Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

Neither Kaplan nor anyone else at that time was thinking clearly enough about the greenhouse effect to point out that it will operate regardless of the details of the absorption. The trick, again, was to follow how the radiation passed up layer by layer. Consider a layer of the atmosphere so high and thin that heat radiation from lower down would slip through. Add more gas, and the layer would absorb some of the rays. Therefore the place from which heat energy finally left the Earth would shift to a higher layer. That would be a colder layer, unable to radiate heat so efficiently. The imbalance would cause all the lower levels to get warmer, until the high levels became hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet received. (For additional explanation of the "greenhouse effect," follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models.) Adding carbon dioxide will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.That would be plausible if that were the only heat transfer mechanism in our atmosphere. These co2 molecules don't hold onto their absorbed IR and wait to release it until they reach a level in the atmosphere where the radiation can escape into space. Almost immediately after co2 molecules absorb IR, they collide with nitrogen and oxygen molecules and transfer their added heat to them. It's all of these collisions between molecules that transfer heat that really are responsible for the delay in releasing radiation to space. The amount of time co2 molecules are involved in this train of transfers are miniscule and irrelevant.So, please try again and explain how extra co2 warms the earth.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

I was simply refuting the article that dr adequate referred to me. I asked for a method where the addition of greenhouse gases warmed the earth. The article he referred to had holes in it. What I posted was the holes and why the logic doesn't hold up. If you think the highlighted red is a valid model that holds up under scrutiny, feel free to show your work.

Would that effect not increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere? Again, what are you trying to disprove? My objective is not to disprove anything. I'm attempting to show that no one can make a solid case that the addition of greenhouse gases can warm the earth. They probably do make some difference at lower concentrations, but I'm talking at a starting level of 400 ppm.As for conduction being the main method of heat transfer in the lower atmosphere and that increasing temperature there, let's look at it. The only way to heat the earth without increased solar input is to delay the release of heat into space.If conduction only plays a small role and radiation is dominate, then the only molecules slowing the release of heat are greenhouse gases. If conduction dominates and all molecules play a role in the slowdown of heat release( including all molecules in the oceans), then a conduction dominated world would be vastly warmer than a radiation dominated world. That was your point.What possible effect would the increase from 400 ppm co2 to 800 ppm co2 be in such a world where co2 makes up less than .00000000001 percent of all molecules involved in the heat transfer train?Yes, such a world is vastly warmer but doesn't heat up with the addition of co2.You're looking at it like it would be warmer than what exists today. What you're failing to see is that the 255 K temperature of our earth is the result of conduction dominated heat transfer. Radiative transfer only plays a small role.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

What you have described here is a mechanism for interrupting the reflection and radiation of heat from the earth's surface out towards space.hat you have described here is a mechanism for interrupting the reflection and radiation of heat from the earth's surface out towards space. Yes. It is much more likely that such a method is capable of producing a temperature of 255K than the model you propose.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Absent a gas capable of absorbing the very low frequency of IR re-radiated by the earth, the heat from the ground would more easily radiate back into space. Exactly what is your point? Greenhouse gases moderate wild temperature fluctuations. In a conduction dominated world, a greenhouse gas free world would be vastly warmer. Nitrogen and oxygen do not release heat as quickly as greenhouse gases do. That would significantly slow down the release of heat to space.Yes, a greenhouse gas free world would have nothing to slow down radiation leaving earths surface, but that effect would be small if most of earths heat is released from the surface through conduction instead of radiation.

Baseless declarations. Prove that radiation leaves co2 almost immediately after absorbtion before the molecule makes contact with another molecule. Stop the stupid appeal to authority and show your work.

I'm not refuting global warming theory . I'm asking for someone to prove it is the reason temperatures are rising . So far, everyone has failed miserably. I did not provide any model. I poked holes in current global warming theory. If I incorrectly stated how it works, then show where. If that's the global warming hill you want to stand on and defend, then show how it supposedly works and I will poke holes in it. If you feel I haven't poked any holes , it's up to you to show no holes exist . Just declarations given as if they are facts won't cut it.You refuted them by providing a model that explained how global warming could work. So your post does not refute AGW at all.

You state as if it were indisputable fact that
"Even when all three things happen, the amount of heat re-radiated into space is reduced by the absorption by CO2".Prove it. Make your case. Such and such are true and therefore this is true because blah blah blah. I will then break down the blah blah blah to see if it adds up.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

You only think I strengthened your theory. That's because you did not understand what I said.There is no need to imagine radiative forcing due to carbon dioxide when you have had almost 50 years of roughly 3% extra ultraviolet B radiation warming the ocean. The ultraviolet B radiation is roughly 1.5% of total irradiance from the sun.The extra forcing due to so called back radiation from excess C dioxide is said to be 4 watts per square meter per sec. Compare that to 3% of 1.5% of total solar irradiance as an extra source of heat.AGW falls on its face.

By chlorofluorocarbons since WW2

You do realize the oceans emit carbon dioxide when they warm....the warmer, the more co2 emittance. You see a fairly smooth rise of co2 compared to a very jagged record of actual temperature. In short, the co2 concentration is rising because of warming oceans.As for the ozone plot, all I see is arm waving, no concrete evidence. They don't state how much energy has been allowed to reach the surface, particularly the oceans, since the ozone began to be depleted. They state that ozone traps heat in the lower atmosphere and hand wave that this balances out any extra heat let in from the lower concentrations in the upper atmosphere.No one, has proven that greenhouse gases warm the earth beyond what they warm at very low preindustrial concentrations. Wishful thinking and hubristic claims don't cut it. You have not proven co2 warms the atmosphere much less ozone in the lower atmosphere.If given a steady amount of solar irradiance at the surface, any warming of the atmosphere is totally due to any slowdown in the release of long wave radiation at the edge of the atmosphere.Show me your math on how greenhouse gases slow this release down beyond preindustrial levels. You have to take nitrogen and oxygen into account and convection and conduction into account as well. In particular, show how radiative processes involving co2 slow the long wave radiation release into space beyond what nitrogen and oxygen and conduction and convection already do.

Period??? Oh really? Trap means to never let it go. You cannot be serious that when co2 absorbs radiation, it keeps it forever?

what does trap mean to you?

You are talking about restricting convection of heat with your example.With co2, it absorbs heat energy and then releases it. What evidence do you have to suggest the temporary entrapment of heat by co2 slows the release of heat into space?

I'm aware of everything already in that article. Some of it is incorrect however.