I don't understand your criticism.Then don't do it any more. You have several posts up above on extent only.
... you can't measure in an experiment is the total effect on Earth's climate. ...
We've not conducted experiments on a planet as such,...
You still get people who deny that a greenhouse effect exists at all, but that is pretty much the young Earth creationism of climate science...
the effect of changing concentrations of greenhouse gases. This means quantifying the effect, in terms of concentrations; and that is not something you can do directly in a lab either.... To quantify the effect well enough to infer the effect of changing concentrations on a planet is more difficult....
to actually measure the temperature changes due to changing atmospheric composition can't be done directly. You can't separate out the causes and effects as you can in a lab.
A doubling of CO2 concentrations will give a certain amount of additional energy at the surface of the planet... about 3.7 W/m2... You can't measure that number directly...
The experiments linked in this thread most definitely produce a measurable change in temperature from the radiative properties of CO2. http://www.espere.de/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm" [Broken]No matter how large the container, no matter which greenhouse gas, how strong the light source, how long the trial run, you can't experimentally find a temperature change from CO2's greenhouse effect. Is that because it's too small to measure or is climate mitigation inherently untestable, unfalsifiable?
And you think skeptics are like creationists?
It is not impossible to isolate the radiative effect of CO2. This experiment does just that.No, by skeptics I mean folks who question the efficacy of climate change mitigation. Climate change is undeniable, the climate isn't static. If it was, it wouldn't be impossible to isolate a variable like CO2.
Do you really think that experiment is very good? How come it lasts only twenty minutes, there are only five data points for each sample, it tests CO2 at 370ppm and 1,000,000ppm but no other concentrations or other greenhouse gasses and neither the principle researcher or laboratory was identified? Has any other lab reproduced these results?
I'm assuming good faith here as best I can, but honestly, I have no idea at all what you are talking about.I can experimentally test gravity, how come this unknown researcher at an unknown lab wants this test to remain anonymous? What other labs are doing this work? What does the effect look like with CO2 concentrations at historic levels?
Um... sure, we do find temperature changes experimentally from CO2 greenhouse effect. Several examples have been given in this thread and I describe some in the post to which you are replying.No matter how large the container, no matter which greenhouse gas, how strong the light source, how long the trial run, you can't experimentally find a temperature change from CO2's greenhouse effect. Is that because it's too small to measure or is climate mitigation inherently untestable, unfalsifiable?
And you think skeptics are like creationists?
Well... that clarifies what is going on, and answers my confusion.Sorry, I thought this forum was about experimental tests of CO2's effect on temperature when exposed to IR.
No, they aren't questionable issues. You are making up spurious objections asking if the experiments used elementary common sense.Repeating what I've been saying "The greenhouse gas effect" is a fairy -tale There is no scientific proof that it exists.
The experiment that claims to prove the ghg Effect is junk. below are a list of thing that are questionable or wrong with the experiment and the results.
R values are a measure of insulation; which is not the relevant quantity. The relevant quantity here would be the thermal emissivity, with the added requirement that it be transparent to visible light.11. If the greenhouse gas effect exist why hasn’t it been applied to something useful like
thermopane window filled with a “greenhouse gas” that would back radiate IR into the
house and create insulated windows with R=30 values.
My actual remarks are in the thread; and I did not say it is warmer at night than in the day. (Good grief!)You ask the question “Why can it be warmer at night than during the day? Any
elementary school students that can read a weather report know that daily temperature are
effected by hot or cold air masses moving across the area. It is also obvious that
on a clear night the temperature will cool down much faster that on a cloudy night. Water
is not a greenhouse gas in spite of what many people say- it has known properties that
explain temperature differences 24/7/365. There is no back radiation –there is reflection
of light or blockage of light(clouds) energy release as lightening and other thermo effects
that are within the Laws of physics and thermodynamic.
Done already in the thread. You merely invented a bunch of wholly unfounded objections, which is why people like you are "deniers" rather than "skeptics".When you find reliable experimental data that proves that the “greenhouse gas effect
exists please share it with the world.
Actually, I have a PhD already, thanks. The main benefit of that is that you appreciate just how facile it is to argue by credentials. An argument stands or falls on its intrinsic merits. The paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner is one of the worst failures of peer review I have ever seen in a physics journal. It is gross pseudoscience.In the mean time read “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within
the frame of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner and when you
understand it in five or ten years( a PhD level –way above your level of intelligence) and
the global temperature has dropped by the 0.6 degrees that it has gone up over the passed
120year you will realize that man-made global warming is a hoax.
Wood explained the mechanisms of a glasshouse. He shows, correctly, that it works mainly by limiting convection; not by trapping infrared radiation. That is, he showed that a glasshouse does not work in the same way as an atmosphere opaque to infrared radiation.Going back to 1909 -R.W.Wood proved the gh effect as discribed is confined space heating and the ghg effect does not exist.
Eh, I have to disagree with the underlined portion (and only with that; I agree with the thesis statement). Cloud cover is an excellent reflector of IR; this works in both directions, obviously. At night, with little incoming energy, the ground and everything on it radiates its usual blackbody spectrum, peaking in the IR. On clear nights, this IR just mostly passes through the atmosphere, with a small portion being absorbed and re-radiated by various atmospheric gases--nothing special here. However, on cloudy nights, the ground-radiated IR is largely reflected from the cloud bottoms back down to the ground where a percentage of it is subsequently re-absorbed; the warmer ground heats the air above it and, voila, you've got a warmer-than-expected night. No greenhouse property of water vapor (which I agree is a real effect, don't get me wrong) is required.Water most certainly is a strong greenhouse gas, and that is a major reason why clear nights are colder.
My understanding is that the effect you are describing is not "reflection", but absorption and re-emission of radiation... and that is a greenhouse effect. Clouds are good at this because they are made of water.Eh, I have to disagree with the underlined portion (and only with that; I agree with the thesis statement). Cloud cover is an excellent reflector of IR; this works in both directions, obviously. At night, with little incoming energy, the ground and everything on it radiates its usual blackbody spectrum, peaking in the IR. On clear nights, this IR just mostly passes through the atmosphere, with a small portion being absorbed and re-radiated by various atmospheric gases--nothing special here. However, on cloudy nights, the ground-radiated IR is largely reflected from the cloud bottoms back down to the ground where a percentage of it is subsequently re-absorbed; the warmer ground heats the air above it and, voila, you've got a warmer-than-expected night. No greenhouse property of water vapor (which I agree is a real effect, don't get me wrong) is required.
That's what reflection is thought to be, at a fundamental level. However, clouds are not water vapor, but liquid water droplets. These are MUCH better at reflecting light, including IR, than water vapor (or any transparent gas, for that matter).My understanding is that the effect you are describing is not "reflection", but absorption and re-emission of radiation...
That's not thermal infrared. Look at the wavelengths. The wavelength for thermal infrared radiation is more like 10 microns, way off to the right of the diagram where reflectance drops off sharply. The AVHRR channel 1 band in your chart is pretty much centered on visible light, I think.I don't believe this is correct. See the following chart: (chart removed... see above... sylas)
But who is paying the energy bill? If clouds emit IR sponaneously, then they would cool rather strongly, which would facilitate the condensation process, hence generating more clouds.I may not get back to this for a bit; but a quick look at my references confirms my opinion that the warmth of a cloudy night is a very strong greenhouse effect from cloud; meaning it is due to thermal emissions, not reflection.
EVERYTHING radiates infrared spontaneously. It's a basic property of matter. What I am describing is not any different to what you are used to; I'm describing the thermodynamics of the world you and I experience right now. This includes cooling at night, and condensation on the washing I forget to bring in this afternoon.But who is paying the energy bill? If clouds emit IR sponaneously, then they would cool rather strongly, which would facilitate the condensation process, hence generating more clouds.
It appears that the problem is more terminology and definitions. So we agree that the noctural cooling of the atmosphere due to radiation amounts to an order of magnitude of one degree. However there is a distinct difference between Earth surface cooling with or without cloud cover, at least an order of magnitude higher in no wind conditions. Why?.
With that in mind as an empirical fact about the world, lets see how the physics works.
We won't find so much of an inversion under a cloud cover, it's more a clear air property like shown http://www.myoops.org/twocw/usu/Forest__Range__and_Wildlife_Sciences/Wildland_Fire_Management_and_Planning/Unit_7__Atmospheric_Stability_and_Instability_2.html [Broken]:.more detail, we would find that night time usually brings an "inversion" in the lower part of the atmosphere close to the surface, so much of the temperature drop occurs low in the atmosphere, which makes good sense thermodynamically.
But the first thing in greenhouse effect is understanding how it works.
The global warming hypothesis assumes that the difference between basic Earth black body temperature and actual atmospheric temperature is caused by radiative properties of the greenhouse gases, of which water vapor is the most important, basically nullifying all other mechanisms. In reality it is convection and latent heat transport, which heats the atmosphere from the surface at daylight, while there is no comparable mechanism at night to cool it again. So this mechanism is one way only. This can be demonstrated when comparing day and night lapse rates in the atmosphere, where the difference between day and night is greatest at the Earth surface
Hence the upper levels hardly cool at night as the only cooling mechanism is .... greenhouse effect, radiation out. And at those levels, with strongly reduced water vapor, radiation escapes to outer space much easier. This effect appears to be neglected in the IPCC endorsed literature and if you don't account for it in the models, you're basically stuck to the GIGO principle.
It is all in this thread, discussing the Chilingar et al 2008 study.
In this mechanism the concentration of greenhouse gasses for temperature is strongly reduced. More greenhouse warming simply increases the convection rate, removing the excess heat again from the surface.