4 ms·

> 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by n

> 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by next floors. Any change to the concentration of CO_2 makes no difference on Earth's radiation. Do you have a source for this? >Water is even more potent Yes and that would be a huge problem if it built up instead of falling out of the sky. >how are you sure that Sun's increasing activity is not the reason of climate change? This is actually what I was thinking of when I said "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming" though I believe this particular theory has been debunked. >four centuries ago Batic Sea was freezing seasonally You are referring to the little ice age which was primarily a localized event and therefore not caused by changes in the greenhouse effect or solar radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age >We know it is highly correlated, true. Correlation is not causation, though. I completely agree. The fact that they are correlated does not give us a causal link. The fact that green house gasses increase temperature does. The only missing piece here is how much of the increased temperature is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions and how much is caused by other unidentified forces. >There are plenty of possible effects in thermodynamics that would easily make the noise in measurements above the level of changes that are announced for greenhouse effect. I completely agree. When I said there could be an unknown effect, I did not mean to imply such an effect would be outside of "possible effects in thermodynamics". >We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place Actually we can. We can measure the radiation before it hits earth, when it hits the ground and when it leaves the atmosphere as well as measure what radiation is absorbed and emitted by various gasses. We don't have a perfect understanding of the green house effect, but we can observe it in action.

dozzie 12y ago
>> 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by next floors. Any change to the concentration of CO_2 makes no difference on Earth's radiation. > Do you have a source for this? "The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the earth's troposphere", Jack Barrett. Maybe there's not the number (99.94%), but it says about absorption saturation on the first 100 meters above the ground. The 99.94% number is here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html >> Water is even more potent > Yes and that would be a huge problem if it built up instead of falling out of the sky. It would be not. Maybe you don't know it, but water is already present in the atmosphere at the level of ground. Moreover, while some of water "falls out of the sky", some other part of it vaporizes at the same time. It doesn't disappear from the air. > This is actually what I was thinking of when I said "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming" though I believe this particular theory has been debunked. At this point it doesn't matter whether this particular theory has been debunked or not. You say that "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming". So we don't know if the global warming is actually caused by greenhouse effect. There's no magic in greenhouse effect that would cause it important when proven unimportant. Having this, it's way, way too early to panic about the greenhouse effect. > The fact that green house gasses increase temperature does [give causation]. It would, if it was fact. It's merely a hypothesis that these gasses increase the temperature of Earth. And again, it doesn't stand direct measurement with calculations (i.e. absorption saturation). > The only missing piece here is how much of the increased temperature is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions ...if affected by these emissions in any way over measurement error... > and how much is caused by other unidentified forces. So basically, we don't know if there are any other forces, but it must me human emission that causes global warming. So we focus on CO_2 and methane, which is nowhere near what water can absorb. >> We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place > Actually we can. We can measure the radiation before it hits earth, when it hits the ground and when it leaves the atmosphere as well as measure what radiation is absorbed and emitted by various gasses. You know that this doesn't tell whether the greenhouse effect takes place? It only shows how much radiation is absorbed before entering the atmosphere and after leaving it. We have no way of checking if increasing CO_2 or methane concentration affects the radiation absorption. Sorry, but there are too many variables to make this a realiable experiment, and having effectively only one data point is too little to draw any conclusions.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Thank you for the source. It seems to claim that so little heat makes it through the atmosphere that more insulation won't make a difference. Given the fact that IR cameras in orbit can measure surface temperature, I think a significant amount of heat must be escaping. This seeming contradiction may simply be my misunderstanding. Can you clarify the point you are making with that article? >water is already present in the atmosphere Yes water in the atmosphere is at an equilibrium. Adding more water has only a short term effect unless it somehow changes that equilibrium. Water has a large greenhouse effect and without that effect Earth would be much colder. If that effect were to increase Earth would get hotter, but fortunately the excess water simply falls out of the sky instead. That's why it is so important that water falls out of the sky. CO2 on the other hand is not at an equilibrium thus its effect can build up over time. >It would, if it was fact It is an observation. We can literally observe it happening. That does not tell us precisely how it would function under different conditions (such as increased CO2), so for that we must rely on theory. That theory, because it is based on flawed human understanding is fallible. Our conclusions about man made global warming are less than 100% certain. >There's no magic in greenhouse effect that would cause it important when proven unimportant. Having this, it's way, way too early to panic about the greenhouse effect. I am of course not recommending panic. If the greenhouse effect were proven unimportant (and either I understood said proof, or some reasonable portion of the scientific community agreed with it) then I would stop worrying about CO2 emissions. Given that theory explains why we should expect green house emissions to increase temperature, the strong correlation between the two and the lack of other credible explanations, I come to the obvious (though not completely certain) conclusion.
  - dozzie 12y ago
    >> water is already present in the atmosphere > Adding more water has only a short term effect unless it somehow changes that equilibrium. It doesn't matter. The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation. Add anything and you won't get bigger greenhouse effect, assuming it actually works. > Water has a large greenhouse effect and without that effect Earth would be much colder. Or not. We don't know it. You said yourself that we don't know if there is any bigger effect taking place. And the greenhouse effect is mainly accepted among climatologists. Physicists who work on thermodynamics don't quite agree the very reasoning about energy balance done by climatologists is credible at all. > If that effect were to increase Earth would get hotter, but fortunately the excess water simply falls out of the sky instead. Really? What "excess" do you mean? You know that it's not only the "excess" which causes IR absorption? And if there's little radiation left to be absorbed, adding more greenhouse gases doesn't make the temperature grow. >> It would, if it was fact > It is an observation. We can literally observe it happening. No. It's just a hypothesis that greenhouse effect takes place. We do not have enough data to confirm the effect. > That does not tell us precisely how it would function under different conditions (such as increased CO2), so for that we must rely on theory. And there goes f*ck your claim that it was a fact.

dozzie 12y ago

>> 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by next floors. Any change to the concentration of CO_2 makes no difference on Earth's radiation. > Do you have a source for this? "The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the earth's troposphere", Jack Barrett. Maybe there's not the number (99.94%), but it says about absorption saturation on the first 100 meters above the ground. The 99.94% number is here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html >> Water is even more potent > Yes and that would be a huge problem if it built up instead of falling out of the sky. It would be not. Maybe you don't know it, but water is already present in the atmosphere at the level of ground. Moreover, while some of water "falls out of the sky", some other part of it vaporizes at the same time. It doesn't disappear from the air. > This is actually what I was thinking of when I said "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming" though I believe this particular theory has been debunked. At this point it doesn't matter whether this particular theory has been debunked or not. You say that "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming". So we don't know if the global warming is actually caused by greenhouse effect. There's no magic in greenhouse effect that would cause it important when proven unimportant. Having this, it's way, way too early to panic about the greenhouse effect. > The fact that green house gasses increase temperature does [give causation]. It would, if it was fact. It's merely a hypothesis that these gasses increase the temperature of Earth. And again, it doesn't stand direct measurement with calculations (i.e. absorption saturation). > The only missing piece here is how much of the increased temperature is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions ...if affected by these emissions in any way over measurement error... > and how much is caused by other unidentified forces. So basically, we don't know if there are any other forces, but it must me human emission that causes global warming. So we focus on CO_2 and methane, which is nowhere near what water can absorb. >> We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place > Actually we can. We can measure the radiation before it hits earth, when it hits the ground and when it leaves the atmosphere as well as measure what radiation is absorbed and emitted by various gasses. You know that this doesn't tell whether the greenhouse effect takes place? It only shows how much radiation is absorbed before entering the atmosphere and after leaving it. We have no way of checking if increasing CO_2 or methane concentration affects the radiation absorption. Sorry, but there are too many variables to make this a realiable experiment, and having effectively only one data point is too little to draw any conclusions.

seanflyon 12y ago
Thank you for the source. It seems to claim that so little heat makes it through the atmosphere that more insulation won't make a difference. Given the fact that IR cameras in orbit can measure surface temperature, I think a significant amount of heat must be escaping. This seeming contradiction may simply be my misunderstanding. Can you clarify the point you are making with that article? >water is already present in the atmosphere Yes water in the atmosphere is at an equilibrium. Adding more water has only a short term effect unless it somehow changes that equilibrium. Water has a large greenhouse effect and without that effect Earth would be much colder. If that effect were to increase Earth would get hotter, but fortunately the excess water simply falls out of the sky instead. That's why it is so important that water falls out of the sky. CO2 on the other hand is not at an equilibrium thus its effect can build up over time. >It would, if it was fact It is an observation. We can literally observe it happening. That does not tell us precisely how it would function under different conditions (such as increased CO2), so for that we must rely on theory. That theory, because it is based on flawed human understanding is fallible. Our conclusions about man made global warming are less than 100% certain. >There's no magic in greenhouse effect that would cause it important when proven unimportant. Having this, it's way, way too early to panic about the greenhouse effect. I am of course not recommending panic. If the greenhouse effect were proven unimportant (and either I understood said proof, or some reasonable portion of the scientific community agreed with it) then I would stop worrying about CO2 emissions. Given that theory explains why we should expect green house emissions to increase temperature, the strong correlation between the two and the lack of other credible explanations, I come to the obvious (though not completely certain) conclusion.
- dozzie 12y ago
  >> water is already present in the atmosphere > Adding more water has only a short term effect unless it somehow changes that equilibrium. It doesn't matter. The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation. Add anything and you won't get bigger greenhouse effect, assuming it actually works. > Water has a large greenhouse effect and without that effect Earth would be much colder. Or not. We don't know it. You said yourself that we don't know if there is any bigger effect taking place. And the greenhouse effect is mainly accepted among climatologists. Physicists who work on thermodynamics don't quite agree the very reasoning about energy balance done by climatologists is credible at all. > If that effect were to increase Earth would get hotter, but fortunately the excess water simply falls out of the sky instead. Really? What "excess" do you mean? You know that it's not only the "excess" which causes IR absorption? And if there's little radiation left to be absorbed, adding more greenhouse gases doesn't make the temperature grow. >> It would, if it was fact > It is an observation. We can literally observe it happening. No. It's just a hypothesis that greenhouse effect takes place. We do not have enough data to confirm the effect. > That does not tell us precisely how it would function under different conditions (such as increased CO2), so for that we must rely on theory. And there goes f*ck your claim that it was a fact.