Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Part 1 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics


Recently in my snippets of free time I've been commenting at a couple Republican/libertarian climate science denying blogs (yeah, I'm still trying to make sense of what's going on inside their heads).  At ClimateDepot.com I've had a couple go-arounds under a story that declares lying about serious science and what scientists are reporting is some kind of "free speech right" - rather than the act of malicious fraud against the people that it is.  

One character has responded to my debate challenge by giving a fairly lengthy account of what he believes.  I am happy to use it as a learning opportunity for interested onlookers.  As it is, my response has too many words and links for posting over there, so I'll post it over here and invite Will to have a look.

Climate Depot - 'Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?!'  9/17/15

(I'm leaving out our initial exchanges.)
citizenschallenge to Will H. Oct. 17, 2015 - 10:12pm

Will, are you really up for this game? If so - can you please explain precisely what you mean by "convective greenhouse effect" - I ask you not because I'm confused by what CGE is, but rather I want to find out if you actually know what that means, so that we can establish a level playing field.

Also I notice you didn't offer any links to anything that hints of scientific inquiry - do you have any links to support your claims and notions? Please share. I look forward to a productive dialogue.
cheers, cc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was surprised to receive Will's lively response.  Though he didn't share any links to sources he'd learned from, I appreciate the opportunity to respond and point out his deep misunderstanding and his various attempts at deception.  

I reproduced Will's entire comment below - I have not deleted any words, only added breaks to make room for my commentary including links to authoritative sources for some solid background information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Will H. writes:  I am not playing games. I will explain it but not very precisely. 
I am not the one who came up with these ideas. For a more precise explanation you can look it up on the Internet yourself.
___________
CC responds:  Will, I agree with you.  There is a plethora of valuable information out there for those who want to learn about our planet and how society is impacting our Earth's eco-systems and its climate engine. I myself have been learning about it since pre-internet days, ever since my long ago high school science classes in the early 1970s.

As for people "who came up with these ideas" - keep in mind who they really are.  You know the very curious, smart, focused students who after years of dedicated study, evolved into skeptical professional full-time scientists, who have been investigating and learning about our climate for generations with the goal of understanding its workings better.  
It really is that simple.  Here, let one explain it.

Richard Alley - what drives scientists? 


____________________________________________________

Here's an overview of that basic common understanding surrounding manmade global warming:

Climate Change - Vital Signs of the Planet
Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
How is the IPCC run?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the radiant heat trapping effect of greenhouse gases. The LWIR absorption properties on greenhouse gases has nothing to do with how real greenhouses stay warm. Real greenhouses stay warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. So as far as a real greenhouse is concerned, the greenhouse effect is a convective greenhouse effect rather than a radiative greenhouse effect.
___________
CC:  Will, I don't get your point.  Of course, everyone knows that when talking about "global greenhouse effect" we are using a figure of speech, such as "Black Hole" or "Big Bang" - they are catchy and they stick but everyone knows they are labels.  We all understand that Earth's global "greenhouse" is very different from a gardener's greenhouse.  What's the point in bringing it up?

Incidentally, here's some information on that: 
"The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]"   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  In describing the radiative greenhouse effect, I often see the explanation that the greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation (you mean simply IR - Infrared Radiation) and then re radiate the energy out in all directions. If they re radiate the energy out in all directions then the greenhouse gases themselves do not trap any heat. 
___________
CC:  Right, they absorb and release.
Greenhouse gases slow down IR escape to outer-space.  
Think of greenhouse gases as insulation - it slows the escape of heat.  In the process they are warming our global heat and moisture distribution engine.  Or looking at it another way, it's like piling on extra sweaters on an already comfortable day.

Greenhouse effect
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  In fact, if that is the way it really happens, then the greenhouse gasses are not even IR absorbers but IR diffuse reflectors but we know that such is not really true either. 
___________
CC:  Here, learn about what's actually being observed:

First Direct Evidence that Rising CO2 is Heating Up the Earth 
Jenna Iacurci February 26, 2015


"... Between 2000 and 2010, atmospheric CO2 increased by a staggering 22 parts-per-million, thanks in large part to the burning of fossil fuels, researchers say. And while this shows a rise in CO2, how does it prove it contributed to the greenhouse gas effect? For this, the team used special spectroscopic instruments to measure radiative forcing - the rate at which the atmosphere warms up.

It turns out that because of the recent surge in atmospheric CO2, radiative forcing has increased two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. This may not seem like a lot, but in relative terms, it's significant.

"We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation," Daniel Feldman, a scientist in the Berkeley Lab and the study's lead author, said in a news release.

"Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect," he added.

What's even more concerning is that the greenhouse effect doesn't seem to be letting up anytime soon. Just last year, greenhouse gas levels hit a record high, with a 34 percent increase in radiative forcing.

The findings reveal a directly measured correlation between rising CO2 levels and heating - a link that was mathematically proven just two months ago. ..."
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  In the real world the energy is thermalized and therefore available to be shared via contact with other molecules by a heat transfer method called conduction. The conducted heat is then moved much further away by convection. 
___________
CC:  Now we're having fun Will, since we are both obviously playing beyond our depth, this is an opportunity to consider the learning process.  I'll admit I wasn't familiar with the term: "thermalized" so I googled it and found:

"In physics, thermalisation (in American English thermalization) is the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction. In general the natural tendency of a system is towards a state of equipartition of energy or uniform temperature, maximising the system's entropy.
Examples of thermalisation include:
  • the achievement of equilibrium in a plasma
  • the process undergone by high-energy neutrons as they lose energy by collision with a moderator."  

I noticed it relates to "equilibrium in a plasma" and "high-energy subatomic collisions" - not really the stuff of our weather system.  Maybe it comes into play in the extreme upper layers of our atmosphere but that would be it.  Incidentally, those 69 words I quoted are all there is to the description.

When I looked up "conduction", I was bombarded with about four thousand words worth of details.  Interestingly neither "thermalized" nor "thermalization"nor "thermalisation" showed up anywhere in those four thousand words.  What am I supposed to take away from that?  

Oh and for what it's worth:

"Thermal conduction is the transfer of internal energy by microscopic diffusion and collisions of particles or quasi-particles within a body or between contiguous bodies. The microscopically diffusing and colliding objects include molecules, atoms, electrons, and phonons. They transfer disorganized microscopic kinetic and potential energy, which are jointly known as internal energy. Conduction takes place in all phases of ponderable matter, such as solids, liquids, gases and plasmas ..."

As for "convection": 

"Convection is the concerted, collective movement of groups or aggregates of molecules within fluids (e.g., liquids, gases) and rheids, through advection or through diffusion or as a combination of both of them. Convection of mass cannot take place in solids, since neither bulk current flows nor significant diffusion can take place in solids. ... In the context of heat and mass transfer, the term "convection" is used to refer to the sum of advective and diffusive transfer.[1] ..."
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  In the lower troposphere, we are talking on the order of a billion molecule interactions between the time an IR photon is absorbed and would be readmitted if there were no interactions. In the troposphere heat transfer by conduction and convection dominate over heat transfer by absorption band IR radiation. 
___________
CC:  Your first sentence makes no sense.  Your second sentence is true enough, to the best of my knowledge, however you're leaving out that our troposphere is a thin sliver of our atmosphere and GHG are diffused throughout the entire atmospheric column.  Also there's a great deal of circulation going on.

Since neither of us know what you are talking about, how about if we go back to basics:

Global Climate Change > Research Explorer
The Exploratorium
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Layers of the Atmosphere
Atmospheric Structure and Composition
By Rachelle Oblack - Contributed in part by Sharon Tomlinson

"Understanding how weather works on our planet means we must first understand the atmosphere of our planet. Without our atmosphere there would be no weather; indeed, there would be no life on earth. The phenomenon of weather is simply an atmospheric effect. ..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Atmospheric layers driving accelerated far North warming
19 February 2014 by Liz O'Connell, posted in Climate Change Watch
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Physical Science behind Climate Change
Why are climatologists so highly confident that human activities are dangerously warming Earth?

"For a scientist studying climate change, “eureka” moments are unusually rare. Instead progress is generally made by a painstaking piecing together of evidence from every new temperature measurement, satellite sounding or climate-model experiment. Data get checked and rechecked, ideas tested over and over again. 

Do the observations fit the predicted changes? Could there be some alternative explanation? Good climate scientists, like all good scientists, want to ensure that the highest standards of proof apply to everything they discover.

And the evidence of change has mounted as climate records have grown longer, as our understanding of the climate system has improved and as climate models have become ever more reliable. Over the past 20 years, evidence that humans are affecting the climate has accumulated inexorably, and with it has come ever greater certainty across the scientific community in the reality of recent climate change and the potential for much greater change in the future. ..."
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  Greenhouse gases cannot increase the temperature of the Earth's surface because of the Earth's surface's LWIR radiation (you mean simply "Long Wave Infrared Radiation"?) without violating the second law of thermodynamics... At best they can only act as an insulator, slowing down the rate of cooling.
___________
CC:  Do you realize that even the blogosphere's über-contrarians such as JoNova understand that what you are claiming is gibberish and does not belong within any serious climate science dialogue.

Why greenhouse gas warming doesn’t break the second law of thermodynamics
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For something more serious and trustworthy than Jo:

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics

"The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the Earth's surface would be much colder."
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  The Earth too has a convective greenhouse effect in the troposphere where gravity limits cooling by convection. 
___________
CC:  Hmmm, can you explain specifically how you believe "gravity limits cooling" within our troposphere?
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  This effect is exemplified by the natural lapse rate in the troposphere which is computed as a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. 
___________
CC:  The "natural lapse rate"?  
Will, I wonder if you can explain what you think that is?

The way I understand it the "lapse rate" is more a formula that defines an idealized situation, akin to a test tube example.

Our real atmosphere is full of convection and turbulence and such, that over-power such simplistic, though useful concepts and formulas.   Check out this information from people who have studied all this for a long time:


"... I posted a while ago on the dry adiabat and the atmospheric heat pump which maintains it. Any gas in motion in a gravity field will have a vertical component to the motion. When it moves down or up, it is compressed or rarefied. Respectively, it is heated or cooled. This heat change then diffuses in to the gas at the new level. Both up and down motions have the effect of pumping heat downward, until the dry adiabat lapse rate is achieved. This is a temperature gradient, warming in the downward direction, and the critical level is g/cp, where g is the acceleration due to gravity and cp is the constant pressure specific heat of the gas.

As I said, maintaining such a gradient requires a heat pump, because heat tends to move down the gradient by conduction. The energy for the pump comes from atmospheric motions, which are thus attenuated. But when a large heat flux is passing through the air, as in the solar flux which causes all kinds of differential heating, there is energy to drive and sustain these motions. And because the energy sink is the need to overcome conductive leakages, the drain is small, because, the conductivity is low (although there are other demands too). ..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
8.6.3.1 Water Vapour and Lapse Rate

"Absorption of LW radiation increases approximately with the logarithm of water vapour concentration, while the Clausius-Clapeyron equation dictates a near-exponential increase in moisture-holding capacity with temperature. Since tropospheric and surface temperatures are closely coupled (see Section 3.4.1), these constraints predict a strongly positive water vapour feedback if relative humidity (RH) is close to unchanged. 

Furthermore, the combined water vapour-lapse rate feedback is relatively insensitive to changes in lapse rate for unchanged RH (Cess, 1975) due to the compensating effects of water vapour and temperature on the OLR (see Box 8.1). Understanding processes determining the distribution and variability in RH is therefore central to understanding of the water vapour-lapse rate feedback. 

To a first approximation, GCM simulations indeed maintain a roughly unchanged distribution of RH under greenhouse gas forcing. More precisely, a small but widespread RH decrease in GCM simulations typically reduces feedback strength slightly compared with a constant RH response (Colman, 2004; Soden and Held, 2006; Figure 8.14). ..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

_____________________________________________

Will H.:  The convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals, accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth's surface is warmer because of its atmosphere. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect.
___________
CC: Hmmm, can you explain which "first principals" you're referring too?  (fyi. "a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.")

Also, why in the world would there be no room for additional radiant greenhouse effect?

Please Will, explain what you mean because the way I understand it greenhouse gas effect is on a molecular level, involving photons and such - whereas convection is all about moving aggregates of molecules within fluids (i.e., liquids and gases). 

Me thinks you trying to blow hot-air up my trousers.  
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  The convective greenhouse effect does not disprove the idea that greenhouse gases, because of their LWIR absorption bands, have at least some measureable effect on climate but it mitigates effects predicted by the AGW conjecture which tends to ignore convection and conduction altogether. 
___________
CC:  Excuse me Will, why are you ignoring what real scientists have explained many times and in many ways. 

Climatologists clearly understand and incorporate convection and conduction quite well, here's pretty good overview:

Energy transfer in the atmosphere and oceans
_____________________________________________

Will H.:  CO2 is not this magical gas that controls climate and all other molecules in the Earth's atmosphere are not thermally inert and bow down to the rule of CO2.
___________
CC:  Here again you expose your disregard for what's understood! NO CLIMATOLOGIST EVER SAID CO2 CONTROLS EVERYTHING!  And there is nothing magical about it - though it is a major regulator and it's dramatic increase over the past couple centuries is disrupting Earth's climate and the weather patterns that humanity is accustomed to.  Radically changing weather dynamics will impact every aspect of our lives, as anyone who pays attention to world news can see unfolding before our eyes.

In wrapping up I wonder if any Republican/libertarian types ever question their own innate contempt for "environmentalism" and the notion that we need to care about and protect our natural Earth.  I mean these days dealing with Republicans is like being transported into some land of the Lord of Flies and its tribe of greedy angry adolescents who reject self-skepticism and who are convinced they already know everything and are incapable of hearing anything else.  It makes the future a tragically hopeless place.  

Here's a look at what we knew in 1960
Carbon Dioxide and Climate

An article from the July 1959 Scientific American issue which examined climate change: "A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man's activities influence the climate of the future?"

"Editor's Note: We are posting this article from our July 1959 issue to offer an historical perspective on some of the issues being discussed at the United Nations Framework Climate Change Conference ..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The relentless rise of carbon dioxide

___________________________________

Here's a look at what we knew in 1982





Dr. Michael MacCracken's 1982 Climate Change Presentation - 
the complete talk.


___________________________________



Published on Mar 19, 2014 by iSpaceAddict


"Earth From Space" is a groundbreaking two-hour special that reveals a spectacular new space-based vision of our planet. Produced in extensive consultation with NASA scientists, NOVA takes data from earth-observing satellites and transforms it into dazzling visual sequences, each one exposing the intricate and surprising web of forces that sustains life on earth. Viewers witness how dust blown from the Sahara fertilizes the Amazon; how a vast submarine "waterfall" off Antarctica helps drive ocean currents around the world; and how the Sun's heating up of the southern Atlantic gives birth to a colossally powerful hurricane. From the microscopic world of water molecules vaporizing over the ocean to the magnetic field that is bigger than Earth itself, the show reveals the astonishing beauty and complexity of our dynamic planet.

Participants:
Waleed Abdalati - NASA Chief Scientist

David Adamec - NASA Scientist

Charlie Bristow - Birkbeck University of London

Gene Carl Feldman - NASA Oceanographer

Holly Gilbert - NASA Solar Physicist

Jeffrey Halverson - UMBC Meteorologist

Piers Sellers - NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Emily Shuckburgh - British Antarctic Survey

I DO NOT OWN ANY PART OF THIS VIDEO NOR ANY OF THE AUDIO IN IT! ALL OWNERSHIP GOES TO NOVA. (nor do I :)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/

40 comments:

citizenschallenge said...

Over at CD Will H. responded with this comment that I think belongs over here:
(October 21, 2015 - 3:52 PM)

I have no idea as to how I can respond at your political site.
Right up front you state, "Will, I don't get your point."
That really sums up your entire response. I cannot help that.

The problem must be with you.
You do not understand what I have been presenting
but you are trying to twist it in terms of the AGW religion
so as to make political points on your very political site.

citizenschallenge said...

To which I responded (October 21, 2015 - 5:54 PM):

Will, for starters it would be good if you didn't use fragments to misrepresent what I wrote.
Or perhaps I should write: Why am I not surprised you would pull such a decoy?

Allow me to explain, you were going on about:
"... greenhouse gases has nothing to do with how real greenhouses stay warm. ..."
My response read:
__________________
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.bl...

CC wrote: Will, I don't get your point. Of course, everyone knows that when talking about "global greenhouse effect" we are using a figure of speech, such as "Black Hole" or "Big Bang" - they are catchy and they stick but everyone knows they are labels. We all understand that Earth's global "greenhouse" is very different from a gardener's greenhouse. What's the point in bringing it up?

Incidentally, here's some information on that:

"The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

________________________________________________________

Will, as for not knowing how to respond - there's a comments section right below the article.
Responding is as easy as filling in the text box.
If you wanted to do a more extensive rebuttal I've assured you I'd even be willing to offer you your own civil 'guest blog post' and promise not to alter it, though I will be following up with my own review in a subsequent post.

Will Haas said...

I quoted a complete sentence of yours right up front: "Will, I don't get your point." It indicates that I should try to be more remedial in dealing with you.

Those ancient scientists that developed the foundation for the AGW conjecture once believed that a real greenhouse worked by the glass blocking the passage of IR radiation from flowing out of the greenhouse. Experiments were performed in the early 20th century, showing that the IR blocking theory was not correct, but the terminology stuck. I explained to you that the greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm is not a radiant greenhouse effect but rather a convective greenhouse effect which limits cooling by convection.

One measure of the insulating characteristics of the Earth's atmosphere is the natural lapse rate which is computed as a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient, These calculations have been confirmed by measurements. It is this insulating characteristic of the atmosphere that keeps the surface on average 33 degrees C warmer then it would be without an atmosphere. This insulating characteristic is provided for by the mass of the atmosphere and force of gravity. It is the force of gravity that limits cooling by convection. So just as with a real greenhouse the Earth is kept warm by a convective greenhouse effect which limits cooling by convection. Instead of glass, the containment mechanism is gravity. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect and in particular the 33 degrees C that the AGW conjecture calculates.

If additional CO2 actually increased the insulating characteristics of the atmosphere then from measurements of the change in insulating characteristic vs changes in CO2 should allow one to compute the climate sensitivity of CO2. After more than 20 years of effort the IPCC has been unable to to make measurements to compute the climate sensitivity of CO2. Their last report contains the exact same wide range of guesses as their first report. So in more than two decades they have learned nothing to enable to narrow down their guesses one iota.

That uncovers a major flaw in the AGW conjecture. What the AGW conjecture describes is not how the Earth's climate system works.

citizenschallenge said...

Will H, your key statement is: " Instead of glass, the containment mechanism is gravity."
which I believe is what the lapse rate is all about, gravity and decreasing temps at higher altitudes -
do doubt it's a plenty real effect - but you go overboard when you claim:

" There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect and in particular the 33 degrees C
that the AGW conjecture calculates."

I mean how can you ignore something like this?
First Direct Evidence that Rising CO2 is Heating Up the Earth
Jenna Iacurci February 26, 2015

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/12999/20150226/first-direct-evidence-that-rising-co2-is-heating-up-the-earth.htm
"We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation," Daniel Feldman, a scientist in the Berkeley Lab and the study's lead author, said in a news release. ...

"Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect," he added.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Will, can you explain why you think your "lapse rate" would exclude the physics of greenhouse gases?
Here's some more learning resources:

The Climate System
EESC 2100 Spring 2007
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
- - -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
- - -
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
8.6.3.1 Water Vapour and Lapse Rate
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html
- - -

As for knocking scientists that they haven't been able to narrow their estimate of "climate sensitivity"
You demand absolute observational perfection - scientists strive for that also -
but we live within the limits of the real world and can't be expected to know every detail to perfection.
Science is about gathering as much information as possible and making intelligent conclusion based on that.
Your approach is to ignore everything you don't like, if it hasn't been proven to absolute certainty - that's a fools approach.

Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist-intermediate.htm
- - -
The lapse rate
Posted on February 23, 2014 by ...and Then There's Physics
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/the-lapse-rate/
- - - - -

Uncertainty isn't cause for climate complacency—quite the opposite
April 11, 2014 by Ben Newell And Michael Smithson, The Conversation
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-uncertainty-isnt-climate-complacencyquite.html

Evidence from warm past confirms recent IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity
February 4, 2015
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-evidence-ipcc-climate-sensitivity.html

Will Haas said...

To balance the energy coming in from the Sun with the energy going out the Earth radiates out like a black body at -18.15 degrees C or 255 degrees K which is also -.67 degrees F. The altitude of the effective radiating level is 5.1435 KM which is also the median mass altitude in the atmosphere where half the atmosphere is below this altitude and half the atmosphere is above this altitude. Following the lapse rate down from 5.1435 KM to the surface yields an average surface temperature of 14.85 degrees C or 58.73 degrees F. Thus the convective greenhouse effect causes the surface of the Earth to be 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be and that is what it is. There is no additional warmth caused by a radiative greenhouse effect. The lapse rate in the troposphere is a function of the pressure gradient and the heat capacity of the atmosphere and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. If CO2 affected climate, one would expect that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in the insulation qualities of the atmosphere which should be apparent with a change in the lapse rate but that does not happen.

Yes, they have detected that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs in the LWIR but that is not evidence that such absorption actually affects the temperature profile.

As far as "climate sensitivity" is concerned, only one value can be correct so the IPCC should be able to at least estimate a single value for it. But instead they offer a range of possible values because they really do not know what the sensitivity of CO2 is. After more than two decades of work the IPCC has published the exact same range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. So after more than 20 years of effort the IPCC has learned nothing that would allow them to change or narrow the range of possible values one iota. Determining the climate sensitivity of CO2 is probably their most important endeavor yet they have made no progress in it what so ever. Actually if one considers how changes in CO2 affect the lapse rate then the climate sensitivity of CO2 should equal zero. The IPCC has been ignoring the obvious because if they announced that the climate sensitivity of CO2 was actually zero they would end up losing their funding.

citizenschallenge said...

Will, you are just repeating yourself. Plus it seems you haven't spent any time at any of those links I offered - you have learned nothing and don't seem to think there's anything new for you to learn. I hope to put together something about the lapse rate, be patient.

Oh and how do you figure this "Yes, they have detected that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs in the LWIR but that is not evidence that such absorption actually affects the temperature profile." Will, did you even bother to read the article?

"The findings reveal a directly measured correlation between rising CO2 levels and heating… "

________________________________________

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/12999/20150226/first-direct-evidence-that-rising-co2-is-heating-up-the-earth.htm
"We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation," Daniel Feldman, a scientist in the Berkeley Lab and the study's lead author, said in a news release. ...

"Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect," he added.

Will Haas said...

You are ignoring what I write. I did read your link. This information has been out for some time. I read about it when the information was first released. Apparently you believe everything they write and every claim they make. According to the news release:
"The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010." So they measured what they expected, that in the atmosphere, more CO2 radiates and absorbs and more LWIR CO2 absorption band radiation then less CO2. This is expected and in terms of the validity of the AGW conjecture, it means nothing. The global climate system is very complex and a series of measurements made at two locations over just 10 years are not going to pin it down.

citizenschallenge said...

Oh those two point aren't enough for you? Why? How many more would it take for you to take this seriously?
Can just come up with a rational justification - besides setting up impossible expectations???
What about all the other evidence it fits right in with.

Know anything about astronomy and the use of "astronomical interferometer" ?
It seems these scientists, you know full time professional experts have figure out some might nifty observational tricks.

You keep bringing up this "information" > yet you never share specifics.
What about all the supporting information that's been getting gathered for a long long time?
_______________________________________________________________________

I was going to include a few sources to share yet more background
but have run out of time and the real day to day is dragging me away, but I'll be back.

Perhaps in the mean time you can come up with a list of sources you trust for your information.


Phys.org - News tagged with climate sensitivity

citizenschallenge said...

Will, you wrote about first principles, OK.
Can you answer something simple.

First we both agree that 'lapse rate' exists,
and that gravity influences atmospheric pressure
and circulation and heat transfer.

What I can't figure out is
Why do you believe those physical realities mean greenhouse gases are a myth?

How does that work???
Have any links to something half way trust worthy to share?


citizenschallenge said...

Wheelism@6:23 AM,
I suppose next you'll explain to me that the Earth and Universe was created in six days.
Please, take your Romper Room delusions somewhere else,
I don't have the time.

This blog is about at least attempting a dialogue.

wheelism said...

(Terribly sorry, CC. I was laughing at Will's comments about a rise of 0 kelvin for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, and at the idea that IPCC's VOLUNTEERS are keeping the GHG 'myth' afloat (in spite of the fact that the IPCC's job is to present an OVERVIEW of the latest science.)

wheelism said...

(Oh, and CO2 DOESN'T have a 'climate sensitivity,' Will. ;-))

Will Haas said...

They are measuring the change in the LWIR absorption band affects of changing CO2 in the atmosphere. That is a long way from any evidence that CO2 actually affects global climate. What other evidence? I do not provide links but most of what I have been telling you can be found on the Internet.

citizenschallenge said...

Wheelism, my deepest apologies - I regret deleting your earlier comment, my bad.

Sometimes it's just too difficult discerning the Onion from the self-certain fools.

Thanks for taking the time to comment!

Will Haas said...

Greenhouse gases are by definition gases that have LWIR absorption bands. That is all they really are and they do exist and they have nothing to do with how a real greenhouse operates. It is the AGW conjecture that claims that because their LWIR absorption bands, greenhouse gases trap heat. The AGW conjecture has put forth the concept of a radiant greenhouse effect that is caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are many statements of the radiant greenhouse effect that are definitely wrong and or violate the laws of thermodynamics. The most plausible explanation that I can come up with is that greenhouse gases increase the radiant, thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere causing warming at the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere but cooling in the upper atmosphere. According to the AGW conjecture it is the radiant greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth 33 degrees C warmer then it would otherwise be without the radiant greenhouse effect. Adding more CO2 enhances the effect which causes more warming. The additional warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which enhances the effect even more because H2O is also a greenhouse gas. If that were the entire story then yes, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere causes global warming but that is not the whole story as I have explained. The convective greenhouse effect that is the cause of the natural lapse rate in the troposphere is really responsible for the additional 33 degrees C warmth at the Earth's surface. The convective greenhouse effect is more fundamental then the radiant greenhouse effect and again it accounts for all 33 degrees C of additional warmth that is observed at the Earth's surface. If the radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture did actually exist then the surface of the Earth would be 33 degrees C warmer than it actually is. If greenhouse gases actually provided insulation then I would expect that there would be some practical applications but there are not any. Sorry but I do not provide links. What I am telling you can be found on the Internet if you look hard enough.

Will Haas said...

Wheelism@6:23 AM,"This blog is about at least attempting a dialogue" and your insults do not help. We are trying to talk about science here.

citizenschallenge said...

Will H. you still haven't explained why you believe the Lapse Rate and/or Gravitation influence should effect the known radiative properties of greenhouse gases???
_________________________________________

"So, because we know that CO2 is a radiatively active gas that allows the shortwave (visible) radiation from the sun into the climate system and slows that same energy down on its way out as longwave (infrared) radiation, we quite clearly expect that adding more CO2 will raise the average temperature of the earth’s surface. This has been expected for over 100 years!"
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what-is-the-evidence-that-co2/
- - - - - - -

Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties

Posted by Ari Jokimäki on September 25, 2009

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (September 23, 2012): Burch & Gryvnak (1966) added.
UPDATE (February 6, 2011): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
- - - - - - -

And Once again Will (you ignored this before) even contrarians such a JoNova and "noconsensus.wordpress" Jeff Id (2010/04/19) makes plain: "I’m forced to spell out again how I am so darn sure that CO2 causes some warming. Some of this seems like it’s too obvious but that’s probably because I work in optics and these equations are very familiar. When considering radiative absorption of CO2, we need to look at Plancks equation and the absorption curve of CO2."… "The point is that any skeptical argument having any credibility at all, needs to start from this point. Yes CO2 causes some warming. After this, the world is your oyster and I’m no longer the guide."

But you don't buy any of that because somebody on the internet said something that you liked the sound of and your are sticking to it.
Is that it?

Even if you can't explain why you believe it?

citizenschallenge said...

Here's an excellent review http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
Greenhouse Gas Molecules:

The greenhouse gas molecules are shown in the next series of figures along with the IR spectra and the bending and vibrations caused by absorbing the IR radiation. The arrows on the molecules indicate the direction of the bends and vibrations of the bonds. The IR spectra indicates the specific energies at certain wavelengths which are absorbed. Radiation that is 100% transmittance is not blocked but travels straight through the sample. The dips in the lines are caused by the absorption of energy, hence only 10% of the energy is transmitted.

The graphic on the left is carbon dioxide.

Figure 1: Water

Figure 2: Methane

Figure 3: Nitrous Oxide

Figure 4: All Greenhouse Gases
__________________________________________________________
That page is worth visiting. You might surprise yourself at what you haven't yet realized.
There are plenty more, some honorable mentions:

Carbon In the Atmosphere - My Life as a Greenhouse Gas
Part A: CO2: It's a Gas!
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/3a.html
- - -
http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect

citizenschallenge said...

Will, I hadn't noticed your comments around 8pm when I posted those two a little after 9pm, though there's nothing to add.

You write "Greenhouse gases are by definition gases that have LWIR absorption bands. That is all they really are and they do exist and they have nothing to do with how a real greenhouse operates."

Why do you keep trying to confuse things, by comparisons to a real glazed greenhouse.
That's a stupid distraction.
The fact that GHGs are "by definition gases that absorb Long Wave Infrared Radiation" means absorb heat
Yes that heat is also given off then absorbed by another GHG molecule and so on and so forth.
The net effect of increasing the amount of GHG molecules, is increased warming.

Can you try to get the distraction of a physical human built greenhouse out of your head and focus on those above known facts.
___________________________
You even seem to accept that physical reality when you say: "The most plausible explanation that I can come up with is that greenhouse gases increase the radiant, thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere causing warming at the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere but cooling in the upper atmosphere."

But then you make this astounding leap that the lapse rate somehow cancels out GHG radiative properties- that makes absolutely no sense. And no I haven't found anything on the internet explaining the why and how of that cancelation
you are convinced exists.

Worst you don't seem to possess any recognition of how little of the subject you actually understand and you really ought to pay attention to people who've dedicated their lives and minds to thoroughly understanding these dynamics. I've tried to offer many links to authoritative sites the explain what the community of scientists understand - but you on the other expect me to accept your personal convictions on FAITH. That's not how science works.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and you never offer anything beyond your self-certain convictions, which seems dripping with contempt for real experts. Further it seems you don't even bother to look at or absorb anything from those links I've offered. That's why it's so easy for folks like Wheelism to have fun at your expense.

Will Haas said...

"Here's an excellent review http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
Greenhouse Gas Molecules:"

You have complained to me about bringing up the greenhouse analogy yet your "excellent review" contains a greenhouse analogy. What your "excellent review" says about a greenhouse is blatantly wrong. A real greenhouse stays warm because of a convective greenhouse effect and not a radiative greenhouse effect. We have already been over this.

Will Haas said...

LWIR radiation and sensible heat are not the same. You do not seem to understand that.

Will Haas said...

Let's go over the math here. It is not too difficult. From observations, the surface of the Earth is on average 33 degrees C warmer then it would otherwise be because of the Earth's atmosphere. The gravity induced convective greenhouse effect causes the surface of the Earth to be on average 33 degrees C warmer then it would otherwise be because of its atmosphere. At most an additional radiative greenhouse effect can only account for the difference between what has been observed and what is already provided for by the convective greenhouse effect. 33 minus 33 equals zero which it the maximum amount of warming that can possible be provided for by the radiative greenhouse effect. Of the zero degrees of warming most of it is caused by H2O. Less than 30% is caused by CO2. Of that produced by CO2, less than 20% can be attributed to Man's burning of fossil fuels. So the maximum warming caused by Man's use of fossil fuels is computed as 0.0 X .3 X .2 = 0.0 degrees C. If we double the warming attributed to CO2 in order to compute the climate sensivity of CO2 we arrive at a climate sensivity of 0.0 degrees C. The math is not that complicated.

citizenschallenge said...

Regarding "your" math, I don't trust it. I'd rather trust the tens of thousands of experts who have hashed out those complex details over the decades. What amazes me is that you really believe you're in an intellectual position to dismiss them - yet you can't even acknowledge the fairly detailed information in the various link I've offered.

Will H says "LWIR radiation and sensible heat are not the same. CC, you do not seem to understand that."

Of course I'm aware of the distinction. But that has nothing to do with explaining why you think lapse rate and gravity invalidates greenhouse gases radiative properties?

If I've misunderstood what you're say please explain.

Thanks for the link, I look forward to checking it out.

Will Haas said...

My math is correct. 33 minus 33 does equal zero. Any calculator you try should get the same result. 0.0 times anything equals 0.0. Any calculator you try should get the same result. Most grade school math books will include that math fact.

The convective greenhouse effect does not invalidate greenhouse gases radiative properties. These gases still have LWIR absorption bands which means that they both absorb and radiate in those LWIR absorption bands. It is just that the convective greenhouse effect accounts for the insulation effects of the atmosphere but only all of it. The convective greenhouse effect accounts for an average 33 degrees C of warming where as the radiant greenhouse effect accounts for 0.0 degrees C of warming. That is why there is no evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate.

The link is one that you supplied in one of your posts. It contains incorrect information.

citizenschallenge said...


http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html

Greenhouse Analogy: "Energy from the sun in the form of some ultraviolet and visible light (short wavelength) passes through the glass of the greenhouse. As the light strikes various surfaces in the greenhouse and they are heated. These surfaces in turn re-radiate the heat in the form of infrared radiation (long wavelength). However, the IR radiation is blocked from escaping by the glass. IR is not able to pass through the glass, hence the greenhouse air heats up fairly dramatically.
The greenhouse gases have the same property as the glass towards the IR radiation. Think of the greenhouse gases acting as an invisible glass shield around the earth."
_____________________________
OK you got-me.
I totally ignored the IR blocking ability of glass and this write-up ignores the convection process within greenhouse walls and roof, namely the air mass remains confined within that space so heat accumulates.

But you do realize both processes are at work? Right?

And yes greenhouse glass does reflect IR kinda sorta like GHG molecules do. But, only kinda sorta - mind you this text is for teaching the basics as simply, well over-simply as possible. It certainly doesn't give you the tools to second guess experts.

Re your assurance that you got your math correct. I know that's your story and you're sticking to it. 'Nugh said, at least until you manage to acknowledge some of the information I've shared on that.
I notice you cranked it up another notch.
Here's a doozie: "That is why there is no evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate."

Have you ever familiarized yourself with the paleoclimate evidence?

Published on Jun 1, 2015
NAS member Richard Alley presents on 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2, during the Symposium—Earths, Moons, Mars & Stars at the National Academy of Sciences 152nd Annual Meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg
_________

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
Dan Moutal From the 2009 AGO Fall meeting

(Please note, he did not say "the only" control knob!)
___________

Here's a talk that get's to the roots of the process of understanding Earth Sciences - you really could learn a lot from listening to what this man has to explain.

Climate Change: Is the Science "Settled"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlHbt5jja4
Uploaded on May 13, 2010 - Stanford University
(February 4, 2010) Stephen Schneider, professor of biology at Stanford and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, unpacks the political and scientific debates surrounding climate change.

citizenschallenge said...

That would be the late and certainly great Dr. Schneider.

Much aligned by special interested who were intend on attacking scientists, distorting their science and lying to the public - all for short term profit and glory. Sad part is all the sheople they found to brainwash with their sheer nonsense.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/july/schneider-071910.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

PS. ;- ) Care to read an article of mine?
Concerning Our Failure to Appreciate the Weather
http://thehumanist.com/magazine/november-december-2015/up-front/concerning-our-failure-to-appreciate-the-weather

Will Haas said...

Concerning: "But you do realize both processes are at work? Right?"

You already yourself posted an excerpt form a Wikipedia article which agrees with me. The warming of a real greenhouse is all explained by a convective greenhouse effect and not a radiative greenhouse effect. Experiments were performed near the beginning of the 20th century that showed that whether the glass passed or did not pass LWIR radiation did not effect the temperature in a greenhouse. There is no radiant greenhouse effect.

I watched the videos concerning climate history. It is true that warmer climates coincide with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. It is well known that warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 so there is a reason for it. There is no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to the warming and the models that they generated do not provide that evidence. If any greenhouse gas contributed to warming then the majority of such an effect would have had to have been caused by H2O. Molecule per molecule, H2O is a more powerful IR absorber than CO2 and there is always so much more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. H2O increases as the surfaces of bodies of water increase in temperature but to increase CO2 whole volumes of water have to be heated so any such effect regarding CO2 would have to take a lot longer than with H2O. Considering the AGW political science. If we are talking preponderance of the evidence then we are talking speculative science. This is not a civil case. Remember that in mathematics, the language of science, it takes only one counter example to disprove a theorem. What matters more is the nature of the evidence and the scientific logic associated with that evidence as opposed to the volume of evidence.

citizenschallenge said...

Will Haas at 5:00 PM and 7:44 PM (Oct 26, 2015)
You are merely repeating yourself - I don't have the time for it today -
I will hold on to your two comments and probably make a stand alone post, when I can, in order to summarize all the information I've shared and that you have studiously ignored in favor of the musings of some hacks who's ideology fits your litmus test.

Heck you can't even offer links to your sources, but guess I can understand that considering the sources at your disposal, CD, WUWT, Heartland, etc..

Your second comment I found downright offensive - I couldn't give a damned if you fancy yourself a nature lover and liked camping in the Sierra mountains as a kid; or that you choose to taint me as an "environmentalist" - I'm concerned about our ability (or lack thereof) to understand how our planet's natural processes operate. Something you and your type are doing you best to confuse.

You're the one dragging the politics into what's supposed to be good faith learning focused on understanding our global heat and moisture distribution engine - which is not that hard to do - if YOU have the integrity to keep YOUR POLITICS out of it!

Oh and if you think you can equate Professor Richard Alley as just another guy with an opinion, it merely underscores how disingenuous you actually are.

Will, you say you listened to his talks - well prove it by explaining why you think you can dismiss his words with such casualness.

citizenschallenge said...

Jeez, I got work I'm supposed to do. Will I just read your that comment you make a few minutes ago.
I posted it, but apparently I screwed it up. If you have a copy please resubmit, I will put it up.

But, I'm supposed to being doing something else - like real work and earning a paycheck.
But, then my response to you took me to NPR, and an inane article that pissed me off and got me going in a whole new direction.

later

citizenschallenge said...

Will, a bonus question -
Haven't you noticed our weather transforming itself these past decades?

Such as the increasing intensity of torrential downpour incidents…
The extreme warming of our oceans (Think hurricane Patricia)…
{and then I made the mistake of linking to that lost Brumfiel article at NPR - but that's another story}
The melting of our planet's cryosphere…
The sheer numbers of contemporary extreme heat and drought events…

Your tribe tries to tell us all that is our imagination run wild. Do you agree with that?
If not, do you have any explanation of what's going on?

Will Haas said...

If you do not have the time then do not waste time posting. So apparently you are giving up a discussion of science and are instead posting political diatribe. You like to ignore a lot of what I have been saying.

Will Haas said...

The weather cycles that we have been experiencing have not really changed much. It is just that our means of observation have grown much more sophisticated. Here in California we have had droughts before. Most of the state is really desert to semiarid and what the state has deemed as average rainfall is really above average rainfall. What has changed is that the demand for fresh water has grown because of a large increase in population so any drought that we have seems much worse than what we had in the past.

citizenschallenge said...

Will @1:51 PM - I do the best I can with what I got and every day requires triage, I must do the things I need to do and not always what I want to do.
So, cry me a river.

Besides, I haven't ignored a thing you've written -
the two comments I'm holding is only more dog chasing tail from you -
With you absolutely ignoring all the information you need to actually learn about this.
Instead you rather peddle grade school nonsense.

You can't even get your head out of a manmade greenhouse to start considering what's actually happening upon this vast
(though rapidly shrinking) globe.
You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that experts know a lot of stuff you don't have a clue about.

I know California too, and don't feed me no crap about this being just another hoohum drought.
Or that the forest fires that hit the northern California were just another summer fire season.
The sheer oblivious disregard you-all posses for what has been going down in real time and real destruction
is beyond comprehension.

How much catastrophe will it take for you-all to get a hint?

citizenschallenge said...

That's that last I heard of Will. I did continue with the exercise and posted Will's two comments that I held in moderation.
That would be 3,4 and 5a,b,c

Part 1 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics

Part 2 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics

Part 3 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics

Part 4 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re GHG physics and models

Part 5a - Debating ClimateDepot fan: Myth of the noble climate science opposition

Part 5b - Debating ClimateDepot fan: of politics and environmentalism

Part 5c - Debating ClimateDepot fan: final thoughts


Will Haas said...

Yours is not a debating site but instead is an AGW religious site. I destroyed the AGW conjecture with one of my arguments that you did not disagree with but then decided just to ignore. There is evidence that the climate sensitivity is 0.0 and hence CO2 does not affect climate.

citizenschallenge said...


Will, good to hear from you, sad to hear you didn't learn a thing.
Now let me say this about that: ….

Actually, there's too much to say about your foolish comment,
it deserved it's own post for some detailed examination.
Part 6 - Debating ClimateDepot fan: AGW religion (epilogue)

Will Haas said...

It is sad that you did not learn anything either. To you it is not science but a religion.

citizenschallenge said...

Which I suppose is why contrarians such as yourself never seem to come up with arguments they can defend with rational facts.
Instead it's a dog-chasing-tail routine that ignores available information, then huffing off stage, after declaring victory.

Will Haas said...

You are proving my point. You have totally ignored what I said and am now calling me names. You are calling me some sort of AGW heretic.

citizenschallenge said...

Hmmm, where have I called you a "AGW heretic"
(=a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.)
I consider you self-deluded because you believe a partial understanding of Greenhouses -
gives you the knowledge to claim a community of experts who study this stuff are wrong and you are right.
Even though you can't even come up with a coherent argument that makes rational sense or encompasses observed phenomena.

You wrote: "To you it is not science but a religion."
It's actually rather squirrely wording -
are you vaguely acknowledging the power and independence of science itself,
but that I'm a science worshipper?
How does one worship a method of looking at and understanding the world around us?

You know I'm the one that spends countless hours looking at various proud climate science "skeptic" claims -
how much time have you spent actually understanding the science and observations?
Nah, instead you blithely dismiss all that expert knowledge in favor of your own superior mind.
Now that sounds more like religion and not any method of trying to get at fundamental knowledge.