4 ms·

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 t

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.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation This does not seem to be correct. The earth's is gaining a significant amount of energy from the sun. Since temperature is at an equilibrium we can assume it is losing a very similar amount of energy. We know that the earth gives off less (visible) light than it receives so the obvious explanation is that the earth is giving off a significant amount of heat. We can also directly observe heat leaving the earth from IR cameras in orbit. > No. It's just a hypothesis that greenhouse effect takes place. > And there goes f*ck your claim that it was a fact. You misunderstand me. It is a fact that the green house effect is happening. You yourself continue to insist that is is happening with statements like "The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation". Observing it happening is not the same as knowing how it would change in different conditions. That part is theory. Let me give a similar example: We can observe that the sun heats the earth. That is a fact. We have a theory that if the sun were to go out, the earth would get colder. Since the sun is still shining we cannot observe what would happen if the sun went out, so we deploy reason instead of direct observation. You could insist that the earth would stay the same temperature without the sun shinning and point out that we can't know for sure because it hasn't happened yet. Any statement we make about the future is not an observed fact because the future has not happened yet, but e can draw reasonable conclusions about the future.
  - dozzie 12y ago
    >> The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation > This does not seem to be correct. The earth's is gaining a significant amount of energy from the sun. [...] Right. It should be: "the water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation on wavelengths for CO_2, methane and water itself". Adding more methane or CO_2 will not cause more radiation be absorbed, because there is nothing left to be absorbed.
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      That is a reasonable sounding argument, much more reasonable than I expected before looking into it. I also came across explanations such as this one: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 which explains why increased CO2 will still increase the greenhouse effect. An appeal to authority is not the strongest argument, but there is a near universal consensus among the scientific community that increased CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect.

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.

seanflyon 12y ago
> The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation This does not seem to be correct. The earth's is gaining a significant amount of energy from the sun. Since temperature is at an equilibrium we can assume it is losing a very similar amount of energy. We know that the earth gives off less (visible) light than it receives so the obvious explanation is that the earth is giving off a significant amount of heat. We can also directly observe heat leaving the earth from IR cameras in orbit. > No. It's just a hypothesis that greenhouse effect takes place. > And there goes f*ck your claim that it was a fact. You misunderstand me. It is a fact that the green house effect is happening. You yourself continue to insist that is is happening with statements like "The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation". Observing it happening is not the same as knowing how it would change in different conditions. That part is theory. Let me give a similar example: We can observe that the sun heats the earth. That is a fact. We have a theory that if the sun were to go out, the earth would get colder. Since the sun is still shining we cannot observe what would happen if the sun went out, so we deploy reason instead of direct observation. You could insist that the earth would stay the same temperature without the sun shinning and point out that we can't know for sure because it hasn't happened yet. Any statement we make about the future is not an observed fact because the future has not happened yet, but e can draw reasonable conclusions about the future.
- dozzie 12y ago
  >> The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation > This does not seem to be correct. The earth's is gaining a significant amount of energy from the sun. [...] Right. It should be: "the water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation on wavelengths for CO_2, methane and water itself". Adding more methane or CO_2 will not cause more radiation be absorbed, because there is nothing left to be absorbed.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    That is a reasonable sounding argument, much more reasonable than I expected before looking into it. I also came across explanations such as this one: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 which explains why increased CO2 will still increase the greenhouse effect. An appeal to authority is not the strongest argument, but there is a near universal consensus among the scientific community that increased CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect.