Posted by: graemebird | December 9, 2009

There Are No Greenhouse Gases/ There Is No Greenhouse Effect.

RE-READING THESE THREADS I CAN SEE THERE ARE MISTAKES IN THE THINKING AND THAT I WAS EXAGGERATING ALSO IN SOME CASES. I DON’T WANT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE NO GREENHOUSE GASES. ONLY THAT THIS IS A SORT OF MISLEADING WAY OF LOOKING AT THE PROBLEM.

ALSO HERE I AM MISCHARACTERISING THE WAY THE LIGHT BEHAVES IN THESE MATTERS. MOSTLY ITS JUST STRAIGHT TRANSPARENCY. SO IT DOESN’T ABSORB ALL THE LIGHT AND RE-RELEASE IT ALL. TYPICALLY IT WILL SIMPLY SCATTER THE LIGHT IN ITS ABSORPTION REGION. OR AT LEAST ABSORB ONLY THE LIGHT IN THOSE WAVELENGTHS, AND RE-RELEASE THAT SAME LIGHT AND IN THOSE SAME WAVELENGTHS. I WRITE THESE THINGS PRETTY QUICKLY AND DON’T GO BACK OVER THEM TO CORRECT THEM UNTIL MUCH LATER IF EVER.

A lot of threads about the same thing. But people have to understand this matter. And many different re-tellings can be helpful.

“I just read one of the responses to that horrible article by Clive “your dad is scum” Hamilton, which stated that “vibrating” CO2 molecules reflect IR back to the surface thus warming the lower atmosphere.”

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Water vapour is not the most important greenhouse gas. Its not even a greenhouse gas. Because there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Since there is no greenhouse effect. I wish I could take the sensible middle ground on this matter. But its not possible to do so. I wish I could say that the greenhouse effect is not as strong as earlier imagined. Such a compromise could fit the data one supposes. But the fact is there are no greenhouse gases. And there is no greenhouse effect.

Take the situation you are thinking about. The CO2 molecule absorbs the full spectrum of the radiation that hits it. And re-radiates out the full spectrum minus the small low-end band it captures. But the normal molecules that are around this CO2 molecule are absorbing the full spectrum and re-radiating the full spectrum. So how can the warming be through back-radiation? Through the alleged greenhouse effect?

Rather the CO2 molecule is robbing us of re-radiation in that sense. From a radiation point of view we have a minus right there. And the average CO2 molecule in that position is now high-tailing it out of there on its way above our heads, above our houses and above our thermometers.

Despite some carping from our year nine science teachers it is perfectly sound English to say that “heat rises”. It is where this general rule is overturned that we can generate a heat budget in any particular strata. Right there the CO2 doesn’t appear to be helping a great deal. For the CO2 to warm me it has to be catching that radiation above my head then sinking down as it does so, and warming the molecules at my level. The CO2 molecules that are warming me need not all necessarily come all the way down to waist-level to do so. But they have to catch that radiation at a higher level and subsequently move down. To overmatch the initial effect they have of robbing us of some of the re-radiation.

Supposing a cloud comes by? The cloud is like a mobile strata top. Instead of the strata ending at the troppopause, on account of this cloud, the strata now effectively ends where the cloud starts. The warmer CO2 molecule that might have wanted to keep moving on up, taking their warmth with them, may be forced into reverse. Its where the CO2 molecule is physically reversed and can take energy it has captured at a higher level, down to the lower level, well this is where the CO2 can have a warming effect.

It ought to be clear that if CO2 is capable of net warming in the way described above, this is going to be mostly in the night, where its two higher absorption regions aren’t being excited by the sun and sending the average CO2 molecule much higher than where it could be of help to us.

There is a lot of overturning in the troposphere for one reason or another. And it is only in conjunction with this overturning, for the most part, that these gases can have that warming effect.

The story with water and water vapour is a little different. Since water vapour ought to be constantly turning back and forth between being water vapour and microscopic airborne liquid water. Its the effects to do with this constant transformation between water vapour and microscopic airborne liquid-water, that have the effect on our air temperature that makes our planet habitable. Nothing to do with any bogus greenhouse effect since there is no such thing.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. As an hypothesis this surge deal would seem to make no sense at all. Gavin. Can you stick up for it? Why would a surge in ice cause an ice age? Senseless. Except to the extent that it stopped the clean flow of the great ocean conveyor. Not much of an hypothesis so far.

    Ice surges in one decade would appear to simply be about ice buildup in earlier decades. We know the ice has been building up. Why ought it not surge? As a matter of fact if it didn’t surge then Charles Hapgood would be right. If the ice buildup in Antarctica in earlier decades, failed to lead to ice surging in a subsequent decade, then we would have an earth crustal displacement. The ice would keep building up and building up until it lead to a new equatorial shift.

    In which case it would not be the ice surge that lead to the ice age. It would be the FAILURE OF THE ICE TO SURGE that would do so.

    Its all bloody CO2 with you morons isn’t it. The ice surges. Thats CO2. The ice fails to surge. CO2. Maybe we just have to sterilise you warmers. Just to make sure the stupid gene doesn’t get passed on.

    You know that the ice has been building up and building up in Antarctica?

    What if it didn’t surge?

    What would you say then?

    Dummies.

    Perhaps the ice is surging but it is not surging fast enough? Perhaps its the failure of the ice to surge which will make Hapgood correct and we will all be in deep trouble and the ice man cometh. What on earth could be sinister about the ice surging? Ice moves like a slow-motion river. So if it builds up it must surge. I should bloody well hope so.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: