Nope, no scientific paper. Volcanoes. Must be because there is no scientific paper proving that greenhouses hold in solar radiation.
That was an interesting video. Talk about low impact/carbon footprint.
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Nope, no scientific paper. Volcanoes. Must be because there is no scientific paper proving that greenhouses hold in solar radiation.
That was an interesting video. Talk about low impact/carbon footprint.
This will work, of course, much better than relying on the trace concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Glass is many orders of magnitude more efficient at trapping IR per volume than is the trace concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Glass is opaque to IR. This reminds me of your thought experiment comparing the heat trapping ability of the volcanic planet Venus's dense CO2 and Sulfur Oxide atmosphere to the moon assuming the moon to have an atmosphere like that of Earth.. They aren't comparable, nor is the glass of a greenhouse comparable to trace CO2 gas in the atmosphere..
You are right of course, the glass will block entry of solar IR (solar emission that reaches the earth's surface is mostly IR.) The glass will get warm and transmit by conduction much of its thermal kT energy to the air molecules within the greenhouse, but if there were no visible light than I suppose the interior of the greenhouse would be about the same as the exterior, maybe a little cooler. But all of the (some 98%) of the visible light goes right through the glass. This is converted to IR by absorption and vibrational relaxation. You experience this process as heat. You feel much warmer in the sun on a cold day than in the shade, whether you are in a greenhouse or not, and even if you are naked. (Do the experiment in Northern North Dakota on a cloudless, windless, winter day, and you will discover for yourself that I am right.) You will be warmed by both direct absorption of solar IR and by conversion of visible light to vibrational energy within your skin. It is, however, solar, visible light, not IR, that goes right through the glass of a greenhouse and gets converted to IR that is responsible for the greenhouse effect. You get a lot of kinetically energized air molecules ,i.e., translational energy, bouncing around inside the greenhouse. You feel this as heat, and you have a lot of radiated IR that you also feel as heat when you absorb it and it makes your molecules do the charleston. The heat trapping ability of glass, which is opaque to IR, is many, many orders more efficient than the same volume of air.
Last edited:
No scientific paper is needed. The experiment shows it to be true. You need a scientific paper and further experiments to explain why it is true. And yes, those exist ad nauseum.
FC continues to maintain that there is a consensus of opinion among scientists that anthropomorphic CO2 is raising the Earths surface temperature. This is quite true, especially when you include the official opinions of the various scientific organizations broadened to include those having little or nothing to do with climate research like the ACS, the AMA etc. One of the bodies having the greatest influence is the UN's IPCC. Here let me caution anyone thinking that this is an unbiased, purely scientific body attempting to reach the truth, that you should think twice before accepting that description as accurate.
Probably the most reliable and detailed survey of those actually engaged in climate research, which includes primarily meteorologists and atmosphere physicists, was that published in the meteorology bulletin in 2014. This shows there is no broad consensus among experts. One can fairly say the results indicate much uncertainty. On the issue of whether man made CO2 is affecting climate significantly the responses range from yes, to maybe to probably not. The survey results have been posted here on ET at least twice, and of course were studiously ignored by FC.
Probably the most reliable and detailed survey of those actually engaged in climate research, which includes primarily meteorologists and atmosphere physicists, was that published in the meteorology bulletin in 2014. This shows there is no broad consensus among experts. One can fairly say the results indicate much uncertainty. On the issue of whether man made CO2 is affecting climate significantly the responses range from yes, to maybe to probably not. The survey results have been posted here on ET at least twice, and of course were studiously ignored by FC.
Last edited:
So what do you think would happen to the temperature inside a greenhouse if you pumped in additional CO2?
what if you pumped in a really thick layer of co2 outside the greenhouse. would it block some of warming energy?
remember...
I have already showing you the recent NASA studies which show you that co2 blocks some of the warming rays from the sun.
remember...
I have already showing you the recent NASA studies which show you that co2 blocks some of the warming rays from the sun.
Yes I continue to maintain that the consensus is at least 97% and the debate over the basics is over and has been for quite some time. I maintain that because it's the truth and any reasonable look at the issue shows I'm correct.
One has to really try hard to lie about. Why do you try so hard?
Speaking of meteorologists....
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
Global Warming: The Weather Channel Position Statement
More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.
Last edited:
There was also a consensus that Antarctica was losing ice until NASA did a study and showed that it is gaining ice.Yes I continue to maintain that the consensus is at least 97% and the debate over the basics is over and has been for quite some time. I maintain that because it's the truth and any reasonable look at the issue shows I'm correct.
One has to really try hard to lie about. Why do you try so hard?
Speaking of meteorologists....
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
Global Warming: The Weather Channel Position Statement
More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.