It seems to me that it could keep the temperatures closer to the higher end of the range but I don’t really care. The model is already garbage
My understanding (from reading this thread) is that the direct radiation from the sun doesn’t heat the atmosphere much directly, the atmospheric warming is because of the surface of the earth warming, which then heats via radiation and conduction and convection. As has been pointed out, the calculations entirely focus on radiation whilst ignoring conduction and convection. But either way, there isn’t much direct heating of the atmosphere from the sun
Could there not be some kind of ‘heat trap’?
Where the heat is allowed in (via the radiation not being reflected away by the radiation) but then insulated from escaping by the atmosphere
That’s the only way I can conceive for the situation to make sense, but it sounds wrong on the face. If radiation doesn’t effect the atmosphere directly ‘coming in,’ then it won’t effect it much ‘going out’ either. And the convection and conduction are a zero-net, unless it’s because almost no heat can be conducted or convected into the near-vacuum of space.
edit:
It’s not making much sense to me, because a flat black surface would already be being heated to the maximum possible by the sun… adding an insulative factor changes nothing because almost no heat can be lost by conduction or convection into space, and the radiation would be zero-sum with as much being radiated away as penetrating the atmosphere
from the sun though so same thing
That’s how I always saw the theory. I didn’t know their models were so wonky though and that the little ice age was so long and profound and near global.
I don’t know what the models say. But if the greenhouse gasses trap the heat on their way out then they must also trap the same amount on the way in.
You lost me.
1 Like
If you have an object in a vacuum being heated by radiation, it doesn’t matter whether you put a ‘hat’ on it, the overall object (now including its ‘hat’) will maintain the same temperature.
The model is such that the atmosphere lets visible light through (that the sun emits due to its temperature) while not letting infrared light through (that the earth due to its temperature being much cooler than the sun emits). So the reason for it is that energy goes in freely one way but not the other. It’s like sneaking the energy in under an insulating layer …
1 Like
Ok, interesting. So in that case the constitution of the insulating layer is significant. That basically seems like the ‘heat trap.’
I don’t get it
The visible light passes through the atmosphere without doing much and then heats the surface of the earth, which then emits infrared radiation & conducts heat to the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases (complex gases) absorb the radiation coming unidirectionally from the earth (where it would have escaped to space) & re-emit it in all directions, including back to the surface as well as into other greenhouse gases, effectively recycling the energy. This is what creates the insulating effect.
So the energy being added to the overall system is effectively passing through the insulating layer on the way in (because the atmosphere only intercepts about 50% of visible light under normal conditions), but then is insulated from escaping efficiently because some of the energy is converted into infrared radiation on the way out and recycled, thus keeping the energy on the earth longer and heating it more than it would with no/very little atmospheric greenhouse gases (as on mercury)
During a major dust event such as huge volcanic eruptions, a meteor strike, or numerous nuclear explosions, the atmosphere is filled with particles which reflect more of the visible light before it gets to the surface, thus cooling the earth. Volcanic eruptions are believed to have caused the little ice age, for example.
I don’t know if this is right, it’s not just that the atmosphere is heating the earth, it’s that it’s a feedback loop
Sun → earth
Earth → atmosphere
Atmosphere → earth
But all the while, the sun is still adding energy to the equation.
So the total energy ‘trapped’ in the system is higher than it would be with no atmosphere or no greenhouse gases. A new equilibrium of heat loss into space is created, but with a higher baseline of energy ‘held’ in the system.
A bit like if you have a bucket with a hole in it, if you’re filling the bucket externally, and then make the hole smaller, then the water level in the bucket will get higher, and the water pressure exiting from the smaller hole will grow higher, eventually establishing a new equilibrium but maintaining the higher water level.
The ‘input’ hasn’t changed, the total rate of loss has normalized back to the same rate, but the initial change in the rate of loss means that a different baseline is established
Yea but it’s the same logic with the hot plate and the glass dome:
Energy source —> heats hot plate
Hot plate —> heats air in dome/the dome itself
Dome → hot plate
So by the same logic the hot plate should get hotter when you cover it with a dome. Energy keeps being added in via whatever is heating the hot plate. And then some is reflected back via the air trapped in the dome. So shouldn’t it get hotter?
Wowww just found this article also. In regards to the ‘CO2 increases height of loss of radiation at the top of troposphere’:
Unfortunately the reference link no longer works. But if that’s true then the math used to determine the magnitude of the warming, based on the Quantumville scenario, presupposes that CO2 was responsible for the warming seen thus far! So it is circular reasoning indeed…
OMG yeup here is a link to an actual paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279284206_Calculation_of_Atmospheric_Radiative_Forcing_Warming_Effect_of_Carbon_Dioxide_at_Any_Concentration .
From the paper (highlights mine):
So yeah, the equation that’s used to determine how much an increase of CO2 will increase the temperature… firstly has “no theoretical basis”, and secondly is based on the presumption that CO2 increase did cause the measured increase in temperature since 1750!!! WTF
So yeah… circular reasoning. A wonky mathematical model is used to presume that CO2 will increase temperature in the first place, then this presumption is presumed again when when looking at historical data and is used to derive a formula, and somehow it turns into a ‘fact’ that CO2 increase has already caused the global temperature to rise… WTF
I don’t know why I was so shocked ---- the basis being baseless means that of course the future steps based upon it are gonna be baseless too haha… perhaps I was shocked at the obviousness of it …
I couldn’t (nor wanted to, I admit 
) to keep up with so many posts that I was seeing accumulate in a very short time in this topic… 
But having read at least Richard’s post and some of the earlier subsequent arguments here, I choose to ask this now:
On what reference/source did Richard and, for example, you, @claudiu, base the idea/assertion that the model (although there is not and has not been a single one) considers the earth as a flat disk?
Because already in the course I took in 2018 it was long ago that computer climate models considered a three dimensional planet.
In the subsequent years in which I followed the reports and papers more closely, the resolution of the 3D grid has been increasing thanks to sensors, satellites, ships, etc., which allow measurements more and more closer and closer in time and geographically. This image is from my 2018 material:
The increase in computing capacity has made it possible to include more and more real time variables in each of those sectors, instead of making generic 3D calculations for the entire planet or large areas/volumes.
And this is an illustrative example of what 3D geography/geometry those computer models are based on, including its different layers, the variables considered in the physical processes for each sector of the world, etc.
NOAA 200th: Top Tens: Breakthroughs: Schematic for Global Atmospheric Model
See here:
I think it would actually
A more extreme example might be if you put the hot plate under blankets in a bed. The rate of loss of heat would be decreased substantially while the energy input is the same, resulting in a hotter hot plate.
In any case we’re talking about the temperature of the atmosphere itself, which is more analagous to the temperature of the insulating layer in this example
I’m aware that I’m trying to imagine what would happen, which is not scientific
And what papers/reports does that source refer to, that supposedly modeled the problem the way the book tries to refute it (flat disks, etc.)? The only reference in that chapter is to moon facts (Moon Fact Sheet).
If there is nothing else, it’s refuting a strawman model…
What happened then is that Richard (and you later) thought that the climatological science model the earth geometrically as that chapter claims, and that the book then constituted its refutation?
Well, here was my response to being presented with the link to these chapters, which I wrote about 2 1/2 days afterwards:
Of course they have made computer models later with a 3D Earth etc., but the equations they use to determine what happens on their 3D-model Earth, are based on the mathematical model of the flat Earth. It’s where the concept of ‘radiative forcing’ of CO2 levels comes from… which anyone can find out for themselves by looking into the matter.
One may wonder why such a difference in reactions to being presented with the link to the chapter… I direct anyone with such a wonder to the Stepping Back (re: global warming) post as a possible explanation.
Cheers,
Claudiu
That is exactly where my mind has been heading, i.e. in the age of 3D models and increasingly powerful computers, “surely they aren’t using a abstraction, when they can model it?”
So far, I have been rather unimpressed with the details on how the computer models are built. Mostly, because the details are really hard to find! I came across the same types of explanations as yourself, (stacked grids etc), however I found more problems than answers.
As I said earlier, this is quite interesting indeed. I had never had any scepticism towards the “greenhouse effect” itself, but had always regarded the carbon politics as a diversion from actually improving the “lived environment” and the importance of healthy ecosystems.
To have read just last night, that they have never been able to model clouds, as of 2021, still struggling with that, that all the satellite data is skewed towards European and American validation stations (where they compare the satellite data, to actual ground based measurements). There are thousands of “validation stations” through Europe and the US, but the entire continent of Africa has 2!!!
The satellite data has been shown to be up to 20 degrees wrong!
Links not provided because I am pursuing what interests me about this topic, as I am sure others are too.
Thanks.
By the way: where do your own quotes come from? I can’t find them anywhere else on the site, (not in this very topic either) and that seems to be the reason why “image.pgn” is not shown in your quote.