My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[modest]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

...and whats this all about, Home - apparently most U.S. ground temperature records are crap methinks we can remove any so-called 'science' based on these stations from the AGW debate.

FB points out a good link. It looks like work needs to be done on our temperature monitoring stations. Here is a terse description of how the data is handled from NASA's GISS site:

This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which has now increased to about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981. Still further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which shows largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean).

Some improvements in the analysis were made several years ago (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001), including use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations...

The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements. Uses of this data should credit the original sources, specifically the British HadISST group (Rayner and others) and the NOAA satellite analysis group (Reynolds, Smith and others). (See references.)

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

For a more complete look, but not exactly current, there is:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/...ansen_etal.pdf

~modest

[Flying Binghi]

Not only the U.S. stations are mainly crap, over in Italy there is the same problem.

A little research via - SurfaceStations.org: A tour of Italy Watts Up With That?

An interesting comment -

"Bearing in mind the huge diversity of climate even within Italy it is difficult to choose a single figure that represents Italy and amply illustrates the nonsense of Global temperatures!"

modest, via http://surfacestations.org/ there are rural WX stations in the U.S. showing a cooling trend ?

[Zythryn]

FB, I would be surprised if there were not stations showing a cooling trend.
You don't seem to understand the idea of GW.
GW is theorized to be leading to an increase in the annual global average temperature. Added temperature means more energy in the atmosphere. This means more dramatic weather events and a shift in global weather patterns. Exactly what those are, we don't know yet. They may not be as severe as some are saying, they may be more severe.
Now, if you don't agree with that, could you give us your own version of what you believe the GW theory is?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Well, it depends on what you mean by that. In correct physical terms, energy is neither destroyed or created.

First, I am extremely tired so it makes it more difficult to articulate.

Not exactly where I was going with this. More like you can reflect a light off a mirror to get it to your plants, but they dont grow as well. Just like you put them outside and they do better than in the window (shaded or not) because the process of going thru the glass affects the light (which is why it is recommended you either supplement light for lizards in captivity or you convert a window to plastic to allow a better quality light through for their needs).

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

Energy held by co2 is changed form. Or if its bounced once, it slows; it is slowed each time it bounces.

IR waves do not last forever and each bounce decays its effect.

Originally Posted by freeztar

Do you have a link to this? It sounds hokey to me. It's not hokey that man made water sources influence the local weather and ecology, but quantifying that on a local level can approach impossibility (with any credibility).

Volume 12, Issue 3 (March 1999)
Journal of Climate

AMS Online Journals Display Figures

The trend line is there but hard to see in black and white.

Urban Irrigation Has Increased Phoenix Area's Rainfall | LiveScience

The original author which the above is based on states more study needs to be done to calculate the irrigation effect more accurately.

Originally Posted by freeztar

It's a good question!
Since we started looking at climate on a world wide level (about 100 years of research) we have gained enormous amounts of knowledge. We now know that other factors are at play including other GHG (methane and H2O) and solar variability etc. All current models take these sources into account. Are we missing something? Probably. But whatever it is that we may be missing at this time does not appear to be reflected in the climate models.

Here is where we part ways.

All Current models Claim to take these sources into account. What remains to be proven is whether they have correctly assessed these other factors. I do not believe they have. I think (based on real world experience) they under account the UHI. I can tell when the wind is blowing directly over the twin cities to my house when there is a warm front north of me. I can feel the heat difference a few degrees change in the wind brings.

To describe this effect a little closer. The road on the south side of my property was tarred two summers ago. My former renter worked outside and was very happy to lose the dust (after 3 full summers of dealing with it). Last summer, his first full summer of tar he commented to me about how much hotter it was. How he could feel the heat blowing off the road. He was approx 60 feet from the road and this heat was passing a tree lined fence (8 foot tall fence).

So wheres your link showing me how the UHI is accounted for (see below CRI references)?

There seems to be a LOT of faith in the data without real accountabilty. Fact is the earth has been warming (generally) since the end of the last ice age. Theres plenty of studies out there indicating each warming episode has been (generally) warmer than the previous one.

Originally Posted by freeztar

No, I haven't heard about this. Please link me.

And its not the first time skeptics have notified them of problems:

GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data Watts Up With That?


I posted this in post #1184 regarding surfacestations.org :
... as to the quality of data and questionable conditions surrounding these stations who we rely on to provide accurate temperature data. Besides the fact that large numbers of stations have been removed from the grid, I was shocked to see the majority of MN weather stations who provide data on surface temps rated a 4 or lower on the CRN Site Quality Rating.

2 = CRN 5 (error >= 5C)
14 = CRN 4 (error >= 2C)
4 = CRN 3 (error 1C)
4 = CRN 2
0 = CRN 1
2 had been closed in the 90s
4 not surveyed
1 needed re-survey so not included in rating list.

And thats just the MN stations.

526 have been surveyed (43.7%)
687 need to be surveyed

Only 13% come in with a CRN 1 or 2 rating.
19% have a CRN 3 rating
57% have a CRN 4 rating
12% have a CRN 5 rating

So 32% of the ratings fall between good and marginal.
69% have suspect data (in my opinion).

How can you be so sure the warming has been accurately documented? Even if surfacestations exaggerates the problem, half the temp variable and its still alot of stations with questionable data. How exactly are these variables handled? Why are these stations not being improved so data fixing doesnt need to be applied? Why not get quality data at the source?

Originally Posted by freeztar

Well, I hate it when people say that something is so insignificant because of quantity, without assessing the quality.

So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble? How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?

What exactly makes it more chronic than a chip of diamond, or a cell from a tree? And as I understand it, the O part dont even count in the whole OMG were boiling over stampede.

CO2

I see nothing in its chemistry that makes it more heat trapping than any other carbon based particle. Less than I am; being as my external temp has less variability than the average low temp of Minnesota in July. Not only that but I am heat emitting!!

See the real answer is cutting back the number of people!

This aint CFCs. This aint dioxin. This aint R2d4. Its at best a microscopic piece of soot thats been fused to oxygen via the combustion chamber of my GEO.

That's not a valid analogy imho. The water is heating up regardless, but the added albedo of the coke can increase this.

Prove it.

I am not saying it does. I am saying this is the analogy of the OMG were all dying crowd. So lets ban coke! BTW, what will the carbon tax be on Pepsi? That concerns me greatly.

OK, Now I am just too tired to carry on. Gawd I hate working for a living!

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Energy held by co2 is changed form. Or if its bounced once, it slows; it is slowed each time it bounces.

IR waves do not last forever and each bounce decays its effect.


...

So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble? How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?

What exactly makes it more chronic than a chip of diamond, or a cell from a tree? And as I understand it, the O part dont even count in the whole OMG were boiling over stampede.

CO2

I see nothing in its chemistry that makes it more heat trapping than any other carbon based particle. ...a microscopic piece of soot....

I don't have the time to touch the UHI or station discussions, but....
Speck of soot? (...a microscopic piece of soot....)

Are you aware of the difference between a triatomic molecule and a diatomic molecule, in terms of its ability to absorb infrared radiation?

hint: (water is also tri-atomic)

Sorry--I'm being flip. But seriously, if you have some questions about the heat-loss mechanism, and how GHG's interfere with it, I'd be glad to try a specific explanation.

For instance, you are correct about the "losing energy" with each bounce,
...but you're just picturing a snapshot.

There is a whole sea of flux (as time advances) with higher energy wavelengths always lengthening--to get into that range where CO2 absorbs (as those higher energy quanta are making their way out toward space).
===

...consider also that when a CO2 radiates away some heat (back toward the surface), it is in a range where water vapor will no longer block its path (it's a wavelength that water doesn't absorb).

p.s. Does the above make sense? Does picturing "the video" help?
I could go into detail with your question: "So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble? How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?"
...if you need that detail first.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

First, I am extremely tired so it makes it more difficult to articulate.

Yawn...

Not exactly where I was going with this. More like you can reflect a light off a mirror to get it to your plants, but they dont grow as well.

Huh? What do you mean by this?
What plants? What is the angle of reflection? Etc...

Just like you put them outside and they do better than in the window (shaded or not) because the process of going thru the glass affects the light (which is why it is recommended you either supplement light for lizards in captivity or you convert a window to plastic to allow a better quality light through for their needs).

I'm going to have to call BS on this. How do you define "quality light"?

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

Indeed!

Energy held by co2 is changed form. Or if its bounced once, it slows; it is slowed each time it bounces.

Well, before we go down this path, what do you mean by "energy" and "bouncing"?
The energy 'held and re-emitted' by CO2 is IR. It is re-emitted within nanoseconds of interacting with CO2. When it is re-emitted, it is still IR. Bounce it 1 billion times and it is still IR.

Speed is inconsequential. IR is electromagnetic radiation. It always travels at the speed of light (normally, in a vacuum). If the material absorbs some energy, then yes, you have a net loss of energy (IR) "bouncing" back.

IR waves do not last forever and each bounce decays its effect.

Ok, as long as the "bouncers" absorb some of the energy.

Volume 12, Issue 3 (March 1999)
Journal of Climate

AMS Online Journals Display Figures

The trend line is there but hard to see in black and white.

This first graphing shows regional specific humidity trends from 1961-1995.
Where?
What significance does this have on the topic?

Urban Irrigation Has Increased Phoenix Area's Rainfall | LiveScience

The original author which the above is based on states more study needs to be done to calculate the irrigation effect more accurately.

Here is where we part ways.

Finally!

All Current models Claim to take these sources into account. What remains to be proven is whether they have correctly assessed these other factors. I do not believe they have. I think (based on real world experience) they under account the UHI. I can tell when the wind is blowing directly over the twin cities to my house when there is a warm front north of me. I can feel the heat difference a few degrees change in the wind brings.

Ok, what does your thermometer tell?

To describe this effect a little closer. The road on the south side of my property was tarred two summers ago. My former renter worked outside and was very happy to lose the dust (after 3 full summers of dealing with it). Last summer, his first full summer of tar he commented to me about how much hotter it was. How he could feel the heat blowing off the road. He was approx 60 feet from the road and this heat was passing a tree lined fence (8 foot tall fence).

This is unusable info. It's a third person account from an unidentified local condition.

So wheres your link showing me how the UHI is accounted for (see below CRI references)?

Where's my data?!
I'm not claiming any self-collected data other than what I can find through accountable sources.

There seems to be a LOT of faith in the data without real accountabilty.

You said it!

Fact is the earth has been warming (generally) since the end of the last ice age.

Indeed.

Theres plenty of studies out there indicating each warming episode has been (generally) warmer than the previous one.

Studies?

And its not the first time skeptics have notified them of problems:

GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data Watts Up With That?

OMG!
The Russian data will most likely show that we have been cooling, right? NO!
Again (and again), you can't listen to any one source. Even without the adjusted values, it looks like this attachment:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...if?w=510&h=282

If the adjustments show a downward-trend when added, let me know.

I posted this in post #1184 regarding surfacestations.org :
... as to the quality of data and questionable conditions surrounding these stations who we rely on to provide accurate temperature data. Besides the fact that large numbers of stations have been removed from the grid, I was shocked to see the majority of MN weather stations who provide data on surface temps rated a 4 or lower on the CRN Site Quality Rating.

2 = CRN 5 (error >= 5C)
14 = CRN 4 (error >= 2C)
4 = CRN 3 (error 1C)
4 = CRN 2
0 = CRN 1
2 had been closed in the 90s
4 not surveyed
1 needed re-survey so not included in rating list.

And thats just the MN stations.

526 have been surveyed (43.7%)
687 need to be surveyed

Only 13% come in with a CRN 1 or 2 rating.
19% have a CRN 3 rating
57% have a CRN 4 rating
12% have a CRN 5 rating

So 32% of the ratings fall between good and marginal.
69% have suspect data (in my opinion).

How can you be so sure the warming has been accurately documented? Even if surfacestations exaggerates the problem, half the temp variable and its still alot of stations with questionable data. How exactly are these variables handled? Why are these stations not being improved so data fixing doesnt need to be applied? Why not get quality data at the source?

I and others have addressed this so many times in this thread that I'm bored with the claim. Read through the thread. Quick summary: Temp data stations are not the ONLY source of climate data.

It would be like me telling you to not worry about the swans in MN because they are doing just fine in Ontario.

So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble?

It doesn't 'convert'! It re-emits!

How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?

I gave the best link I could find to explain it in layman's terms in my last post to you. If you'd like a quantum explanation, then I'm sure we can ask a resident physicist for a better explanation (I choose not to because chances are, you nor I would understand it ).

What exactly makes it more chronic than a chip of diamond, or a cell from a tree?

Check out (actually read) the wiki on greenhouse gases.

And as I understand it, the O part dont even count in the whole OMG were boiling over stampede.

There's a good reason for that! O2 does not absorb sunlight to any significant degree.

CO2

I see nothing in its chemistry that makes it more heat trapping than any other carbon based particle. Less than I am; being as my external temp has less variability than the average low temp of Minnesota in July. Not only that but I am heat emitting!!

Really? What about methane? Methane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the real answer is cutting back the number of people!

In my *very* humble opinion, this is the only option for sustainability, period!

This aint CFCs. This aint dioxin. This aint R2d4. Its at best a microscopic piece of soot thats been fused to oxygen via the combustion chamber of my GEO.

At appropriately low levels, CO2 is great! Heck, lead is great, but I don't want it flooding the waterways.

I am not saying it does. I am saying this is the analogy of the OMG were all dying crowd. So lets ban coke! BTW, what will the carbon tax be on Pepsi? That concerns me greatly.

I'm not one that identifies with that crowd. I used to be an alarmist, until I learned more about the biochemistry and climatology. Now, I just try to educate.

OK, Now I am just too tired to carry on. Gawd I hate working for a living!

I've got the cure. It's called unemployment. It's great!

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by modest

There is no reliable way of knowing real-world changes in future solar irradiance. There is reliable data from 1979-current measuring irradiance by satellite. The model I linked recycles the solar data from 1989-1998.
Also, understand, there is a difference between the instantaneous change in a forcing in the model at any particular resolved spot on the model and the overall impact that has on climate. For example, the 11-year solar cycle does not show up on global surface temperature yearly average graph. The model considers both.
I think what you're trying to say is that climate models do not consider daily changes in solar irradiance *at all*. In other words, the model thinks Greenland in February has the same irradiance as Argentina in August. This is very far from true. Daily changes in irradiance are considered. Models then consider how that change interacts with changing clouds and ozone and a hundred other things for each interval of time at each interval of space.

Is this not your understanding?

~modest

Hehe no, that is not what I am attempting to get across at all.

Based on data from NASA's Goddard institute, the sun is currently putting out more energy than it has in the past 2000 years. In the year 2000, the last year I can find NASA Goddard data, the earth was receiving daily solar irradiance of 1367.5 W/m2. In 1800, the sun was sending us 1365.5 W/m2, and the amount of energy reaching earth steadily increased over the next 200 years to our current extremely high amounts of sunlight.

A link to charts showing this information is here, on page 24 of the document:
http://www.yale.edu/yibs/Solar%20Var...r_Shindell.pdf

This is the information that is not reflected in the climate models - the fact that we are simply getting more energy sent to the surface of our planet than ever before. The NASA Goddard climate models talk of "solar forcings" and such. I am not a climate modeler, and I have no way to decipher the code that NASA used for their models, and there seems to be varying opinions of exactly what a "forcing" is.

But I can look at their inputs. And I cannot find anywhere that NASA Goddard models are taking into account the fact that the sun is brighter than ever before in recorded history.

Can you find anything about this?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Huh? What do you mean by this?
What plants? What is the angle of reflection? Etc...

I'm going to have to call BS on this. How do you define "quality light"?

My BS?

What is the angle of reflection of IR when interacting with 38-39 pieces in 100,000 (simplify that to the limited range of IR that CO2 concerns -minus the portion the 95% of all green house gases, H20 where H2O absorb capabilities overlap that small band of IR that is the great concern of the AGW crowd) ?

Originally Posted by freeztar

Well, before we go down this path, what do you mean by "energy" and "bouncing"?
The energy 'held and re-emitted' by CO2 is IR. It is re-emitted within nanoseconds of interacting with CO2. When it is re-emitted, it is still IR. Bounce it 1 billion times and it is still IR.

Speed is inconsequential. IR is electromagnetic radiation. It always travels at the speed of light (normally, in a vacuum). If the material absorbs some energy, then yes, you have a net loss of energy (IR) "bouncing" back.

Simply put the IR does not last significantly longer (nanoseconds) due to extra CO2. It is bounced like balls on a pool table until it hits the padded side, whether H20 molecules, leaves on a tree, etc where the energy is converted into something else. Or bounces outward into the vacuum of space.

I cant do the math. You cant do the math. We rely on other people to do the math.

Einstein Theory of Relativity (from wiki):

Current status

General relativity has emerged as a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far passed every unambiguous observational and experimental test. Even so, there are strong indications the theory is incomplete.

Originally Posted by freeztar

This first graphing shows regional specific humidity trends from 1961-1995.
Where?
What significance does this have on the topic?

Now your just being flippant. H20 is the most significant GHG. Its presence in the atmosphere is increasing at a much greater rate than co2 (proportionately). White wash it all you want with "well it falls as rain/snow in n days". It, as a single element is cycled, true. But its overall value as a GHG remains in the atmosphere in increasing levels.

And H20 is much more effective as a ghg than co2. Co2 is VERY limited on its ability to act as a Ghg. And its not like Co2 is out there racing around to beat the h2o molecules to catch/reflect all the IR it can.

Originally Posted by freeztar

This is unusable info. It's a third person account from an unidentified local condition.

I was not suggesting using this data in the GISS compilations of temperature. I am suggesting the UHI effect is greater than they can possibly wash out of their data, with any degree of confidence.

Originally Posted by freeztar

Where's my data?!
I'm not claiming any self-collected data other than what I can find through accountable sources.

The point is with a change of one strip of tar, 20 feet wide, the effects could be felt by a common person with no scientific training, approximately 60 feet away. I do not believe this change was .10s of a degree. I am positive this person would not have detected that small of a change.

I could feel the change when they did the east side, 10 years ago. It seldom affects the temperature 60 feet away simply due to the fact the air current exchange during the day is seldom pushed to the west, only right before a front passes thru. I do feel it significantly 20 feet away when going out to get my mail, during sunny days of May, June, July, August, cooler months I need to be a bit closer to feel it, when its calm. If the wind is blowing from the west, I only feel it crossing the road to get my mail.

Show me the calculations which account for these variables.

Originally Posted by freeztar

OMG!
The Russian data will most likely show that we have been cooling, right? NO!
Again (and again), you can't listen to any one source. Even without the adjusted values, it looks like this attachment:

I pointed out the data was not accurate. The flaw was not revealed by the people in charge of insuring data accuracy. The flaw was huge and undetected by the professionals in charge of a very important temperature dataset.

I wish I could find the press release regarding the above mistake. Basically, it said they have no way of confirming the accuracy of [other?] data sources.

But heres some more to ponder:

First one is regarding the October mistake:
globalwarmingquestions - GISS gets it wrong again, and again!(or, Russia's second October revolution)

And as I said about temp adjustments on historic records, heres an easy to see for yourself example:

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product Watts Up With That?

Originally Posted by freeztar

I'm not one that identifies with that crowd. I used to be an alarmist, until I learned more about the biochemistry and climatology. Now, I just try to educate.

Good. So, why is there 3 temp adjustments to the recent data? Why are the skeptics having to again and again inform the professionals of inaccuracy and unfinished work.

And this was a glaring error. Why shouldnt I be suspect of the motivations of people whos jobs (and funding) rely on showing an impact?

President Obama 'has four years to save Earth' | Environment | The Observer

[Little Bang]

I had a rather interesting discussion about climate change with some friends this past weekend. One of them is a really nice person, not an exceptional thinker but not stupid. He said something that probably most average Joe's on the street think. He said, " I just can't believe that little O'l piss ant humans can change this huge atmosphere? ", I relied, " Dave did you know that approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years ago our atmosphere was about 50% nitrogen and 50% carbon dioxide. It was about three times as dense as it is today with the temperature some where just below the boiling point of water. Then a little organism showed up that you need a microscope to see and it changed the atmosphere to what we see today. " My figures are probably not accurate but the story got the point across to him.

It took those organisms several billion years to make the changes to today. Each human on this planet is changing the atmosphere a billion times faster than those organisms. The joe's on the street are the one's who have to make the required changes if we are to save life on the Earth as we know it.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Cedars

So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble?

First, it’s important to understand that electromagnetic radiation, isn’t purely a wave phenomena, but both wave like and particle like. For this explanation, where wave like effects such as refraction and interference aren’t important, but absorption is, it’s most convenient to stick with a particle description.

EMR particles, or quanta, are called photons. Visible light is composed of photons with individual energies between about 3.1 and 1.8 eV, infrared radiation with energies between about 1.8 eV and 0.001 eV. Photons above about 3.1 eV constitute ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma EMR.

When a photon “strikes” (or, more precisely, interacts) with an electron in an atom of any kind of matter, it is absorbed by the electron if it’s possible for that electron to change its position in the atom (more precisely, its atomic orbital) so that its energy increases by exactly the energy of the absorbed photon. If this transition is possible for electrons in many atoms of a material (liquid, gas, or solid), that material is opaque (or possibly reflective) to photons of that energy. If it isn’t, the material is transparent to them.

Possible atomic orbital transitions depend mostly on the structure of the atom and its interaction with its neighboring atoms. In general, the more massive an atom, and the more bound it is into molecules with other atoms, the more possible transitions its electrons have.

The electrons in the atoms of CO2 and other greenhouse gas molecules are mostly transparent to visible light, and mostly opaque to infrared.

Originally Posted by Cedars

How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?

It’s important to understand that to “radiate heat” means to emit photons of infrared EMR.

Emission of photons is the reverse of absorption of them. If it is possible for an electron to transition to an orbital with less energy than its current one, it will, emitting a photon with the energy of the difference between the old and new orbital.

What occurs between the emission and absorption of photons by the electrons in the atoms of materials accounts for the optical differences between materials. A material of atoms strongly bound in a solid matrix usually almost immediately reemits a photon of the same energy it absorbed, so materials like solid metals tend to be reflective, and be heated relatively little by EMR. A material of loosely bound atoms such as a gas usually transfers the momentum of the absorbed photons to itself and its neighbors, emitting photons in a fairly random manner. Materials like the solids and liquids on the Earth’s surface behave this way, absorbing visible and infrared radiation and emitting most of it as infrared. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (or solids such as glass in an actual greenhouse) are transparent to visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared. This emitted infrared EMR is many times reabsorbed by other atmosphere and surface atoms, and emitted into space.

Note that the infrared band of EMR spans a much greater energy range, about 11 doublings (or “octaves”), than visible light, which spans about 1 octave. Although infrared photons can, therefore, be much more different in energy than photons of visible light, they’re effectively nearly identical, in that they all can be absorbed by the same materials.

It’s possible to make atoms absorb infrared and emit visible EMR – this is what happens when a heated material visibly glows. These materials continue to emit mostly in the infrared, however, so there’s not practical way to “trick” common materials into producing a “reverse greenhouse effect”, although an exotic, as yet not realized device such a s “heat pumped optical laser” is, to the best of my knowledge, possible in principle.