I didn't really have a problem with energy in equal energy out, it is more the short wave-long wave thing - I don't know what qualifies something as "short wave" / "long wave" they are not special categories with special characteristics.

They do hold meaning in the contrast between the two, which depends on the surface temperature of the emitting body (and are you correctly noted above this depends on the absolute temperature to the 4th power)

I'm complaining about the meaning in the words, not the correctness of the theory. That is to say, i know what you mean, i just don't like how you said it.

Fair enough orathaic I can see what you are getting at. Shortwave and longwave are I suppose relative terms, but I think this terminology is fairly common. In this case the difference is frequency is significant because the difference in frequency is what causes C02 (for example) to absorb infrared, while remaining transparent to natural sunlight, whereas O2 is transparent to both infrared and sunlight.

And i think that answers Draug's question about H2, O2 and H2O - it is like asking why is glass transparent to visible light but it blocks Infrared (and UV as it happens, both of which you can test with IR remote controls being blocked by glass, and UV sun not burning your skin through glass)

"UV sun not burning your skin through glass"

Not true at all. The glass has to be polarized or treated to reduce the UV. That's why plain old eyeglasses don't protect like UV treated sunglasses. Plain glass is pretty good at blocking nominal amounts, but not the amount that comes from the sun or even reflects off a snow covered mountain (also helps explain the H2O vapor's greenhouse effect)..

That said, refraction of water vapor does explain why H2O vapor acts as a green house gas while neither oxygen or hydrogen do.

Draug for a more technical explanation of why greenhouse gases absorb infrared sea this link:

http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-dioxide-global-warming.html

Absorption of Infrared Radiation by carbon dioxide happens because the carbon-oxygen bonds can stretch or flex at a frequency that allows them to absorb an infrared photon. There are a number of ways in which the molecule can oscillate. One type involves the bonds stretching and contracting like springs. The molecule can absorb an IR photon when this stretching is asymmetric. The alternative is for the bonds to flex as shown in this animation. The flexing movement allows absorption at a longer wavelength. Because the CO2 molecule can vibrate in different ways it can absorb different frequencies of IR. This means that the infrared absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide shows two main peaks.

Emission of Infrared Radiation by carbon dioxide the oscillating molecule can then re-emit the infrared energy as a photon travelling in a random direction. This will happen repeatedly over time as the particular molecule absorbs and then re-emits IR photons. Consequently, roughly half of the emitted photons from a given molecule will travel back towards the surface.

Please note: The text above was from that site and not my own words.

For a detailed explanation of why H20 absorbs infrared see this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water

"Draug for a more technical explanation of why greenhouse gases absorb infrared sea this link:"

I can't "sea" a link without finding the server and dropping it off a pier. :-)

I never doubted CO2, I just was just having a little fun with the H2O as all elements are, in the end, made from electrons and protons and such. so obviously a combined chemical is different than its elements just as CO is deadly while CO2 is not (you can suffocate form lack of O2, but it won't actually take the O2 in the air and recombine like CO and O2 do [2CO + 1O2 = 2CO2, right?]).

sorry... lots of typos as usual :)

Yeah, I was just funnin' ya, spy.

@Spyman/Draug, yep the 'acting like a spring' gives it what i was referring to as 'vibrational modes' - ie the molecule itself is vibrating. The exact modes depend on things like the weight of the atoms concerned and the strength of the bond.

it's all much more interesting/complex than it seems at first.

Hey Blankflag, are you still participating in this discussion. Just to remind you we are at. We were discussing point 1 (in the list of points I outlined earlier).

1. Greenhouse gases make the Earth temperature warmer than it would be otherwise. Without greenhouse gases the earth would be largely frozen. The physics of the above is well-understood and beyond question at this point in time.

For a man with such strong opinions (and such a low opinion of "sheeple" who don't share your beliefs) you don't see to have much of reason for your point of view, beyond "I just don't reckon its true". I was hoping, even if you can't make a case of your own, you might have a counter for the points that I have raised but so far you haven't presented much.

You never got around to answering this question:

Blankflag, everything we have discussed in last page of this thread, do you now concede that the greenhouse effect is more significant than what you initially stated: "yeah maybe to some slight amount, but not much"

Well do you?

@ spyman, I think that most people would concede that the greenhouse effect puts more energy into the Earth's climatic system. What we do not know, however, is given that system's complexity is what effect that Delta energy will have. The predictions have been woefully wrong so far. Indeed I believe that it is generally accepted that GMST has not changed much in the last decade or so, although I fully concede that it appears as though we have had more extreme weather events. Moreover, you have conceded that the crucial variable in this matter is the heat radiated from the sun. This variable is largely excluded from climatic model predictions. You are right to point out the nature of water vapour as a greenhouse gas. Unfortunately, again, one would therefore think that the effect of the clouds would too be incorporated into the modelling. This is, however, very difficult to do and too has largely been ignored. What we have in essence is a shrill, often politically driven, lobby who shout at the top of their voices more CO2 equals a higher GMST. Perhaps a more nuanced approach is called for even if the science involved might be a little more demanding?

i am losing interest in this conversation because it is useless. you are ignoring my point, and you have not proven anything to me at all.

you prove to me that the greenhouse effect has a significant effect. or that co2 would contribute significantly to it. our atmosphere is huge compared to the co2 we emit. the co2 is so negligible that it is like a drop in a bucket. if you are telling me that if the earth had absolutely no atmosphere that we would be 20 degrees colder on average, or something, then how are you going to tell me that increasing co2 which is a minute fraction of the atmosphere is going to make a catastrophic warming?

i did not concede anything. i still maintain that the greenhouse effect is not much at all. it takes our entire atmosphere just to get what we have now, a few degrees increase. and almost all of the effect, as i said, is stabilizing temperature not increasing it.

so tell me how stabilizing the temperature, or even increasing it by how much? less than a degree or something, is going to be somehow bad for the earth.

if the earths temperature needs to change it needs to be increased. first of all it is retarded to think that there are these things that are good for the earth or bad for the earth, but if that were true at all it would be that the number one threat to the earth is cold. species suffer mass, mass extinctions on earth due to.... yes, ice ages. cold. show me a mass extinction caused by warming.

they only chose this warming nonsense because there was a warming trend happening. before the 80s/90s it was not even settled. they were thinking of a global cooling fear. but they waited to see what was happening. only after they were confident we were in a warming period did they construct this theory.

"i am losing interest in this conversation because it is useless. you are ignoring my point, and you have not proven anything to me at all."

You have no intellectual stamina Blankflag. You talk tough berating people for their "lack of critical thinking" you demonstrate zero ability yourself.

"you prove to me that the greenhouse effect has a significant effect. or that co2 would contribute significantly to it."

I have already proven that the greenhouse effect has a significant effect. Re-read what I have written. You have not countered (or even begun to address) any of my points. If you disagree, tell me which part you disagree with, and be specific, and tell me why, while providing supporting evidence.

"i did not concede anything. i still maintain that the greenhouse effect is not much at all"

All right be specific. Define "not much at all". I have shown that without the greenhouse effect the Earths average temperature would -18 degrees Celsius, which is 26 degrees cooler than it is now.

Be specific: do you dispute this figure? If so name a figure that you believe to be closer to the truth.

Or do you deny that a 26 degree temperature difference is significant . If so tell what figure you would consider to be significant.

You claim to know so much yet so far you have failed to understand the basics of this debate. Prove me wrong on this one point, or concede the point and we can move on to step 2.

blankflag we don't have to move on to question 2. At the rate this debate has been progression got will take too long as issues grown in complexity as the questions progress. Question 1 was a simple question, but you seem to have had a lot of difficulty with it.

Humour me though. Explain your position on question 1 as I outlined above. I know you think you answered it already, but your answer was so vague as to be meaningless.

Typo.. At the rate this debate has been *progressing it will take too long...

"if you are telling me that if the earth had absolutely no atmosphere that we would be 20 degrees colder on average,"

I didn't say "no atmosphere" I said no greenhouse gases. Our atmosphere is mostly N2 and O2 neither of which are greenhouse gases.

i agree this debate is not progressing because you have not really proven anything. if you presented a detailed theory then i could point out the problems. but instead you are asking me questions even though i have already stated the facts many times.

you still are deflecting the issue of how much co2 contributes to the atmospheric warming.

and if you say an earth with no atmosphere is different from an earth without greenhouse gases in terms of temperature then you are contradicting your own definitions.

tell me in out atmosphere how much of the warming is from co2 vs the entire rest of it. then remember that even by your numbers the earth would only be, on average 26 degrees colder with no atmosphere at all. which may be correct, may not be, i am not sure, but if i can assume that is true, then if you can tell me what percent is from co2 then what percent of that co2 is from humans, then we can get a better idea of the scale of this effect you are talking about, since this whole question is about scale.

you just saying that the earths atmosphere might be warming us by a massive 26 degrees proves that human emissions of co2 has a huge effect on temperature is logically flawed.

you are ignoring my points so maybe i can ask you some questions
1. why is a warmer earth bad
2. how does greenhouse gas destabilize as you say the climate rather than stabilize it
3. how much warming is your theory predicting, exactly?
4. how does your theory account for no warming in the past 17 years (are you using the "its hiding in the oceans" theory? or maybe its in a parallel dimension theory or the flying spaghetti monster sequestered it theory)
5, this is not about your theory, but i fear you may be listening to the ipcc to formulate yours - how do you account for the initial graph they made being statistically shown that any data put in will always produce the same hockey stick graph, or their theories of ice free arctic or ice loss in the antarctic or their theory on temperatures - actually pretty much every major prediction, all not only not coming true, but the data doing pretty much the opposite

you should really watch the corbett podcast that i linked. although i doubt you will because i dont think you want to learn more about it. but some of the conclusions in the ipcc, for example, were taken not from studies but one was from a bullet point off a pamphlet by the wwf. that was the source. and crap like this. i cannot even remember off the top of my head all the insanity going on at the ipcc, but what i am telling you here is just do not think they are credible because they are just making a fool of you if you are.

oh i just thought of another one. the vast majority of the contributors the the ipcc report were barred from looking at the question of how much humans co2 contributes to warming. only those selected for group 1 could address that question. all the rest had to just assume it to be true, and could only consider how much of an effect a particular rise in temperature could have.

oh actually i remember another - the summary for policy makers is written and released before the report is released. then the ipcc report is edited to match the conclusions in the summary for policy makers.

does that seem odd to you?

"The predictions have been woefully wrong so far." - i just wanted to add, there is a difference between the theory amd the predictions. The theory is pretty solid, the models which make predictions (and post-dictions) are horribly complex and difficult to get 'good enough' for a medium term prediction - we can make them good enough to postdict what already happened, but there are many issues which have been ignored as insignifigant in earlier models (not because we wanted to ignore them, but because we didn't have the ability to model them)

As for the 'hidden in the ocean' theory - we already know that el nino/la nina causes local warming/cooling and without the sun doing anything. Is it not reasonable to take this into account. And, perhaps more importantly, we know from direct measurents that there is less energy leaving the earth than arriving (yes, even over the past 17 years, a figure blank seems to have pulled from nowhere) more energy means warming - WHERE that warming is depends largely on the movement of air, water, and ice. It's pretty clear that there is warming in the oceans - and with a higher heat capacity than the atmosphere, the oceans will warm more slowly (for a given amount of energy)

@blankflag - total greenhouse gases (CO2, watervapor, etc) is a very small percentage of our atmosphere. No atmosphere at all would result in extremely massive tmeperature swings from extreme heat to extreme cold similar to what the moon experiences. The earth's atmosphere *without* greenhouse gases would still distribute the heat buildup through weather patterns ,aking the high's and lows significantly less extreme than no atmosphere at all.

@Orathaic "i just wanted to add, there is a difference between the theory amd the predictions. The theory is pretty solid, the models which make predictions (and post-dictions) are horribly complex and difficult to get 'good enough' for a medium term prediction - we can make them good enough to postdict what already happened, but there are many issues which have been ignored as insignifigant in earlier models (not because we wanted to ignore them, but because we didn't have the ability to model them) "

The problem is there was a theory, and then they studied it to try to prove it. They did this with models that were *grossly* insufficient, such that they have *never* been able to accurately predict damn near anything...none the less, they massaged the data, cherry-picked information, and reported the theory as not only true, but NON-debatable...they gave it the weight of fact, despite no on-going evidence to suggest it is true, and in fact a growing stabel of evidence that contradicts it.

There was a theory in the 1970's that we were going to a global ice age, you know. Theories don't mean *jack* if you can't demonstrate the validity. You insist the theory is true, and say it must be because it must be (kafka argument...) and then say it is sooooo complex that it can't be understood, and certainly can't be modelled...but it must be true, because the sky-is-falling consequences (which never come to fruition) scare you...

Sheesh...I have a theory you will die a horrible death unless you send me all your money NOW...

Retrospective modelling may now fit the data, but that says nothing about the correctness or otherwise of the hypothecated mechanism. One, at the very least, absolutely must check the models for the insertion of fudge factors or constants; a habit which seems difficult to break with some schools of modellers/scientists (take your pick).
Do they, for example, include modelling of cloud cover, atmospheric soot concentration, glacial surface soot concentration, variations of solar output,deep and surface currants, thermohaline circulation, CO2 induced vegetation growth etc etc? I rather doubt it.

And regarding the question : why is a heat increase bad? Because 7 billion humans have cultivated every bit of land which is cultivatable, we've spread to every corner of the globe and any major shifts in rainfall patterns will cause mass drougth and flooding; both ruining agricultural production. Land which is not used to rainfall will not be able to retain it (so plants will not grow there) and land used to rainfall will go dry (so plants will die)

Any change in global average temperature will mess with our ability to feed our 7 billion brothers and sisters. (though solutions like banning meat and using grain fed to a billion head of cattle to feed humans instead might actually be enough to save us from famine - the political will to do so does not exist and the economic incentives are to feed meat to the rich, rather than to keep everyone alive)

>"you still are deflecting the issue of how much co2 contributes to the atmospheric warming.

I am not deflecting anything blankflag. I am giving the opportunity to debunk the whole theory of AGW at it foundations. You have explicitly claimed that greenhouse effect as no significant effect, but you are unwilling to provide an supporting evidence or even qualify what you mean by significant. That is very telling. You have got nothing. You're making it up as you go along.

If you are right about this claim, then that is it. Game over you win. There is nothing else to discuss.

Btw I am never claimed the greenhouse effect itself validates AGW. That is why when we started this debate I posted 5 point/questions, with each point/question building on the previous point/question. Invalidate the 1st and there is no reason to go onto the 2nd. Invalidate the 3rd and there is no reason to go onto the 4th etc.

>and if you say an earth with no atmosphere is different from an earth without greenhouse gases in terms of temperature then you are contradicting your own definitions."

That is absolute nonsense. I never said that.

With regards to the other points you have raised I have addressed all of those previously, either in this thread or another thread, but you ignored everything I wrote, just like you are doing here. However pointless as the exercise must surely be, I will re-address your points later (not now I must go to work).

Fullhamish you have said that climate change models don't take into consideration the effect of clouds. Why do say that? Can you support that claim with a link?

I'll provide one of my own, which shows evidence to the contrary.
8.6.3.2 Clouds
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html

Regarding clouds and climate change models another member has raised this issue before in a similar discussion.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=991989#992214

This is what I wrote at the time:

For example take this article, 'Cloud Climatology'
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html

Here is a sample of what is written in the article:

"In order to predict the climate several decades into the future, we need to understand many aspects of the climate system, one being the role of clouds in determining the climate's sensitivity to change. Clouds affect the climate but changes in the climate, in turn, affect the clouds. This relationship creates a complicated system of climate feedbacks , in which clouds modulate Earth's radiation and water balances."
"[...] A major effort is under way at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) under the direction of Dr. William B. Rossow , to gather better information about clouds and their radiative effects. Since 1983 the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) , as part of the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) , has been collecting observations from weather satellites to assemble a global, multi-year dataset. GISS serves as the Global Processing Center for ISCCP, in cooperation with institutions in several other countries. The datasets provide some of the key variables that determine the interaction of clouds and radiation."