to you. If you take it literally, it IS wrong. Dead wrong. Energy trapped inside the system can't make the system warmer unless there's an internal heat source, and the Earth doesn't have one, at least not one capable of producing energy at the rates we are talking about. I think they mean that the GHE works like a blanket, but that's only half correct since your body generates heat. The correct part is that the blanket slows the body's cooling rate, just like the back radiation does for the planet's surface. But the analogy ends there.

The back radiation does NOT affect the heat balance of the planet as a whole. The surface and the atmosphere are both part of the planet system, and the back radiation is just part of the way heat is redistributed inside the system.

The greenhouse effect DOES affect the balance of the planet as a whole - that's why it is called a forcing.

The immediate effect of adding more GHGs is to reduce the outflow of radiated heat from the planet. That puts the planet out of balance, since now there is more energy coming in than going out.

The extra energy comes from the Sun, not from the back radiation.

BTW, everything I have read about the Satalites that measure outgoing radiation say that there has been no reduction in outflow radiation.
 
Come on now. It is warmer on a cloudy night , lower thicker clouds not high wispy, becuase convective cooling is blocked by the clouds. Same thing the ceiling of a Greenhouse does.
Why is it that you don't think CO2 does the same thing as clouds? Obviously it does not do it to the same extent as clouds but why do you think there is no effect? I would also like to hear Azure's answer as to why she thinks CO2 has the same, or similar, effect as clouds.

I understand that clouds block incoming radiation to some extent, but I am more interested in the trapping of the outgoing radiation, since as Azure pointed out, CO2 is transparent to sunlight.
 
Come on now. It is warmer on a cloudy night , lower thicker clouds not high wispy, becuase convective cooling is blocked by the clouds. Same thing the ceiling of a Greenhouse does.
There's not a lot of convection on a still, clear night, and those are the nights when the temperature drops the fastest.
 
Why is it that you don't think CO2 does the same thing as clouds? Obviously it does not do it to the same extent as clouds but why do you think there is no effect? I would also like to hear Azure's answer as to why she thinks CO2 has the same, or similar, effect as clouds.

I understand that clouds block incoming radiation to some extent, but I am more interested in the trapping of the outgoing radiation, since as Azure pointed out, CO2 is transparent to sunlight.

First of all, the clouds are trapping hot air, that is why it feels warmer on a cloudy night.

From what I have read of what happens to CO2 when it is struck by radiation, I don't see how it could "trap" anything. CO2 itself does not heat when struck by radiation or store any heat.

It pretty much just scatters the radiation. If other nearby molecules are "excited" by this scattering, the heat is merely transported upward and out. This all happens very fast.

I will tell you something else. I don't think there is a person on this planet that really fully understands radiation. This is one of the things that scientists argue about incessantly.
 
Thought I said why. It scatters the radiation.
If you think it scatters the radiation, why don't you think some of it is not scattered back down to the earth?

Take a look at this experiment that recreated an experiment by Robert Wood in 1909.

http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf
This other guy recreated the experiment too, and came up with different results.

http://boole.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
 
Back
Top