Arguments
The Greenhouse Gas Effect All-Star Fan Club
Posted on 5 December 2012 by Daniel Bailey
The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations. We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).
Since the moon is virtually the same distance from the sun as we are, it is reasonable to ask why at night the Earth doesn’t get as cold as the moon. The answer is that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no water vapour or other greenhouse gases, because of course it has no atmosphere at all. Without our protective atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be as barren as our lifeless moon; without the heat trapped overnight in the atmosphere (and in the ground and oceans) our nights would be so cold that few plants or animals could survive even a single one.
The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Sun’s heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving (and since the 1970s, less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as CO2 and equivalents build up). Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can also see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases.
Disputing that the greenhouse effect is real is to attempt to discredit centuries of science, laws of physics and direct observation. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not even be here to argue about it.
Don't believe me? Here's some testimony from the side of the "skeptics" (a veritable "baker's dozen" Who's-Who):
The GHG Effect All-Star Fan Club Membership
"Is there a greenhouse effect? Concedo [concedo / concede]. Does it warm the Earth? Concedo. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Concedo. If carbon dioxide be added to the atmosphere, will warming result? Concedo."
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/monckton/climate-freedom-hancock-background.pdf
and
"I am delighted that this simple and clear but authoritative statement of the reality of the “greenhouse effect” has been posted here. Too many inaccurate statements to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect have been published recently, and they do not deserve to be given any credence. The true debate in the scientific community is not about whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is), nor about whether additional atmospheric CO2 causes warming (it does), nor about whether CO2 concentration is rising (it is), nor about whether we are the cause (we are), but about how fast CO2 concentration will rise (for a decade it has been rising at a merely-linear 2 ppmv/year, against the IPCC’s projection of an exponential increase at today’s emission rates), how much warming a given increase in CO2 concentration will be expected to cause (around a third of what the IPCC projects), whether attempting to mitigate future “global warming” will make any real difference to the climate (it won’t: remember Canute), whether the cost of forestalling each degree of “global warming” will be disproportionate to the climatic benefit (it will), and whether focused adaptation to any change in the climate, where and if necessary, will be orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to prevent that change from occurring in the first place (yes)."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-437657
"infrared-absorbing gases warm the surface and lower atmosphere"
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/
and
"I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
and
"Imagine you find yourself lost in outer space, floating aimlessly, with your warm skin exposed to the cold background of the cosmos. Sure, keep your clothes on. There is no sun or nearby stars to add much energy to your body. Your skin would gradually cool by losing IR radiation. (Of course, if the lack of air didn’t kill you first, you would freeze to death. Bear with me here…)
But now imagine you then surround yourself with a blanket. We won’t even use a fancy, NASA-invented, IR-reflective “space blanket”…just a woolen one. And let’s even assume the temperature of the woolen blanket was extremely low — just above absolute zero. Some of the IR radiation you emit, instead of being lost to the depths of space, would then be intercepted by the blanket. This would raise the temperature of the blanket. As that happened, the inside of the blanket would begin to emit some IR energy back toward your body, while the outside of the blanket would emit energy to outer space.
As a result, the temperature of your skin would remain higher than it would without the blanket — even though the blanket would remain at a lower temperature than your skin. So, contrary to what some would intuitively expect, the introduction of a cold object has made a warm object warmer than it would have otherwise been.
But it didn’t actually RAISE the temperature of your skin. In this example, all we have done is slow the rate of cooling of your body, and you would eventually freeze to death anyway. But if you had a continuous supply of energy available (like the Earth does with the sun), and had reached a steady state of shivering and discomfort and THEN added the blanket, your skin would indeed increase its temperature, compared to if the (colder) blanket was not there.
Of course, this example is just an analog to the Earth in space. The Earth has an energy source (the sun), and it has a “radiative blanket” (greenhouse gases) enveloping it.""
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/
"There is a greenhouse effect"
i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
"The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate. We do not need to agree on the magnitude of its global average radiative forcing to see a need to limit this accumulation. The biogeochemical effect of added CO2 by itself is a concern as we do not know its consequences. At the very least, ecosystem function will change resulting in biodiversity changes as different species react differently to higher CO2. The prudent path, therefore, is to limit how much we change our atmosphere."
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/skeptical-climate-responses-to-my-questions-and-my-reply/
"One of [deniers'] favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics...One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence."
and
"Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can't see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html
6. Jo Nova
"Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don’t “warm” the planet (as in, they don’t supply additional heat energy) but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It’s a bit like saying a blanket doesn’t warm you in bed. Sure, it’s got no internal heat source, and it won’t add any heat energy that you didn’t already have, but you sure feel cold without one. Instead of calling it “global warming”, I guess they could have called it “less-global-cooling”. I can’t see it catching on."
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/overflow-thread-for-greenhouse-gases-dont-break-2nd-law/#comment-301912
"The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. "
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/
"carbon dioxide is a thermal gas so it will cause warming to some extent...that's one about which there really is a consensus about [with] most people."
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/dr-john-christy-global-warming-where-is-the-alarm/
"The greenhouse effect is real, as is the enhancement due to increasing carbon dioxide concentration."
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=460&Itemid=32
10. Richard Tol
"The enhanced greenhouse effect is a plausible explanation for the observed global warming. Long term natural variability is another prime candidate for explaining the temperature rise of the last century. Analysis of natural variability from paleo-reconstructions, however, shows that human activity is so much more likely an explanation that the earlier conclusion is not refuted. But, even if one believes in large natural climatic variability, the odds are invariably in favour of the enhanced greenhouse effect."
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/tol/ccbayes.pdf
11. Judith Curry
"Tyndall proved in 1861 that both water vapor and CO2 were greenhouse gases."
http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/08/the-government-climate-complex/
"It's hardly news that human beings have had a hand in the planetary warming that began more than 30 years ago. For nearlly a century, scientists have known that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually result in warming that was most pronounced in winter, expecially on winter's coldest days, and a cooling of the stratosphere. All of these have been observed."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2007-02-01-oppose_x.htm
and
"Pretty much every serious student of climate change agrees that carbon dioxide, which is the product of the respiration of our civilization, is a "greenhouse gas." Everything else being equal (which never holds), increasing its concentration should result in some rise in temperature in the lower atmosphere."
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/throwing-cold-water-uns-fat-tail
13. Anthony Watts
"I suppose that because I agreed that global warming occurred over the last century, and that CO2 plays a role (though isn't the only driver) that he [Spencer Michels, PBS Newshour correspondent] was surprised that he didn't have a "denier" soundbite to work with."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/17/ill-be-on-the-pbs-newshour-tonight/
and
"I'm saying that the data might be biased by these influences [urbanization's buildings and streets] to a percentage. Yes, we have some global warming, it's clear the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years. But what percentage of that is from carbon dioxide? And what percentage of that is from changes in the local and measurement environment?"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/why-the-global-warming-crowd-oversells-its-message.html
For any remaining hold-outs, Skeptical Science answers the most commmon objections that have been used by skeptics in opposition to basic GHG theory. Of more general interest, the history of climate science is largely the history of what we've learned about CO2.
Further Learnings
- https://skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist.htm
- https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
- https://skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm
- https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
- https://skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
- https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
- https://skepticalscience.com/co2-free-atmosphere.htm
- https://skepticalscience.com/Greenhouse-gases-responsible-for-warming-not-sun.html
- https://skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/a-simple-recipe-for-ghe/
- http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/the-key-to-the-secrets-of-the-troposphere/
Science of Doom (Warning: for readers who enjoyed physics class)
- http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/
- http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/ (8-part series)
- http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/ (12-part series)
Experiment showing the absoption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide. From the BBC 2 program "Earth: The Climate Wars"X
Thanks, Daniel, for a excellent, well-organized post.
I don't think the "skeptics" will ever give up, they will deny and deny, somewhere in 2025 we will still be discussing with some "skeptic" that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 2018
Now I don't really know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is, but I've hung my hat on it, and there it will stay. You can't convince me I'm wrong, because I have no idea why I'm right. So don't even try, or I'll create this great big fog of words, so that no one can see what my position is at all. And more than that, I'll get indignant and abusive. So there!
This post is definitely a gem, and it will be put to good use. I've been in an online fued of sorts with a pseudoskeptic in online debates for more than a year now who often claims there is no evidence for the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is such a small trace gas that increasing amounts have negligable effects. Given that Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and Singer are his favourite sources, this should be a real treat to see
I am confused as to the point of the article. What ignorant small minority believes that there is no greenhouse effect and why do you address them? What does a reference to these inconsequential people have to do with the work of highly qualified individuals asking legitimate scientific questions about the data and the science behind the claims of the climate alarmists?
I am also surprised by your statement,
“Of more general interest, the history of climate science is largely the history of what we've learned about CO2.”
A more accurate statement would be,
“Of more general interest, the history of climate science is largely the history of what we have learned about the chaotic behavior of the ENSO and the redistribution of Pacific Ocean heat into the atmosphere.”
CO2 by comparison, is inconsequential in moving heat into the atmosphere.
Only when their reputation started to become tarnished by the association did they speak up - and then having made the appropriate declarations, went back to largely ignoring or egging on of the claptrap they claim is false.
It is because of this lack of intellectual integrity by the leading opinion makers among AGW deniers that we must waste time rebutting nonsense such as the denial of the atmospheric greenhouse effect; or other tacit rejections of the laws of thermodynamics such as the claim that the Pacific Ocean (which is warming) has caused the atmospheric warming by loss of heat.
Apparently, in some other video demonstrations, there may be other influences or contamination. Beware of smartasses who may point that out!:)
Eli Rabett's Puzzle
Right Results, Wrong Physics
Quote:
"Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated"
Also, a question: what's worse -- a democracy that thinks that climate sensitivity is perhaps half of the mainstream mean, or a democracy that thinks the greenhouse effect is a fraud designed to squeeze the taxpayer? Which question deserves more attention on a site that is trying to A) communicate the published science to the general public, and B) de-bunk the accountability-free claims of the merchants of doubt?
Your supposition, "CO2 by comparison, is inconsequential in moving heat into the atmosphere." is one of those wrong ones.
Further discussion of ENSO should be taken here.
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=153&&a=57
I found this paper to be very well written, interesting and useful.
Ray Pierrehumbert in "Physics Today" on Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
I would also add that may of the most public 'skeptics' have a very long track record of pitching their comments to appeal to different audiences. You might see them state in one place the sorts things Dan has listed. But when someother skeptic then suggests the GH Effect doesn't exist orsome such thing, they are surprisingly silent.
Because allowing as wide a range of dissent and confusion is central to their purpose. When they are challenged they can revert back to the sorts of statements here, but when not being challenged, they are perfectly willing to let statements which, by their own admission they disagree with, go unchallenged.
Go to a 'skeptic' blog such as WUWT and listen to the range of quite outrageous comments, and take note particularly of how the owners of the blogs - Watts, Nova, whoever, very rarely step in to disagree with those who say things totally at odds with the very thing they claim to accept.
It looks like 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Anyone who is opposed to the same thing they are opposed to can say all sorts of things that they totally disagree with and they will stay silent. Because fomenting discord and confusion is their agenda. Then when challenged they retreat back to the positions above.Then when the challenge goes away, like tortoises coming out of their shells they go back to the business of fomenting discord through studious silence.
Erm, that's Iain Stewart!
And yes, it's a simple and very elegant demonstration. Pieter Tans did a similar one for a Nova production called "What's Up With the Weather?" Although I enjoyed Stewart's version I actually prefers Tans' because he uses his own body warmth whilst narrating. It's also the first one I saw, and I suppose that the whole beauty of the demonstration of the physics stuck with me.
I can't find the site for Tans' video from this computer, so when I can access my laptop I'll hunt down my bookmark and post it.
Thanks for the correction. I like Stewart's work. The whole series of documentaries is worth checking out.
Climate Wars 1
The conclusions are a bit dated, and apply to the 1990s and early 2000s. No one realised then that climate change denial, having lost on the science, would continue to use the "Tobacco Strategy" in politics and the media.
PS Do post a link to Tans' video if/ when you find it.
http://access.teachersdomain.org/resources/phy03/sci/ess/watcyc/co2/index.html
It requires registration, which is a pain, but I recall that it was also included in one of Peter Sinclair's Climate Crocks of the Week. Perhaps someone can remember which specific episode it was, and provide a link?
[DB] Your link returns a "Page not found" error. After registration, does this link work?
[Dikran Marsupial] Link fixed (as requested)
Because if they did, when they make claims like "There has been no warming since year xxxx", they would accompany such a claim with a hypothesis about where those greenhouse-derived incremental calories of heat disappeared to. Yet I have never seen such an accounting ever offered.
Evidently, energy CAN be destroyed, or at least ignored, comfortably compartmentalized away with an ironic twist of the arm of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Regarding Pieter Tans "What's Up With the Weather?"
~ ~ ~
"WHAT'S UP WITH THE WEATHER?"
PBS Airdate: April 18, 2000
Transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/27gwwarming.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
YouTube -
Global Warming. Part 3 - Man-made or natural? (1of2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUhP_XJyztE
I have no problem with the page. It shows the options to view or to download the video, and it asks me for my name and password. I originally registered using a work computer, but I did access it once from this computer about a year ago. If I can find the diary in which I wrote my log-on details I'll comfirm that the video can be accessed, but if I can see the front page I assume that it's OK.
My point is, it doesn't matter what is said about the greenhouse effect or anything else; nothing short of harsh reality will convince him that BAU is not going to last indefinitely. His mind becomes like a greased pig in a corner; try to pin him down hard facts, and he either acts as though the last century or two of research is all hypothetical, or he switches to, 'Even if what you say is true, there's nothing we can do about it.', and then accuses environmentalists of wanting to kill off half the people by wrecking the economy. Ironically, that is the path we are trying to avoid. (See the World Bank report on 4 degrees.)
I think it will take some large shock to reset the world view of people like this. Unfortunately, nothing so far has seemed to be enough, which leads me to believe that things will be bad, and we'll be committed to worse, before this happens. And then they will convince themselves that no one told them, or there wasn't enough evidence, or ...
I didn't know how to finish that thought for a minute, but I think this is going to be the most typical/common view from the ex-denier group.
I'm thinking maybe they're right, but we must try.
If I have a strange lump, and I'm not an oncologist myself, I'm probably going to choose the course of action recommended by the majority of those who are. Eating enzymes and hot peppers has not worked out so well for one of my family members. She really, really did not want to believe her situation was that serious. It is a sad metaphor.
To which I would say surprise, surprise - a right-winger. It would be interesting to know why pre-disposed to deny then - didnt like Al Gore, or doesnt like the proposed solutions. Surely choosing fantasies cant be a political bias - left-wingers have their own share of fantasies - but climate denial and the right wing go together.
Most likely a paradoxical "the government failed us," ignoring any attention to consistency w/regard to whining about regulations, forgetting that "the government" obediently and as demanded took its cues from citizens who insisted on ignoring external costs, overlooking decades of complaining about "government scientists" and their "liberal agenda," etc.
Don't expect compunction.
The simple problem here is that, it is a fact that there are deniers who deny even the simplest science; that this is embarrassing for deniers who wish to pretend that denial is rational; and so many such deniers resort to their basic strategy for dealing with uncomfortable truths - denial.
And of course the great irony is that the claim is actually a strong argument in favor of warming. If one starts at the top of a mountain (1997/1998 El Nino), one expects to walk downhill. That didn't happen, even if the warming is slightly less than significant using carefully chosen start points within the least representative L-O series.
---
You're right, Steve, because there are only 1421 comments on the 2nd Law thread. No self-described "skeptics" could possibly have contributed.
OMG!!!
I thought I'd found the SkS thread with the msot posts, but nooooo, I had not. Good grief, talk about a textbook example of D-K, write large...;(
Here is a denier that disputes the greenhouse effect.
Pull the other leg, Steve - it's got bells on...
What is truly disgusting is that, as KR points above, the prominent deniers mentioned in this current thread officially endorse reality while paying lip service to delusion on their blogs.
This current thread, however, has also tremendous entertainment value: it brings deniers denying that deniers deny obvious stuff, like Steve above. Years ago, it took me about one evening to figure where were the people who couldn't be taken seriously in this pseudo-debate. The likes of Steve Case greatly facilitated the process...
and then finishes with
So, he says he (and implies everyone else) believes in the greenhouse effect, but his closing statement would seem to say that he believes at least one of the following:
- CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
- greenhouse gases do not "move heat into the atmosphere" (whatever that means - I'm going to guess "heat the surface")
- that greenhouse gases do move heat into the atmosphere as part of the natural greenhouse effect, but do not do so with respect to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases
- that the warming due to the greenhouse effect does not constitute "moving heat into the atmosphere".
It seems that Aaron has not yet followed up his original contribution, so I don't know if I can expect a clarification on what he means by "move heat into the atmosphere", but it seems to me that he "accepts the greenhouse effect", but then just doesn't accept that increasing a greenhouse gas will increase the greenhouse effect. That looks a lot like denial to me.
Now that you've said that, I have to agree. To generalise, I think most responses will fall under the "It's not my fault." category; I believe that can be applied to the present as well.
DSL,
Indeed, not that we should be looking at patterns without considering physical processes, but the record is full of ups and downs, but there hasn't much of a down for a while, and that should strike people as odd.