Don't forget without our atmosphere Earths temp would not only be colder but would vary violently between day and night and summer and winter.
I think the sun is responsible for a majority of the atmosphere's heat, and the greenhouse gases are responsible for making the Earth livable.
Without the sun or the greenhouse gases, Earth would be a giant snowball.
The funny thing is that essentially no scientist disputes these facts (even the ones skeptical of the significance of global warming), but you still think there's something to discuss.
If you really enjoy making stupid arguments (and it seems that you do), why not claim that non-Greenhouse gases are responsible for more than 99% of the heat in the Earth's atmosphere? The internal energy of a gas is proportional to how much gas there is, and a whole lot more of the atmosphere is made up of non-greenhouse gases. How much of the atmosphere is water vapor? Something like 0.4%, all the rest of the greenhouse gases make up a negligible fraction by volume, so more than 99% of the energy of the atmosphere is due to non-greenhouse gases!
It's pure sophistry, but I know that's what you like.
Maxx: You do realize that the non-greenhouse gases are NOT responsible for the 255 K, don't you? Take away the non-greenhouse gases and you STILL get that number, so the non-greenhouse gases are responsible for 0 K of the temperature. So, in answer to the question you should have asked, 33 is bigger than 0.
Try a different lie, this is one of the stupidest arguments I've seen.
Maxx: You retreat from one lie to another. Why don't you just try to learn something and give up with this nonsense? You have at least three professional scientists telling you you're wrong, why in the world would you think you're correct? The equations that show your argument is bogus are simple. Why don't you just pick up a book and try to learn them, rather than repeat garbage?
The premise of your question is wrong but I’ll come to that later.
By definition, a gas that has the capacity to retain heat within the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas. If for example, oxygen had the ability to interact with and retain heat energy, then it too would join the suite of other greenhouse gases.
On that basis then the greenhouse gases are responsible for all of the heat RETAINED within the atmosphere. Do not confuse this with the amount of heat PRESENT in the atmosphere. Photons can simply pass through the atmosphere exciting the molecules and atoms and giving heat energy a presence without any interaction with the greenhouse gases.
Additionally, it should be noted that greenhouse gases do not radiate heat. For all intents and purposes the Sun is the sole source of heat within the atmosphere, the role played by the greenhouse gases is to trap heat energy that originated from the Sun. In this respect the greenhouse gas molecules are not responsible for CREATING heat but are the mechanism for RETAINING it.
Furthermore, the average global temperature would be 33K cooler were it not for the presence of greenhouse gases (note that it’s 33K and not 33°K. Celsius and Fahrenheit are degree absolutes, Kelvin is algebraic and therefore omits the degree part). But this is the AVERAGE temperature, the absence of greenhouse gases does not mean that the temperature would simply fall by 33K across the planet. The greenhouse gases act as temperature moderators, without them there would be greater temperature variations but the overall trend would be a cooling one.
The entire premise of your question appears to be fundamentally flawed. You seem to be saying that without greenhouse gases the ave temp would be 255K and that the non-greenhouse gases are the mechanism by which this temperature would be maintained. Wrong.
The moon has almost exactly the same average temperature as Earth does but of course, it has no atmosphere. The average terrestrial and lunar temps of approx 255K (without greenhouse gases) is a consequence of the PRESENCE of heat originating from the Sun.
The key difference here is that Earth does have greenhouse gases in it’s atmosphere which increase the temperature over and above that which would exist with or without an atmosphere.
- - - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS (1)
Without the presence of greenhouse gases then the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere would be about 255K – yes. But to be quite clear, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with global warming or greenhouse gases; it’s merely a consequence of our planet lying some 150 million km from the Sun.
- - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS (2)
Yes, greenhouse gases can heat without the Sun. A very simple experiment is to fill one bottle with air, one with a greenhouse gas and put them near a heat source (such as a lamp) and observe how much hotter the bottle of greenhouse gas becomes. The heat from the lamp is of the correct wavelength to allow for absorption of heat energy by the greenhouse gases.
In practical terms, 99.97% of heat on Earth comes from the Sun so the amount of warming that occurs in the atmosphere consequent to direct heating, tidal friction, geothermal radiation etc is minute. Take away the Sun and in time the temperature of Earth would fall to 2.7K (-271°C) with most of that heat coming from microwave background radiation.
The Sun!
.... with, as you correctly point out, an extra 33C (or K) due to the properties of the greenhouse gasses.
Strictly speaking, it would be the Earth's surface that would be warmed to 255K; the atmosphere would be much colder if it contained no GHG's.
I did understand what you meant but, given the way you worded it, found the irony irresistable.
Anyway, though I'm not 100% confident, I'm pretty certain the answer is GHG's. Without them the atmosphere will be bypassed by the vast majority of the energy in both directions instead of just the incoming one.
If Earth had no atmosphere at all, or if it had an atmosphere of nothing but oxygen, nitrogen and argon, then it would indeed be 33°K cooler than it is now.
Now, as to whether greenhouse gases or non-greenhouse gases are responsible for the majority of the atmosphere's heat depends on what you mean by the word "responsible." It is the greenhouse gases which are responsible for absorbing the heat. But, greenhouse gas molecules collide with other molecules and give up heat energy to these molecules.
Carbon dioxide, methane and other trace greenhouse gases give up the vast majority of their heat energy to more abundant gases. Only a very small amount of heat energy is actually held by these greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the only greenhouse gas that holds a significant amount of heat.
I may do some calculations later, but my suspicion is that the ranking of heat content of atmospheric gases is
1. Nitrogen
2. Oxygen
3. Water vapor
4. And a distant forth - Argon
Carbon dioxide, methane and other trace greenhouse gases only hold very small amounts of heat.
My mistake. Oxygen, nitrogen and argon can absorb heat from the Earth's surface by convection. And even though they do not have dipole moments, oxygen and nitrogen can absorb some UV, visible and near IR wavelengths directly from the Sun by electron excitation.
Only on a world with heavy geothermal activity. On such a world, greenhouse gases could retain the heat from the the planet's interior. I doubt that they could retain the heat of Earth without the Sun. Without the Sun, earth's internal heat would not be too low for carbon dioxide or methane to be anything but frozen solid. Probably only hydrogen, helium and neon, none of which are greenhouse gases, would exist in the gaseous phase.
Sagebrush
I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that that would come from someone who claims that an animation that looks like a video of a graph attached to a seesaw is proof of wrongdoing by James Hansen. The term "greenhouse gas" was invented in the 19th century when Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall thought that greenhouses worked by blocking heat transfer by radiation, and has nothing to do with Al Gore.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
WTF are you talking about?
288K = 14.85oC
33oC = 306.15K
=====
[°C] = [K] ? 273.15
[K] = [°C] + 273.15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin
======
Hey Maxx --
Why are they called non-greenhouse gases?
You guys crack me up.
=====
edit --
>>33°C [same as 33°K] <<
My reading ability is fine and the above statement of yours is false.
Besides - Kelvin is not even a "degree" unit of measure (i.e., there is a 33K, but there is no such thing as 33°K).
This just keeps getting funnier.
=======
edit --
Your referenced statements continues: "the practice of simultaneously using both "°C" and "K" remains widespread throughout the scientific world as the use of SI prefixed forms of the degree Celsius (such as "μ°C" or "micro degrees Celsius") to express a temperature interval has not been widely adopted."
And, if you read further:
>>From a scientific point of view, this will link temperature to the rest of SI and result in a stable definition that is independent of any particular substance. From a practical point of view, the redefinition will pass unnoticed; water will still freeze at 0 °C (32 °F, 273.15 K).[14]<<
NOTE the last part:>>water will still freeze at 0 °C (32 °F, 273.15 K)<<
0 °C = 273.15K
The interval is the same - however the scale is different.
Therefore:
288K - 33C does not equal 288K - 33K;
It equals either:
288K - 306.15K = -18.15K
or
14.85C - 33C = -18.15C
So --- Either way you end up at [-18.15]
Which, of course, means that your "non-greenhouse gases" do not account for ANY part of the temperature, much less the majority of it.
Quit pretending that you know what you are talking about. You cannot redefine things just to make them mean what you want - that is called lying.
====
edit ---
>>Of course they are different scales, I never said they were not.<<
Yes, you did:
>>...33°C [same as 33°K]...<<
>>pegminer ... Now let me help you with this very complicated question. First try to figure out which is the bigger number 255 or 33. I know that's a tough question but I think if you really apply yourself you can figure it out.<<
You are claiming that 255K and 33C are the same scale and that 288 - 33 = 255 is a legitimate calculation. It is not.
If you want to subtract something from 288, it has to be 306.15 (not 33).
>>Now I've made myself so clear that even a three-year old would understand perfectly<<
Of course, since your knowledge of science and math, and your brain is the same as that of a 3-year old.
Greenhouse gases are the responsible gases for the absorbing heat of the sun.and another cause of atmospheric heat is ozone layer depletion.it is the destruction of ozone molecules by different harmful gases. i think you understood,thank you.
Gary F:
Why are they called non-greenhouse gases?
You guys crack me up.>
They are called greenhouse gases because that is the term Al Gore and associates put on them. It was a PR stunt and it worked on suckers. I guess you should know what category you are in. As Jeff M once truly stated, "Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with a greenhouse." And I agree with him. There are people who make big money just to come up with names that stimulate an emotion. I once worked for a company that paid a PR firm nearly a million dollars to come up with an effective name. So just to say that is is a name, that was given by a con artist, and that proves AGW shows just how bankrupt your side is. If you were a true scientist, you would know that, and would not be so easily conned.
In answer to your question: The Sun is responsible for the heat. The gases are only responsible for heat retention. And that has to do more with density than what it is called. Ask any blacksmith or annealing artist about heat exchange and retention.
Case in point, in manufacturing welding or regular welding, a better weld can be attained with 'flux' or some material that makes the cooling process slower. In mass welding, several gases are used, one of them CO2. But what they really do is provide a blanket, if you will, around the weld and thus insulate it from the ambient air and let the weldment cool down slower. You can actually arc weld with a coat hanger, but the weld will not be as good as one with flux. There are reasons for this and we would have to delve into metallurgy and coefficients of linear expansion, among other things, and that would take up more space than can be provided here in Y!A. But the reason this blanket slows down the cooling process is that it is always an inert gas so oxidation cannot occur and that it drives away the ambient humidity, or water, which would effectively douse the material, due to the water's higher density.
I think that you misunderstood the point. http://randombio.com/co2.html
Those 33K that the gas "warmed" Earth did not come from the greenhouse gases. http://www.yunrizhi.com/how-is-earths-en...
It came from Earth herself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_...
Greenhouse gases have properties that allow them to mess with the emissivity of Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity
Because the Sun is hotter than Earth, she emits light at a shorter wavelength (0.1 - 3 micron) than Earth does (3 -70 micron). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosp...
As sunlight comes to Earth, some of it is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere as heat. This includes O2 and O3 for anything below 0.3 microns, and H2O for 0.9, 1.1, 1.3, and 1.8 microns. Once these molecules absorb the light, the re-emit the light again in some random direction usually with the same wavelength, but sometimes, the energy is released at different wavelengths. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
If this happens, the new photon might have a wavelength that is not efficiently absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere, and if directed at Earth, would proceed to Earth unmolested by absorbing gases. The light that manages to get to the lower troposphere or the surface might get absorbed as heat energy, or might be reflected back toward outer space. That depends on the reflectiveness of what it encounters. This is known as the albedo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Meanwhile, Earth is sending Earthlight to outer space, and it is having trouble being absorbed by greenhouse gases and reflected back by clouds. Nevertheless, the temperature of Earth will be determined when outgoing Earthlight energy equals incoming Sunlight energy. Greenhouse gases absorb Earthlight, but let Sunlight pass.
Edit: If you are trying to get someone to take the idea that:
Greenhouse gases "provide" 33 kelvins, therefore the other gases must provide 288 - 33 = 255 kelvins, you are not likely to have any takers. Greenhouse gases provide no heat. They just redirect some of the earthlight that would have escaped back to Earth causing Earth to heat up until the earthlight escaping to outer space (despite that some of it is sent back) is equal to the sunlight being absorbed by Earth.
Temperature is the average kinetic energy in the molecules in the atmosphere. It is not an additive quantity. The greenhouse gases have the same average temperature as the non greenhouse gases. That is like asking about which baseball team is more responsible for the average height of 6 feet in the major leagues, the Yankees or the non Yankees? Hint: the Yankees only provide 3% of all the height in the baseball leagues.
Removing the Yankees will not change the average height of baseball players.
Edit @Trevor: "greenhouse gases do not radiate heat."
In that case, would you explain what is meant by:
"SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface." -- http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...
-----------------------
Hint: The Earth's average global temperature is about 288°K and greenhouse gases provide about 33°K of that.
(Keep in mind that °C and °K are the same temperature increments)
Wiki says: Earth's surface would average about 33°C [same as 33°K] colder than the present average [without Greenhouse Gases]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
-----------------------
