Comments 1 to 7:

1. pjcarson2015 at 11:13 AM on 21 June, 2017

   The Greenhouse effect is a temperature - that resulting from the heat held by all the gases in the atmosphere.
   Therefore, ALL gases in the atmosphere are greenhouse gases.

   [It is immaterial how the gases absorb this heat, eg by convection, conduction, diffusion or infrared. That is an (infra) red herring!]
   The amount of heat each gas component holds is roughly in proportion to its percentage.
   Therefore, as carbon dioxide’s level is only about 0.04%, its contribution to global warming is puny – perhaps 0.01C!

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [PS] Sloganeering. You cant start with a incorrect understanding of the greenhouse effect and then expect to prove it wrong. Firstly, try to understand how the greenhouse effect works - virtually everything you said was wrong. I recommend Science of Doom, for good textbook treatment. If you still want to object, find an appropriate topic (use search or argument buttons at top) and support your argument with references/data. Your objection needs to fit with all of the observation/measurements made, including direct measurements.

2. pjcarson2015 at 13:06 PM on 21 June, 2017

   OK Moderator. Mine is simply a thermodynamic statement; difficult to refute. (My PhD is in that area.) You just can’t simply write that what I’ve written is wrong, without showing why.

   My observation fits the Greenhouse effects on Venus, Earth and Mars, something which AGW’s known to be incorrect redefinition of Greenhouse Effect (see eg Wikipedia and countless others), cannot.
   [Mars has 14x CO2 level of Earth’s but almost zero Greenhouse effect – in line with the total pressure being so low. You can get an expanded explanation at my site.]

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [PS] Then use your PhD skills to read a text book on radiative thermodynamics instead of framing nonsense.Starting with the GHE is NOT a temperature resulting from heat held by gases. If you learnt that in your PhD, then you need a refund.

   Unfortunately, your skills dont seem to include how to understand our comments policy.

3. nigelj at 13:53 PM on 21 June, 2017

   Pjcarson2015, the reason temperatures on mars are a bit cool despite high CO2 concentrations might just be something to do with very low atmospheric mass, and very low surface pressure, compared to both earth and venus. Mars also has a lack of water vapour, and mars gets considerably less sunlight than earth.

   I'm not a scientist,  but even I can figure it out. You have a phd in thermodynamics? I simply do not believe you, full stop.

   0 0
4. Tom Curtis at 15:18 PM on 21 June, 2017

   pjcarson2015 @5, the continuous parade of climate "skeptics" who pontificate on what "AGW predicts" without ever bothering to look up what climate science actually predicts is tiresome.  In your case you claim AGW predicts a stronger greenhouse effect on Earth, whereas it actually predicts a much weaker GHE on Mars:

   

   On Earth, as a convenience, the effect of the greenhouse effect is determined as a function of percentage change in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 on Earth as a convenience, but in the full theory, the effect of the greenhouse effect is determined by the partial pressure profile with altitude of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). 

   High partial pressures of non-IR active gases (such as O2 and N2) can effect the strength of the greenhouse effect by lifting CO2 to a higher altitude, thereby increasing the partial pressure of CO2 at that altitude.  But without the GHG, IR inert gases will have no greenhouse effect, and no tendency to increase surface temperature above the simplified black body estimates.  (They will slightly increase surface temperature by equalizing temperature between poles and equator, but the simplified black body estimates assume equal temperature at all points, so this effect cannot raise the temperature above that value.)

   For a more detailed account of what "AGW theory" predicts about the temperature of Mars, I refer you to Toigo et al (2012).

   0 0
   Moderator Response:

   [PS] I think pdCarson has outstayed is welcome. No further comments please.

5. Art Vandelay at 23:34 PM on 21 June, 2017

   Worth noting that the temp anomaly was referenced against 1951-1980 which was a relatively cool interval thanks to AMO / PDO phases, so the anomaly is made to look slightly more severe that what it would if the previous 30 years was also included.  

   0 0
6. Tom Curtis at 23:57 PM on 21 June, 2017

   Art Vandelay @5, I don't think that is correct.  While it is likely that the 1940s were warmer than the 1970s, the 1920s and 30s were definitely cooler than any following decade:

   

   0 0
7. HK at 01:04 AM on 23 June, 2017

   Art Vandelay @5:
   The period 1921-1980 was 0.06°C and 0.05°C colder in the Berkeley Earth and NASA record respectively than their reference period 1951-80, so including those 30 years would make the temp anomalies that much larger, not smaller.
   Note: Berkeley Earth presents two versions of their temperature record, but they recommend using the one with air temperature above sea ice, not water temperature below it.

   0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.