Global warming/climate change

[claudiu]

@Andrew

Admittedly, somewhat offended, but that is par for the course.

Indeed. Presumably you think I’m implying you are a “rube”^[1] or somehow deficient. I’ve observed that’s normally how these discussions go, with tumultuous psychic currents of one person presenting themselves as being ‘superior’ to the other and trying to put down the other, with the other ‘defending’ themselves (or submitting). Needless to say it is all silly!

I was sincere where I attributed it to the “nature of the discussion”:

@claudiu

I attribute it to the nature of the discussion. There are powerful vibes and psychic currents keeping people entrenched in this belief. And so I think this leads to it being easy to miss things. This my theory anyway, besides any usual easy-to-miss quality of reading things in general. But you very thoroughly read and understood, for example, the “lapse rate”, so it’s certainly not any issue you might have with reading comprehension in general!

I’m not attempting to put you down or anything, just genuinely curious how these things start to make sense for people.

So indeed no offense need be taken .

---

@Andrew

I meant, that despite the assertion which I was peripherally aware of, (a basic temperature somewhere below zero) I wasn’t particularly informed on it’s widespread use as a basis for the science; from the sources themselves, rather than what I had picked up.

Right and that’s what I am curious about, because the tooltip on Richard’s article indicates the sources themselves (Wikipedia, NASA). Plus a few references throughout the threads here, e.g.:

@claudiu

Example from skepticalscience.com :

The Earth’s surface is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than required to radiate back all the absorbed energy from the Sun. […] If the atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over completely.

@son_of_bob

@claudiu

Yea but the basis of the models is all that the IR-absorptive gases are 100% responsible for the reason the surface is around 15C instead of around -18C. If this premise is flawed then the models are just totally wrong, and filling the gaps in them won’t rescue them.

Yes, I am aware. There is a piece missing, the value for this surface temperature that is below expectations is established from the concept of Power (in) = Power (out) for the energy received from the Sun.

[… snip explication of how this value is calculated, with references to Wikipedia …]

So what was it about when I posted the following that caused it to click for you at last?

viz.:

@claudiu

Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F), rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).
Wikipedia (emphasis added)

Most participants in climate debates can agree that the atmosphere’s capacity to interact with thermal radiation helps maintain the Earth’s surface temperature at a livable level. The Earth’s surface is about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than required to radiate back all the absorbed energy from the Sun. This is possible only because most of this radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere, and what actually escapes out into space is mostly emitted from colder atmosphere. […] If the atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over [i.e. be -18°C] completely.
Skeptical Science (emphasis added)

The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer [i.e. +33°C] than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its [surface] temperature.
Nasa - Earth Observatory (emphasis added)

Note in particular that the first source I posted here is the same as the one Richard used - Wikipedia. The second source was posted earlier in the thread. The 3rd one indeed was a new one. Maybe it was this?

---

1. “That doesn’t make me the rube.” Cause of Bias? - #111 by JonnyPitt ↩︎