|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 14, 2009 11:12:08 GMT
How does a greenhouse really work: The soil is warmed by the sun, and heats the air by radiative & conduction. The warm air close to the soil also rises by convection. The warm air is trapped by the glass/plastic (it just needs to be transparent to visible light). Put in some buckets of water, and these will warm during the day & give of heat at night! How does the atmosphere warm the Earth? In the same way as a REAL greenhouse (with buckets of water)! The atmosphere is contained by gravity (not glass). The atmosphere is warmed by the sun, directly, or from the Earth's surface. Heat flows (by various methods) from warm to cold regions (in all directions!) in complex ways due to the rotation of the Earth. Oceans absorb heat more slowly than land, but give off heat equally slowly. With no atmosphere or oceans, the Earth would bake during the day & get extremely cold at night. The moon (no ocean or air has a range roughly -250 F to +250 F) - though it does rotate more slowly than the Earth. CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth - other than participating in the radiative transfer of heat. This would mean that more CO2 could have an effect by a very slight increase in heat transfer from hot to cold regions. So a high CO2 world would have slightly cooler tropics & slightly warmer temperate zones. All simple - all logical - all physics - all REAL. Get the Physics here: xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 14, 2009 12:54:29 GMT
That's a bit like saying Jack the Ripper had nothing to do with killing people *other than by participating in the cutting of skin*.
There wouldn't be much heat in the atmosphere to transfer if there were no greenhouse gases because the energy absorbed by the surface would be radiated to space without warming the atmosphere.
The G&T document has been sloshing round the internet for a year or so. It is the usual mix of strawmen, allegations of fraud and over-complicated but otherwise specious physical discussions that mostly do their best to avoid the accurate descriptions of the operation of the greenhouse effect.
The big glaring flaw (deliberate lie more likely) of the paper is to somehow suggest that the greenhouse effect depends on a claim that adding CO2 causes heat to travel from cooler to warmer regions (the "perpetuum mobile of the second kind"). From the rest of your posts, Kiwistonewall, I don't think you think this is true.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 14, 2009 21:23:52 GMT
Sorry Steve, from the rest of my posts, I find I have forgotten the 2ns law of thermodynamics. ;D
There is a Real Greenhouse effect. There is even a small effect for increased CO2 - which will move heat around faster from hot to cold areas.
But the nonsense of "forcing" is physically impossible. The warmer a body (soil or air) gets, the more it radiates.
There is no "classical" greenhouse effect, as that came before thermodynamics was developed.
The AGW CO2 effect is purely a very successful religion - one which will likely sink earth's civilizations into a new dark age - which is the desired effect by the green movement in any case.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 14, 2009 21:29:47 GMT
The Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it should be given it's albedo and distance from the sun.
We can call that the "greenhouse effect", the "classical greenhouse effect", the "real greenhouse effect", the "<insert any name here> effect".
It makes no difference to reality. Without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the Earth would be significantly cooler.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 14, 2009 21:46:59 GMT
All that has been debunked by standard physics - read that paper - I found it easy to follow, though my Physics is good & I was trained as a physical chemist (Physics of air, heat etc etc)
Read the paper!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 14, 2009 21:50:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 15, 2009 1:13:23 GMT
Hardly, repeating the Myth doesn't debunk the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Look, socold, I first accepted the AGW hypothesis - then got interested in the cold trend (it was obvious that something was cooling the earth some years ago.)
Like most AGWers, I was concerned that the political will to fight "Climate change" would be lost, and then the warming would return with a vengeance.
So I needed to learn- and learn I did! ;D
I searched high and low to find a genuine physical basis for the GH effect, and found nobody had any. There isn't any solid physics behind it. It was assumed from the time of Arrhenius =- before thermodynamics was developed.
I hadn't come across this paper before. It is first class, though the writers are a little belligerent . I have come across NOTHING that remotely has answered it other than repeating the falsehoods addressed in the paper.
Most challenges attack the author, and avoid the issue.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 1:44:13 GMT
You have got to be kidding. I don't consider this matter debatable, it's a complete waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 15, 2009 12:03:02 GMT
You have got to be kidding. I don't consider this matter debatable, it's a complete waste of time. My thoughts EXACTLY. Your faith is shattered, and you have no response - there is none, as the truth is entirely clear to those who understand real physics.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Mar 15, 2009 16:21:59 GMT
From Wiki: The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day. Because the moon has no atmosphere to block some of the sun's rays or to help trap heat at night, its temperature varies greatly between day and night.
I've gone through about 2/3 of the long paper that tries to explain why the greenhouse effect isn't from IR reflection. Some of it makes sense, since there have been experiments using glass that passes IR, and it shows the same effect. Also, if the IR were being reflected, one might expect that double pane windows would not be particulary any more effecient in trapping heat than single pane, which is not true in my experience. I'm actually more interested in his point about using average T^4 to get an average T. Clearly, spots that are higher in termperature must be emitting substantially more heat than colder spots, because of the magnifying effect of the fourth power. In that case, I should think that the average termperature (whatever that means) would be even lower than one calculated from looking at an average T^4. I'm not sure what this implies. Since the moon's surface has extremely high temps in the daylight, it cannot be cooling off very efficiently by just emitting IR.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 15, 2009 20:49:21 GMT
You have got to be kidding. I don't consider this matter debatable, it's a complete waste of time. My thoughts EXACTLY. Your faith is shattered, and you have no response - there is none, as the truth is entirely clear to those who understand real physics. I'm sorry, but the paper you touted is absolute crap. CO 2 related greenhouse warming happens for a very simple and very thoroughly proven reason -- CO 2 absorbs long wave radiation. There's nothing you can do about it, including stomp your feet or bury your head in the sand.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 15, 2009 21:34:05 GMT
My thoughts EXACTLY. Your faith is shattered, and you have no response - there is none, as the truth is entirely clear to those who understand real physics. I'm sorry, but the paper you touted is absolute crap. CO 2 related greenhouse warming happens for a very simple and very thoroughly proven reason -- CO 2 absorbs long wave radiation. There's nothing you can do about it, including stomp your feet or bury your head in the sand. Set me straight on this. If the CO2 absorbed heat approaches the same level as the surface it will approach casting off as much heat into space as does the surface per sq meter would it not? And since the effective atmosphere surface is larger than that of the globe it will have the potential to cast off more heat at the same as surface temperature would it not? So that would seem to indicate that the CO2 in the atmosphere cannot get as warm as the surface just from surface IR. So if the CO2 does not get as warm as the surface how could it heat the surface? In all my experience the only thing that something cooler does is cool things that are warmer. And all this IR (not counting convection and conduction) is happening at the speed of light is it not? So would not any delay except for time for the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium through convection and conduction be negligible? Seems to me that since we have to burn stuff to make CO2, and warm gases rise, the anthropogenic CO2 is actually transporting more net heat from the surface. So any heat remaining in the system from anthropogenic CO2 production would seem to be somekind of a variant of UHI. OK so I am an idiot, can anybody straighten me out for where I am straying from the logical path?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 15, 2009 21:53:51 GMT
My thoughts EXACTLY. Your faith is shattered, and you have no response - there is none, as the truth is entirely clear to those who understand real physics. I'm sorry, but the paper you touted is absolute crap. CO 2 related greenhouse warming happens for a very simple and very thoroughly proven reason -- CO 2 absorbs long wave radiation. There's nothing you can do about it, including stomp your feet or bury your head in the sand. Unfortunately, what I've seen you contribute to discussion here can be summed up as "That's not what I want to believe, so it's absolute crap." That's not just one post, it seems to be your style. I think that is unfortunate as you seem intelligent, and I'm sure there is something you could add to the discussions you participate in.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 22:08:52 GMT
Increase co2 and more IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and more IR is emitted by the atmosphere. If more IR is emitted from the atmosphere then more IR reaches the surface as well as space. If more IR reaches the surface then the surface is absorbing more IR and so will warm up and emit more IR.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 16, 2009 8:36:03 GMT
More More more is unscientific - you simply must obey physical laws.
The only example I know of more more more was Enron & Lehman brothers. ;D
The Earth is NOT a black body. The atmosphere is NOT in thermal equilibrium.
The laws of thermodynamics apply.
Heat moves from hot to cold. Not more, more, more. ;D
|
|