ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
I would be curious to see your references on this.ADreamOfLiberty said:I was not describing the greenhouse effect. I was describing the insulation that atmosphere provides even if there was no greenhouse effect (no IR absorbing gasses).
If you provide it I will look at it.
I'll quickly resumerize the mechanism I described, I will called it IR transparent insulation for the purposes of this discussion:Find supporting references then we can talk.
1.) Solar radiation passed through atmosphere, strikes planet geology, warms terrestrial surface
2.) IR transparent atmosphere near surface is warmed by conduction, a phase changing gas-liquid could also greatly increase this absorption of energy
3.) IR transparent atmosphere undergoes convection, randomly directed thermal radiation photons in the IR spectrum are emitted from the atmosphere, roughly half of which would return to the planet and be absorbed at the terrestrial surface.
Conclusion: This will insulate the surface as it removes some of the power that would have been directly radiated out and redirects a portion of it back towards the planet forcing more interactions before it can escape.
Now what part did you need a reference on?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can conduct heat?
Do you doubt that IR transparent gasses emit thermal radiation?
Do you doubt IR transparent gasses can form convection currents?
Do you doubt that IR emissions are randomly directed?
Do you doubt that impeding the flow of energy away from a system will insulate it?
These are your options for doubting this mechanism. These are your options for requiring references.
How do you know carbon trapped in the carbonate ooze (for example) is not similarly depleted?Yes and it's depleted in C13 and C14.
You misunderstand. I don't need to claim bicarbonate equilibrium fractionates isotopes. It needs merely to be capable of storing carbon from previous epochs where the isotope ratios were different (such as when the hydrocarbons were buried) in order to have a different ratio.You can point to whatever fractionation process in the bicarb-->carbonate reactions.
It is capable, thus without accounting for it as a source of carbon dioxide you do not have enough variables to solve the equation for man made sources.
It only appears to be a mess if you don't know the science.
Non-responsive.But you didn't. You only claimed you did.
You also claimed that your original posts contained everything needed. If that is not the case I will respond to your original arguments. Copy paste if you wish, but only if you are willing to defend what you copy paste as if it was your own thoughts.I believe I provided you with an explainer from a couple different sources explaining this to you.
Clearly you have a major disagreement with the experts on the subject.
Nope. Again, your primary fight is with physics and the experts.
Appeal to authority fallacyI've spent about 40 years working in the sciences.
Complicated is neither true nor false. I am merely pointing out that you have not accounted for the variables you would need to in order to prove the assertions you have made.The impression I'm getting is you want to just say "It's all so complicated NO ONE can understand it! SO it must not be true!"
I have no opinion on "climate sensitivity" the unknown but apparently calculable quantity except that it must be derived from basic physical variables and real world measurements to have any validity and that however useful it may be it cannot contradict other sound physical analyses such as IR transparent insulation.If you don't even really know anything about it how do you have any opinion on it?
Again, you are so uneducated in the topic that you only THINK you have.
Poisoning the well fallacyWell, we know you lack any real training in any of these topics.