... or you could say that greenhouse gases account for 11.14982578397213% of the Earth's temperature.
"CO2 effect" is anywhere between 9% to 26% as far as affecting temperatures which means that CO2 has an overall effect of between 1.00348432055749% and 2.89895470383275% of which humans are responsible for a small percentage of those #s (or we could account for 40% which still means we have had very little effect on temperatures for the past 133 years of mechanical temperature readings)
Do I get an "A" on my calculations?
Great question Maxx!
Jim Z - 0 kelvin is absolute zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_ze...
Chem Funky - If the moon has no atmosphere then it can't have a temperature.
The average daytime abundances of the elements known to be present in the lunar atmosphere, in atoms per cubic centimeter, are as follows:
Argon: 40,000
Helium: 2,000-40,000
Sodium: 70
Potassium: 17
Hydrogen: fewer than 17
Maxx -
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.
B+, I'll take it. Thanks Teach!
Yes Maxx, the warmist and correct you are wrong. O2 and N2 do provide 8 times more warming than greenhouse gases. Your concept is based on the flawed idea that the temperature of the earth would be 0 K if it weren't for O2 and N2. This is just incorrect.
I think everybody here sees that.
Look at our closest neighbor - the moon. It has no real atmosphere and is only influenced by the sun. The distance from the sun to the moon and the sun to the earth are the same on average. The temperatures of the moon's surface range from about +250 F to -250 F. The average is 0 F which equals -18 C or 255 K. So, as this proves, Earth's non-greenhouse atmospheric gases do not have provide 8 times more warming than greenhouse gases.
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/educatio...
Greenhouse gases warm the planet from 255 K to 287 K. Otherwise, even if the planet had no atmosphere, the temperature would be 255 K.
This analysis was actually done in 1896. Read it if you want, but it is difficult reading.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1...
Maxx - you still haven't figured out that O2 and N2 scatter light at the surface. They do not heat the troposphere. A lot of that high energy and cosmic radiation does not make it to the surface of the earth. The earth's magnetic field blocks almost all of it, and anything left is block in the ionoshpere and thermosphere. They do not impact surface temperature that we feel.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AlcZ...
http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/foc...
You have all this stuff goofed up and don't seem to understand the meaning of the information you are trying to use to prove you point. It is not the sites that are wrong, it is your understanding and/or interpretation. You can't take snippets out of context and say "that's what the site says. The site doesn't say the same thing as you. You can only twist it that way when you leave out context and encourage misunderstanding.
Maxx - bad answer. Can't you think of anything better? The temperature of the earth would be 255 K with or without non-greenhouse gases because the sun would drive temperature and ANY planet this distance from the sun would receive enough radiation to warm it to 255 K, even if they have NO atmosphere. That means that non-greenhouse gases do not provide 8 times the warming of non-greenhouse gases. That is a fact. Everybody seems to know that but you. Why is it so hard for you to see the simple errors in your hypothesis? It has been proven FALSE by almost everybody.
The surface of the earth would still have the temperature of 255 K even if there was no atmosphere? See the Flaw in your reasoning?
This may help people understand the problems with question and responses a little better ....
Foundational biased - you believe that GHGs are a insignificant for the planet warming.
Argument from Authority - "Clearly “Non-Greenhouse Gases” provide the vast majority of the Earth’s warming, or does the Encyclopedia of Earth have it wrong? " - the Encycolpedia says no such thing. That is your spin.
Creative math - your calculation derving that non-greenhouse gases provided 8 times the warming of greenhouse gases is just plain nonsense. You divided 255 by 32 fine, but attributing 255K warming of the planet to the atmosphere's provideing 8 times more warming than greenhouse gases is just plain nonsense. the warming is from the radiation from the sun at this distance.
Red Herring & Quote mining - "Gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet radiation less than 200 nanometers in wavelength are selectively absorbed in the atmosphere by oxygen and nitrogen and turned into heat energy." Yes, this is true but the magnetic field of the earth blocks alsmost all of this high energy radiation and the warming from it occurs in the thermosphere, not the troposphere. N2 and O2 also scatter the high energy radiation so we see a blue sky. It has no impact on the planet's temperature, just the temperaure of a few molcules scattered at the edge of space and the color of the sky.
Non sequitor- non-greenhouse gases provide 8 times more warming than greenhouse gases - nothing you have presented supports this, but somehow you arrive at that incorrect conclussion and are trying to sell it.
False premise - the planet's temperature would be zero K if non-greenhouse atmospheric gases were not present - not true. It would be 255 K.
Ad hoc reasoning - "forget about the moon"... because it disproves my idea. It is the temperature the earth would be - 255 K - and that means that non-greenhouse gases provide nothing to the warming of the planet
This sight will "inoculate the viewer against stupidity" as the video claims in the end and explain these games. How many did I miss?
I'm not sure where you are going with this one. The 255K figure is due to blackbody radiation not oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere.
_______________________________________...
Edit: Here are some things to consider and I'll remind you I'm going out of my comfort zone here.
Yes, your graph does show that O2 can absorb UV radiation. However, it absorbs at less than 240nm which if you look at any spectral chart of the Sun (including your graph), you can see it is not large part of the power band.
Second, UV is absorbed by O2 in the stratosphere where is broken into O + O. Then more UV is absorbed to create ozone (O2 + O = O3). So you can see the energy goes into a chemical reaction and some local heating but not heating at the surface as this is not happening anywhere near the surface. (By the way, I believe this absorption is a good thing for humans, re: melanoma)
I'm not sure about nitrogen but it's probably transparent to UV. I can't stand firm by what I am saying here but it makes sense to me. Maybe somebody else can confirm or deny any aspects of this.
_______________________________________...
Edit2: "O2 absorbs all the way into 750nm even at sea level."
No, that's not correct. Go back to your other figure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosp...
There's a very small, narrow O2 band at about 760nm. Look at the power spectrum of that. It looks like a nipple on gnat.
And the main O2 absorption band doesn't reach the surface: http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Ar...
I think the Encyclopedia of Earth actually has it right...read all the way to the bottom,
"In summary, greenhouses gases do not influence the amount of electromagnetic energy that Earth emits to outer space. Rather, they alter the temperature of the surface and the wavelengths that escape. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases warm the surface and shift outgoing radiation to wavelengths at which the greenhouse gases are transparent. For example, higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the depth of the “notch” at 15 μm, but this would be compensated by a warmer planet that would emit more radiation at shorter wavelengths."
Also I tried this question on the Warmist/Alarmist in my office and she said, "No one says that!", maybe she's just one of the ones who doesn't...but that doesn't mean SOME don't I guess. She said it's cool that the planet gets destroyed as long as it's not our fault! So I agree with her.
Oh wait....she's being sarcastic I think. Warmists always think they're so much smarter than everyone else! Now I can hear her telling all the people in the breakroom what an idiot I am! Thanks Maxx!
First, you're starting from the wrong point.
The moon has no atmosphere whatsoever. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And it's in the same orbit as us. So the average temperature of the moon is where you should start from, because that's at least in the right ballpark for what the Earth's temperature would be *with no atmosphere whatsoever*.
Then, keep in mind that the Earth is tectonically active. That adds some heat to the mix.
Also, apparently slowly-rotating bodies will, in the absence of a heat-retaining mechanism such as the greenhouse effect, have a lower average temperature than more quickly-rotating bodies, because they only warm up so much in the middle of the day, but can cool off more thoroughly at night.
I had trouble finding the average temperature of the moon, but it is at least 130 K, and possibly as high as 220K.
Given the other factors, that leaves very little if anything in the way of temperature to be explained by oxygen, nitrogen, and argon.
I can explain it a third time, if you like...
edit:
The moon has no atmosphere, but it has a surface. The temperature of that surface has at least *some* bearing on what the temperature of its atmosphere would be if it had one.
And, Jim Z:
an analogy. I'm pouring water into a bucket. Eventually, the water is going to start pouring back out of the bucket, because the bucket will get full. The water will, once the bucket is full, pour out as fast as the water is pouring in.
I get a bigger bucket. It takes longer to fill, and holds more water when full. But does that change the amount of water that pours out once it is full?
Frankly that's a pretty silly argument. Mars has little in the way of non-greenhouse gasses in it's atmosphere, but it's temperature is somewhere near earth - 32K. And, you have to add in the effect of earth being closer to the sun, and also, heat escaping from earth's interior.
You could counter with, "How 'bout comparing earth to the moon?" That would be reasonable, however even Mars' limited atmosphere decreases the day and night temperature differences quite a bit, as compared to the moon's near vacuum.
In any case, a math problem using the temperatures you've described, while ignoring all of the other factors, is pretty meaningless -- to be kind.
Ottawa Mike has it right, although the earth is not a pure blackbody. That 255K is -18.150oC, the temperature it would be without greenhouse gases as the link says.
the earth without any atmosphere would also be 255K, so not sure what your point is. Without the Sun, we would be about 3K, so I guess all the warming is mostly from the Sun, except we'd be freezing with those pesky greenhouse gases.
I am still trying to figure out how a greenhouse gas could not influence the amount of electromagnetic energy that Earth emits to outer space but only alter the temperature of the surface and the wavelengths that escape. Hmmmm nope. Can't get it. Brain not working properly.
Unlike some alarmists, I appreciate your attempt to get at the heart of the matter. I didn't follow dividing 255 /32. Oh well, maybe I will figure it out later.
"Clearly “Non-Greenhouse Gases” provide the vast majority of the Earth’s warming, or does the Encyclopedia of Earth have it wrong?" Actually YOU have it wrong.
As the article explains, the sun does the warming. (how can you forget, it is the denier talking point) You are not wrong that all gases absorb some energy in one (or more) wavelength yet allow it to pass through in other wavelengths. However the bit you fail to understand is why they are called greenhouse gases! They allowed the energy to pass through to earth unopposed, but they absorb the energy in the new (infrared) wavelength after the earth surface first absorbs the light and then remits the energy as infrared light.
Surely you do understand that nature has to have a way of dissipating energy? If not as infrared light, then how?
No and you can tell right off the bat who's study science and who hasn't. If it has molecular mass there is a contributory factor. Do these idiots actually think mass, volume and density goes away because of CO2?
Excuse me, I have to pick myself up off the floor.
-----------------------
Some Warmists/Alarmists will try to tell you that ‘non-greenhouse gases’ such as oxygen and nitrogen contribute nothing or almost nothing to the temperature of the Earth.
BUT IS THAT CORRECT?
The Earth’s average surface temperature is about 287 Kelvin. Greenhouse Gases ONLY contribute about 32 Kelvin of that.
Here is a direct quote from the Encyclopedia of Earth:
"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/161638/
So do the math. That is: 255 Kelvin [divided by] 32 Kelvin equals WHAT?
Clearly “Non-Greenhouse Gases” provide the vast majority of the Earth’s warming, or does the Encyclopedia of Earth have it wrong?
-----------------------
No.
The sun provides to other 255K.
