At this point, anyone who attempts to claim that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, is assumed to be an alarmist plant trying to make skeptics look bad. You will be banned immediately.
I’ve put up with this crap for months, and my patience is gone.
No soup for you. One year.
Exactly. Tony is a sceptic. If he decides to ban people who disagree with greenhouse gas theory, then he should also ban catastrophic anthropogenic greenhouse warming believers. To do otherwise is selective and illogical.
While I like Tony, he has some slightly disturbing and selective ideas about “freedom” and “rights”. For example, anyone who threatens to take away your guns is wrong. However, anyone who disagrees with Tony is wrong. And anyone who doesn’t believe in greenhouse theory is wrong. And anyone who would vote for a Democrat is wrong. Etcetera.
There are blogs which shutdown discussion when the commentors stray from the desired line. They are called “realclimate” or “theguardian”, or “skepticalscience”.
Whilst it’s the right of everyone to kick a person they don’t like out of their house, a blog on the internet is not on a par with that. It’s more akin to a public forum.
For somebody who so strongly defends certain elements of the Constitution, to so glibly say, “If you don’t start saying the right things, then I’ll ban you from saying anything” is a bit hard for me to swallow. Tony?
The absorption and emission of LW radiation by greenhouse gases has been observed for over a century. People came here and repeatedly made personal attacks because they didn’t want to accept basic science, and now they are done doing that.
It’s an error -imho – to equate “Greenhouse deniers” with “those who make personal attacks.” Banning those who make personal attacks is sensible: banning those who dispute the “Greenhouse effect” is not – imho.
It’s a question of dialectics: you use the phrase to denote a particular meaning, so I
cannot use the phrase to denote any other meaning. I am not a scientist.
I believe the atmosphere has an enormous effect, but that absorption and emission of LW IR is only a small part of that effect.
I believe the oxidation of hydrocarbons (methane, ethylene, turpenes,…) in the air produces heat.
I believe the pathway from CO2 to CaCO3 in the oceans produces heat.
I believe the pathway from volcanic alkaline oxides to salts produces heat.
I believe the pathway from volcanic acidic gasses to salts produces heat.
I believe the combustion of hydrocarbons (both “natural” and man-made”) produces
heat.
I believe that this iron, nickel rock passing through the solar magnetic field produces heat.
I believe nuclear decay prduces heat.
I believe the total biomass represents solar energy stored as chemical energy, meaning
the planet cannot possibly be in radiative equilibrium.
I do not believe the planet has ever been in radiative equilibrium
I believe that seeing a blue sky means that light is coming at me from the whole sky, not just from the Sun, and that – living above 50 North – it makes one hell of a difference to how light the days are.
I believe the aurorae show that N and O absorb and emit visible light.
I believe the wind is kinetic energy contained in the atmosphere that doesn’t show on a thermometer.
I believe there exists an electrostatic field between the clouds and the ground, which
is another form of energy that doesn’t show on a thermometer.
I belive absorption of light by the atmosphere explains why the ground doesn’t reach 130C as the Moon does.
And so on.
Now I may well be wrong on all those things, and there may be many good reasons to shut me up, but I do not think my objection to the idea that the “Greenhouse effect” answers all questions, is appropriate.
In the end, it’s your blog, and you must do as you see fit.
“The absorption and emission of LW radiation by greenhouse gases has been observed for over a century.”
True, however what that means is hotly contested.
Most alarmists maintain that this process can warm the oceans. It cannot.
Yes, GHG’s warm the atmosphere, just look at any cloudy night, always warmer. A clear night is always cooler and any effect from CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be detected. It is miniscule and certainly won’t “warm the planet”.
This warming by GHG’s however is very transitory and quickly dissipates.
Phil Jones was asked regarding warming rates:
[Q] BBC – “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?”
[A] Phil Jones, University of East Anglia – ”Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different. I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”
This last one is particularly telling in that it shows that CO2 has zero impact on natural warming. Not to a degree that can be detected at least. This is to be expected, since it’s less than 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Anto has been a valuable contributor. I’m just not sure that he understands what it is I am objecting to.
Who do you think you are, “DEEBEE”?
I think he is spam
Here’s some interesting tidbits from Alarmists…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-boslough/npr-finally-stops-referri_b_6165846.html
PBS Special “Climate of Doubt”.. can watch online.. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/
Mother Jones on the PBS Special: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/10/frontline-takes-climate-skeptics
At that Boslough HuffPo piece, I caught them deleting two of my comments directed at Greg Laden’s reply to me: https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/535236357032280064
Regarding the Climate of Doubt show, I covered the way in which the Frontline folks weren’t answering questions at a WUWT guest post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/17/frontline-responds-to-complaints-about-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/
There were actually more instances where the Frontline people bent over backwards to avoid skeptic questions. Hilarious overall how the AGW issue is one where its promoters knock themselves out to hide all its flaws.
Steven.
You have the patience of a saint.
Yeah, I’ve mentioned it before. No idea how he does it. I would have been done with it from the start.
Remember when alarmists used to quote record highs exceeding record lows as a sign of global warming?
Good times…….
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records
Real Science book-mark removed. !
Please say it isn’t so!
Blizzards are assailing Buffalo and the only thing the White House talks about is global warming and droughts.
i bet it is nice and warm under that snow. Maybe where they are getting their readings.
In the words of the immortal Mr Spock…….
“It’s a greenhouse Jim, but not as we know it”.
I don’t understand what is bothering Steve so at the risk of getting banned from this fine site let me tell you that the Greenhouse Effect is much larger than consensus “Climate Scientists” claim.
The consensus is that an airless earth would have a temperature of 255 K while the observed average is 288 K. They say that the GHE = 33 K.
This is based on good mathematics but unrealistic physical properties for the composition of our planet. Here is a more realistic estimate for the temperature of an airless Earth:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/
It seems plausible that the average temperature of an airless Earth would be ~234 K so the GHE is roughly 54 K.
Climate scientists like Pierrehumbert and Hansen can’t explain how our atmosphere can cause a GHE of 33 K let alone a GHE of 54 K.
Fortunately Robinson & Catling have a model that works pretty well for all seven bodies in the solar system that have significant atmospheres:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
Vacuum doesnt have a temperature so temperature of airless planet is absurd!!! ONLY temperature of the rocky surface which is NOTHING to do with any atmosphere which doesnt exist!! Learn real astrophysics and thermodynamics!
Thanks for the advice. I must admit that thermodynamics always gave me fits………never could get my arms around Entropy.
However, I did learn enough physics to earn a decent living building the world’s brightest gamma ray source. Here is a link to the HIGS machine which has many uses including some that are classified as “Astrophysics”.
http://www.tunl.duke.edu/web.tunl.2011a.higs.php
The above site includes a video explaining how the HIGS uses “Inverse Compton Scattering”. This is the same process that makes GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursters) the brightest and most energetic events in the universe.
http://www.tunl.duke/edu/web.tunl.2011a.howhigsworks.php
One of the key pieces of software used to design the HIGS machine was a 6,000 point “Finite Element Analysis” program developed at the Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics in Novosibirsk. This software is so efficient that one can use it to solve quite complex problems armed only with a laptop:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
Please note that the FEA model was intended to reproduce the surface temperature measurements made by the Diviner Lunar Radiation Experiment. The model error was less than 1 K (RMS). The URL above includes links that will enable you to download the software I used and my working files. Then you will be able to reproduce my work or falsify it.
@ gallopingcamel I have posted that link here about 3 times now. I liked your model you did based on this work that you posted elsewhere in April. This subject is evolving all the time and daring to suggest that a name change may be appropriate to describe this process to avoid association with the failed Arrhenius theory as espoused by Hansen and Co has got me into Steve’s bad books.
Thanks for your interest.
I am using FEAs to model the temperature gradient in the Venusian atmosphere and was hoping to have it finished in time to meet with Tyler Robinson in the second week of December. Unexpectedly the fiber optics courses that I took on after retirement have enjoyed a surge in popularity so the last month has been wild. Even if my model is not ready I am hoping that Tyler will help me gain a better understanding of his model.
Too bad that Steve does not see the absurdities of the Arrhenius theory and the folks who pretend it has any validity (e.g the deranged James Hansen).
Robinson & Catling’s equations work much better than Nikolov & Zeller’s “Unified Theory of Climate”. You already know about the link below. I am including it for the benefit of Steve and other people here who prefer numerical analysis to qualitative arguments:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
Good.
Is your mind closed to my viewpoint that the effects of back-radiation are much smaller than a 33K warming of the Earth’s surface and that other effects are greater than that particular version of the greenhouse effect?
Specifically, am I unwelcome? As a physicist, I like things to be precisely stated and unambiguous. Is it possible to have reasoned conversations here?
To repeat a part of my statement for the Senate Minority Report on Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming, you know that those on the other side of an issue know they are wrong when they resort to name-calling rather than addressing issues with rational argument.
This is really unfortunate since I admire your dogged work in uncovering the shenanigans with respect to the temperature record and many other arguments you have made with respect to suspect claims by the alarmists. But I do think you need badly to understand the physics of radiation and the atmosphere better. In fact, we all need to understand it better. These are not matters of settled science at all.
Some high clouds rolled in this evening. I’m just back from walking the dogs, and it felt much warmer than last night.
You sound like you are questioning the magnitude of the effect, not the existence of it.
yes, warmer (minimum) during night. but I bet it was cooler (maximum) with that cloud-cover during the day.
Cloud cover at night, keeping things warm, is fooling you Steve. It’s fooling everybody. It is the single most obvious compelling illusion that is at the root heart of perpetuating this piece of “science” that Arrehenius and Tyndall envisaged ,after just simply directly extrapolating colouring book level experiments in glass tubes, to the Earth’s atmosphere.
So yes, yes, you may say there is a “greenhouse” effect.on cloud covered night. I joke about this with the missus. “Look dear , the “greenhouse” effect is working well tonight” LOL. But night is only 1/2 of the full day. What happens daytime?….well clouds shield the surface causing a cooling. and you might say this is a negative “greenhouse” effect.
Day equals night. Positive “greenhouse” = negative “greenhouse” . Nett = NO GREENHOUSE.
An illusion in science….Al Gore ,and all the rest, were on to a good thing here.
You are not understanding what I object to, which is people who can’t accept that certain substances in the atmosphere absorb and emit LW radiation.
Steve..I think to a certain extent, EVERYTHING absorbs and emits LW radiation. When it comes to the atmosphere, I’ve even seen a modern encyclopedia show an incoming straight line coming from space which strikes an atom of oxygen in the thermosphere area ie O, (a smaller wavy line comes off), then progress further down to strike an ozone molecule O3 (wavy line comes off), then into tho lower atmosphere to strike an oxygen molecule O2 and another wavy line comes off.
You sound like you don’t recognize that when water vapor condenses, latent heat is released.
See the bigger picture bwdave.
I’m trying, Mack, but I don’t see how CO2’s radiative properties have anything to do with how a greenhouse works, nor have I found anything convincing that isolates and quantifies an atmospheric CO2 effect, or that even clearly shows whether its net effect on surface temperature is positive or negative.
First, Clouds are liquid phase water not gas after the clouds have dumped the latent heat of evaporation energy.
Second look at Dr. Happer’s slide # 16 Anvil Thunderhead clouds block outgoing FTIR all across the board and not just in the H2O wavelengths, You are confounding the effects of water with GHG effect – emphasis on gas – again.
SLIDES: link
The graph is upper right and with two lines the lower line starting at the number 40 is the Thunderhead data.
Dr Happer Video.
http://jlf.streamhammer.com/speakers/williamhapper090814.mp4
This is why definitions matter. Especially when talking about CAGW. The Climastrologists get the high CO2 climate sensitivity by making water a FEEDBACK of CO2 and therefore multiplying the actual CO2 climate sensitivity threefold. This is the heart of the BIG LIE. They swap cause and effect. Water (ocean temperature) drives CO2.
Here is the ‘BIG LIE’ straight from NASA:
I for one agree with that Charles, and here’s why:
The 33K assumes that the earth is a black body with an albedo of 0.306. That might be true in one sense, but most of that albedo is due to clouds reflecting light, which is a reaction to incoming sunlight, and part of the heat regulating processes on earth. In other words, clouds and albedo are self regulating to maintain a mostly stable surface temperature at which all processes (evaporation, insolation, convection, etc) are near balance. If you accept that the clouds are a result of internal processes, then to know the baseline temperature, you have to take the clouds away. If you do this, the albedo of ocean surface and land surface (plus some mist and haze, and still including vegetation, etc) would arguably be around 0.15. Recalculate the classical black body at albedo 0.15 and it is now 268K. The difference to the actual 288K then is 20K not 33K. The difference of those two, (13K) is the effect due to clouds, the rest (20K) is the effect of H2O and CO2.
There, see, it isn’t even 8 AM and I’ve already reduced the GHE by 39.3%. Not a bad day 🙂
Charles is welcome. Personal attacks are not.
So,,easing off the vitriolic a tad may one just aim your attention to that Trendy Cartoon of previous note which indicates an emission of 350 surface hugging Watts being ejected into the atmos I fear –
firstly though – of the 342 Watts said to be arriving from the Sun only 166 do actually arrive thereon to then lose 102 of their number to physical thermal effects and so number only 66 waiting for the balance of troops numbering 248 to arrive when there are only er (or is it err?), 169 Solar supplied free agents to hand waiting on the support team from planet Earth who obviously would have to hoist themselves into atmospheric position “By their own Bootstraps” (you have read the little novel might I presume) unless, that is, they are travellers in time and so can depart before they arrive, so to speak.
Otherwise you might try to decipher the weird and wonderfully variable “Radiance” scales set LH side of most Earth Radiation spectrum charts and beat my interpretation that. on average (UGH), there are only 12 up and ready to launch troops per sq.metre available for the use of…
Yeah, whatever, you are just putting up a smoke screen for harboring and fostering and promoting and sponsoring and encouraging and positively delighting a convicted and registered daughter/son rapist, every fucking day, dude, who not only denies the greenhouse effect but thinks the Sun isn’t even a star.
You are the freak show you fear.
You censor New Yorkers. We live amongst a wide variety of people. Synergy!
I’m am surprised that this site and WUWT ect are not pouncing on the fact that the USA looks like Arctic/Antarctica at the moment and Arctic temperatures 80N are NORMAL (not warmer). You see the warmists are saying that NH pole is warming therefore MORE snow. ITS NOT.
When I looked yesterday the towns I could find within the Arctic Circle were all warmer that here in Mid North Carolina!
My comment on it:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/humidity-and-temperature/#comment-459680
Thank god people don’t sell out! politics does! 🙂
I don’t know anybody who claims it doesn’t exist at all. I suppose some do. The point is that it doesn’t exist TO ANYTHING LIKE THE EXTENT that the global warming alarmists claim, and that it’s not something we really need to worry about.
Further, they have made it abundantly clear that they don’t really understand the physics of how it works.
+10
Quite a few people have done that here, and have been very aggressive about it.
“The point is that it doesn’t exist TO ANYTHING LIKE THE EXTENT that the global warming alarmists claim”
PRECISELY!
This is another symptom of the “either / or” binary mode that seems to afflict much of modern thinking.
I am a firm believer in the ability of certain configurations of atoms to form molecules that possess certain properties WRT photons of certain energy levels and then subsequently re-emit those photons, and I am also convinced of the reality of certain properties of gases, such as are stated in Boyle’s law, Charles’ law etc. and he laws of thermodynamics. In fact, this knowledge and understanding was the basis of quite a chunk of my career as a chemical engineer. Nor do I have a problem with Stefan–Boltzmann law WRT black / grey body emissions..
However, it is most definitely not my opinion that anyone anywhere has a clear understanding of how these and many other peripheral effects interact in the dynamic environment of the Earth’s atmosphere, especially when we factor in the myriad other effects, particularly to do with water vapour and clouds. We just don’t know anything near enough to make claims with any degree of any certainty at all yet, and on a scale as large as that, I doubt we ever will.
For example, despite our considerable understanding of aerodynamics, we only recently realised that fitting small extensions to the wings of airliners could have a profound effect on diverse aspects of their performance and efficiency, from fuel efficiency to noise nuisance.
So anyone who states they have a clear grasp of these phenomena is kidding themselves, simple as that.
Final comment… Its the gravity field !!!!!
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/french-scientist-explains-why.html
That is the theory often discussed over at Tallblokes Talkshop.
For what it is worth WUWT had some decent articles on the greenhouse effect.
This one is nice because it shows the spectra looking down from satellites and looking up from earth:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
Explaining misconceptions on “The Greenhouse Effect” By Ben Herman and Roger A. Pielke Sr.
November 8, 2014 An Empirical Review of Recent Trends in the Greenhouse Effect by Robin Pittwood
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/08/an-empirical-review-of-recent-trends-in-the-greenhouse-effect/
Steve, From now on just toss them the Roger A. Pielke Sr. article or all three. It will save your sanity.
Greenhouse effect. Well, CO2 is certainly responsible for making the Earth GREEN by being an important plant food together with H2O, which according to IPCC’s wrong dogma should give even more warming. More CO2 has given a GREENER earth.
Many great scientists use the name Greenhouse effect (e.g. Dr. Happer) on what I will call the Atmospheric effect since greenhouses for enhanced plant growth works in a completely different way than the atmosphere by hindering convection, whereas convection is the dominant heat transporting mechanism in the Troposphere. Therefore I prefer the term atmospheric effect.
IMHO I think Scottishsceptic has done a good job in trying to combine the theory of the “Slayers” and “Greenhouse defenders” here: http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/07/03/reconciling-skydragons-and-mainstream-skeptics
Backradiation from a cold to warm object will reduce the heat loss of the warmer, but hey; + 100 ppm CO2 since 1900 to 400 ppm CO2 has so little effect that it is not measurable, confirmed by Dr. Roy Spencer. H2O and clouds has a considerably more important net cooling effect that can be measured.
Yes, the ‘greenhouse’ effect needs a new name, as the current name has been wrongly defined by alarmists. I also prefer the term ‘atmospheric’ effect. In my geology training we learned that ‘continental drift’ was replaced by ‘plate tectonics’ when the phenomenon was more properly understood.
“Continental drift is the movement of the Earth’s continents relative to each other, thus appearing to drift across the ocean bed.[1] The speculation that continents might have ‘drifted’ was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596. The concept was independently and more fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, but his theory was rejected by some for lack of a mechanism (though this was supplied later by Holmes) and others because of prior theoretical commitments. The idea of continental drift has been subsumed by the theory of plate tectonics, which explains how the continents move.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
It’s time to redefine and rename. It’s time we stop adopting alarmist nomenclature.
I think it is a good name. The mechanisms aren’t identical, but the general concept is easy to relate to.
Greenhouses are built by humans and require human intervention to operate. Atmospheres are not, and do not.
I’ve gone all hothouse – in my greenhouse!
Glass works…………..no black boxes and no ferkin computer modellers allowed anywhere near.
Now then………………… where were we? Do I detect…………. an atmosphere or, has it lapsed?;¬)
Keep on truckin’ Steve, we loves yer!
Personal attacks? Good grief! life is too short – it really is, heated debate between friends though, there’s nothing like it.
Can we all agree, that, CO2 is a damn useful and very important trace gas, verily without it – we are all scuppered.
wasn’t CO2 supposed to cause run away global humidity?
Well I was one of the first bloggers on this site when Steve/Tony was kicked off of WUWT.
But i am quite prepared to be banned, because I have one very simple challenge to Steve/Tony.
If you truly believe DWIR can heat the surface then you belive it can do “Work”, well try and prove it.
Everyone who has conducted the experiment or read about them knows that an object exposed to DWIR gets COLDER than ambient atmospheric Temperature not hotter. It is called a starlight Fridge for a reason.
Roy Spencer tried to explain it away by saying that without the DWIR the object would have got down to Zero K, yeah right.
“If you truly believe DWIR can heat the surface then you believe it can do “Work”, well try and prove it.”
I have to second that thought and I have to believe Tony does not literally mean “warm”, like raising the temperature, but instead means slowing surface loss from thermal radiation.
Yes Tony, all GHGs absorb and emit IR radiation and it is very integral to how a planet with thick atmospheres shed the constant solar energy input. Such thick atmospheres all have clouds and that alone is another good question.
But that is not all of the processes present, the GHG specific radiation that is. Clouds radiate nearly full spectrum being liquids or solids and every time GHG’s emit and that is absorbed by clouds, droplets or particulate matter there is yet another chance for the cloud to emit that same frequency specific energy out in the window frequencies. The ‘window’ portion grows with height from both decreased density (Beer-Lambert) and also the narrowing of any pressure broadening in lines and you cannot ignore the cloud gorilla factor!
That is why as clouds come overhead it DOES stay warmer than without, net IR loss upward below the clouds are nearly and sometimes exactly zero per ESRL radiometers yet above the clouds you find that same IR radiation to space that is not greatly affected… you have basically raised the surface up to the cloud tops and the clouds due to state change warming are nearly as warm as the surface was below but the path to space is easier when higher.
You are cold. You put a blanket on. You warm up.
The presence of an object which generates no heat, warmed you up.
Whoever started that line of propaganda you latched on to was probably out to sabotage skeptics. I suggest you free yourself from it.
The SUN puts out so much more than the light spectrum that we are capable of measuring,anybody who thinks they have a100 persent grasp on this energy or denies it is delusional.
catweazle666, November 20, 2014 at 3:30 pm
You understand that our knowledge of “Climate Science” is primitive. If it were not so we would be able to “Backcast” with great precision so that related forecasts would have some credence.
I agree with Gator69. Because global temperatures remained static while CO2 concentrations rose monotonically it was necessary to “Rebrand” Catastrophic Anthopogenic Global Warming (CAGW) into “Climate Change”.
The time has come to rebrand the “Greenhouse Effect” itself. Is the GHE the difference in temperature of a body with a significant atmosphere and the same body without an atmosphere? Can anyone suggest a better definition? We need one that obfuscates the issue just as “Climate Change” did. How could anyone deny that climate changes?