Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 4, 2018

The greenhouse effect: Conclusions backed by little science

Earth receives energy 
from the sun.

Some wavelengths are visible sunlight,

Others are invisible shorter-wavelength 
ultraviolet radiation, and longer-wavelength 
infrared radiation.

Some solar energy is reflected 
back into space by clouds, 
and small particles in the air,
such as sulfates,

Some is reflected by Earth’s surface.

Some is absorbed into the atmosphere 
by substances such as soot, ozone
and water vapor.

The remaining solar energy warms
the planet’s surface.

If all the energy emitted 
from the Earth’s surface, 
when half the planet 
cools at night,
escaped into space, 
the planet would be 
too cold for human life. 

Some of this energy stays 
in the atmosphere, 
where it is sent back 
toward Earth by clouds, 
released by clouds 
as they condense 
to form rain or snow, or
absorbed by gases 
with three or more atoms, 
such as water vapor (H2O), 
carbon dioxide (CO2), 
nitrous oxide (N2O), 
and methane (CH4).

Long-wave infrared radiation 
absorbed by these gases 
is re-emitted in all directions, 
including back toward Earth, 
and some of this re-emitted energy 
is absorbed again by these gases, 
and re-emitted in all directions.

The net effect is that 
most of the outgoing radiation 
is kept within the atmosphere 
instead of escaping into space.

Heat-trapping gases, 
act like a blanket 
surrounding Earth, 
keeping temperatures 
within a range 
that enables life to thrive. 

Human activities such as 
the burning of fossil fuel 
in cars, power plants and
industrial processes, 
are increasing the 
"insulating blanket".

The mystery of the 
"greenhouse effect",
which actually has 
nothing to do with
the physical glass barriers 
that keep a real 
greenhouse warm,
is figuring out how much, 
if any, warming, is caused 
by adding CO2 to the air.

Leftists seem to hate fossil fuels
and economic growth, so claim 
adding CO2 to the air by burning
fossil fuels is either dangerous
(the "luke-warmers"), or very 
dangerous (everyone else). 

They act as if the science
is settled, by stating conclusions
of the UN's IPCC -- a traditional
appeal to authority logical fallacy.

When you scan the internet for 
details on how much warming will
result from doubling the CO2 level,
almost all you find is the IPCC conclusion:
   The "magic answer" is +3.0 degrees C. 
+/- 1.5 degrees C., and that "magic
answer" has not changed since 1979!

How does the IPCC know that, and 
claim to have "95% confidence" 
they are right ?

The IPCC actually has no idea what
warming effect will result from 
increases of greenhouse gasses.

Making the subject 
more complicated,
is you can't simply 
measure the warming,
assume it's all caused
by CO2, and work backwards.

It's just an assumption if
you attribute warming to 
greenhouse gasses, and 
another assumption if you
attribute warming to CO2.

There are no accurate historical 
temperature measurements for
99.9999% of Earth's history.

Real time temperature data 
has been collected since 1850
for parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

There were few Southern Hemisphere
measurements before 1940, and 
few outside of Australia before 1900.

All measurements were rough
from 1850 to 1979, until the era 
of weather satellites began in 1979.

The weather satellites, however, are
completely ignored by government
bureaucrats!

They prefer surface thermometer "data",
where a majority of surface "grids",
(5 degrees latitude, by 5 degrees longitude), 
have no thermometers at all ...
... so the bureaucrats just wild guess 
the numbers for those grids,
and tell the general public 
whatever they want to public to hear!

The wild guess "infilling" 
can never be verified, 
or falsified, unlike real science,
so you either believe the guesses,
based on faith, or you don't.

I don't believe wild guesses
when weather satellite data exist
-- they require very little infilling,
just for the atmosphere above
both poles (compared with a majority 
of our planet for surface thermometers).

In addition, the greenhouse effect is in
the atmosphere, not on the surface --
and that means warming in the atmosphere,
measured by satellites in the atmosphere, 
should be much more than surface warming ...
but, in fact, less warming is measured by
the satellites ... and that's why the "warmists"
ignore the satellite data!

There is no real science to prove the 
specific warming caused by the greenhouse 
effect, other than claiming there should be
warming.
... and we do measure slight warming, 
... so we'll just assume 
the warming we measured 
MUST BE from the greenhouse effect 
= a circular reasoning logical fallacy.

The claims that the greenhouse effect exists,
started with simple lab experiments in
the 1800's. 

Simple lab experiments are still done today,
often in schools, to "prove" that CO2 
is a greenhouse gas.  

Most simple lab experiments,
from the 1800s through today,
do not have sufficient accuracy 
to prove any warming from CO2, 
within a reasonable margin of error.

And simple lab experiments
are closed systems, that do not 
represent the huge complexity 
of REAL climate change.