There are some very important issues with the article linked that may well help to understand what the real concerns are.

Firstly, there is a fundamental difference between the troposphere and the upper atmosphere. There has never been any doubt that a large concentration of organics in the upper atmosphere would lead to extreme temperature decrease. (For evidence see Titan), however relevant wavelengths change are you start moving down in the atmosphere. The very general thing that we are concerned with is not the most prominent absorption or reflection peak, but in general the ratio between our atmosphere response(reflection, transmission, absorption) to visual and infrared light.

I'd like to preface by saying that the intricate interactions between different atmospheric compositions and various wavelengths throughout the atmospheric column are decently well understood, but that the computational intensity of combining all of this data into a single model is far from possible at this point and the efficacy of our various approximations is not as well understood.

The "math" in the fourth paragraph is complete rubbish, as is the assertion that the primary purpose of ozone relates to global warming. As an aside, the primary concern with a thinning ozone layer is that it allows more ultraviolet radiation through the atmosphere. As a general rule, the heating effects of ultraviolet light are negligible, however the health effects are enormous. Considering that the average thickness of the ozone layer is less than a centimeter (and practically non-existent at the poles) that may be a reason to be concerned, but not for climate-centric reasons.

The primary fallacy here is the discounting of everything aside from the peak wavelengths of these gasses. The importance is really the integral of the absorption across the visual/ir range multiplied against the profile of the incoming radiation from the upper atmosphere and from the earth itself.

To address your main concern though, CO2 in the upper atmosphere: eh, not a huge concern, potentially even beneficial. CO2 in the lower atmosphere: contributes to the greenhouse effect. To be any more specific than that you really have to look at the absorption spectrum of CO2 and the emittance spectrum of the earth.

The IPCC extabilished that the planet temperature in the next 20 years can decrease 2K or increase 4K. That means, scientific community didn't understand yet the phenomena regulating the mean planet temperature.

There are some very important issues with the article linked that may well help to understand what the real concerns are.

Firstly, there is a fundamental difference between the troposphere and the upper atmosphere. There has never been any doubt that a large concentration of organics in the upper atmosphere would lead to extreme temperature decrease. (For evidence see Titan), however relevant wavelengths change are you start moving down in the atmosphere. The very general thing that we are concerned with is not the most prominent absorption or reflection peak, but in general the ratio between our atmosphere response(reflection, transmission, absorption) to visual and infrared light.

I'd like to preface by saying that the intricate interactions between different atmospheric compositions and various wavelengths throughout the atmospheric column are decently well understood, but that the computational intensity of combining all of this data into a single model is far from possible at this point and the efficacy of our various approximations is not as well understood.

The "math" in the fourth paragraph is complete rubbish, as is the assertion that the primary purpose of ozone relates to global warming. As an aside, the primary concern with a thinning ozone layer is that it allows more ultraviolet radiation through the atmosphere. As a general rule, the heating effects of ultraviolet light are negligible, however the health effects are enormous. Considering that the average thickness of the ozone layer is less than a centimeter (and practically non-existent at the poles) that may be a reason to be concerned, but not for climate-centric reasons.

The primary fallacy here is the discounting of everything aside from the peak wavelengths of these gasses. The importance is really the integral of the absorption across the visual/ir range multiplied against the profile of the incoming radiation from the upper atmosphere and from the earth itself.

To address your main concern though, CO2 in the upper atmosphere: eh, not a huge concern, potentially even beneficial. CO2 in the lower atmosphere: contributes to the greenhouse effect. To be any more specific than that you really have to look at the absorption spectrum of CO2 and the emittance spectrum of the earth.

The single answer is to read the IPCC-report freely available on th3e web. The report is the compilation of the literature. You need the report by Working group 1.

The IPCC is authorative. Of course there is some literature but even the so-called deniers all mention that the greenhouse gases are warming. so the pamphlet you refer to is fully off the mark

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html

Guillermo

The question is about greenhouse gases. NOT about clouds or aerosols and other feedbacks.

go to any source and you will find that increase of Greenhouse gases necessarily results in extra heat collected near the Earth surface and thus warming.

The error bars mostly derive from the uncertainty in cloud feedback and anthropogenic aerosol/cloud interaction

See for instance the site of the climate skeptic "dr Roy Spencer" and Clive Best

Srinivasarao

As for the repetition of dr Wood's experiment: I refer you to the same dr Spencer and you find a decent experiment and the conclusion that it has nothing to do with the real "Greenhouse Effect" that is climate change because the atmosphere is NOT a greenhouse of GLASS

Harry, All,

criticism on the IPCC report conclusion is welcome, but it is important to define in which environmental framework we are doing it.

Paolo

Please also read my more recent entries

What I meant re IPCC is that the SCIENTIFIC way for the questioner is be to read the IPCC report, period

and then possibly ask a question when he thinks HEHIMSELF has found a reason why greenhouse gases can cool.

This is an example how in the area of Climate Change people google and find an obscure site like principia and then even BELIEVE it.

Harry,

I agree with you, web information are usefull to people already know the item.

Guiellermo

Our entries apparently crossed.

As for water: as a vapor it is a strong GC (actually the strongest). However our questioner is typically only concerned with CO2 given his reading of the brochure and pamphlet he mentions

On my judgment I think maybe the question must be considered from another point of view. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and other gases that are effectively absorb infrared radiation capable of generating the greenhouse effect, however from this point to say that they are cause global warming is already one long way.

.

I worked 39 years in physical and numerical modeling (now I am retired and do not work for anyone), and I'm really terrified when I see any principle or experience that you want to relocate the impact of a law, such as Arrhenius, from micro scale to the planetary scale.

.

Any researcher working on physical modeling or numerical knows not respecting scaling laws invalidate the model. The direct use of the constants defined by Arrhenius laboratory or as experience with small box of Prof. Wood, are examples of this problem. When working with models (physical or conceptual) the spatial and temporal scales (and all derived thereof) should be taken into account. For an overview of it I suggest reading "Scaling" Prof. G. I. Barenblatt, but we can anticipate that by changing the scale has to necessarily take into account other effects that they are secondary in a major or minor scale and the other scales are determinant.

.

The Theory of Global Warming Atropogenic transfer coefficients obtained in the laboratory to the global scale, but certainly as the researchers involved in these studies are not fools, they seek overcome the scaling effects through numerical modeling. With these models they intend to make a change of scale of the phenomena. However there comes a second limitation, the mesh sizes used.

.

As the smallest meshes of the models are of the order of 100km * 100km, any effect that occurs within this mesoscale mesh has to be simulated as homogeneous. .

.

There are efforts to seek better representation of these effects (see: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/837) however, even with maximum computing power nowadays, effects such as convection and / or internal waves do not have its representation in the models (and other variables).

.

There is a limitation that any basic researcher working with known simulation with a grade of A x A is impossible to simulate effects occurring on a scale A/2 x A/2, and describes how well the link above, the representation of the mechanism of clouds, for example, result in conflicting results when simulated models differ slightly.

.

If the mechanism of evolution of the clouds are not treated well in mathematical models, as can extend their solutions for over 100 years?

Rogerio

2 Things

1. The question was can GHC cool? The answer is NO

2. You worry about extrapolation: there are now also very high resolution spectra of the absorption in the real atmosphere of the gases and these are exactly similar to those in a multi-reflection cell in the lab.

Harry, of course I said

"Water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and other gases are que effectively absorb infrared radiation capable of generating the greenhouse effect, ..." if it absorbs energy it certainly will not cool!

.

However reductionism is not appropriate for climate science. The absorption of radiation by the body is a universal law, but what happens after that is what matters!

Let's not start that garbage like "skeptical versus alarmist," I'm too old for this!

.

When certain gases absorb energy will interact with the environment, heating, changing the density, moving micro and macroscopically. As an engineer, I can not make as many physicists, looking only at a certain point and try to create "universal laws".

.

Certainly a molecule heats, but if this warming takes part to other atmospheric layers, which will be the effect? And if this molecule heated carry moisture to other layers, which will be the effect?

Are more questions than solutions, we can summarize all the "CO2 is a gas that vibrates (heats) when irradiated in the correct frequency." It is very naïve.

Rogerio... Literally every atom of everything speeds up (not vibrates, this is a gas) when irradiated in any frequency, I personally feel that your last paragraph doesn't really add to this conversation. Secondly, absorbing energy in the higher atmosphere actually will cool, via exactly the same mechanism that causes them to heat the lower atmosphere. For evidence I repeat, look at Titan.

Rogerio

After absorption it is warming; all skepticists also agree. However then the water feedback comes in and there the ideas differ. According to the skepticists the climate sensitivity factor is close to one; IPCC rather takes 2.5, possibly lowered in the coming AR5

Slater

CO2 absorbs IR radiation in one of the internal vibrations and thus increases its internal vibrational energy

Slater.

The way I wrote the text seems to be wrong, because I jumped many phases. However call attention to the no dipole molecules, like CO2 and methane, the absorption mechanism of heat is by vibration excited by electromagnetic frequencies defined.

The processes involved are not as simple or direct as they are often presented if you want more information read: Bohren, C. F. and Clothiaux, E. E. Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation ", Wiley-VCH, 2006.

Maybe my first response was not clear because I spoke more of uncertainties of the  words than of certainties.

The definitions are all present here, to differentiate vortex and eddy are corrects, including the Michael that approaches our first paragraph of my answer.

The main problem is notation depending on the text (text turbulence and others) the eddy and vortex words are used as synonyms or not.

It is extremely difficult to say without knowing the context which meaning the author proposed.

It is possible to roughly differentiate in most texts as a coherent vortex structure, while eddies not keeping this feature.

If we adopt this division, the observations of Michael, "Vortices on the other hand are more stable structures and the description of Their physics ..." Theodore "The flow of real fluids have formation of vortices like the von Karman's vorticies after an obstacle." Helmut "... there are mesoscale eddies (meddies) who are sometimes called blini (pancakes) Which are not Necessarily connected with turbulence." and Brian (various sections), would be covered in part by the division of structural coherence.

It is clear the various interpretations that are structures that represent a rotation (rotational or irrotational) flow in a pre-defined and deterministic (coherent) that could be called vortices. On the other hand, there are structures that are characteristic of turbulent flow, rotational and strongly dissipative, not coherent, which could be called eddies.

Now nothing prevents either author use the terms interchangeably! What do we do? My old teacher, the late Professor. Hunter Rouse, said the following: "The world would be happier if each teacher to write his books." He wrote several!

the site ScienceofDoom provides very excellent but intricate courses on atmospheric radiation

Sorry, the answer above is on the wrong page.

"Principia Scientific International (PSI) was originally conceived in 2010 after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’

The two-volume publication is the world’s first and only detailed refutation of the greenhouse gas effect. According to prominent climate skeptic, Lord Monckton the book soon became " the talk of the Cancun Climate Conference."

PSI’s team of foreign language authors is currently at work translating the book into German, Portuguese and Swedish. A Spanish version is already on sale in response to increasing worldwide interest. Thereafter, our team will set to work translating other of our publications for greater foreign language use."

In other words, PSI is a sceptic think tank producing junk science in order to prevent action being taken by governments to prevent the dangerous effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. There are lots of these sites on the web probably funded by the oil, coal, and other industries who make their profits from the burning of fossil fuels.

Dockery's claim that the 4.3 um band of CO2 is strongest is correct but it is positioned in the wings of both the solar and the terrestrial spectra and so plays only a small part in the radiation balance. The 15 um band of CO2 is situated near the peak of the terrestrial spectra and so its effect is much greater. Moreover, when the 4.3 um band absorbs solar radiation it warms the atmosphere, and very little of that radiation is remitted.

Nasif Nahle and Prof. Wood showed that the glass did not absorb the radiation and warm the interior of the greenhouse, but what did? The air was warmed by absorbing heat radiated from the ground. The greenhouse effect is the warming of air not glass!

This was described 250 years ago by H-B de Saussure in a paper published in the French Journal de Paris which I have translated here:

https://sites.google.com/site/saussureproject/home/JeP.pdf

Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair

These people are even denying the NATURAL greenhouse effect. The best example is Roy Spencer, a well-known skepticist of manmade warming, is haunted by these people that he demonstrates the natural greenhouse effect on his site for which he is even threatened with his life.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-ii-first-results/

Harry,

Who was it who made those threats? There are nearly 300 responses to that article, so the threat would be easier to find if I had a name to search for.

I had thought of posting a link to my translation on that thread but it seems most likely that it would get lost in the "noise".

Alastair

It is not on his site but I thought at wahtsupwiththat but than on atmospheric back radiation

There is much evidence that greenhouse gases are heating. Still in recent years old fears that humankind might experience a new ice age have been revived. Before the idea of global warming became a paradigm there had been scientists who predicted global cooling.

Planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and in this long time there had been periods that were much, much warmer than it is today (e.g. during the time dinosaurs lived on our planet) and also periods that were far colder (ice ages). In other words: it would be strange when the climate would be the same indefinately. This never has been the case. There were also periods when CO2 concnetration was much higher than today. Indeed there was a time when no O2 was in the atmosphere...

Climate change is something that bothers us, because we are effected, because we are there to be bothered. It does not effect Planet Earth in any meaningful way as the planet will be there even if Human aren't anymore (although also Planet Earth won't be eternal). Among many other challenges the scientific mainstream believes that the generation of special gases through the burning of fossil fuels is the driving force for climate change. A few, however, see human contribution little in global warming and some even talk of global cooling.

In RG there have been many contributions that put global warming and global cooling as two different processes. What is different is the outcome of very complex processes. The outcome is either warming or cooling, and to make it even more complex both can happen - in different places.... or at differnt times (a specific place can have warmer summers and colder winters as a resukt of change of the climate....,). How much of this change is contributed by human activies we can discuss and do research about, but it would be strange if only humans have contributed to these changes, or if they would be entirely caused by natural processes - both is very unlikely the case.

Sometimes people think that IPCC does investigate into global warming, but indeed it looks into climate change. The expression global warming is out since many years as it is acknowldeged that it is much more than around temperature change. Global cooling, if it exists is also climate change.

In Germany we can have temperatures in winter of minus 20 degrees Celsius. That is winter and we call this winter weather. Some years winters are mild, other years very harsh, long and very cold. Weather and climate are different things, and the weather is never the same. It changes and also if the sun energy received on January 1 at a particular place would be the same every year (which is not the case as the sender (sun) sends not always the same) it still would result in different weather as the energy received is only one from many, many factors that makes the weather.

In the discussion often people speak of a food crisis because of global warming. I doubt that this is the only possible interpretation. Today we produce considerable more food per capita than a few decades ago. When people are starving then it is usual because of the impacts of wars, civil wars, ethnic tensions, or just because of poverty, but not necessarily because of climate change, at least not so directly as often assumed. Here in the Pacific Island countries the talk of climate change and its impact on food security has been rather dominant, despite this part of the world does not know widespread undernutrition and when we look at malnutrition than we discover that the biggest concern is obesity, and when we would anlyze the causes then we would not find climate change, but MacDonalds and other fast food outlets.

I think that a cooling effect (if it exists) due to reduced sun activity moderates anthropogenic warming impacts, the same other natural impacts on the climate would such as volcanic eruptions etc. We should realise that something as complex as climate has many contributing factors that lead to change.

To assume that everything is caused by humans or everything by natural causes is far too simplistic. For that reason it is rather difficult to make any precise predictions of the future. So both (processes that contribute to warming and such contributing to cooling) not only can happen, but they do, and they always did. What now is sold as new ideas and change to previous scientific knowledge is actually nothing really new other than that one aspect from an extremely complex process is taken out and displayed as the whole truth.w2