Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate
The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the Earth's surface would be much colder.

Climate Myth...

Greenhouse effect has been falsified
 

"[T]he influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface temperature - is not yet absolutely proven. In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global warming.

 

This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility.  The statement that so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, contribute to near-surface atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to well-known physical laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general caloric theory.' (Heinz Thieme)

 

Most participants in climate debates can agree that the atmosphere's capacity to interact with thermal radiation helps maintain the Earth's surface temperature at a livable level. The Earth's surface is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than required to radiate back all the absorbed energy from the Sun. This is possible only because most of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere.

This absorption is due to trace gases which make up only a very small part of the atmosphere. Such gases are opaque to thermal radiation, and are called "greenhouse gases". The most important greenhouse gases on Earth are water vapor and carbon dioxide, with additional contributions from methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and others. If the atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over completely.

Observing the greenhouse effect in action

The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.

The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the downwards atmospheric backradiation. This is a simple consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. The magnitude of the net flow of heat is the difference between the radiant energy flowing in each direction. Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no greenhouse effect.

Atmospheric backradiation has been directly measured for over fifty years. The effects of greenhouse gases stand out clearly in modern measurements, which are able to show a complete spectrum.

IR spectrum at  the North Pole
Figure 1. Coincident measurements of the infrared emission spectrum of the cloudfree atmosphere at (a) 20km looking downward over the Arctic ice sheet and (b) at the surface looking upwards. (Data courtesy of David Tobin, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Diagram courtesy of Grant Petty, from Petty 2006).

When you look down from aircraft at 20km altitude (Fig 1a), what is "seen" is the thermal radiation from Earth that gets out to that height. Some of that radiation comes from the surface. This is the parts of the spectrum that follow a line corresponding in the diagram to about 268K. Some of that radiation comes from high in the atmosphere, where it is much colder. This is the parts of the spectrum that follow a line of something like 225K. The bites taken out of the spectrum are in those bands where greenhouse gases absorb radiation from the surface, and so the radiation that eventually escapes to space is actually emitted high in the atmosphere.

When you look up from the surface (Fig 1b), what is "seen" is thermal backradiation from the atmosphere. In some frequencies, thermal radiation is blocked very efficiently, and the backradiation shows the temperature of the warm air right near the surface. In the "infrared window" of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is transparent. In these frequencies, no radiation is absorbed, no radiation is emitted, and here is where IR telescopes and microwave sounding satellites can look out to space, and down to the surface, respectively.

The smooth dotted lines in the diagram labeled with temperatures are the curves for a simple blackbody radiating at that temperature. Water vapor has complex absorption spectrum, and it is not well mixed in the atmosphere. The emissions seen below 600 cm-1 are due to water vapor appearing at various altitudes. Carbon dioxide is the major contributor for emission seen between between about 600 and 750 cm-1. The patch of emission just above 1000 cm-1 is due to ozone.

The term "greenhouse"

The term "greenhouse" was coined for this atmospheric effect in the nineteenth century. A glass greenhouse and an atmospheric greenhouse both involve a physical barrier that blocks the flow of heat, leading to a warmer temperature below the barrier. The underlying physics is different, however. A glass greenhouse works primarily by blocking convection, and an atmospheric greenhouse works primarily by blocking thermal radiation, and so the comparison is not exact. This difference is well understood and explained in most introductions to the subject. Where confusion arises, it is usually the glasshouse that is improperly described, rather than the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

The enhanced greenhouse effect

The greenhouse effect itself has always been an important effect on Earth's climate, and it is essential for maintaining a livable environment. Without it, the surface would rapidly freeze.

The existence of a greenhouse effect itself should not be confused with changes to the greenhouse effect. Global warming in the modern era is being driven by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. This is covered in more detail as a separate argument: How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Last updated on 26 June 2010 by sylas.

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

1  2  3  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 110:

  1. In this thread user miekol is asked by the moderator to post a question about this article in this thread. I thought I'd "jump the gun" and post a rebuttal now!

    The article states that O2 and N2 are, despite claims by "warmists", Infra-red active and links to some IR plots. These plots are, in fact all due to molecules made up of different isotopes. Thus there are plots for 16O-17O, 16O-18O and 17O-18O and one for 14N-15N, but none for the symmetric counterparts. Note that for some of the plots the isotope details have been removed. Because these isotopic variants are very nearly symmetric, the absorption is weak (see the very small numbers on the vertical axis). So these isotopic variants make up a tiny percentage of the gases, and the small percentage that do absorb only very weakly.

    Moreover the O2 and N2 absorptions don't match the frequencies that earth emits at, so there is nothing in "earth-light" for these gases to absorb.

    Later in the page they state that because O2 and N2 melt at a lower temperature, they are "most sensitive to heat absorption". This is completely incorrect. The melting points of substances relate to the strength of the forces between molecules, which ultimately comes down to the distribution of positive and negatives charges within the molecule. H2O has a negative "end" (the Oxygen) and a positive "end" (the Hydrogen) and this makes a powerful attachment between the molecules. Symmetric molecules like O2 have much weaker attractions and so take less energy to melt and vapourise
  2. Which shows that O2 and N2, 99% of the atmosphere, are more sensitive to heat absorption than CO2, 0.0385% of the atmosphere.

    Also weight for weight O2 and N2 have a higher heat capacity than CO2 which means that if the atmosphere consisted of 50% O2 and N2 and 50% CO2, then the CO2 half of the atmosphere would still be less important with regards atmospheric warming.

    But the atmosphere is not 50% N2/O2 and 50% CO2, it is 99% N2/O2 and 0.0385% CO2.

    Ultimately the fallacious assertions in support of the bogus "greenhouse effect" depend entirely on the ridiculous notion that the atmosphere is heated bottom-up by OLR (outgoing Long-wave radiation). This in-turn requires that the atmosphere is completely transparent to incoming full spectrum electro-magnetic radiation, a large percentage of which is IR. Both of which are false.

    In the following links there is finally incontrovertible proof that the atmosphere is radiatively heated from the top-down by incoming electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. This fact destroys the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis which stipulates, bottom-up atmospheric heating via outgoing infra-red.

    "The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge, giant 1200º bulge of rapidly heated and expanding gases circling the Globe 24/7."


    "Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge, incontrovertible evidence of massive top down radiative heating. "
  3. Will, if there's no Greenhouse Effect, why doesn't the Earth freeze over at night?.
  4. Another question Will - if there's no Greenhouse Effect, why was it warmer in Earth's distant past at a time of reduced solar luminosity?.
  5. Will writes: Ultimately the fallacious assertions in support of the bogus "greenhouse effect" depend entirely on the ridiculous notion that the atmosphere is heated bottom-up by OLR (outgoing Long-wave radiation). This in-turn requires that the atmosphere is completely transparent to incoming full spectrum electro-magnetic radiation, a large percentage of which is IR.

    Either you're forgetting the inverse-square law, or you're confused about the distinction between "near infrared" and "thermal infrared" wavelengths.

    A large percentage of the total downwelling solar irradiance is in the near-infrared range, but the atmosphere is mostly transparent in this part of the spectrum. Only a very small fraction of solar irradiance is in the thermal infrared region.

    If we look just at thermal infrared radiation, how much of the radiant flux in the atmosphere is from the sun and how much is from the earth? Obviously, the sun is much hotter ... but it's also much further away. Thus, virtually all the IR radiation in the atmosphere is coming from the earth, not the sun:


    From Science of Doom


    The yellow curve at the left is the blackbody radiation curve for the sun at a temperature of 5780K and a distance of 150 million km. The variously colored curves on the right are blackbody radiation curves for the earth at various normal earth temperatures.

    Note, first, that the Y axis is log-scaled. Note, second, that in the thermal part of the spectrum (greater than 3 micrometers) the area under the "earth" curves is much, much larger than the area under the "sun" curve.

    Bottom line, the sun heats the earth via visible and near-infrared radiation. The earth emits long-wave (thermal infrared) radiation. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere traps more of that long-wave radiation and raises the temperature of the earth system.
  6. Will, the "heat capacity" issue is irrelevant, too. CO2, methane, CFCs, etc. absorb longwave IR radiation, but they then transfer that heat to the rest of the atmosphere via collisions with other atmospheric molecules (roughly a billion collisions per second per molecule).
  7. #5 Ned at 21:26 PM on 25 August, 2010
    A large percentage of the total downwelling solar irradiance is in the near-infrared range, but the atmosphere is mostly transparent in this part of the spectrum

    That's how transparent it is.

  8. Sorry but these statements are nothing but semantics.

    The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge is incontrovertible proof of massive violent top-down atmospheric heating. Please follow the link and read the paper.

    A greenhouse with a full canopy of leaves completely shielding the ground from direct Sunlight still functions normally. More proof that air is heated by incoming full spectrum electro-magnetic radiation and NOT by OLR.

    Therefore the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis is false.

    Ned,

    Air is rated as one of the top insulators of all substances. That means that air is a very poor conductor of energy compared to most substance. In fact it is one of the poorest conductors of energy there is. What are you trying to describe in your last statement?

    Conduction or Radiation?
  9. Berényi Péter

    This diagram of absorption bands is interesting for what it doesn't show.

    79% of the atmosphere is completely missing.
  10. These comments are a nice example of the problems I have raised many times on this site, most recently here.

    That is, we often get comments on this site from the more serious "skeptics" accusing us of wasting time on straw-man arguments and of rebutting claims that no one really believes.

    So ... here we have another commenter claiming that the atmosphere is directly heated by solar irradiance "top-down" and that the greenhouse effect does not exist.

    I could, of course, do what so many of us supporters of mainstream science have done over and over again, and patiently work on responding to these claims, explaining to Will why he misunderstands the physics of radiation in the atmosphere.

    It would be nice, though, if some of those supposedly serious, reasonable skeptics would join in and help answer Will's claims.

    If that were to happen, it might help me believe that there really are "skeptics" who are serious about science.

    So far, the only resident "skeptic" commenter to speak up has been Berényi Péter ... who quibbles over my use of the word "transparent" but is apparently unable or unwilling (or perhaps too busy) to contribute anything more directly relevant to addressing Will's questions.

    Is there anyone on the "skeptic" side here who understands what's wrong with Will's claims and is actually willing to say so? Or, once again, will the job of explaining Will's errors be left up to the rest of us?

    Of course, this isn't the most recent or active thread, so I suppose it's possible that many people might not notice these comments immediately.
  11. Will, if air is such a poor conductor of energy, how can the atmosphere maintain its cool temperature in the face of (warming) radiation from any direction, sun or earth.

    Given that it is a poor conductor, the only way for the atmosphere to cool must be by, you guessed it, radiation at the top of the atmosphere. If it's radiating out at the top of the atmosphere, surely the molecules comprising the atmosphere would also be radiating all the way through the atmosphere. Unless there are GPS guided molecules that can work out where they are to start radiating in only one place?
  12. adelady:

    You are correct, it is of course radiation. Which is why I asked Ned to clarify if he was describing conduction or radiation. Assuming he even knows of course.

    Ned has opted to go on the attack instead of answering the question.

    I repeat to Ned, please follow the links and read my article. Then explain how an area with a circumference of 25% of the entire surface of the atmosphere can bulge up to an altitude of more than 600 km altitude under the solar point at around 2 pm in the sky, yet at 4 am on the dark side of the Earth this bulge completely collapses bellow the Mesosphere at under 90 km, if the atmosphere is so transparent to incoming full spectrum electro-magnetic energy.
  13. Of course the thermosphere and to a lesser extent the mesosphere are heated by the sun, mostly via UV absorption. But they're not that far from vacuum -- less than 1% of the mass of the atmosphere.

    And this is completely irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. There's simply no connection whatsoever.

    The situation in the troposphere -- the layer of the atmosphere closest to the surface, including most of the mass of the atmosphere -- is entirely different. Longwave radiation from the surface is absorbed by molecules of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which in turn heat the more numerous N2 and O2 molecules kinetically, via intermolecular collisions. Thus, the entire mass of a given "parcel" of the atmosphere shares a single temperature -- you don't have different temperatures for CO2, O2, N2, etc. CO2 and the other greenhouse gases then radiate in all directions. Thus, the presence of GHG molecules warms the troposphere, and increasing the concentration of those molecules increases the efficiency of this warming.

    Keep in mind that the vast majority of solar irradiance is at relatively short wavelengths (visible and near-infrared) where atmospheric transmittance is relatively high. The solar flux at thermal IR wavelengths (over 3 micrometers) is minuscule in comparison to the terrestrial outgoing thermal IR flux.

    If you would like a good overview of the physics of the greenhouse effect, I would highly recommend the series of posts on "CO2: An Insignificant Trace Gas?" over at Science of Doom.

    Hope this helps.
  14. Will - There's definitely heating from the sun involved in atmospheric expansion. Looking at the energy balances from Trenberth 2009 roughly 78 W/m^2 of sunlight are directly absorbed by the atmosphere. Another 161 get absorbed by the ground/water.

    However, what's emitted by the top of the atmosphere (as LW radiation) is ~169 W/m^2 - partly re-emission of atmospheric energy, mostly emission from ground/water thermal energy that has percolated up through multiple absorption/emission events.

    And the temperature profile of the atmosphere shows warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere - if this was all top-down warming you would see a hot stratosphere and colder troposphere, relatively speaking. The observed temp profile is one of the fingerprints of the greenhouse gas effect.

    So yes, some top-down heating does occur. But it's mostly bottom-up, as most of the solar irradiation goes through the atmosphere to the ground, only returning as IR.

    I would say that the diurnal bulging of the atmosphere is due to the atmosphere warming - because days are warmer than nights. But the temp profile clearly shows that it's warming from the bottom (IR), not the top (solar).
  15. Will - on your note that 79% of the atmosphere is completely missing: I assume you mean N2? Nitrogen doesn't absorb/emit in the IR, and in fact most of it's absorption is in the UV. Hence it's usually not shown on most charts of greenhouse gases - it's irrelevant to the IR spectra.
  16. Ned:

    The Thermosphere is not a sphere it is a bulge. The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge and the Thermosphere are one and the same.

    The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge (Thermosphere) is caused entirely by incoming EMR.

    I never said there was a connection between the "greenhouse effect" and the Thermosphere. I said there is no "greenhouse effect". I have proven this with experimental verification on my website at the following link:

    "The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge, giant 1200º bulge of rapidly heated and expanding gases circling the Globe 24/7."

    KR:

    The atmosphere (air) is a excellent insulator and therefore a poor conductor. It exhibits various temperature gradient inversions. Partly because it is such a good insulator and partly because it is heated from the top-down by incoming EMR. All mysteries explained.

    Which way up is the temperature gradient in a greenhouse?

    Like I said before, a greenhouse still functions perfectly well with a full canopy of leaves shielding the ground completely from direct sunlight. 40-50% of the incoming sunlight hitting the leaves is locked in by photosynthesis and the rest is reflected as short-wave.

    No direct sunlight reaches the ground yet the greenhouse still warms that same as an empty one would.

    Where is the "greenhouse effect" bottom-up warming in this scenario?

    When your theory generates more questions than it answers, this is a clue that you are traveling away from the truth.

    When your theory is still awaiting experimental verification after 200 years . . . . . ?
  17. Will, the troposphere is mostly heated from below, not from above, as KR notes above.

    The use of a glass greenhouse to illustrate the greenhouse effect is only appropriate at a coarse "end result" level, not as an actual model of how the CO2-induced GHE actually works. But in any case, the sunlight entering a (glass) greenhouse warms all dark surfaces within the space (floor, plant leaves, whatever). It doesn't significantly provide any direct warming of the air molecules inside the greenhouse. The air is warmed by contact with the various surfaces that are absorbing sunlight.

    Photosynthetic efficiency for most plants is less than 2%, and less than 10% in virtually all cases. Most of the sunlight absorbed by plant leaves just raises their temperature (directly) and that of the air around them (indirectly).

    Finally, there's experimental verification of the CO2 greenhouse effect -- see here or here (and continue on to parts two and three as well).
  18. And, of course, Figure 1 in the very post at the top of this thread is direct evidence of the CO2 greenhouse effect.
  19. Will, please look up the definition of thermosphere. It is a layer of the atmosphere.

    The atmosphere is a poor conductor only relative to other substances (e.g., solid metal). That is irrelevant to this topic. What is relevant is the atmosphere's absolute conductivity.

    In a greenhouse or anywhere else, sunlight hitting leaves heats the leaves. Go find a plant that is exposed to sun. Put your hand on a leaf that is exposed to sun and compare its temperature to that of a leaf that is in the shade. You are correct that some of the sunlight hitting the leaf is consumed by photosynthesis, and that some is reflected, but some is absorbed as heat.
  20. #15 KR at 01:40 AM on 26 August, 2010
    Nitrogen doesn't absorb/emit in the IR, and in fact most of it's absorption is in the UV

    True. It has no "greenhouse effect" whatsoever. Still, if you removed half the nitrogen from the atmosphere, the Earth would freeze over completely down to the very bottom of oceans. And if you raised its quantity twofold, global temperatures would go up by 40°C, cooking all of us for good.

    That much about the alleged 33°C warming from GHGs.
  21. Will - An important point in the atmospheric greenhouse effect (which as Ned notes is not the same thing as a glass greenhouse in operation) is that GHG's aren't opaque to IR.

    They absorb thermal IR from the ground as per Berényi's post, and emit it again spherically distributed. This causes half of what they absorb to go back to the ground, which shows up clearly in the notches of the first chart of Figure 1.
  22. Berényi - "...if you removed half the nitrogen from the atmosphere, the Earth would freeze over completely...".

    Really? Are you talking about the lapse rate? If's just the lapse rate you could swap nitrogen for argon or krypton (distinctly NOT greenhouse gases) with no effect.

    I would love to see your reasoning (and math) for this non-GHG effect, as I don't see how that would occur.
  23. Ned

    I think I said EXPERIMENTAL verification! Please don't "Science of Doom" me.

    As for Photosynthetic efficiency which is just one part of the effect I'm referring to,
    2% is a stab in the dark. While it is claimed that crops such as wheat may achieve low efficiency of between 1-4%, sugar cain can achieve 7%, but photosynthesis is just one process plants use energy for. Oxygen production is another.

    The point is that very little of the energy is converted to IR compared to say concrete slabs or Earth.

    At my site you find direct reproducible experimental evidence that pure CO2 causes less warming than ordinary air.

    Tom Dayton

    Wikipedia, please ? !

    Go to the two links I have given above. The DIurnal Bulge has been deliberately hidden in plain view by renaming it as the Thermosphere.

    On the dark side of the Earth there is no Thermosphere. Therefore the Thermosphere is not a layer, it is a giant bulge on the sunny side.
  24. KR

    Glass is not opaque to IR either.

    See here:

    "The Diurnal Bulge and the Fallacies of the Greenhouse Effect."
    Response: To save us the trouble of editing your links, be sure not to include an extra space and line-break inside the quotation marks with the link URL. For example, use
     
    <img width="450" src="http://image_url/">
     
    rather than
     
    <img width="450" src="http://image_url/
    ">
  25. #22 KR at 04:18 AM on 26 August, 2010
    If's just the lapse rate you could swap nitrogen for argon or krypton (distinctly NOT greenhouse gases) with no effect

    No, you could not. These are monatomic gases (unlike nitrogen), therefore their adiabatic index is not the same (5/3 vs. 7/5). Dry adiabatic lapse rate would be higher.
  26. You're right, Will, I should not have pointed you to Wikipedia for the definition of thermosphere. So let's use NASA. Or you could just search the internet for "thermosphere" and look at hundreds of definitions of it as a layer of the atmosphere.
  27. Will, glass is transparent to near-infrared wavelengths. It's opaque to thermal infrared wavelengths. See figure 2-3 here for an example.

    Lots of people get confused about this distinction, but if you're going to write about the earth's radiation budget you absolutely have to understand it.
  28. Will writes: As for Photosynthetic efficiency which is just one part of the effect I'm referring to,
    2% is a stab in the dark. While it is claimed that crops such as wheat may achieve low efficiency of between 1-4%, sugar cain can achieve 7%, but photosynthesis is just one process plants use energy for. Oxygen production is another.


    Photosynthesis is how plants produce oxygen. It's the same process!

    A moment ago you were claiming that "40-50% of the incoming sunlight hitting the leaves is locked in by photosynthesis and the rest is reflected as short-wave".

    Healthy green plants absorb 90% or more of visible wavelengths of light, quite a bit less in the near-infrared. Only a small part of that, less than 10%, is converted by photosynthesis. The remainder warms the plant, and indirectly warms its environment.

    This is all irrelevant, though, since the analogy to a glass greenhouse is not intended as (nor appropriate as) a description of the physical mechanism by which CO2 warms the earth system.
    Response: Indeed. Will, in the post at the top of this page, see the section titled "The Term 'Greenhouse.'"
  29. Berényi - So, you are just talking about the lapse rate here? Your comments seemed to involve nitrogen as a greenhouse gas, which I found quite confusing.

    Certainly, if you remove half the atmosphere, the dynamics and equilibrium of the Earth would be different - much as it would be if you removed all of it. I was under the impression, however, that we were discussing greenhouse gasses and the greenhouse effect, with only a few % of the atmosphere in question. Not wholesale planetary engineering or hypothetical worlds...
  30. Just an overall note on topics, Berényi - your half/double N2 comment really represents a red herring with respect to a conversation on the greenhouse effect. It's not helpful, and doesn't advance the discussion in any way.
  31. Will writes: Please don't "Science of Doom" me.

    I'm not sure what you mean by that. Science of Doom offers admirably lucid, accurate, and detailed explanations of the physical basis for the greenhouse effect. They also manage to do so in a polite and respectful environment.

    It's hard to imagine a more appropriate resource for this particular thread.
  32. Will,

    The article on your web site that you've linked to includes serious factual errors. Diffusion of light by the atmosphere does not cause "the molecules also absorb some of that energy from the photon", and does not cause the molecules to vibrate.
    This is because, as has been explained to you above incoming solar radiation does not match the vibrational frequencies of the IR active vibrations - in visible light is too high a frequency for any molecular vibrations. Electron transitions do occur due to UV light, but the atmosphere is largely transparent to visible light.

    O2 and N2 are completely inactive to IR radiation, except for the tiny amount of isotopic variation which, as your own graphs show, are 1x10-30 less powerful than CO2 and are the wrong frequency for both incoming solar and outgoing earthlight.

    You should also be aware that the energy in photons is related to their frequency, not as you seem to assume, their intensity. Or do you really not believe Albert ?

    You are wrong to say all substances absorb IR radiation: use the search engine of your choice to look for "Dipole Moment" and "Vibration" and take your pick
  33. Hey Will, still no answer to post #3 & 4. At least the hypotheses put forward by climate scientists match real world observations and measurements. Which is kind of the whole point isn't it?.
  34. Ned

    "Will, glass is transparent to near-infrared wavelengths. It's opaque to thermal infrared wavelengths. See figure 2-3 here for an example."

    Lets just look at this statement for a minute.

    Thermal radiation is heat. Vibrating matter. Gas molecules are vibrating matter. They cannot pass through solid glass. You are confusing matter with energy. It is the energy which passes through the glass not the vibrating molecules which cause heat.

    In the vacuum of space full spectrum EMR produces no thermal radiation, heat. It is you who is confused or rather attempting to confuse.

    As for your comment about healthy green plants absorbing 90% of visible wavelengths, this is yet another stab in the dark generalisation. Some leaves are highly glossy/reflective and others are completely mat. It depends on the plant.

    Above all plants do not warm environments, they cool them, as per the urban heat island effect.

    Even in direct sunlight the top canopy of leaves on any plants will be much cooler than bare earth, and that is my point.

    So the point is, according to the bottom-up warming "greenhouse effect" hypothesis, an empty greenhouse should be considerably warmer than a full one, as attested to by the urban heat island effect, but this is not the case.

    With regards to false analogies, try implementing cap and trade without using the words "greenhouse gas emissions".
  35. Will, your experiment that you describe on your web site is not novel. Students have been doing similar experiments for years. Maybe there is a flaw in your experimental design, or the effect you created was too small to be detectable by your temperature measuring apparatus.

    I've got relevant links on this comment.
  36. Phil

    "This is because, as has been explained to you above incoming solar radiation does not match the vibrational frequencies of the IR active vibrations - in visible light is too high a frequency for any molecular vibrations. Electron transitions do occur due to UV light, but the atmosphere is largely transparent to visible light.

    You have contradicted yourself here.
  37. Will, you are incorrect. Thermal radiation is not vibrating matter, because "radiation" is not vibrating matter, it is instead electromagnetic energy. Use the internet to search for definitions of "thermal radiation." An example is a definition by the University of California San Diego Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences.
  38. Tom

    Why don't you try it for yourself. The point is not to take my word for it. Its a simple test and yes children have done it and achieved the same results as I do.
  39. #34: "Above all plants do not warm environments, they cool them"

    And here in plain English is why:

    Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings.

    And that's why plants cool their surrroundings, which has nothing to do with UHI.

    But here is why this may be a new problem:

    "There is no longer any doubt that carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants and that this decreased cooling adds to global warming," says Cao. "This effect would cause significant warming even if carbon dioxide were not a greenhouse gas."

    Its a double-whammy. CO2 traps heat requiring plants to do more evaporative cooling, but CO2 acts to decrease a plant's ability to cool itself.
  40. Will - in your experiment you lack the black cardboard representing the Earth. Therefore you don't have the visible light changing to IR and attempting to leave back through the air or CO2, hence your experiment isn't set up correctly, and hence your results aren't going to show anything.

    I'm also not certain you're going to have sufficient CO2 in your quite small sample from soda water fizz; I would try it with an empty soda bottle full of air, and another where you fill it with CO2, either from a tank or using a piece of dry ice (vented until the ice sublimates, to keep pressure the same). Otherwise the effect may be too small to show up on simple (and rather inaccurate) thermometers like the liquid crystal ones you show.
  41. Tom

    I should have said "caused by" vibrating matter are you happy now?

    The point I am making is that Ned is wrong about glass being opaque to thermal radiation because if it were, why would we need double glazing with reflective coatings?
  42. Will #36

    Read it again; the first sentence refers to molecular vibrations, and visible radiation, the second to electronic absorbtion and UV (i.e non-visble) radiation. No contradiction
  43. KR

    You are wrong, I have conducted these experiments on multiple surfaces.

    The CO2 bottle contains almost pure CO2. Enough to extinguish a burning match, see here:
    spinonthat.com/CO2.html

    At the end of the last video at the bottom of the page I demonstrate how much CO2 with a burning match.

    Still I am impressed at how you can convince yourself of almost anything based on pure guess work. Well done to you!
  44. Just to expand a bit more on my previous post.

    Molecules absorb EM radiation (sometimes loosely called "light" by lazy people like me - gulp!) by three mechanisms
    1. Changes to Rotational Quantum states - in the microwave and low infra-red EM region. Molecules need a permanent dipole moment to absorb radiation. (N2 for example cannot, neither can CO2)
    2. Changes to Vibration (of the nuclei against each other) - in the infra-red region. The vibration needs to change the dipole moment to absorb radiation (The one vibration in N2 cannot, 3 of the 4 vibrations in CO2 can)
    3. Changes to Electron orbits - in visible and UV EM region. Again a change in dipole moment is required for absorption. This will depend on the lower and upper orbit, some N2 transitions will be allowed, and these occur in the UV region
  45. #30 KR at 05:50 AM on 26 August, 2010
    your half/double N2 comment really represents a red herring with respect to a conversation on the greenhouse effect.

    Not really. For example World Book at NASA - Venus has the following "explanation":

    "Most astronomers believe that Venus's high surface temperature can be explained by what is known as the greenhouse effect".

    Surface temperature on Venus is about 458°C and if an astronomer believes it is so high because of the greenhouse effect, he is not an astronomer at all, but a crackpot. It is a shame National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the US disseminates such nonsense.

    At the 1 atm level temperature of Venus is only 71°C, that is, 387°C cooler than at the surface. If you'd put the Earth at the same orbit, its average surface temperature would go as high as 66°C. The difference is only 5°C, that could be called the additional greenhouse effect due to an atmosphere almost entirely made of CO2 and covered by clouds of sulfuric acid droplets above haze of the same stuff. You get it for doubling the amount of CO2 almost 11 times relative to Earth.

    The rest is pressure (92 bar at the surface), this is what makes Venus so hot, not the "greenhouse effect".
  46. #34 Will at 06:50 AM on 26 August, 2010
    Even in direct sunlight the top canopy of leaves on any plants will be much cooler than bare earth

    That's true. Not because they reflect much light, but because of evaporation of water through pores on the back of leaves called stomata.



    If this vapor laden air rose high enough, it would cool by adiabatic expansion releasing the latent heat eventually by phase transition, producing rain and (relatively) hot dry air which leaves the cloud and radiates this heat into space. Cooling itself this way it sinks again, ready to take up some more moisture.

    GHGs are very important ingredients in this process, for due to Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation in local thermodynamic equilibrium (which holds up tu 50 km in the atmosphere) emissivity of stuff is the same as its absorptivity. That is, if a gas does not absorb thermal radiation (like nitrogen) it can't get rid of heat by radiation either.
  47. I suggest a new way of trying to start a learning dialogue with Will. Assume he is right in the findings of his backyard experiment. What, then, happens to our scientific understanding and the engineering that has been developed from that science? What do we have to unlearn about the universe due to Will's discoveries?

    Will, you seem very invested, psychologically, in your experiments. I wonder if you are capable of accepting constructive criticism. If not, then you are incapable of actual dialogue, and it would be worthless for anyone here to continue to engage with you. A number of posters have challenged your understanding of physics, and they have presented research that has been done with much greater rigor and care than has yours, yet you reject their findings out of hand. And then you expect them to accept your findings without question.
  48. Hmm. So we have expensive experimental setups for quantifying greenhouse response of various gases to high degree of precision being invalidated by backyard experiement with cheap thermometers. I dont think so. I think this is a common experiment but the setup is difficult so you get "prove" or "disprove" greenhouse gas theory from physical processes that dont actually have anything to do with it. I prefer this setup for eliminating other possible effects.
  49. Will @23 - "At my site you find direct reproducible experimental evidence that pure CO2 causes less warming than ordinary air."

    Interesting, this experiment indicates otherwise
  50. In addition to that video linked by Dappledwater, there are many more successful such experiments, Will. Look at the sample at the right side of the YouTube page after you click on Dappledwater's link. Here's an example of a child's experiment:

1  2  3  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us