3.2 Atmosphere/ionosphere, “Greenhouse Effect”

Absorption and reflection characteristics of the atmosphere/ionosphere.

Which depends on its composition, including CO2.  Effects of volcanic emissions.  Man-made pollution.  “Greenhouse effects”.  Cosmic Rays (see later).

How is the greenhouse effect affecting the earth’s atmosphere (wiki.answers.com)

Forget CO2 and Milankovitch cycles, new study says dust in the wind drives climate

This guy says there is no Greenhouse effect! http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

So does this:http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5783&linkbox=true&position=6

Posted by cleanwater (forum) on May 28th 2010, 6:00 PM EDT
This is consistent with the work of the below references.List of references: The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009 Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb. Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming. Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax. R.W.Wood from the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, if you’re interested. The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory By Alan Siddons from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists. “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.” After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president. Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental wackos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is. The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity. Web- site references: http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder wwwclimatedepot.com icecap.us http://www.stratus-sphere.com SPPI many others are available. The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.” —Albert Einstein In several of the comments there are statements that The”greenhouse gases are opaque to IR this is Junk science- yes each of the supposed “ghg’s’ do absorb certain very limited wavelengths of IR” However anyone that is familiar with IR spectrometry know that none of these gases absorb all of the IR that goes through the atmosphere. When you look at the total amount of IR in the solar radiation it would take 100 percent CO2 to absorb most of it, and this would only be the 3 wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. Water/vapor/liquid/ solid absorbs far more wavelengths than CO2 or CH4 and still there is plenty left to cause major heating during the day even with extreme cloud cover. The following statement is true but it implies that all the “long wave”IR is from the atmosphere- it ignores the fact that every molecule and atom that is above absolute zero is sending out IR proportional to its’ temperature Kirkoffs’ law, thus it is imposible to tell where all this IR is coming from the O2 or N2 molecules , the trees on the horizon, your own body, the geese flying over, the clouds over head, the warm from moving in from the west or the cold from following behind it. This suggests that the atmosphere transers no photons to the surface of the Earth at night. This is not the case, as the flux of longwave radiation from the atmosphere has been measured, and even occurs during the polar night (the months of darkness the occur at the poles each winter). See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3525.1 Read more at Suite101: The Laws of Physics Ably Defeat the Global Warming Theory http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/laws-of-physics-ready-to-defeat–the-global-warming-theory#ixzz0pGLEabyZRead more at Suite101: The Laws of Physics Ably Defeat the Global Warming Theory http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/laws-of-physics-ready-to-defeat–the-global-warming-theory#ixzz0pGO2nlFS
Posted by Graham (forum) on May 30th 2010, 7:51 PM EDT
Great comment, cleanwater. But omigosh, paragraphs! I had to paste it to Word and re-format to read it! Even so, as I say, top comment.
One of the more potent greenhouse gases is Methane. This article is relevant.

1 Response to 3.2 Atmosphere/ionosphere, “Greenhouse Effect”

  1. Evaldo says: (Transferred from Radiation page)

    April 15, 2012 at 19:43 (Edit)

    This was an interesting read.I don’t itrenely agree with the thesis, as the author concerns himself with the behaviour of gases in isolation from the Surface and the additional confounding factor of state changes of water.My argument runs:1. The lower atmosphere is itrenely heated by energy fluxes from the surface. These are Direct Conduction (24W/m^2), Radiation (26W/m^2) and Condensing Water Vapour(78W/m^2). (Figures from IPCC AR4, WG1, Chapter 1).2. If the temperature of the air next to the surface drifts away from the temperature of the surface, the fluxes alter in a way which tends to oppose the drift. Basically the air near the surface is tied closely to the surface temperature.3. Although the exact change in evaporation with temperature is in dispute, the consensus is that it is between 2.5% and 6.5% per DegC. If you calculate the sensitivity of the Surface, using the flux balance equation, you get between 0.095 and 0.15 DegC/W/m^2. (This is half the sensitivity calculated by the author of the article, and half the sensitivity of the atmosphere at the Tropopause).4. Because the temperature of the air at the surface is tied to the temperature of the surface, its sensitivity must be the same as the surface.5. Energy imbalances at the tropopause or anywhere high in the atmosphere due to increased concentration of CO2 do not affect the surface, which is thermally and radiatively isolated from the upper atmosphere. The high sensitivity of the cold thin upper atmosphere does not control or affect the low sensitivity of the warm dense surface air.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s