The Science, the Who, the Why

ThyArt Website BOOKS - MINDS YouTube Facebook Twitter
Fred Pickhardt - Basic Theory of GHG
Tim of ThyArt   07 Dec 2019 / updated: 07/Dec/2019

There are many flaws in the basic theory of GHG, one of them is that Nitrogen (N2) and Oxygen (O2) are non-players in the removal of the energy to outer space that is contained that makes the atmosphere a particular temperature, the hotter the atmosphere the more energy contained, especially by N2 and O2 that are over 95% of the mass of the atmosphere. If N2 and O2 do not absorb and do not emit infrared, then N2 and O2 have no means to cool the atmosphere by radiating out to space (their theory). Only the GHG can emit infrared to outer space and under their theory GHG is the means that this energy must be released to outer space (ignoring oxygen is a heavy emitter of microwaves). Point is concerning gases, an emitter is an absorber and a absorber is an emitter. The only way the atmosphere can cool as a whole is by radiating to outer space, therefore the claim is N2 and O2 do not have this ability under their theory. How does the atmosphere cool? Roy Spencer that is over this project in NASA, he knows the answer but he has only run from the conversation (so far).

Fred "The major greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide. All of these molecules are made of three or more atoms which can vibrate in complex patterns when they interact with infrared photons (heat). Eventually they will release that heat, some of which escapes into space while some is radiated back down to the earth’s surface and some may be absorbed by other greenhouse gas molecules. Most of the atmosphere consists of nitrogen and oxygen, both of which are made up of two atoms that are bound together tightly and unable to vibrate so they do not act as greenhouse gases."

Tim "Thanks Fred Pickhardt, I love a lame story and in all the other fear mongering rhetoric it is easy to forget to destroy the ignorance of this story, so thank you for the tale and for the link. Real technology such as CO2 LASERS debunks that foolishness! Under your theory the only means the atmosphere (>95% of its mass (N2 & O2)) cools is through greenhouse gases. But you are right CO2 does not create heat that is the other side of the coin of ignorance showing in the OP. Another interesting fact is the Earth if heated 1C, it will emit 5W/m2 MORE, so the forcing to the Earth to raise it 1C must be at least 5W/m2. The biggest ignorance displayed is most people think of a Watt as a unit of energy, but it is not, it is a unit of energy (joule) over a period of time (second), therefore in equilibrium to maintain 1C at 5W/m2 out in a second (basic SBL with emissivity of .97), in one second, at least 5W/m2 must be applied, and more if there is conduction of that applied energy to below the immediate surface (which there is)."

Fred "how do CO2 LASERS debunk the greenhouse gas effect? I never said anything about the atmosphere cooling through greenhouse gases."

Tim "If two molecules collide one with more energy than the other which one is the transmitter of energy and which one is the receiver of this conduction? Then how does the atmosphere in the desert cool by 30F from hot of afternoon sun through the cool dawn of morning with a humidity of 10%?"

Simple CO2 lasers work though the conduction of energy, the N2 is exited through electrical current, the N2 conducts the energy to the CO2, the CO2 emits to stimulation, the CO2 conducts the remaining energy to Helium getting it back to ground state, the Helium conducts that energy as heat to the wall of the container holding the gases. If two molecules collide in what would call hotter and colder the warmer one would pass energy to the cooler one, basic thermodynamics.

Fred "Deserts cool rapidly at night due to a lack of atmospheric water vapor (the prime greenhouse gas)"

Tim "Incorrect, the emissivity of sand is below 0.9 in most deserts (depends on vegetation / contaminants) and the Sierra is as low as 0.65 but that is digression to the fact that though the sand reaches temperatures over 180F the Atmosphere in the hot afternoon reaches over 110F, that is the >95% of the atmosphere I was referring to, remember your statement, N2 and O2 have no means of self cooling through radiation of infrared."

An hour later:

Fred "What I said was that nitrogen oxygen are not greenhouse gasses"

Tim "Though I did take you out of context in appearance, the point is clearly accepted that N2 and O2 as non-absorbing, would mean also they do not emit in this infrared region either, I believe I can say those two are complimentary, therefore claiming N2 and O2 are not GHGs, also states they do not emit in the range that of infrared that the Earth's surface emits. So indirectly, it is in context and what you said. Unless I have that concept wrong? And if so than N2 and O2 would provide a much more powerful cooling mechanism to the atmosphere dwarfing CO2 effect to nothing."

3 hours later:

Fred "O2 and N2 are mostly transparent to both light and infrared radiation so they allow both incoming solar light and outgoing heat to pass through without any Absorption"

Fred "Estimates of CO2’s contribution to the greenhouse effect vary greatly between 2% (0.7 C) to as much as 26% (8.6C) of the total 33 C greenhouse effect. This means that there is some uncertainty as to CO2’s actual contribution. In addition, there is also uncertainty about the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. The best estimates I can find is that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere should result in a warming of 0.4 C to 1.2C before factoring in any feedbacks"

Fred "Without greenhouse gases the earth’s temperature would be about 33°C (59ºF) colder than it is now, and our world would be a giant snow ball."

Tim "Fact when it is 120F in the desert. it is not because CO2 consumed a bunch of infrared. You cannot ignore that FACT. It is not due to infrared it is due to conduction from a desert surface that is 180F and over 150F most of the day That difference in ground and air temperatures is due to hot is displaced by colder air forcing it upward. Now you are rambling information you cannot back without explaining the cooling mechanism of the atmosphere, you cannot state the amount of energy truly retained nor the temperature resultant of it without answering that question, "how does the atmosphere cool". Please spare me the BS that was provided from purposely poor educators. If you want to get to the real science lets go for it but do not feed me full of BS just because some professor passed it down to you. Let me explain it simply, if you or I are getting nothing from this conversation then it is a waste of time to me, and I try not to waste my time. Start with this: figure out the infrared that comes from the surface of the Earth that escapes clouds and figure it with 0ppmv and 400ppmv. You might be shocked at your numbers. Do not forget to calculate how much radiation comes from the clouds that irradiates the surface that would of been reduced if there were CO2. Do not ignore that heat contained in the air will convect up not down. Only through ignorance can one be taught to believe that CO2 provides any worthy warming above 300ppmv. At 200ppmv plants start to suffer and die. This is potentially a 100 trillion dollar scam, over 4 trillion so far. Do not throw random numbers up you cannot back personally without referencing a deceptive and ignorant piece of toilet paper peer reviewed by people funded by this crime."

Ventusky Cloud Coverage

Tim "One final clue was in my first comment, that is if you raise the temperature of the Earth 1C, under SBL with correct numbers, you need to counter the 5 watts per square meter increase that the Earth will be emitting, 5 Watts more at least, therefore science 101, you must have at least 5 Watts of forcing per square foot plus more to cover the loss due to conduction to actually warm more that the first micrometer of the surface. You cannot get 5 joules out ever second if you are only putting in 3 joules every second"

It is rare to get someone to stay the course of the conversation. Fred was overall polite and did not digress the conversation or commit to calumny. Someday I will find someone to stay the course of the conversation.

The GHG radiative forcing must be increased greater than 5 watts per meter squared to raise the Earth's surface 1C. Why .097 emissivity? The emissivity of the Earth is closer to 0.96 to 0.97. Why 1.05M^2? The forcing downward from above is 1 meter squared but it is irradiating the Earth's surface that is often granular (vegetation / sandy / etc...) and inclined (mountains / ocean swells / etc...), this 1m2 is radiating a surface larger than 1m2. Best way to picture it is to hold a 1m2 board at a 45 degree angle, looking downward, it does not cover at that angle 1/m2, yet its radiative surface is greater than 1m2 to the zenith of 1m2.




Supporting Links:

Comment Thread

Share on facebook Share on facebook

Member's Input:   - Comments Restricted
no comments

Treason Presentation
Topic Specific
Faces of Climate Change
  NASA / NOAA / Entities
  Non-Governmental Offices
  Universities / Colleges
  Science Entities
  Science News / Outlets
  NEWS Sources
  Politics / Politicians
  Social Media
  PBS / K-12 Education
  Movies / Television
  Propaganda Outlets
  Discussions with Doomers
Support - All Material and website design are Copyright of ThyArt Network LLC 2014-2019