What's new

Global Climate Status Report

Greenhouse effect is caused by the absorption by greenhouse gases of low frequency/ high wavelength light being reflected from the Earth's surface.

Greenhouse effect is not caused by higher heat capacity for CO2/ other greenhouse gases (with ~400 ppm CO2 the heat capacity is negligibly different from 0 ppm CO2)

This is neither controversial nor political. Check out any scientific literature.

Heat capacity is not a reservoir. It is the amount of energy it takes to heat a certain amount of material by a certain temperature (calories/ (gram degree C)

So, since apparently conversations in here are cyclical in nature..... here is where we started.

"Greenhouse Effect" requires complex molecules in the atmosphere with their higher heat capacity properties. Why? Because they capture radiation from more light/radiation of every part of the spectrum..... hold it.... warmly.... and slowly radiate it..... some of it back to Earth.

The "heat capacity" idea might be confusing to someone with a textbook definition who does not understand the process, the concept. Yes, technically, capture and radiation of radiation/heat is not defined by the term "heat capacity". But the ability to store the energy is. But "heat capacity" is a made up term as defined in the textbooks, and the definition has no direct application to this concept, except as a descriptor in general terms for the idea of capacity for heat storage.

It is the actual capture and storage, and radiation, of energy that is described as "Greenhouse Effect".

At 400 ppm, the amount of heat stored in CO2 in the atmosphere is significant.

Atomic gases like the noble gases have very low "heat capacity" and correspondingly lower factors in heat capture/storage/radiation. Diatomic gases have higher factors. But water and CO2 make up most of the heat capture/storage/radiation. Methane and other hydrocarbon molecules, and SO2, are also powerful factors relative to their abundance.
 
I'm well aware that microwaves are also "infrared" in the sense of being longer wavelength than "red" light.

"infra beneath, below Latin infrastructure - underlying framework of a system; infrared - below the regular light spectrum."
https://www.learnthat.org/pages/view/roots.html#i





The "infra" actually refers to the frequency of the light, not it's wavelength, hence the "below" as in "below the frequency of the regular light .

IR is the frequency directly below red. Other frequencies further below IR are not classified IR. Not complicated. But if you want to call others as IR, be my guest. Just don’t expect any scientifically literate person to understand you.
 
IR is the frequency directly below red. Other frequencies further below IR are not classified IR. Not complicated. But if you want to call others as IR, be my guest. Just don’t expect any scientifically literate person to understand you.

There is one EM spectrum. There is "light" we see in a part of it. Then there is light we don't see. Some of it is higher frequency.... uv.... ultraviolet.... with higher frequency. The other end is infrared.... with lower frequencies. This is the English language.

You think the textbooks make it simpler. yah. go for it. obtuse. The meanings of words are not dictated by textbooks, but by meaning.
 
There is one EM spectrum. There is "light" we see in a part of it. Then there is light we don't see. Some of it is higher frequency.... uv.... ultraviolet.... with higher frequency. The other end is infrared.... with lower frequencies. This is the English language.

You think the textbooks make it simpler. yah. go for it. obtuse. The meanings of words are not dictated by textbooks, but by meaning.

You're more or less correct about the definition of heat capacity, and in the other **** you said about the EM spectrum (although I'm skimming thru, so it's not a rigorous analysis). I'm just not sure why you think you're reinventing the wheel. Any science undergrad would have at least as good an understanding of these concepts.
 
There is one EM spectrum. There is "light" we see in a part of it. Then there is light we don't see. Some of it is higher frequency.... uv.... ultraviolet.... with higher frequency. The other end is infrared.... with lower frequencies. This is the English language.

You think the textbooks make it simpler. yah. go for it. obtuse. The meanings of words are not dictated by textbooks, but by meaning.

And here I’ve always thought that gamma was the highest frequency. Thanks for the breaking scientific discovey.

I haven’t read a text book for some time but you have inspired me to give you some help with the basics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Good luck and have a great day.
 
For Sil, I want to gather some facts/data about atmosphere composition and the EM absorption/storage of each component.
I think, when you multiply the effects of each component by the amount of that component..... you will see the picture I have tried to explain.

And no, this is not re-inventing the wheel. It is an attempt to portray the situation we are in.
 
And here I’ve always thought that gamma was the highest frequency. Thanks for the breaking scientific discovey.

I haven’t read a text book for some time but you have inspired me to give you some help with the basics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Good luck and have a great day.

ha ha. Your link doesn't even list "microwave". I like it though because it has many more breakdowns, although I don't know why anyone would care unless we're talking about some device/product/health effect that matters enough to create the distinction.
 
Here is an "official" sort of description..... damn.... I've been scooped. I really thought nobody in the world knows this but me!!!!

I am in fact contesting one aspect of the "official story"..... that of course we all must accept "Science" has proven we're gonna go on a runaway heat train if CO2 gets any higher..... But on balance, this is the kind of thing I'm trying to describe..... I only differ on the extrapolation and projections scenario, not on the present facts.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
 
EM classification is somewhat arbitrary. No natural cut off for anything other than visible light.
 
Back
Top