Climate science discussion

[duwayne]

Aug 12, 2024 21:29:58 GMT finewino said:

Greetings, all.

I was not very active on the old board and this will be my first post here. In semi-retirement I’ve had time for other pursuits. My colleague, Markus Ott and I have been busy for the last 18 months or so debunking the “Greenhouse Effect”

I know that sounds far fetched, but for those who are interested I invite you to review our work which is quite compelling unless you have been captured by the GHE religion.

You can download our essay at:

tomn.substack.com/api/v1/file/f08770ad-92c4-4884-890b-f969794b1a26.pdf

The essay is the most detailed. There is also a video version on Tom Nelson’s channel at:



While the rest of the world has been arguing about “how much” warming is caused by CO2, we have been single-minded about showing that the “GHE” is impossible in the Earth’s atmosphere.

There will be a new video released on Tom Nelson’s YouTube channel this week expanding on the details from a thermodynamic perspective, and another one in process looking from the quantum perspective.

To fully appreciate what we present, one needs to suspend one’s belief in the “Greenhouse effect” model. One cannot refute the GHE within the context of the GHE.

Needless to say there is great resistance to this from both sides of the issue, for many reasons. I hope that you will give it a look.

I got as far as paragraph 2 which says....

"Thermal Radiation is a property of condensed matter, i.e., solids and liquids. Gases do not emit thermal

radiation."

That isn't true.

[finewino]

duwayne

A bit disingenuous that you didn’t include the previous paragraph, as follows:

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted by the thermal motion of particles in matter. Thermal radiation transmits as an electromagnetic wave through both matter and vacuum. When matter absorbs thermal radiation its temperature will tend to rise. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. The emission of energy arises from a combination of electronic, molecular, and lattice oscillations in a material. Kinetic energy is converted to electromagnetism due to charge-acceleration or dipole oscillation. At room temperature, most of the emission is in the infrared (IR) spectrum.: Thermal radiation is one of the fundamental mechanisms of heat transfer, along with conduction and convection.

We added the sentence you quoted for emphasis because this is so commonly misunderstood as in your case. The gases on our atmosphere are not part of a lattice of condensed matter. They are individual molecules that can only emit at quantized energy levels. In the infrared band the rotovibrational bands are closely spaced, but still quantized. They can only be excited by absorption of a photon or collision with another particle of sufficient energy to excite the collision partner. It is the excitation via collision that is dominant in our atmosphere. That the radiation distribution has a Planckian characteristic is related to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities. Einstein alluded to this at the beginning of his 1917 paper “The Quantum Theory of Radiation”, and it was noted by Wien in his work on radiation theory.

[duwayne]

finewino, does the sun emit Thermal Radiation?

[nonentropic]

That needs to be resolved because the radiation of the atmosphere is measurable and they do.

[ratty]

The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement. - Karl Popper.

[finewino]

Aug 13, 2024 16:45:38 GMT duwayne said:

finewino, does the sun emit Thermal Radiation?

Duh 🙄

The sun emits thermal radiation, though there is still debate regarding from whence it originates. I suppose a sufficiently hot dense gas can contain a sufficient number of free ions and electrons to emit a continuous spectrum.

We are speaking of a terrestrial issue here.

To be clear, a grain of sand can emit thermal radiation, but a single carbon atom cannot. A drop of water can emit thermal radiation, but a single unbound water molecule cannot. I do not know you, but I know that you emit among other things, thermal radiation. I also emit thermal radiation, and if I had pets, they would also.

I hope this is now clear to you. I also hope that there are some in this forum with more curiosity than whatever it is that drives your “gotcha” approach.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any original work that I could take a look at?

[walnut]

Most on this board have a friendly approach.

[ratty]

It's obvious from this chart that CO₂ is the sole driver of weather/climate ....

[duwayne]

Aug 13, 2024 23:50:27 GMT finewino said:

Aug 13, 2024 16:45:38 GMT duwayne said:

finewino, does the sun emit Thermal Radiation?

Duh 🙄

The sun emits thermal radiation, though there is still debate regarding from whence it originates. I suppose a sufficiently hot dense gas can contain a sufficient number of free ions and electrons to emit a continuous spectrum.

We are speaking of a terrestrial issue here.

To be clear, a grain of sand can emit thermal radiation, but a single carbon atom cannot. A drop of water can emit thermal radiation, but a single unbound water molecule cannot. I do not know you, but I know that you emit among other things, thermal radiation. I also emit thermal radiation, and if I had pets, they would also.

I hope this is now clear to you. I also hope that there are some in this forum with more curiosity than whatever it is that drives your “gotcha” approach.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any original work that I could take a look at?

Finewino, is the sun made up of condensed matter, i.e. solids and liquids?

Your statement was....

"Thermal Radiation is a property of condensed matter, i.e., solids and liquids. Gases do not emit thermal

radiation."

Is that statement true?

[finewino]

duwayne,

Perhaps English is not your primary language? There are a number of online translators if that would be helpful.

I will give it one more try.

Regarding the sun and stars in general, there are different models that come and go. Some are deemed adequate to the task and utilized in the practice of physics. As an epistemological matter, until we can send a probe into the sun which will collect data and send it back, we cannot know what the structure is. That is the uncertainty of science.

That being said, the sun does emit thermal radiation though it is not a perfect black body.

In the formalism of physics, the term “thermal radiation” has a precise meaning. Unfortunately, it is probably misused more than it is used properly in the context of climate science. Thermal radiation is produced by vibrations of electrons, molecules, and lattices in matter. It is distinct from the quantized electronic transitions in atoms and molecules that can only emit at the specific energy levels defined by the differences between quantized states. Thermal radiation can be produced at any energy, and its radiation is emitted in a continuum. Individual atoms and molecules at terrestrial temperatures cannot emit thermal radiation.

I hope this is now clear. If you cannot surmise the answer to your questions between this response and my prior reply, you are either playing games (more likely) or you are asking questions that are “above your pay grade” (less likely, but possible.)

Your puerile behavior has become tiresome. If you have neither the curiosity nor the initiative to read our work and come back with thoughtful questions, that is about you.

Until then, I will be ignoring your posts on this thread henceforth.

[acidohm]

Andrew???

[finewino]

No, but I do remember Andrew from the old board.

My name is clear in my first post.

[finewino]

I had a thought and decided to have a bit of fun with ChatGPT today.

Does anyone see what’s wrong with this conversation?

What would the surface of the earth be like if there were no greenhouse gases?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT
If there were no greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere, the surface of the planet would be drastically different, primarily due to the lack of the greenhouse effect, which plays a crucial role in maintaining Earth's current climate. Here’s what the Earth might be like:

Drastically Colder Temperatures: Without greenhouse gases, the Earth would lose heat rapidly. The average surface temperature would drop from the current 15°C (59°F) to around -18°C (0°F). This temperature is below the freezing point of water, which would have profound effects on the planet's environment.
Frozen Oceans: With such low temperatures, most of the Earth's oceans would freeze over. The extent of this freezing would likely be massive, covering large portions of the planet in ice. Only the deepest parts of the ocean might remain liquid due to geothermal heat from the Earth's interior, but the surface would be predominantly ice.
Altered Atmosphere: Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor also play roles in regulating atmospheric processes. Without them, the atmosphere might be thinner, drier, and more susceptible to drastic changes in temperature between day and night, similar to the conditions on the Moon or Mars.
No Liquid Water: Liquid water would be scarce on the surface, making it difficult for life as we know it to survive. The hydrological cycle would be greatly disrupted, and the Earth's climate would likely be much more arid.
Reduced Habitability: Life on Earth depends on relatively stable temperatures and liquid water. Without greenhouse gases, it is unlikely that the Earth would support complex life forms. If any life did exist, it would likely be confined to extreme environments, like deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where temperatures might still be warm enough to sustain it.
No Weather as We Know It: Weather patterns are largely driven by the differential heating of the Earth's surface and the distribution of greenhouse gases. Without these gases, weather would be much less dynamic, possibly limited to stark contrasts between freezing nights and slightly warmer days.
In summary, without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a much colder, more barren, and inhospitable place, likely devoid of the complex ecosystems that currently thrive on the planet. The greenhouse effect is essential for maintaining the moderate temperatures that allow life to flourish on Earth.





You said:
How could there be frozen oceans?
ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT
You're correct to question the idea of frozen oceans in the absence of greenhouse gases. The formation of oceans in the first place would require liquid water, which is unlikely to exist without the warming effects of greenhouse gases. Here's a more accurate breakdown of what would happen to Earth's water:

No Liquid Water Formation: Without greenhouse gases, Earth's surface temperature would have likely been too cold from the beginning to allow liquid water to form. This means that, in this hypothetical scenario, liquid water might never have existed on Earth's surface.
Ice, If Any: If there were any water on Earth initially, it would exist as ice or possibly as water vapor in the atmosphere. The lack of greenhouse gases would prevent sufficient warming to melt any ice, so Earth could have been an icy planet from the start.
A "Snowball Earth" Scenario: Earth might resemble the "Snowball Earth" hypothesis, where the planet's surface is entirely or almost entirely frozen. However, even this ancient Earth period had some greenhouse gases, which allowed for eventual warming and the retreat of ice.
No Stable Oceans: Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's atmosphere would be too cold to sustain liquid oceans. Instead, any water vapor in the atmosphere might condense and freeze, contributing to surface ice. However, without the initial presence of greenhouse gases, this water might not have existed in liquid form at all.
So, to clarify, in a world with no greenhouse gases, the Earth's surface would likely have been too cold to ever support liquid water or oceans. The planet might have been an ice-covered world, or if water was present only in the form of ice, never transitioning to the liquid phase needed to form oceans.





You said:
how could there be water on a planet with no greenhouse gases?
ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT
If a planet had no greenhouse gases, the existence of water, especially in liquid form, would be highly improbable. Greenhouse gases play a critical role in maintaining temperatures that allow water to exist in its liquid state on Earth. Here's a more detailed explanation:

Formation of Water: Water on a planet typically forms during its early history when the planet is still cooling. Water molecules can come from various sources, including outgassing from volcanic activity or delivery via comets and asteroids. For liquid water to persist, the planet needs to have a temperature range that prevents it from either evaporating completely or freezing solid.
Importance of Greenhouse Gases: Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane, trap heat in a planet's atmosphere. This trapped heat raises the surface temperature, creating conditions that allow liquid water to exist. On Earth, this effect keeps average temperatures well above freezing.
No Greenhouse Gases, No Liquid Water: Without greenhouse gases, any water that might be present on the planet would quickly freeze, as the surface temperatures would be far too low to sustain liquid water. This would be similar to the conditions found on Mars or the Moon, where the lack of a substantial atmosphere and greenhouse effect leads to extremely cold surface temperatures.
Possible Water States:
Ice: If there were no greenhouse gases, the planet's temperature would be so low that any water present would likely exist as ice.
Water Vapor: In some cases, water might exist as vapor, but only if the planet's surface were heated enough by other means (such as proximity to a star or internal geothermal activity). However, this vapor would likely escape into space over time due to the lack of atmospheric pressure and temperature regulation.
Earth's Early Atmosphere: On early Earth, the presence of greenhouse gases was crucial in preventing the planet from freezing over, allowing liquid water to form and remain stable. Without these gases, Earth's early oceans would have likely frozen solid or never formed at all.
In summary, without greenhouse gases, a planet would struggle to retain heat, leading to a surface that is too cold for liquid water to exist. Water, if present at all, would be frozen, or the conditions would be such that water never condensed from vapor in the first place. Therefore, the absence of greenhouse gases would make the presence of stable, liquid water on a planet highly unlikely.





You said:
if there are no greenhouse gases, how can there be water?
ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT
In a scenario where there are no greenhouse gases, the presence of water—especially liquid water—would be highly improbable. Here’s why:

1. Water in the Universe:
Water as a Molecule: Water (H₂O) is a common molecule in the universe, found in various forms such as ice, liquid, or vapor. It can exist on a planet regardless of the presence of greenhouse gases, depending on the environmental conditions.
2. Role of Greenhouse Gases:
Temperature Regulation: Greenhouse gases are crucial for trapping heat in a planet's atmosphere, keeping the surface temperature within a range that allows liquid water to exist. Without these gases, a planet's surface would likely be much colder.
Preventing Water from Freezing: On Earth, greenhouse gases maintain an average temperature of about 15°C (59°F). Without them, the planet’s average temperature would drop to around -18°C (0°F), causing any existing liquid water to freeze.
3. States of Water Without Greenhouse Gases:
Ice: In the absence of greenhouse gases, if water were present on a planet, it would likely exist as ice due to the lower temperatures.
Water Vapor: If the planet were close enough to its star, water might exist as vapor in the atmosphere. However, without greenhouse gases to trap heat, this vapor could easily escape into space over time.
No Liquid Water: Liquid water, as seen on Earth, would not be stable on a planet without greenhouse gases because the necessary temperatures to keep it in liquid form would not be sustained.
4. Potential Sources of Water:
Ice from Comets or Asteroids: Water ice could be delivered to a planet by comets or asteroids. However, without greenhouse gases, this ice would remain frozen on the surface or sublimate into vapor, depending on the planet's proximity to its star.
Geothermal Heat: In some rare cases, geothermal heat from a planet's interior could create localized pockets of liquid water beneath the surface. This is unlikely to support large bodies of liquid water, especially on the surface, without greenhouse gases.
5. Conclusion:
Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be too cold to support liquid water on its surface. Water, if it existed, would primarily be found as ice or, in some extreme cases, as vapor in a very thin atmosphere. The stable, warm conditions necessary for liquid water would not be present, making the presence of stable bodies of liquid water highly unlikely.

So, in a world without greenhouse gases, water could technically exist as ice or vapor, but the conditions necessary for sustaining liquid water—like those on Earth—would be absent.

[acidohm]

Penrose is an incredible physicist to listen to.

He has nothing to prove and talks about some of the deeper, less intuitive aspects of cosmology and quantum physics in a considerate, down to earth way.

His information becomes accessible and it's possible to learn from what he's saying.

[acidohm]

The way, as I understand it, that CO² is proposed to cause warming is.

Outward bound IR contacts CO² molecule, is absorbed by the molecules covalent bond, then released in a random direction at a lower energy state (wavelength?)

Obviously a proportion travels in a surface bound direction, where this IR wave negates a portion of net cooling of the surface.

I use the term cooling as an understanding the surface is trying to lose heat against incoming solar radiation.