Comments on: IPCC "Explains" the Greenhouse Effect

By: Sir John Houghton on the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect « Climate Audit

Sir John Houghton on the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect « Climate Audit — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:16:40 +0000

[...] I collated IPCC AR3 and AR4 “expositions” of the enhanced greenhouse effect, observing that, in my [...]

By: Dr A Burns

Dr A Burns — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:01:43 +0000

To paraphrase the IPCC description of the atmospheric greenhouse effect:

1. A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)
2. The cool body “back-radiates” (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.
3. This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round in a continuous cycle.
4. The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.

Gerlich has been published this year with a more rational view of this topic :

“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.” G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner
International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364

By: AK

AK — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:13:37 +0000

Re: (hopefully not perpetuating an unwanted discussion):

[snip - nothing wrong with your reply except the above]

By: Severian

Severian — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:20:10 +0000

Not to be too snarky about it, but Bugs’ quote would be more accurate if it read “The IPCC reviews, as in scans, the existing science that supports their conclusions as it is published, collects what has been learned from that science if it supports their goals, summarizes and publishes it.”

There is just too much science that never makes it into the IPCC reports to say otherwise.

By: Bugs

Bugs — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:03:52 +0000

The IPCC reviews, as in scans the existing science as it is published, collects what has been learned from that science, summarises and publishes it.

It is not an educational institution. If you want to learn the basic science of climatology, do the university course.

By: Sam Urbinto

Sam Urbinto — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:11:05 +0000

I think it’s the increase in the number of people listening to FM radio that’s causing all of this.

By: DeWitt Payne

DeWitt Payne — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:56:45 +0000

Re: #143 If Rr is constant and dRe is negative and stays negative then the total system energy (Ek + Ep + U) will increase without limit. As this doesn't (and can't according to the Second Law) happen, there must be a mechanism that drives dRe back to zero as the system energy increases. That looks like radiative balance to me.

By: Gunnar

Gunnar — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:06:07 +0000

Neal,

Your 147 is very good. I think we’re really making progress. So, with this better description of the hypothesis, it becomes clearer what data needs to be gathered to provide support for the idea.

By: Neal J. King

Neal J. King — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:41:49 +0000

#144, Tom Vonk:

Nobody is taking it as a principle that radiation is conserved.

What is being conserved is energy: when the energy that leaves the Earth + atmosphere system is less than the energy that enters, per unit time, the amount of energy in that system must be increasing. For a simple system, the temperature will rise; for a complicated system, one would typically expect that average of the temperature over the system would rise.

This rise will continue until the rate of energy departure equals the rate of energy arrival.

So, finally, how does radiation get into this? Simply because the overwhelming proportion of energy received by the planet is by radiation, and the overwhelming proportion of energy departing the planet is by radiation. So in the (quasi-)steady state, there will be no radiative imbalance; and the system-averaged temperature will be higher than it was before.

By: kim

kim — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:41:10 +0000

Erl Happ could tell me what soured your grapes, Bugs.
=================================