[Bored chemist]

OK, for a start if this "I did not start this thread again to have another debate or discussion. " is true then you are on the wrong website.
You say "Believe it or not, but I am actually worried that my theory is correct. "
Well, stop worrying- you are totally and hopelessly wrong.

"So where does the UV go that is being blocked by ozone?"
It is turned into heat.

"surely that additional Infra red (heat) must have been mirrored to outside? "
No.
Why can you not understand that the IR isn't reflected at all?
it is absorbed.
"The term absorbtion comes from the way as to how we measure this blocking action "
No, it doesn't. It comes from the fact that the IR is absorbed. For what it's worth you can do measurements of IR reflectance and  at wavelengths where the stuff absorbs radiation it doesn't reflect it.

"(please note the logical question that I am posing in my theory. "
You have yet to put forward anything remotely close to a theory.
Your ideas are based on a total misunderstanding of the effects of the sun's radiation. Accordingly, you have yet to ask any logical question.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

I thought I had asked for the relevant measurements and the figures? So where are they? You don't have them??? I am glad that you are sure that I am 100% wrong. It seems to me when it comes to the theory about carbon dioxide you just have to have "faith" . I am gald you are one of the "fainth" . But your figures have not convinced me.You can laugh at me - it does not really bother me. I am still standing.

[Bored chemist]

"I thought I had asked for the relevant measurements and the figures? So where are they?"

This graph of the figures
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
was posted as the first reply to the first time you asked the question.
Had you forgotten?
Why ask silly questions like "So where are they? You don't have them?"

And it's not a matter of "faith" that gases absorb IR.
I sometimes use a photoacoustic IR spectrometer at work.
If the gas didn't absorb IR it wouldn't heat up so there wouldn't be a pressure change so the microphone wouldn't get a signal and the thing wouldn't work.

My assertion that CO2 and water absorb IR is based on my own personal observation. There are, of course, other observations made by other people all over the world doing similar things.

You may be still standing but your ideas don't stand up; they never did.
The reason they don't stand up is that they do not fit with reality, yet you continue to trot them out.
The one blinded by faith is you not the rest of us.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Ok, I will try and explain to those of you who really want to understand. First of all, even though infra red is warm/hot to the skin, it still behaves like light. To infra red, the molecules of water and carbondioxide are like 2 way mirrors. They form a three dimensional sherical ring up in the air, thereby acting as a complete spherical mirror. During the night when infra red is reflected from earth into the air, the mirrors act as a reflector and the infra red bounces at an angle back to earth. This explains the greenhouse effect that we do notice. During the day, the infra red of the sun hits the mirror on the outside and again the infra red is deflected at an angle, which means that most of it will be scattered back into space. This explains my observation that the heat from the sun becomes less when I see that the humidity rises. So my theory is as it stands. One of my main questions is still: what ,if anything, would a difference of 0.01% in CO2 make if most of the greenhouse effect is caused by moisture? Why does nobody talk about the cooling effect that I have observed?

[Madidus_Scientia]

Are you even reading any of our replies?

[Henry Pool (OP)]

The replies do not fit my own observations?

[Henry Pool (OP)]

I did check the textbook on the absorption issue. It says that a little energy is indeed absorbed, but most of the infra red is re-emitted back. So I think all three of us were right? I think my mirror protrayal is still reasonable.

[Bored chemist]

I did check the textbook on the absorption issue. It says that a little energy is indeed absorbed, but most of the infra red is re-emitted back. So I think all three of us were right? I think my mirror protrayal is still reasonable.

No competent textbook will tell you that IR is reflected by CO2- the clouds reflect some, but that's another matter.

Much energy is absorbed. For wavelengths where CO2 is a reasonable absorber essentially none gets through- it's all absorbed.

Only two of the 3 of us were right - and you are the odd one out.

Why on earth do you think that it's reasonable to portray something which, if you could see in the IR would look black, as a mirror?

Do you understand that this idea of yours "To infra red, the molecules of water and carbondioxide are like 2 way mirrors. " is quite simply wrong.
There is ample evidence against it and no evidence for it.

"Why does nobody talk about the cooling effect that I have observed?"
We have talked about it at some length. We have pointed out that it is nonsensical. You do not cool something by letting it absorb radiation and, no matter how often you say otherwise, CO2 does't reflect IR it either lets it through or it absorbs it.
We have also explained that using a black umbrella might keep the sun off you- but it doesn't stop the earth picking up that heat.
I admit we have not even started on the fact that the most likely reason you feel hotter when the RH is high is because you are sweating- no offense; humans are the sweatiest aninmals on the plannet so of course the humididty affects how hot or cold we feel.
Did you not realise this?
Do you not understand what sweating is for?

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Quote from Wikipedia (on the interpretation of the greenhouse effect): "The Earth's surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons,[23] absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth." End of quote.
This quote supports my theory. It also supports the cooling effect: the water & CO2 radiates and dissipates the IR from the Sun (in all directions, including much of it back to outer space). This explains why I can feel that the heat is lessened when the humidity increases.
The sweat issue is something else, has to with biology. Ask Chris..

As we all know, the humidity in the air is much more than the carbon dioxide. Again, the real question (which everyone keeps avoiding)is: whatever would a difference of only 0.01% carbondioxide make? Even if you  cannot accept my theory, cannot you see that this whole carbon emission issue is a complete and total non-issue?

[Madidus_Scientia]

"The Earth's surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons, absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth."

The word reflect isn't even in there

[Henry Pool (OP)]

"and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth"
it is just a choice of words, re-radiate= reflect?
So, to explain to you the cooling effect of humidity and carbon dioxide that I have observed I could say: the infra red from the sun is absorbed and re-radiated in all directions including back to space (for at least 50%). I assume you know the properties of light? It cannot get stuck in the atmosphere. No need for insulting pictures.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

"I did check the textbook on the absorption issue. It says that a little energy is indeed absorbed, but most of the infra red is re-emitted back. So I think all three of us were right? I think my mirror protrayal is still reasonable"

Do we all agree on this point now? Or do you still have another opinion/quote? The molecules can only absorb a little bit, until it is saturated which is why we can measure it with FTIR.After that, the molecules re-emit or re-radiate the IR or whatever term you prefer to use. My mirror idea was just used as a way to explain what I see is happening.
 

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Geewhizz! what happened? Are all the tails between the legs? Surely, everyone can understand that the same physical laws that cause the greenhouse effect also cause the cooling effect? Come to think of it, the cooling effect of carbon dioxide might be more because I think in 12 hours the sun puts a hell of lot more IR out than the earth in 24 hours as earth is covered mostly in water.
Where does that leave us with global warming? Well, I remember somebody on this forum saying: let us have a planet, add more carbon dioxide, see if the temperature goes up, it did, so that must be it. The tragedy: this is exactly what happened. We have Al Gore and a couple of profs in the US who said the same thing: see, the temp rises as the CO2 rises!(1). That must be it. Then they analysed ice cores going back as much as 650000 years. Then they said, and I quote:" whenever the carbondioxide was higher the climate was warmer." So I asked myself: but why were there periods in history (before man) where the carbondioxide was higher? Well, where does all carbondioxide come from? Wow, it comes from volcanic activities (2)! That is why life exists. So when there is more volcanic activity, should we not expect a temperature rise? So that explains that correlation. Efforts by me to get in touch with Al Gore have not been successfull. So that DVD of him you can also throw out of the window. 
I thought I would just poke some fun with the naked scientists by posting my theory on the website. Shake things up a bit. Wanted a laugh. See if you have some figures to prove me wrong. Now I realize this is not a joke. This is really a tragedy. Because if, as I suspect, global warming is not caused by carbon dioxide, then what does? well I have given you the clues in (1) and (2). CO2 rises as the population increases. More energy is released. Simple arithmetic. Luckily, if I am right, we donot have to worry anymore about reducing carbon emissions.We have to reduce energy output per person. We have to steal energy from nature. Nuclear is not green. Secondly, we have to make sure that there is no  volcanic activity going on somewhere that we are not aware of. Perhaps all the atomic boms that were exploded in the Indian Ocean may have caused instability in that region. Hence, earthquakes and tsunamis in that region. Does somebody have temperature measurements of the oceans? Perhaps we can pick up something unusual there.
I am signing off again. I hope I made you laugh. 

[SkepticSam]

Henry. The answer to your initial question is 1.5 ppm or 7 billion tons 3.5 billion are reabsorbed by various means and the other 3.5 billion reamains airbourne. I'm sure someone has already said this.

Have you read about stratospheric cooling?

Why do you want to know oceanic temperatures? And do you want surface or temperatures from depth?
Being a skeptic and questioning is a good thing, but you do need to do some research before you do the questioning. Simply asking for information when you have already made your mind up that it's wrong is not cricket.

As for oceanic temperatures, there is a whole new argument gong on there with different data sets. If you really want to have this data then it's avaliable from NOAA, NCAR and various skeptic sources.

Hope this helps.   

[Madidus_Scientia]

"and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth"
it is just a choice of words, re-radiate= reflect?
So, to explain to you the cooling effect of humidity and carbon dioxide that I have observed I could say: the infra red from the sun is absorbed and re-radiated in all directions including back to space (for at least 50%). I assume you know the properties of light? It cannot get stuck in the atmosphere. No need for insulting pictures.

The light that comes from the Sun goes mostly into heating up the ground and ocean. When the surface becomes heated, it starts radiating infra-red light. This energy would radiate straight back out into space if it were not for greenhouse gases, which, because they absorb infra-red light, become heated from it. So it's holding energy in. It doesn't block the energy from getting to the surface because it's mostly in other wavelengths on the way in, but after it's converted to infra-red then the greenhouse gases absorb it on the way out.

Where's the cooling effect?

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Hi there. Read the theory! You ignored the question about how much energy can be "absorbed". I am off.
I grew up as a young man in western Europe where it was mostly cold and wet and humid. I remember only feeling the "heat" (which we know is infra red) of the sun only during a few weeks in summer, if we were lucky. I then moved to Africa and we live inland where it is very dry, humidity usually below 30%. Now  here we do feel the heat the sun! Both in winter and in summer. In fact in summer the heat is so scorching that only after ten minutes you will look for cover or shade. But on a sunny day moving to the coast going from west to east on the same height you can actually see a) a rise in humidity the nearer you get to the sea and b)  a lowering of the temperature. You can actually feel that the heat from the sun is being lessened by the presence of water vapor. These experiences of mine were like the apple on Newtons head and in my mind I was able to formulate a simple rule: the higher the humidity the less infra red heat you feel from the sun, the cooler it gets. Obviously we know that carbondioxide reacts similar to water vapor, so from this I was able to formulate the general rule: the higher the humidity and carbon dioxide levels the more it covers us as a shield against infra red. So all this talk about the greenhouse effect and then to ignore the cooling effect makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Hence here is my theory, for those who are interested:As carbon dioxide traps the infra red radiation (IR) from earth (keeping us warm) then it must follow that carbon dioxide also blocks IR coming from the sun (similar to ozone blocking UV, keeping us cool). So the logical question everyone must ask, is: what is the nett effect, especially at the relevant levels of carbon dioxide 0.02-0.04%? Using my body as the sensor, I can measure that the IR coming from earth must be a lot less than the IR coming from the sun. This means that the cooling effect of carbon dioxide must be greater than the warming up effect. So I say: carbon dioxide is good. So my theory is this:Global warming is probably caused by energy released by human activities and/or unseen volcanic activity in the oceans or the change in salinity in the water , & probably has little or nothing at all to do with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Human population has doubled in the past 50 years).

[Bored chemist]

Good bye.
Where ever you hav gone to you might want to thinks about the fact that the atmosphere will only re emit heat after it has been heated up.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Heeee! I am back! If you read my initial posting you will note that I was a "believer" in the theory that CO2 causes globsal warming. Now I am a total skeptic. Here is my final report.

CARBON DIOXIDE NOT THE REASON FOR GLOBAL WARMING?


An ordinary scientist’s quest to find the real reason(s) for global warming.

What is the greenhouse effect?

Quote from Wikipedia (on the interpretation of the greenhouse effect);

"The Earth's surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons, absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth."

Water and carbon dioxide behave similarly when exposed to infra red radiation. Each molecule accepts one or more photons. Once this transaction is completed the molecule becomes sort of like a little mirror to infra red radiation and the molecules start reflecting the infra red. Because of the random position of the molecules we may assume that at least 50% of the infra red from earth is radiated back to earth. The process repeats itself.

Air composition of the two main greenhouse gases

Note that according to the definition the two main components in the air that are causing the greenhouse effect are water and carbon dioxide. Air contains ca. 1.2% water vapor (at 70%humidity) and 0.035% carbon dioxide.  The increase in carbon dioxide during the past 50 years was 0.007%. So the carbon dioxide content went up from 0.028 % in 1960 to 0.035% now. At this point the question arises: whatever would a difference of only 0.007% carbon dioxide make, especially when compared to the ca. 1.0 – 1.5% water vapor in the air? (1) The fluctuations in the water content in the air are a lot more than  0.01%.  Attempts by me to get an answer to this simple question from the so-called experts proved unsuccessful. If any recent experiments were done, I do not know about it.
Without getting any figures on that, my doubt that carbon dioxide is a major or even a contributory factor to the global warming problem remained.
 
The anti greenhouse effect

A number of personal experiences in the past were to me like the apple on Newton’s head.
I noticed that the direct heat that you feel from the sun decreases as the humidity increases. We know that the heat that we ‘feel” from the sun is actually mainly infra red radiation. As carbon dioxide behaves similar to water vapor, I was able to formulate the simple rule: the higher the humidity and carbon dioxide content, the less infra red (heat) you feel from the sun. This cooling effect is explained by the same mechanism and the same physical laws that govern the greenhouse effect: the infra red (now coming from the sun) is absorbed by the water and carbon dioxide and is then re-radiated in all directions including back to space for at least 50%. Unlike water, carbon dioxide is diffused in the air at all levels of the atmosphere. Therefore the cooling effect of carbon dioxide must be at all levels. Obviously when humidity increases you tend to sweat a bit more, but this is something biological and has nothing to do with my observation that the heat that you feel directly from the sun becomes less when humidity increases. It is because of this effect that the temperature on the coast during a sunny day is usually a bit lower than more inland. At this point my main question became like this: If carbon dioxide traps infra red radiation from earth (keeping us warm) then it must follow that carbon dioxide also shields us from the sun blocking infra red(similar to ozone blocking UV). So what is the nett effect, especially at the relevant levels of carbon dioxide of 0.02% – 0.05%? (2)
Like with my first question, I did not get any answers. Contrary to my own observations, most scientists did not even accept (or know of!) the possibility of there even being such a thing as a cooling effect coming from carbon dioxide. Of those that did, some claimed that the earth’s infra red radiation is a lot more than that coming from the sun…

What appears to have gone wrong?

Almost 100 years ago, Svante Arrhenius predicted that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause warming up. In the meantime, carbon dioxide has increased even more than he expected, but Earth hasn't warmed as much as he thought it would (applying his formula). Subsequent followers have always assumed that his theory must have some truth in it and never challenged it with modern research. Eventually, the whole theory really became something like this: let us have a planet, add more carbon dioxide, see if the temperature goes up, it did, so that must be it! For example, we have Al Gore and a couple of profs in the US who did exactly this. They said: “see, how fast the temperature of earth rises as the CO2 rises!” (b) Obviously it is easy to make two graphs look the same if you put the right scaling in. But they still had to prove that there is a correlation. So apparently they had analysed ice cores going back to as far as 650000 years. Then they said, and I quote: " whenever the carbon dioxide was higher the climate was warmer." So I asked myself: but why were there periods in history (before man and any kind of major human activities) when the carbon dioxide was higher? Well, where does all carbon dioxide come from? Wow, it comes from volcanic activities (a)! That is why life exists. So when there is more volcanic activity, should we not expect a temperature rise? There is an awful amount of heat released when volcanoes explode. So that explains that correlation.  So the climate history of the past half-million years provides no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.
I also studied the IPCC report. Now I accept that global warming is happening as a matter of fact. You only need a thermometer and camera for that. But what they did in the IPCC report is to compare the concentrations of the gases in 2005 with 1750. Then they assigned a measure of relative radiative forcing to the so-called greenhouse gasses depending on the increase in concentrations measured. But this is like working at the problem from the wrong end! That is assuming that you are 100% sure what the cause is (of global warming) and then trying to work your way backwards to find a solution to the problem. They took all the gases that absorb infra red as positive forcing. "This must be the cause, what else can it be?"
It is really commendable to try and quantify global warming. However, they forgot /ignored /overlooked the cooling effect and the fact that without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere even more heat (infra red energy) would be slammed onto our heads and into our oceans. So, without the relevant research and without the relevant facts it could well be that the IPCC is simply putting the horse behind the carriage.


So what are my findings?

Astonishingly, it appears that no proper research has been done at all that would give us clear  answers to the questions 1+2 that I raised.  I also could not find any other research done that would give us a clear relationship of the correlation between carbon dioxide and heat retention, especially at the current concentration levels of carbon dioxide. Surely, Svante Arrhenius’ measuring equipment must have been much poorer than what we have now and unknowingly he could have made grave errors. In any case, it would have been impossible for him in those days to test at the relevant carbon dioxide concentration levels with the correct energy sources.

The whole greenhouse theory is therefore not an exact science, it is some kind of a belief system. If you ask any of the “believing” scientists for the relevant proof or the answers to my particular two nasty questions, you are either completely ignored or you will be told to do some ‘studying”. There clearly is no experimental evidence whatsoever that proves that carbon dioxide causes global warming.
Unfortunately I do not have the testing equipment to carry out the required research. However, I do hope that with my simple observations I will be able to create enough doubt so that the big stakeholders (e.g. the oil companies) will spend some money on carrying out the necessary research that will give the answers to our questions.
We know that about 47-49% of the sun’s total energy output is in infra red. Let us assume a constant air composition. For the greenhouse effect to be equal or greater than the anti-greenhouse effect, the earth’s total infra red output in 24 hours (which includes the bounce backs) must match that of the sun in 12 hours. 70% of earth’s surface is water. So only 30% of earth’s surface is able to radiate infra red radiation.  Using my body as the gauge, I can sense that the cooling effect of carbon dioxide is probably equal or greater than the warming up effect.
Another observation is this: Everyone knows that all the places on earth where there never is any water vapor, are called deserts. As we have seen, carbon dioxide behaves similar to water vapor under infra red. So the question in my mind and perhaps in those of other scientists: Is asking for a reduction in carbon dioxide not just as nonsensical as asking for a reduction in water vapor?

What causes global warming?

If, as I suspect, global warming is not caused by carbon dioxide, then what does? Well I have given two clues in (a) and (b). There may even still be other reasons. First, we have to make sure that there is no volcanic activity going on somewhere that we are not aware of. Perhaps all the atomic bombs that were exploded in the Indian Ocean may have caused instability. Hence, earthquakes and tsunamis in that region. Also, the whole Mid-Atlantic Ridge is essentially a linear, segmented volcano. We must monitor the temperatures of the oceans and report any anomalies (e.g. concentrated heat).
Secondly. And I think this must get more emphasis. We have to accept that there must be an effect that man’s presence on earth is having on global warming. Surely the reason as to why CO2 rises is because the population of earth is increasing, and that means more energy is released. The human population has doubled in the past 50 years. If you put the kettle on, the water in the kettle gets warmer. The problem could simply be the amount of heat that we produce to fly, to drive, to cook or to stay warm or cold. Simple arithmetic. I can see a raise of 2.5 degrees in temp. when I drive at night from the country into the city. If global warming is indeed not caused by carbon dioxide you may feel a little less guilty about driving your car.  But don’t open the champagne bottles just yet. The fight against global warming might in fact get more difficult. If global warming = us, we would have to reduce the total energy output per person. We have to steal energy from nature. (Wind, gravity, tides, solar etc.). Carbon emissions would not be green. Nuclear energy would not be green. Hydrogen and oxygen combustion (rocket fuel) would also not be green. In that case we will have to re-visit the whole global warming debate, for example in the case of sending rockets out to space: will the burden of all that energy released in the atmosphere by placing that satellite in orbit, result in similar savings in energy on earth?

Henry Pool
PS. If you have any figures of actual measurements carried out during actual experiments that would prove that CO2 is to blame, I would love to hear from you.

[Madidus_Scientia]

Water and carbon dioxide behave similarly when exposed to infra red radiation. Each molecule accepts one or more photons. Once this transaction is completed the molecule becomes sort of like a little mirror to infra red radiation and the molecules start reflecting the infra red. Because of the random position of the molecules we may assume that at least 50% of the infra red from earth is radiated back to earth. The process repeats itself.

You still do not understand. There is a difference between reflection and absorbtion/re-emission. And as Bored Chemist said in his last post, it doesn't matter where the re-emitted energy goes, because the atmosphere has already become heated from the absorbtion. Even if the re-emitted energy is somehow directed 100% back out into space, the atmosphere has still absorbed energy in the first place, therefore warming up.

If carbon dioxide traps infra red radiation from earth (keeping us warm) then it must follow that carbon dioxide also shields us from the sun blocking infra red(similar to ozone blocking UV).

It's as if you think that the atmosphere isn't a part of the planet. If the atmosphere is heated, we are heated.

Think of this analogy; you're in a room with a fireplace with a fire burning fiercely away. You're up close to it and it's burning your face. You pull out a dirty great shield and put it between your face and the fire. Now your face is fine, the shield is absorbing the heat instead. The shield has blocked the infrared, just like you say CO2 does. But do you think that the shield is going to cool the whole room down?

[Bored chemist]

Henry also still doesn't understand that the relative change in CO2 levels isn't 0.007% it's about a quarter.
It's easy to see that having 4 blankets on the bed is a fair bit warmer than having 3.