Comparing 255 to 32 is pretty meaningless. Comparing 255 to the temp on Mars, and correcting for the difference due to proximity to the sun + the difference due to escaping internal heat would be more appropriate.
The theme of not wanting to admit to any global warming, because it might lead to increased taxes or an increase in the cost of energy is simply greed. That they are willing to subject their own grandchildren to a worse future in the world is a pretty damning indication of what they think of their own offspring.
That makes it pretty difficult to argue with them. They don't care about their own family. The only thing that's important to them is their own wallet. People with no values, other than their personal wealth just don't see any argument other than their own.
That's what prisons are full of -- people who just don't care about anyone but themselves.
Maxx thinks that the 255 K is from "non-greenhouse" gases, when actually they have nothing to do with it.
The greenhouse gases are the reason that Earth is not a giant snowball. Take away either water vapor or carbon dioxide and the Earth freezes over. Who cares if it's 89% of the temperature with GHG? It's still cold enough fro everyone to freeze.
He is also confusing the TEMPERATURE with the WARMING (change in temperature).
He should not expect an apology from anyone that calls him a liar until he stops lying. He is asking fake questions in order to spread false information. If Yahoo Answers were a responsible organization they would shut him down, but they're more worried about people being friendly to each other than they are about whether someone lies or not.
EDIT: In this particular case, it appears that Maxx is not lying so much as completely misunderstanding the science. He says:
"It's direct radiation from incoming sunlight that oxygen absorbs, nitrogen absorbs some shortwave radiation also. And shortwave radiation has much more energy than longwave infrared. "
Oxygen and nitrogen aren't absorbing very much of the shortwave. I would guess that most of the shortwave being absorbed is by ozone in the stratosphere. How do we know that oxygen and nitrogen aren't absorbing much? Easy--WE CAN SEE THROUGH AIR. Maxx you said that you used to live near China Lake, do you remember one of those good visibility days where you could see 50 miles or more? Now try to rationalize that with your idea that oxygen and nitrogen are absorbing a lot of shortwave energy--it doesn't work. If they were absorbing a lot, you wouldn't see through air.
And the idea that shortwave energy has more energy than longwave infrared is correct--AS LONG AS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENERGY OF A SINGLE PHOTON.
Once you start talking about multiple photons, you have to add up the energy of ALL of the photons, and if there are a lot more low energy photons than high energy photons, the low energy photons win. You could make the same wrong argument about sunlight: X-ray photons have more energy than visible light photons, therefore most of the energy in sunlight is in X-rays. WRONG!! Most of the energy is the visible.
Take away the greenhouse gases and we all freeze.
Maxx has confused thermal radiation with the retarding effect that greenhouse gases have on thermal radiation. It has nothing to do with other gases retarding properties. He is again dishonest about his lack of knowing what he is talking about. One can only be amazed by the whacko things that climate change deniers come up with. These people would just go away if they took a physics course rather than ranting about things they clearly do not understand.
The rant that you are referring is nonsense, in the literal meaning of nonsense.
Maxx, the atmosphere is warmed by the surface of the earth. The heat within the system is increasing because the rate it escapes is being increasingly slowed by increasing amounts of greenhouse gases. Whether you mean by "atmospheric warming" the warming of the atmosphere by the surface, or the increasing heat in the system, it has nothing to do with changes in non-greenhouse gases. The question at hand is not how does the surface warm the atmosphere, it is why is the energy escaping more slowly than in past years and why is the slowed energy at precisely the same frequencies as those affected by greenhouse gases.
why bother with the village idiot? He can't figure out 255K is the blackbody radiation without any atmosphere, so he twists it to "non-greenhouse gases" and a questionable ratio.
In his latest rant, the question:
Do ‘Non-Greenhouse Gases’ provide about EIGHT times more warming to the atmosphere than Greenhouse Gases?
from a link that says:
"Without greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O), Earth’s temperature would cool to an average of about –18°C (255 K), rather than the 14°C (287 K) that we currently enjoy." http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/1616...
to: MAXX's brilliant deduction:
Clearly “Non-Greenhouse Gases” provide the vast majority of the Earth’s warming.
Of course the 255K is from sunlight which strikes Earth, not from non-greenhouse gases.
It is true that oxygen and nitrogen absorb in UV, the visible and the near-infrared parts of the spectrum, but these are from direct sunlight and are at shorter wavelengths than what are radiated by Earth, and do not contribute to the greenhouse effect.
There is little overlap between what Earth receives from the Sun and what Earth radiates into space.
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/pag...
This is because of the great temperature difference between the Sun and Earth.
So what if we had the 32 Kelvin from Greenhouse Gases but didn't have the 255 Kelvin from non-greenhouse gases? How livable would the planet be then?
And stop whining that I blocked you. You called me a LIAR and that's why you are blocked. http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
If you want to apologize for that, I'll unblock you.
-----------------------
And you miss the point of my question. I'm not saying the 32 Kelvin is unimportant from the standpoint of making the planet liveable. Instead I'm pointing out that the Greenhouse Effect is not by any means the main source of atmospheric warming.
Most people are mislead by all the Warmist propaganda and believe Greenhouse Gases do ALL or nearly all of the planet's warming, when in fact it only provides about 11%.
-----------------------
Climate Realists: - Your say: "Of course the 255K is from sunlight which strikes Earth, not from non-greenhouse gases."
Nope, after sunlight strikes Earth and it re-emits, it's longwave IR, Oxygen doesn't absorb infrared or at least, not much. It's direct radiation from incoming sunlight that oxygen absorbs, nitrogen absorbs some shortwave radiation also. And shortwave radiation has much more energy than longwave infrared.
But you are correct that it does not contribute to the 'greenhouse effect' because that term is narrowly defined as warming due to infrared absorption. And oxygen does not absorb infrared, it heats by absorbing shortwave radiation. Nevertheless, oxygen and nitrogen heat the atmosphere far more (about 8 times more) than the greenhouse effect.
-----------------------
Then you need to explain the sudden undulations over short periods of time with scientific facts instead of hearsay. I'll copy/paste this at you from another question :
"Short term temperature variability is natural. It is clearly illustrated in the Global average temperature records. This is one of the reasons why humans "do not" have any control over climate variations. The 30s is one era that shows this variability very clearly. I doubt that CO2 levels had anything to do with a 0.47C rise from January (1935) to February immediately followed by a drop of 0.48C from February to April.
March (1939) to December rise of 0.56C was followed by an immediate decrease of 0.52C from Dec '39 to Jan '40. These rocket science/climate science knuckleheads here at Y/A can't read a temperature graph or follow the numbers it seems."
You can't tell anyone that these variations are caused by greenhouse gases. These very temperatures are used to establish long term trends also.
How about the rise in 1994 to '95 (Feb) of 0.76C?
... or even the drop in Jan 2007 to 2008 of 0.7C?
Both of these happened in a 1 year period and had nothing to do with greenhouse gas increases or decreases.
Current Global Warming stands at 0.61C over 133 years of measuring it. There are several other temperature variations in the temperature records that can't be from CO2 emissions. The late 1800s have 4 or 5 extreme variations.
Additionally :
(Copy/paste) "GHGs = 11% of temperature x CO2 accounts for 9% to 26% of greenhouse temperatures ("Global Warming Swindle") = 1% to 3% of overall temperature x 40% (CO2 increase since the beginning of industrialization) = 0.4% to 1.2% (maximum temperature effect that humans have had on the Earth's atmosphere, but if you are saying that CO2 only has a 2% effect on temperatures, then this is much smaller.
-
GHGs 11% x CO2 effect 2% = 0.22% x 40% (increase of atmospheric CO2 from industrialization) = 0.088% is the maximum human effect on temperatures."
By the way, you wouldn't have "greenhouse warming" at all without water. CO2 will never outgas water vapor!
Shut up. It isn't even warming. The data is fudged constantly by these academics who can't do anything else.
The climate is stable. That's the ONE THING the climate scientists have accomplished. They have proven that we haven't varied by more than a degree in 150 years. If they were only smart enough to see it.
This is in relation to one of Maxx' recent questions regarding what he calls 'non-greenhouse gasses' which he reckons account for much of the warming of our atmosphere.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131121082525AAqDCvd
Since I cannot reply (he blocked me), I'll use this question to point out where I believe Maxx is wrong.
Maxx uses an Encyclopedia of Earth quote which correctly reads "Without greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), or nitrous oxide (N2O), Earth’s temperature would cool to an average of about –18°C (255 K), rather than the 14°C (287 K) that we currently enjoy".
He then subtracts 255 K from 287 K which gives 32 K as the total amount of warming due to greenhouse gasses. Yet he then argues that since 255 K is about 8 times larger than 32 K, some 'non-greenhouse gasses' must be having a far greater impact than greenhouse gasses.
In my opinion, he totally misses the fact that these 32 K are the difference between life or death on our planet. 'Just' 255 K from these so-called 'non-greenhouse gasses' would still only warm the earth to an average of -18 C (64 F) and make it comparable to the average temperature on other planets of which we are pretty sure no life exists.
Do you agree that Maxx underestimates the importance of 'just 32 K' of greenhouse gas contributions to earth's overall warming and thus underestimates the importance of greenhouse gasses as a whole?
