Very technical, but so much scientific information that comprehensively supports the so-called “deniers” criticisms of the unsupported “climate change” pseudo science built on a base of “sand”.
Happy to put my credibility on the line with this post!
CO2, water, and CH4 (methane) and some other minor gases are so-called “greenhouse gases” because they absorb infrared energy. However, be careful to avoid the common misunderstanding that the earth and its atmosphere behave like a garden greenhouse; that is not true. Greenhouses are closed systems except to incoming energy. Earth is an open system, open to receive energy, as well as gases and other matter from space and also open to transmit energy, gases and matter back into space. A greenhouse is a poor analogy for earth’s climate.
Greenhouse gases also re-emit almost instantly the energy they absorbed, emitting that energy at a slightly lower energy than which it was absorbed. Rarely is that emission mentioned in the news or by climate alarmists. Proponents of global warming want you to believe that energy is stored and builds up in the atmosphere in a sort of hothouse or pressure cooker…
View original post 3,958 more words
The GOLDEN RULE 
Bod Bromley’s first paragraph is correct: the “greenhouse effect” is misnamed, because that’s now how real greenhouses work.
However, his second paragraph, and much of the rest of his article, are very wrong.
He began the 2nd paragraph by writing:
That is incorrect, in two respects.
1. When a molecule of CO2 absorbs a longwave IR photon, it usually does not re-emit that energy as another photon. On average, it takes about one second before it emits another photon, but (at typical temperatures and 1 Atm pressure), only a few nanoseconds before it gives up the absorbed energy by collisional transfer to another air molecule. That means its several hundred million times more likely to loose the absorbed energy by collision with another air molecule, than by re-emission of a photon.
That’s why the GHG molecules in that atmosphere stay in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the air.
BTW, that was surprising to me. You can learn more about it, where I did:
FIRST: http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
THEN: http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
2. When a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere does give up energy by emitting a photon, it is not “slightly lower” than the energy it absorbed. It might be a bit higher, if the molecule happens to be moving in the direction in which the photon is emitted, causing the photon to be blue-shifted. Or it might be a bit lower, if the molecule happens to be moving in the opposite direction, causing the photon to be red-shifted. But energy is conserved, there’s no loss of energy taken out as a toll by a molecular middleman.
If you’d like to learn more about climate change, from trustworthy sources (rather than misinformation from either the Left or Right), I maintain a little list of good resources on my web site, here:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html
Thank You Dave!