The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

[Sam Wormley]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's
temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the
possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might
explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the
century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human
industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists
dismissed his idea as faulty.

In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide
was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists
found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a
few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly
was possible.

In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.

[R Kym Horsell]

I think it was my 2nd professional job in c1976 where the memo
went out calling for junior droids to give an address
at one of those "science for the general public" evenings
they used to have back then before all-night TV.

I had heard of Keeling and was interested in the theory, so I picked
"the greenhouse effect" as the topic and did a little reading and
a little calculating on the room-sized wristwatch we had at the little
college where I was at the time and fronted up on the evening with my
overheads.

I knew it was science and math and all, but 15-20 mins in I knew I had picked
the wrong topic. Maybe something to do with bangs, flashes, stinks,
or how to improve your love life would have been better.

About 1/2-way in there was a general tittering from the audience at
the mention of the term "greenhouse effect", but not much interest otherwise.
I thought I saw a couple of them wake up when I was explaining how
cars can get so darn hot inside on a sunny day. But I think
it turned out only some of them had a MV and could relate to that.

At the end we had questions. One physicist that worked in the ag dept
had a problem with how people could see out of cars that had tinted
windows because we he looked in from outside they always seemed so
very dark inside.

I *think* he was one of the few people that jerked awake when I had
started talking baout how cars get hot inside.

Surprisingly, he was a microwave guy and 20y my senior.
He'd done some good work some years back at a much better school than
the one we were working in then, but I surmised something had gone
wrong sometime and he could now be stumped by simple problems of
broadband attenuation of waves having to go through a filter twice, versus
waves only having to go through it once.

Whatever. He didn't like my answer so the evening ended in
mumbling and paper shuffling and no drinks after. :)

At the time and on the evidence available from college library reading
the whole topic was only a 50/50 proposition it would ever
amount to anything. If something changed and it *did* start
to appear important, I suspected none of even the science-minded public would
understand it or worry about it if they did.

How the times don't change.


--
My views on the Bible are the same concerns about the IPCC reports. Huge
gaps in the narratives leaving you to the only resort, faith. Not good enough.
-- Tunderbar aka Terry <tdco...@gmail.com>, 5 Dec 2013

[benj]

Is there a point to this wandering tale? The earth is not a hot car. CO2
does not correlate with warming. Co2 band is saturated. NASA assures us
that CO2 is MINOR greenhouse gas certainly not responsible for the
majority of any warming and because of lack of correlation probably
responsible for a contribution much less than even NASA estimates.

Sam has been shown these facts multiple times and still chooses to lie
about them.

--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[benj]

Lies and propaganda are not science asshat. Please stay on charter.

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

please, water vapor makes the ultimatum

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/23/15 12:19 PM, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote:
> please, water vapor makes the ultimatum
>

Good you recognize that water vapor is a green house gas, but it does
not dominate the global temperature effect.

See: http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

CO2 and its effect on climate

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part One – introduces several very
important concepts in climate. Blackbody radiation and how we can
differentiate between energy from the sun and from the earth. What
temperature the earth would be without any gases that absorb longwave
radiation. And how we can separate out the effects of the different gases.

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Two -looked at why different
gases absorb different amounts of energy, why some gases absorb almost
no longwave radiation, and what factors affect the relative importance
of water vapor, CO2 and methane.

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Three -introduced the Beer
Lambert model of absorption. along with the very important concept of
re-emission of radiation as the atmosphere warms up.

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Four – explained band models and
showed how transmittance (the opposite of absorptance) of CO2 changes as
the amount of CO2 increases under “weak” and “strong” conditions.

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Five – two results from solving
the 1-d equations – and how CO2 compares to water vapor.

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Six – Visualization -what does
the downwards longwave radiation look like at the earth’s surface. Is
this the “greenhouse” effect?

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Seven – The Boring Numbers – the
values of “radiative forcing” from CO2 for current levels and doubling
of CO2. What “radiative forcing” actually is. And where that log
relationship comes from that the IPCC quotes.

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Eight – Saturation – explaining
“saturation” in more detail

CO2 Can’t have that Effect Because.. – common “problems” or responses to
the theory and evidence presented

The Hoover Incident – what the earth’s climate might be like if all of
the gases like CO2 and water vapor were “hoovered up” so that the
atmosphere didn’t absorb or emit any radiation

CO2 Lags Temperature in the Ice-Core Record. Doesn’t that prove the IPCC
wrong? – a quick summary of a commonly misunderstood subject, especially
as it had an important role in the John Coleman report.

[reber g=emc^2]

Sam You will never convince GOPers that Earth is warming up.That is a given TreBert

[Sam Wormley]

There are enough changes taking place that it will be quite apparent
to all that the earth is warming.

[7]

Sam Wormley wrote:

>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
> atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect"

The trolls that wrote these pseudo science articles did not know at the time
about vapour pressure of CO2 being controlled by sea temperature.

There is and was never any greenhouse effect.



The fake pseudo science of glow ball wamming laid bare
------------------------------------------------------


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOjyMir6Z0


I am astonished real scientists are now making strongest
possible stand against the pseudo science creeps infecting
glow ball wamming. There is no science behind glow ball wamming.
The field in its entirety should be dropped from all universities
and colleges.

[benj]

On 02/23/2015 02:15 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/23/15 12:19 PM, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote:
>> please, water vapor makes the ultimatum
>>
>
> Good you recognize that water vapor is a green house gas, but it does
> not dominate the global temperature effect.
>
> See: http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

Absolute Lie, Asshat!

Here is ACTUAL science instead of made-up "science of Doom" clowns.

This is even from your warmist pals at NASA and THEY published this
result in a peer-reviewed major Journal.

Dishonesty has no place in science. Why don't you stop posting here and
move to some political group where lies are appreciated, Asshat?

<tries link to abstract>

Oh Look, Asshat! One more organization has sold out to you swindlers!
The American Geophysical Union has removed the abstract of the paper in
question. I guess money talks and bullshit walks!

Too bad paper still exists!

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf

Censorship has no place in science, asshat. Why don't you just STFU?

Don't worry, every time I speak truth, HVAC will still be here to start
screaming that I'm crazier than a shithouse rat.

[Poutnik]

Dne 23/02/2015 v 22:57 7 napsal(a):

>
> The trolls that wrote these pseudo science articles did not know at the time
> about vapour pressure of CO2 being controlled by sea temperature.
>
> There is and was never any greenhouse effect.
>

There is a prerequisite
you understand what is greenhouse effect.

--
Poutnik

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

ould be convincing so,
you should probably read it

> CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Two -looked at why different

> gases absorb different amounts of energy, why some gases absorb almost
> no longwave radiation, and what factors affect the relative importance
> of water vapor, CO2 and methane.
>

> CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Three -introduced the Beer

> Lambert model of absorption. along with the very important concept of
> re-emission of radiation as the atmosphere warms up.
>

> CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Four - explained band models and

> showed how transmittance (the opposite of absorptance) of CO2 changes as
> the amount of CO2 increases under "weak" and "strong" conditions.
>

> CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Five - two results from solving
> the 1-d equations - and how CO2 compares to water vapor.
>
> CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Six - Visualization -what does

> the downwards longwave radiation look like at the earth's surface. Is
> this the "greenhouse" effect?
>

> CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Seven - The Boring Numbers - the

> values of "radiative forcing" from CO2 for current levels and doubling
> of CO2. What "radiative forcing" actually is. And where that log
> relationship comes from that the IPCC quotes.
>

> CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? - Part Eight - Saturation - explaining
> "saturation" in more detail
>
> CO2 Can't have that Effect Because.. - common "problems" or responses to

> the theory and evidence presented
>

> The Hoover Incident - what the earth's climate might be like if all of

> the gases like CO2 and water vapor were "hoovered up" so that the
> atmosphere didn't absorb or emit any radiation
>
> CO2 Lags Temperature in the Ice-Core Record. Doesn't that prove the IPCC

> wrong? - a quick summary of a commonly misunderstood subject, especially

[benj]

Sam, actual temperature readings will never stop your pinko tax scam
because you are all too crooked to admit truth.

Hope you are enjoying the "global warming" this winter Sammy! Or are you
a GOPer who is convinced you are freezing?

[benj]

Actual temperatures even after being "adjusted" to create warming:

http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISS2014.gif

Lessee. .005 degree per year warming! Even Senile Heebster can read
that much. If only you could have that mile of ice over your house
again, right Sammy?

[benj]

On 02/23/2015 04:57 PM, 7 wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>
>> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>
>> In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
>> atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect"
>
>
> The trolls that wrote these pseudo science articles did not know at the time
> about vapour pressure of CO2 being controlled by sea temperature.
>
> There is and was never any greenhouse effect.

Come on. This is SETTLED SCIENCE which 95% of all scientists agree with.
The atmosphere in Mars is 95% CO2 and that is why it is a scorching RED
planet with molten lead on the surface! Is that what you want for Earth?

> The fake pseudo science of glow ball wamming laid bare
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOjyMir6Z0
>
>
> I am astonished real scientists are now making strongest
> possible stand against the pseudo science creeps infecting
> glow ball wamming. There is no science behind glow ball wamming.
> The field in its entirety should be dropped from all universities
> and colleges.

[hanson]

<snip crap>
>
"reber g=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
That is a given... since "g = emc^2" means & is short for
"glazier exhibits micro cephalic cretinism"

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

this seems to apply to any gas

> > CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Three -introduced the Beer
> > Lambert model of absorption. along with the very important concept of
> > re-emission of radiation as the atmosphere warms up.

sounda slmost the same

> > CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Four - explained band models and
> > showed how transmittance (the opposite of absorptance) of CO2 changes as
> > the amount of CO2 increases under "weak" and "strong" conditions.

well, this may be the problem, since
CO2 has fewer modes of vicration,
which cannot be seen on a line, AFAiK

> > CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Five - two results from solving
> > the 1-d equations - and how CO2 compares to water vapor.

"doublin is just a theoretical benchmark,
probably ne'er to happen (and
it might have bad physiologicals

> > CO2 - An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Seven - The Boring Numbers - the
> > values of "radiative forcing" from CO2 for current levels and doubling
> > of CO2. What "radiative forcing" actually is. And where that log
> > relationship comes from that the IPCC quotes.

Hoover, not the president?

> > The Hoover Incident - what the earth's climate might be like if all of
> > the gases like CO2 and water vapor were "hoovered up" so that the
> > atmosphere didn't absorb or emit any radiation

yes, more CO2 is generated with faster decay (loss of biomass [or,
"fossilized fuels

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

CO2 is not bent, like H2O, although I have forgotten,
why that is so

[7]

Taken literally yes, but I always meant the glow ball wamming
camp's meaning of greenhouse effect which is AGW caused by CO2
emissions and this is the same thing being reported on by the glow ball
wammies 150 years ago with their pseudo science that lacked
any basic understanding of vapour pressure of CO2 being controlled
by sea temperature.

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

well, show that ;thankyou

[Sam Wormley]

"vapour pressure of CO2 being controlled by sea temperature" -- um
lets see your equations.

[R Kym Horsell]

Equations? Just the phrase "vapor pressure of CO2" jerked me
out of my seat. What is that around 14C -- 40-50 bar?

Sounds like some crazy-ass place to set up a fishin shack.

--
50% of the US population does NOT live on the coast [...]
-- the jimp <jimp@specialsolutions>, 24 Mar 2012 7.20 am

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html
In the United States, coastal counties constitute only 17 percent of the
total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 53 percent of the
total population.

[netalat]

On 2/23/2015 1:15 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/23/15 12:19 PM, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote:
>> please, water vapor makes the ultimatum
>>
>
> Good you recognize that water vapor is a green house gas, but it does
> not dominate the global temperature effect.
>

>

> CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Five – two results from solving
> the 1-d equations – and how CO2 compares to water vapor.
>

the paper says that water vapor has about 2.5 times the effect of CO2.

So we need to fix the water vapor problem first.

I wish he was more clear, like posting the math models used, he is very
wordy. Also the finite element of a propeller is a diversion.

seems like they could ballpark it with 20 equations or so.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/24/15 11:12 PM, netalat wrote:
>
> the paper says that water vapor has about 2.5 times the effect of CO2.

That is correct.

>
> So we need to fix the water vapor problem first.

Nope -- water doesn't have near the forcing of CO2

Radiative forcing
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#mediaviewer/File:Radiative-forcings.svg
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

> In climate science, radiative forcing or climate forcing, is defined
> as the difference of insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and
> energy radiated back to space.[citation needed] Typically, radiative
> forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square
> meter of the Earth's surface. A positive forcing (more incoming
> energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing
> energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in
> insolation and the concentrations of radiatively active gases,
> commonly known as greenhouse gases and aerosols.

[benj]

Show us the equations for your "sinking heat" theory, Sam. I'm guessing
they about the same as Herb's equations for his "heavy air" theory. It's
quite well received you know!

[abu.ku...@gmail.com]

ssems like a nonproof by contradiction

> That is correct.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/23/15 3:42 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:

> Sam You will never convince GOPers that Earth is warming up.That is a
> given TreBert

Once the Koch brother see the cost of global warming, the country will
turn around.

[reber g=emc^2]

On Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 3:46:46 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the

> atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's
> temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the
> possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might
> explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the
> century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human
> industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists
> dismissed his idea as faulty.
>
> In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide
> was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists
> found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a
> few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly
> was possible.
>
> In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
> dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began
> to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
> carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
> influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
> gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
> level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
> developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
> essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.
>
> The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
> http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
>

> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
> social issues.

Not to all Sam Those that create electricity like PE cover up the harm CO2 is doing. Factories and car companies. A Nobel person proved lead in gas was very bad. Ford tried to kill him. Press was told lead could not hurt you. Took Clare Anderson 30 years to get congress to pass a clean air act in 1979. Now lead is being used again. Well Sam its better than Severn Trent Water,and TANG Sam its all over Big brother has won.I had to stop . You will have to stop. Keep in mind you being a teacher are being watched. I think it best to watch your back.Sit facing the door. Your school will get no goverment money if the Godfather gives a thumb's down. This is the reality of now. TreBert

[Sam Wormley]

My school is privately endowed.

I'll be teaching as long as I can make a positive contribution, Herb.

[noTthaTguY]

"global wasrming is just a lack of trigonemtrical device(s
(insolation is *totally differential
from the equator to the pole(s

[7]

Sam Wormley wrote:


>>>> The trolls that wrote these pseudo science articles did not know at the
>>>> time about vapour pressure of CO2 being controlled by sea temperature.
>>>>
>>>> There is and was never any greenhouse effect.
>>>>
>>> There is a prerequisite
>>> you understand what is greenhouse effect.
>>
>> Taken literally yes, but I always meant the glow ball wamming
>> camp's meaning of greenhouse effect which is AGW caused by CO2
>> emissions and this is the same thing being reported on by the glow ball
>> wammies 150 years ago with their pseudo science that lacked
>> any basic understanding of vapour pressure of CO2 being controlled
>> by sea temperature.
>>
>
> "vapour pressure of CO2 being controlled by sea temperature" -- um
> lets see your equations.

Doh!

What is your problem troll?

How else is the vapour pressure of CO2 controlled on planet Earth troll?

[reber g=emc^2]

SAm that is good. Goverment with GOP Mafia can do to schools what they did when they took over NASA. TreBert

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/26/15 5:08 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> SAm that is good. Goverment with GOP Mafia can do to schools what
> they did when they took over NASA. TreBert
>

Once the Koch brothers realize they can make more money saving the
planet, things will turn around.

[benj]

Hey Sammy, they fund your PBS propaganda show NOVA. Isn't that good
enough for you?

[benj]

We can only HOPE that the Godfather gives a thumbsdown on money to Sam!

Tell us just WHERE they are using lead again, Bertster. You are so
ignorant as to defy belief. Sam says you can ALWAYS trust what
government says. HVAC agrees too! If government says lead is good for
you then it is good for you! Case closed!

[noTthaTguY]

Koch co. funds PBS?