Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

Wood's experiment, which one experiment alone proves nothing, does not address whether Global warming can or cannot be caused by CO2 trapping IR, rather it showed in that instance that greenhouses confine heat physically rather than trapping IR. But how is a greenhouse equivalent to our atmosphere? We know that certain atmospheric variables do retain heat.

You could claim that using the name Greenhouse to describe how CO2 could retain is misnamed. But to say that CO2 in the atmosphere does not help retain heat because of Wood's experiment is unwarranted.

If trapping IR could cause heating then the greenhouse that trapped IR would have been hotter than the one that did not trap IR. The glass in the greenhouse trapped IR more effectively than CO2 could, if CO2 can even trap IR which hasn't been proved, because it reflected a wide spectrum back to the interior of the greenhouse.

In order for trapping IR to cause heating the IR would have had to have increased the temperature of whatever absorbed it in the greenhouse. It did not.

The process by which CO2 absorbs and reemits IR involves a quantum of energy at a time. It is highly unlikely that a guantum of energy emitted by a CO2 molecule would be able to heat anything.

Again, the problem becomes that you are using an experiment on apples to form a conclusion on oranges. That is not a proper use of the findings of an experiment.

In addition, you have reduced the discussion to IR not realizing that if too much heat is trapped by an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere regardless of how it is trapped, it poses the same dangers as heat trapped by IR.

No matter what you call it, thankfully the earth's atmosphere does block IR light to greater degree than visible, C02 has been measured to be a significant factor in this reduction of IR transmission.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmosphe ric_Transmission.png

If this didn't occur, the earth would be like the moon, where the average surface temperature is 0 degrees fahrenheit.

2 points
1. There is more to the relationship between IR and CO2 than you say

2. The question isn't whether we should have CO2 in the atmosphere, it is level of CO2 that is being debated. There is also the issue of CO2 levels in the ocean

So, what is your point? Are you saying that the huge increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere (among other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses) over the last century has not caused increased average global temps? You need to do some research of science that's not funded by the oil industry before you embarrass yourself any more.

but temperatures are not as high as expected because the oceans, with consequences, have also absorbed too much CO2.

The effects are observable, especially with the ice in the arctic circle and the thawing of the permafrost.

There is NO science in the Global Warming Follies--only politics.

Many of us have signed this:

21,000 Scientists Refute the Phony Global Warming Follies as The Biggest Attempt to Tax The World Has Even Seen.
Monday, January 28, 2008 10:46 AM
http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/c9173a36-97a1-4 108-9e7d-cdaa38b28cbf

Their computer 'models' failed to predict that temps would fall:

Can the Global Warming Zombies Admit they look like Fools Even Yet??
http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2009/01/05/ca n_the_global_warming_zombies_admit_they_look_like_fools__ev en_yet.thtml

These people are parasites.

rycK

Why not just tell us how the computer models predicted the wrong outcome and why studies like "The Limits to Growth" were so phony and predicted nothing.

Those people who push phony science are known as Lysenko types. He got lots of political power for his phony science. al gore, the EcoNazi, is our new Lysenko.

Quack Science, Global Warming and the Wild Flight from Reason: Is Al Gore our New Lysenko?
Friday, December 21, 2007 12:04 PM
http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/7063dcde-b734-4 6bb-afa7-e2dbc26930fa

His father was a communist pig too, a Hammer stooge. Hammer's father, a bungling abortionist was the CPUSA founder.

Ever notice that Commies, losers, frauds and quack science freaks seem to fit together?

Why are the computer model predictions wrong??

?????

Caday 5 could make a point if he, she, could show us a chart that demonstrates that the temperature variations on the earth's surface simply follow the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere in a first order math function.

Why do we see cooling trends in times when CO2 levels increase? Why do some of the hottest decades happen when industrial production is much lower than in the present?

And, spare us the 'scientific' use of tree rings to 'correct' surface temperature variations around 0.1 deg C. You might as well sue Tarot cards to predict

quack quack

rycK

First, no one I know of said they knew what would happen as CO2 levels increased. There are several models not one.

Second, there are multiple variables involved with rising temperature here. But the rising temperature is more seen outside of the temperate zone. In particular we see the rapid disappearance of ice in the North Pole and the thawing of the permafrost--observable events not projected events. Of course the result of too much melting of ice in the north could cause a disruption to the gulf stream that brings warm water to the northern hemisphere which controls the weather. But, again, that is one possibility.

Another observable event is the number dead zones that exist in the world's oceans due to increased levels of CO2. That number stood at 200 in 2006.

It seems that the only people who really object to talk about climate change are those who place a greater precedence of personal prosperity over mass survivability. Some don't believe that global climate change cannot be negatively affected by man because that would imply changing our seeking for personal prosperity.

"First, no one I know of said they knew what would happen as CO2 levels increased. There are several models not one"

Are you kidding?

If that is true then why do we bother with CO2 levels?

To retreat into 'multiple variables' and all that is to dodge the simple question:

Where is your data that shows we are some global warming phase as many of these 'models' tend to show?

Where is your explanation for the follies of MIT's Limits to Growth?

Why has British Parliment voted 635 to 5 to lower CO2

England Votes 648:5 to Ruin Their Economy! A Lesson for California for Greatness
http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/30/en gland_votes_6485_to_ruin_their_economy!_a_lesson_for_califo rnia_for_greatness.thtml

What was the Kyoto Accord all about if not CO2?

Are you kidding?

???

Fresh news caday5:


Global Warming May Wipe Out California Birds

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29120947/

"The news is most alarming for birds like the yellow-billed magpie, which exists only in California. The study finds that the species would lose about 75 percent of its range in the coming decades if nothing is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There is some good news, however. The study also suggests that significantly reducing greenhouse gasses while increasing conservation could greatly reduce the damage."

Is CO2 a green house gas in your view??

??

Having a problem with facts? I have been following this for a while and yes, there are several models used to predict what will happen

And yes, excess CO2 is causing problems

Again, the problem is that it is the implications that conservatives are objecting to.

And yes, excess CO2 is causing problems?

Show me the facts.

You have nothing to show.

This is a lie.

The facts have already been mentioned. The thawing of the permafrost (an observable fact), the drastic reduction of ice at the north pole, and the 200 dead zones in the ocean due to a lack of oxygen and the abundance of CO2 is just a sample. Those are observable facts, not projections based on computer models

If you actually believe what you're writing, you are simply a fool. If you are purposefully ignoring scientifically accepted fact to make your "argument" then you are just a tool of the oil lobby. maybe you're both. Either way, you are simply wrong.

NASA probes show Earth's warming wasn't unique. They found virtually all the planets in our system were warming up AT THE SAME TIME. NASA's fleet of robots showed virtually no arming of our oceans as well. 2007 saw GLOBAL temps drop like a rock. 100 years of globla warming virtually undone in just 12 months. This past year was also a cool one. All teh data shows that the warming trend ended in 1998. All this when human production of CO2 has continued to rise not fall. How can globla temps be dropping when the amount of the supposed trigger of the warming in our atmosphere has continued to rise? Could this mean CO2 isn't that cause? Anyone who objectiovly views ALL of the data knows teh answer. :-)

Actually, the summers continued to get progressively warmer since '98. In addition, and this has been a long time, what environmentalists have been saying is that we are looking Global Climate Change. Some of the models include global cooling possibly because of a possible disruption of the gulf stream.

But what we are seeing, at both poles, is a reduction in ice. We also see the thawing of the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia which result in the release of a vast amount of methane. So what is being observed is that the greatest changes in temperature are occurring more at the poles than the temperate zone

Black soot is a major factor in Arctic snow melting. Soot from Asian cooking fires and Chinese power plants has mixed in with the snow. Pure snow reflects sunlight back into space. Soot converts solar radiation into heat which melts the ice.

As snow cover is removed the ground converts radiation into heat which warms the air further melting snow in adjacent areas.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_soot.ht ml

warmer temperatures account for the melting ice as it also accounts for the thawing of the permafrost.