# Climate change



## friendlyfire (Aug 10, 2015)

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind


----------



## DarkFury (Aug 10, 2015)




----------



## hortysir (Aug 10, 2015)

1. 

2. It's not Politics

3. Check out Environment sub-forum, it's been argued over ad nauseum


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 10, 2015)

Let's destroy entire industries, de-employ millions, and spend trillions of dollars in an effort to reduce the mean global temperature by .018 degrees 40 years hence.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 10, 2015)

Bad plan, Mr. H. Good thing you're the only person pushing it.


----------



## friendlyfire (Aug 10, 2015)

Oh my bad hortysir


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 10, 2015)

friendlyfire said:


> I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind



From what I can gather I would say we know too little about the natural cycles. It was a lot colder in the 1700s after it was warmer for the previous few hundred....but how is it possible to measure it accurately?? So are we just really comparing the 1970s with today after a slightly warmer cycle??

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!






Greg


----------



## Crick (Aug 11, 2015)

friendlyfire said:


> I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind



I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change".  Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5).  It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis.  It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.


----------



## hortysir (Aug 11, 2015)

friendlyfire said:


> Oh my bad hortysir


S'all good


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Bad plan, Mr. H. Good thing you're the only person pushing it.


but that's your plan.  Oh, wait, you don't want to inflict and empower CO2 emission limits?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> friendlyfire said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind
> ...


that a boy!!!!! Welcome to the skeptic side on this forum.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> friendlyfire said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind
> ...


And tell him now, it states there is a pause.  Go ahead, let him know that.  Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.   And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'.  Frank and now I are interested in the definition.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > friendlyfire said:
> ...



* Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.*

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


yep,


----------



## mamooth (Aug 11, 2015)

That's a fudged and fabricated propaganda plot by paid professional arch-liar Steve Goddard.

That would be why every scienitst ignores such fakery. Scientists know deniers are lying their asses off about everything, so they can't be fooled by a cut-and-paste of a crazy lie. It does fool the denier cultists, of course. Their cult forbids them from looking at any data from outside the cult, so they simply have no idea that they're being spoonfed dishonest nonsense.



gtopa1 said:


> I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 11, 2015)

Real simple.. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It has limited ability BY ITSELF to warm the atmosphere. About 1degC per doubling of concentration. 

The GWarming theory states that CO2 is just the "TRIGGER" to a postulated series of MULTIPLICATIONS that would result in 6 to 8degC by 2100.. 

The skeptic problem is with the magical multiplications part of the theory. All the MEASURED (empirical) modern evidence points to much lower multipliers. Since the Industrial Rev. we haven't completed the 1st doubling of CO2 into the atmos --- and the observed temp rise is WAAAAY closer to the CO2 ONLY estimate than it is to the Warmer's magical multipliers. In fact --- the Climate community has severely revised DOWNWARD those estimates of multiplication during the past 3 or 4 years. 

All that plus --- the bias in funding to find MAN-MADE causes of the warming and not learn about the fundamentals of the climate system impartially. That bias has caused the MAN-MADE contribution to our little temp spike to be over-estimated. It is more likely that man's emissions are 1/2 or less of the "problem". With natural variations and cyclical events we don't know enough about being the remainder. 

And it's a socio-politcal-economic cause with a life, and an industry of it's own..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That's a fudged and fabricated propaganda plot by paid professional arch-liar Steve Goddard.
> 
> That would be why every scienitst ignores such fakery. Scientists know deniers are lying their asses off about everything, so they can't be fooled by a cut-and-paste of a crazy lie. It does fool the denier cultists, of course. Their cult forbids them from looking at any data from outside the cult, so they simply have no idea that they're being spoonfed dishonest nonsense.
> 
> ...


So dude/dudette, what is your solution?  you still have failed to post up what it is you're plan is to correct the injustice of mankind?   Got that yet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That's funny.


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 11, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer. 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 11, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That's a fudged and fabricated propaganda plot by paid professional arch-liar Steve Goddard.
> 
> That would be why every scienitst ignores such fakery. Scientists know deniers are lying their asses off about everything, so they can't be fooled by a cut-and-paste of a crazy lie. It does fool the denier cultists, of course. Their cult forbids them from looking at any data from outside the cult, so they simply have no idea that they're being spoonfed dishonest nonsense.
> 
> ...



So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they. 
Greg


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> friendlyfire said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind
> ...



AR5? That's where they say the ocean absorbed 93% of the "Excess heat", a concept you say doesn't not even exist except as two words strung together, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 11, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Tipping point refers to Guam, I think


----------



## SillyWabbit (Aug 11, 2015)

hortysir said:


> 1.
> 
> 2. It's not Politics
> 
> 3. Check out Environment sub-forum, it's been argued over ad nauseum


Wait. Maybe this one has something new to add...
Wait for it...wait for it...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol
*
No, do you? LOL!

*You may mean "tipping point".*

Nope.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 11, 2015)

> So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they.
> Greg



No need to scream at the messenger. Save your anger for you cult leaders, as they were the ones who scammed you.

First, my apologies for calling it Goddard's fudged graph. It's Spencer's fudged graph. I get confused sometimes about which denier fudged what.

Now, Cowtan et al (2015) points out the apples-vs-oranges fallacy used by Goddard. The predictions of the models and the indices used by goddard are not the same thing. Once you make them the same thing, they match much more closely.

Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures - Cowtan - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Sou at Hotwhopper points out more errors in Spencer's work, mainly regarding baseline fudging and cherrypicking from the known-to-be-wrong UAH data set.

HotWhopper How Roy Spencer and John Christy trick Anthony Watts and his deniers once again

Here are some honest plots of what the actual model vs. reality plots look like. The models are pretty darn good, especially if you extend them out to the record-breaking 2014.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 11, 2015)

mamooth said:


> > So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they.
> > Greg
> 
> 
> ...


So again, not sure your point. What about .7 degree C is dangerous?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> > So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they.
> > Greg
> 
> 
> ...



Are you THAT DENSE !!!!!!! Any high school science student can see the different time spans between the Spencer comparison and your comparisons. Those graphs of yours show the results of the models BACKCASTING temperatures.

That should be one of the sanity checks that you DO ON  models  like those..

But in this case when your models are not actually climate models, but more of EMISSIONS simulators, the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 can and IS greatly exaggerated in FORECASTING... And include the uncertainties of what emissions data you are PROJECTING.

YOU -- are the ultimate apples and oranges, fruity salad type of guy.. Because the PURPOSE of your charts is entirely different.  In FACT, when testing in backcasting, you can start and stop your model every 5 or 10 years and put in new KNOWN initial conditions that will KEEP it on track..

The actual SCARY models designed to spook the herd in FORECASTING have failed miserably before the reach the legal age of 21..


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2015)

friendlyfire said:


> I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind








The climate is always changing.  Other than the urban heat island effect (which is extremely local), man has impact on global climate in the slightest.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So when are you going to share your definition?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Those graphs of yours show the results of the models BACKCASTING temperatures.



Obviously so, since they go back a good ways. But they also forecast, and do it well. Even Hansen's primitive 1988 model was very good.

And no, they don't put in mid-course corrections during backcasting. Contrary to your "those scientists don't know nuffink!" theories, the scientists know very well that a successful and valid backcast is necessary before a forecast can be attempted. That's why the forecasts have been so good.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Those graphs of yours show the results of the models BACKCASTING temperatures.
> ...



You showed virtually NO forecasting in those "alternate reality" graphs of yours.. Didya??


----------



## mamooth (Aug 12, 2015)

The second one, for example, shows AR4 forecasts from 2005, compared to temperatures out to 2010. The forecasts are good, and still good if you extend them to 2014.

Since you seem to be demanding forecasts from 1970, I'm afraid I won't be able to help.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 12, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


after you share your evidence.  You go first.  Prove to me how hot 10 PPM of CO2 gets.  post up that there experiment.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 12, 2015)

friendlyfire said:


> I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind





Really my friend, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Fossil fuels are not going away anytime soon..........well, at least according to all of the Obama administration projections and many others. In fact, by 2040, China's use of coal is going to grow by 50% with India being close behind. Meanwhile, not including hydropower, renewable energy will only be meeting about 10% of our energy needs by 2040!! The AGW religion says otherwise but to go green would cost 76 trillion according to the United Nations. What do you think the chances are of that happening?

So whether or not it is man-made or not is never really going to matter although having said that, there is zero proof that global warming is man-made. More importantly, there is absolutely no scientific consensus that climate change is dangerous......which is well documented within these pages. Anybody who tells you differently is telling tall tales!! ( which you do get frequently around here!!)


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 12, 2015)

Of course if the hairball cat wants a different reading on climate model FORECASTING performance. Doesn't like the Dr Roy Spencer version, let's just submit the IPCC AR5 version... 







Sucks kibble don't it???


----------



## PredFan (Aug 12, 2015)

friendlyfire said:


> I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind



Here's what you need to understand first. Peope here, especially the left, will deceive you. They will try to control the argument by arguing about the temperatures, the weather patterns, and they love catastrophes. 

Don't be led astray. The only argument is whether or not man is causing it. The fact is that they have zero proof that man is causing climate change or global warming or whatever name they decide to call it this week.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*after you share your evidence. You go first. Prove to me how hot 10 PPM of CO2 gets.
*
You must have me confused with a warmer.

I'm one of the people who thinks we should not cripple our economy or waste trillions on "green energy" in order to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees.

Okay, what's your definition of saturation?


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





> *Solubility in water at various temperatures*
> *Aqueous Solubility of CO2 at 101.3 kPa (1 atm) partial pressure*[9]
> *Temperature* ‡*Dissolved
> CO2 volume
> ...





> *100 ml H2O*
> 18 °C 0.928 0.1789
> 19 °C 0.902 0.1737
> 20 °C 0.878 0.1688
> ...



Is that what you're after??

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > > So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they.
> ...




Open Letter to Miriam O Brien of HotWhopper a.k.a. Sou Watts Up With That 

New study narrows the gap between climate models and reality Watts Up With That 

You might find this one interesting.

The Trouble with Global Climate Models Watts Up With That 









Greg


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...



Thanks, but no.

It started with her agreement with the idiotic claim that back radiation doesn't exist because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. She's now "improved" on that idiocy by claiming that back radiation doesn't exist because "CO2 can't absorb energy and radiate it back toward the surface because.....saturation"
There were intermediate levels of idiocy, but I think that gives a decent outline of where we are.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


seems she agrees with me.  And again, you can't prove back radiation.  If you could, the argument wouldn't exist. I'll agree to disagree with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...



She agrees with your feeling that matter above 0K doesn't radiate in all directions, all the time? Okay......
*
 And again, you can't prove back radiation.
*
You want me to prove that gas molecules can radiate toward the warmer surface?
I thought you already admitted you believed in the SB Law?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid.  And again it goes back to cold to hot movement.  Also pressure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I agreed all things radiate. I haven't claimed that back radiation is valid.
*
That's your problem. You don't see the conflict between your positions.

* And again it goes back to cold to hot movement.* 

What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?

*Also pressure.
*
Photons putting pressure on other photons?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep, it's how convection on the planet works.  It's why temperatures vary on each side of the pressure systems.  Yep.

*
What is that? What does it have to do with radiation?*

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
yep, it's how convection on the planet works.*

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
*
it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'
*
So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.  And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.  

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

*Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?*
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
 I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.*

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

*BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?*

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?*

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of _back radiation_ or _reradiation_ causing global warming to be fictitious:"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Thanks for the link.

_"To test if  "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"_

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.
_
_
"Roger_28 juni 2010 13:31_
_Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."_

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you asked for a name and I gave you one.  Didn't need a link.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yeah, thanks for showing me another idiot, besides SSDD, who has no clue about radiation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The Second Law of Thermodynamics is absolutely correct.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.*

'towards earth'.  my position is it doesn't make it to the surface or the troposphere and therefore can't add heat to the surface or troposphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*my position is it doesn't make it to the surface *

What stops it?
*
or the troposphere*

Why not?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Why not?*
a colder body cannot heat a warmer body.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Who said it did?

The warmer body radiates more than the colder body.
So even though the cold air radiates toward the warmer ground, the warm ground is still losing more heat toward the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


agree completely


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Great.
That means your claim (and SSDD's) that back radiation does not exist is not backed up by the laws of thermodynamics.

So what stops the energy emitted by the CO2 in the atmosphere from hitting the ground?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


thermal mixing and wind flow patterns


----------



## The sheeple sea (Aug 13, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> friendlyfire said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind
> ...


We can take ice core samples from the poles that have records of year after year atmospheric conditions dating back hundreds of years, like tree rings for the environment. It's pretty basic science and shows a huge increase in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution. We know quite a bit about it


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It's LIGHT JC --- All that re-radiated infrared is just like a large lit up sky of a color that you can't see.  It makes it back if NOT heavily blocked by water vapor or particulants.. Light is not affected by wind patterns or thermal mixing (the latter can actually effect the path, but not greatly)  But you are correct in that it doesn't heat the surface. As the Toddster said -- The NET InfraRed flux is towards the sky. And the stuff coming back down from GHouse gases just reduces the LOSS to the sky by that amount.

Think insulation --  even though it's light and not truely heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*thermal mixing and wind flow patterns*






What are two things that can't prevent radiation from reaching the ground?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Credit CO2 Insanity web site:

Back Radiation Co2 Insanity

excerpt:
"*Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme*

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Credit CO2 Insanity web site:
> 
> Back Radiation Co2 Insanity
> 
> ...



Fine, call it radiation. It's still radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Credit CO2 Insanity web site:
> ...


and adding no heat to surface or troposphere temperatures.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



All matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions.
Even if it's radiating toward warmer matter.

Are we clear on the basics yet?


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

The sheeple sea said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > friendlyfire said:
> ...



Thank you for your response. 

Antarctic Ice Cores The Sample Rate Problem Watts Up With That 

Greg


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> friendlyfire said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind
> ...


Why are you interested in only the arguements against climate change? And why 'arguements". What about evidence for? And the scientific basis of? 

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That site is from the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on this  planet.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


If you have been hearing about it since 1975 and are citing the 'imminent ice age' bullshit in the media of the time, you were not reading science then, and have not read science since then. If you are not going to do real research on your own, with the whole of the world's knowledge at your fingertips, why would you expect any rational person to take your opinions seriously?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...


Look, you want to site un-degreed ex-TV weathermen, obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords, go ahead, just don't expect any credibility or respect. Go to Google Scholar, type in your question, and look at what real scientists have to say.


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > friendlyfire said:
> ...


I have no problems with the greenhouse effect. Without it Earth would be uninhabitable. What I am against is the Politicisation of Science by the usual Anti-America and Anti-West fakers. Really; where is the EVIDENCE that the catastrophe is about to occur?? You really believe that shit??No snow in Europe by 2000?? lmao

You can have millions of bits of evidence FOR a theory, but it only takes one piece of contrary evidence tyo rip it down. That is how Science works...or did when it was honest.

The Problem of Induction by Sir Karl Popper

The AGW Alarmist  theory states that Temps will rise as CO2 levels go up and the increase will be like a "hockey stick". The results will be catastrophic to life on earth.

Where is the evidence? The current hiatus in Temperature shows that the link is not one that is as the AGW alarmists suggest. The model predictions are on the very high side and frankly are very questionable indeed. And it is still snowing in both Hemispheres...I was at the Snow a couple of weeks ago in Southern Australia.

Frankly, I see no reason to be alarmed. Careful of course, but the end of days scenarios are just ridiculous.

Now there are some AGW Scientists I think are worth listening to and I do. They are thoughtful if perhaps mistaken and also believe that the Science is NOT settled.

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf

I like Richard Muller but I am still not convinced that we are heading to Catastrophe. Frankly I would suggest that neither does he.

Greg


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

First they were screaming "Global cooling!!! New Ice Age!!" then it was "Global warming!!!", but after 2 decades of no Warming, in a few short years they told us it was: 

Climate Change
Climate Disruption
then, the ocean ate my global warming
They alter data, don't allow any dissenting opinion, there's still not one repeatable experiment that show how a wisp of CO2 can raise temperature and finally there's an 800,000 year data set that show CO2 lagging temperature on the increase and decrease


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2015)

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You know this how?? My Lecturers at the time were chaps who have of late been BIG in the AGW debate......and they suggested the main danger at the time was Global Cooling. They were Greenies of course and I give them as much cred now as I did then. 

That you badger me with such crap as "I WAS NOT READING SCIENCE AT THE TIME" is idiotic. These were Environmental Scientists at the time and frankly they were as full of it as you are now. How can you be so dogmatic with ANY theory when the whole basis of Science is falsification...as per the Process described by Popper. You have based your opinions on the same as any "End of Days" nutjobs!!

Greg


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.



Don't forget Guam tipping over. Imagine the loss!


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2015)

Well, Greg, I gave you links to my sources, so how about links to where your 'scientists' were claiming an ice age was imminent in the 1970's.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.
> ...


Aren't there some rules about trolling?


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That's a fudged and fabricated propaganda plot by paid professional arch-liar Steve Goddard.
> 
> That would be why every scienitst ignores such fakery. Scientists know deniers are lying their asses off about everything, so they can't be fooled by a cut-and-paste of a crazy lie. It does fool the denier cultists, of course. Their cult forbids them from looking at any data from outside the cult, so they simply have no idea that they're being spoonfed dishonest nonsense.
> 
> ...


^ that CrusaderFrank

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.
> ...



and to think our children will not see snow ever again 

--LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Trolling? That's your sides dire warning


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 14, 2015)

Troll much? LOL ..... NOT!!!

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.



Old Rox; that is absolutely NOT what the nutjobs have been saying. The Catastrophists are saying crap. You blaming Humans for Sandy?? That's nuts!!



> As has already been stressed by senior scientist Martin Hoerling from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and many other scientists, no evidence exists for any influence of global warming, let alone human-caused warming, on the intensity of hurricane Sandy.
> 
> ...In a broader context, the lack of recent global warming is also an impediment to those who argue that Sandy was influenced by industrial carbon dioxide. There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1996 and no ocean warming since the Argo buoy network was deployed in 2003. In consequence, global atmospheric and oceanic temperatures are now close to their average over the past 30 years.
> 
> ...



Cometh the storm cometh the climate lies

As for acidification:

A Neutral View of Oceanic pH Watts Up With That 

Read more; dogmatise less!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Greg, I gave you links to my sources, so how about links to where your 'scientists' were claiming an ice age was imminent in the 1970's.



http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf


Read it and twerk!!!

I was very familiar with the "readings" of the time.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The one I like best is that we are going to get more Asteroid collisions because of AGW.....OK; she was a newsreader but hey?? A typical low knowledge AGW Catastrophist!!

Greg


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Greg, I gave you links to my sources, so how about links to where your 'scientists' were claiming an ice age was imminent in the 1970's.
> ...






gtopa1 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



yes

man made global warming leads to all disasters


----------



## Muhammed (Aug 14, 2015)

friendlyfire said:


> I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind


What temperature is the Sun going to be 80 years from now?

If you don't know the answer to that question with 100% certainty, then your global warming doomsday cult prophecies are nothing but superstitious soothsaying garbage.


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.



You might find this interesting. 

Climate Cooling the Other Side of Climate Change Science Global Cooling

Myself? I think humans contribute about a third of the temp increase but it is lost in the natural variability of the Climate. And that third is just a wild ass guess; i would NOT be surprised if it is fa.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Greg, I gave you links to my sources, so how about links to where your 'scientists' were claiming an ice age was imminent in the 1970's.



http://www.pennsylvaniacrier.com/filemgmt_data/files/Ominous Changes in the Worlds Weather.pdf

Another one.

Greg


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Botched environmental predictions for 2015 Fox News


Um, yeah. Guam still might tip over


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

Mind you: what was done to Hubert Lamb was galling.

- Bishop Hill blog - Hubert Lamb The scepticism of CRU s founder

Greg


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 14, 2015)

*Oil will run out by 2015*
--LOL


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:
			
		

> Mind you: what was done to Hubert Lamb was galling.



I hadnt' seen that specific denier conspiracy theory before. I had seen "Connolly is the devil!" nonsense before, just not that specific nonsense.



			
				gtopa1 said:
			
		

> You might find this interesting



Gish gallops are boring. People with the facts on their side don't have to resort to pointing to an avalanche of crap. If you have a point, state it directly and concisely. People with the facts on their side especially don't have to resort to cherrypicking fallacies to create strawman, like the deniers do with their "but look at this catastrophic prediction!" deflections.

People with the facts on their side can get to the point and avoid logical fallacies. Like this.

Hiatus claims are crap. There never was a hiatus. That was something deniers manufactured. Back in the real world, it's just been steadily warming.

The natural cycles theories are crap. They're contradicted by the directly observed evidence of stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG bands, and the increase in backradiation. No natural cycles theory explains that evidence, hence such theories are just flat out wrong.

Global warming theory, of course, does explain all of the observed evidence. As it's the only theory that does so, hence it's the accepted science. If you want to change that, you have to provide an alternate theory that's even better at explaining the evidence.

And you brought up Popper, so tell us, what data could falsify your natural cycles theory? Popper says if it can't be falsified, it's garbage. Mainstream global warming theory can be falsified in many ways, since it's real science. Denialism ... I've yet to have a single denier tell me what evidence could falsify their beliefs, which push them into the category of religion.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.



YOU are on here daily trying to point to weather events as PROOF of the coming GW catastrophe.. Hansen is out screaming about "likely" sea levels rises that even the IPCC won't touch. Your church elders have given the political cover for the media to misrepresent their work ON PURPOSE. And CBS shows a slide with the Oceans Boiling.

Your church (as pure as it SHOULD BE) has been PART of the hysteria. And there is a MOUNTAIN of now disputed projections out there in the science archives and the public domain that DO PREDICT planetary suicide. Not to mention a Nobel Winning Documentary on the topic that is STILL being force fed to little schoolchildren...  

You are not gonna be able to walk the shit back...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Stratospheric observations cannot discriminate between atmospheric thickening from CO2 back radiation or natural warming. You best stay in your litterbox with that fantasy league of scientists you've never read. 

And it's impossible to get direct GLOBAL readings of backradiation to derive that increase. That is CALCULATED from the observed warming you nit and ASSUMED to be all due to CO2....


----------



## The sheeple sea (Aug 14, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> *Oil will run out by 2015*
> --LOL


I believe that the prediction was we would hit peak oil production and not be able to increase current production by 2015, many of these predictions were made before the advent of hydraulic fracturing or without factoring this new technology into being able to reach previously unattainable fuel sources. The prediction was never that oil would run out, except perhaps by some tinfoil hat men who also didn't understand what they were being told.


----------



## The sheeple sea (Aug 14, 2015)

This isn't even about global warming or climate change if we are being honest, about C02 or anything else. There is a dead zone in the beautiful gulf of Mexico the size of Rhode island, where no fish can live due to runoff pollutants from our rivers, the oxygen content around the world is decreasing as CO2 composition increases. We need oxygen to survive, we need air to breathe. It doesn't matter if you think it's causing a warming effect or not. On certain days in China you can see the pollution fog settling over the land. Respiratory illnesses there are staggering. More coral reefs, essential to maintaining fish life in our oceans go barren as acidic pollutants make them unlivable. 

Toxic fishing practices such as dredging the sea floor with what equates to a semi truck tanker have devastated ocean habitats turning sea floor forests into nothing but mud. The amount of ocean floor made barren is the equivalent of ALL OF THE DEFORESTATION DONE BY MAN ON LAND SINCE THE START OF CIVILIZATION. And we did it in fifty years. 

Toxic blooms from out of control algaes that are a direct result of the dead zones are killing people in Florida every year, and making others very sick. Sea birds that fly over these piles of algae ashpyxiate and die. There are beaches in France where this algae now has to be bulldozed off the beaches every year. 

How, in the face of all of this can anyone maintain that our practices are fine, that it will all be OK? Beach side property is becoming a health risk. I don't care how you feel about the atmosphere and if its cooling or if there's some storm catastrophe, you really think environmental issues are a leftist issue? All of these are easy, easily verified measured facts, every one of them. We should continue with business as usual? 

Billions of dollars of cost in industry is nothing compared to giving our children a toxic world to live in, and when they have to stay inside because it is too toxic out there today an they are short of breath. They can look back at the record keeping of the internet and say "oh look, there's my parents or grandparents saying everything is fine, continue with business as usual". 

It is insanity. Pure and simple.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yep agree, however, the radiation toward the surface does not heat jack.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2015)

The sheeple sea said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > friendlyfire said:
> ...


why then are today's climate k00ks adjusting historical records then?  Is it feasible from your position, that it's ok to chart today's instrument records with ice core and tree ring records?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > friendlyfire said:
> ...


The site that gives us Herr Koch experiment, that to date, hasn't been debunked by another experiment.  Hmmmmmmmm..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

The sheeple sea said:


> This isn't even about global warming or climate change if we are being honest, about C02 or anything else. There is a dead zone in the beautiful gulf of Mexico the size of Rhode island, where no fish can live due to runoff pollutants from our rivers, the oxygen content around the world is decreasing as CO2 composition increases. We need oxygen to survive, we need air to breathe. It doesn't matter if you think it's causing a warming effect or not. On certain days in China you can see the pollution fog settling over the land. Respiratory illnesses there are staggering. More coral reefs, essential to maintaining fish life in our oceans go barren as acidic pollutants make them unlivable.
> 
> Toxic fishing practices such as dredging the sea floor with what equates to a semi truck tanker have devastated ocean habitats turning sea floor forests into nothing but mud. The amount of ocean floor made barren is the equivalent of ALL OF THE DEFORESTATION DONE BY MAN ON LAND SINCE THE START OF CIVILIZATION. And we did it in fifty years.
> 
> ...



Eugenics: its the only solution


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > The sheeple sea said:
> ...


because you have a cartoonist to believe in.  Funny stuff old socks.


----------



## The sheeple sea (Aug 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't even about global warming or climate change if we are being honest, about C02 or anything else. There is a dead zone in the beautiful gulf of Mexico the size of Rhode island, where no fish can live due to runoff pollutants from our rivers, the oxygen content around the world is decreasing as CO2 composition increases. We need oxygen to survive, we need air to breathe. It doesn't matter if you think it's causing a warming effect or not. On certain days in China you can see the pollution fog settling over the land. Respiratory illnesses there are staggering. More coral reefs, essential to maintaining fish life in our oceans go barren as acidic pollutants make them unlivable.
> ...


If you are talking about genetic modification of ecosystems, I actually agree, its time for radical action, we can't slowplay this.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 14, 2015)

jc456 said:


> The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...



Come on, the records had it wrong, they we're DENIERS!!!! and got adjusted.

That's how Einstein forced through Relativity, right?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

The sheeple sea said:


> This isn't even about global warming or climate change if we are being honest, about C02 or anything else. There is a dead zone in the beautiful gulf of Mexico the size of Rhode island, where no fish can live due to runoff pollutants from our rivers, the oxygen content around the world is decreasing as CO2 composition increases. We need oxygen to survive, we need air to breathe. It doesn't matter if you think it's causing a warming effect or not. On certain days in China you can see the pollution fog settling over the land. Respiratory illnesses there are staggering. More coral reefs, essential to maintaining fish life in our oceans go barren as acidic pollutants make them unlivable.
> 
> Toxic fishing practices such as dredging the sea floor with what equates to a semi truck tanker have devastated ocean habitats turning sea floor forests into nothing but mud. The amount of ocean floor made barren is the equivalent of ALL OF THE DEFORESTATION DONE BY MAN ON LAND SINCE THE START OF CIVILIZATION. And we did it in fifty years.
> 
> ...



That's part of the legacy of all this Global Warming hype and hysteria.. It has SQUASHED all of the other enviro issues that you mentioned. OR worse -- it has been used as a faulty cause of those important issues you bring up.

I would LOVE to see REAL pollution addressed.. Instead of the circus surrounding this not yet mature "science" of climate. But you need not worry about the "oxygen" thingy. That's not a health concern in the least. What you breathe OUT has 4 to 8 times the CO2 "pollution" in it than the air you breathe in. And any displacement of oxygen by CO2 is virtually negligable...  Worry about the TRADITIONAL enviromental causes that can no longer get a fair hearing because of this Global Warning propaganda campaign..


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Stratospheric observations cannot discriminate between atmospheric thickening from CO2 back radiation or natural warming.



Ah, the mysterious "natural warming" again. It just spontaneously happens, without a cause. And if you can't absolutely prove such magic doesn't happen, you have to admit AGW theory is wrong. Or so the denier 'science' goes.



> And it's impossible to get direct GLOBAL readings of backradiation to derive that increase.



Well, yes, because clouds and water vapor change the backradiation amounts, and have to be corrected for. And because the whole planet isn't covered by SURFRAD station monitoring.



> That is CALCULATED from the observed warming you nit and ASSUMED to be all due to CO2....



Well, the cloud and water vapor the corrections are calculated from satellite data.

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

After showing their 36 individual site measurements agreed with the model, they used the model for the whole earth. But even if you don't like that model, you're still left with the issue that backradiation was increasing at the 36 individual sites, and none of the "natural cycles" theories have an explanation for that.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> And any displacement of oxygen by CO2 is virtually negligable...  Worry about the TRADITIONAL enviromental causes that can no longer get a fair hearing because of this Global Warning propaganda campaign..



Yet you're the one crucifying the EPA, the organization directly addressing all the issues you claim to care about.

Everyone else except you has no trouble addressing issues besides global warming. Deniers seem to be the only people who can only fixate on global warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well, radiation toward the ground makes it warmer than if there were no radiation toward the ground, so it slows cooling.

So are we clear yet that radiation from the cool atmosphere can hit the warmer ground?


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not my theory old son. AGW is yours. But I am not surprised that you slackjaw on Lindzen.



> limate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the
> outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth
> Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data.
> It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing
> ...



http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

I am actually interested in what you think about this work..as distinct from slagging.

Greg


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2015)

Lindzen and Choi (2009)? Universally regarded as a bad paper. Lindzen concluded temperature sensitivity was low. But to do so, he only used temperature data from the tropics, the region of the earth where the warming is smallest. That cherrypicking made the conclusions invalid.

He tried a rewrite in 2011, but he didn't address that fatal flaw, so the peer reviewers rejected it, and he could only find a publisher in an obscure Korean journal. Natural, Lindzen claimed he was persecuted after the peer reviewers universally rejected his flawed science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Stratospheric observations cannot discriminate between atmospheric thickening from CO2 back radiation or natural warming.
> ...



According to you 1998 wasn't a natural temperature event because it couldn't possibly happen.. Where do you think all that STORED heat in the Oceans ends up? Is it sunk to the bottom forever? Or does it appear periodically back at the surface? THAT --- has NOTHING to do with downdwelling IR does it?

Delays in the thermal transfers from the tropics to the poles and the CYCLICAL cycles that manifest off of that ALSO have a direct bearing on decadal temperature measurements in the realm of a Watt or two.. Put a couple cyclical events together at a random phase and you can start to synthesize any shape temperature curve that you want.. Arctic Oscillations, MJ Oscillations, PDOs, AMOs, there are DOZENS of these identified and probably MORE we don't yet recognize.. Every decade is a new opportunity for them to get together in some fashion and construct a different resulting Global temperature shape.. 

And what was the AMOUNT of the backradiation increase measured that you are relying on.. Did it explain ALL of the warming as seen from a GLOBAL number? Was it done in the tropics and the arctic?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 14, 2015)

friendlyfire said:


> I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind



One;  The climate is changing and has been for eons..

Two: Man can only influence localized ares of the earth as CO2 does not control the earths climate. Water vapor does!

Three:  The misuse of the term "Climate Change" by science deniers and alarmists is a political charade to deprive you of your ability to provided for yourself and place a dictator/command and control dictate over you by socialists who are a pile of crap.  It is a Lie.

SO which one do you really want to discuss?  How the earth has cyclically changed for eons, or the lies form alarmists and socialist power mongers?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 14, 2015)

The sheeple sea said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *Oil will run out by 2015*
> ...



it was a scare tactic plain and simple 

like the others made


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

The sheeple sea said:


> This isn't even about global warming or climate change if we are being honest, about C02 or anything else. There is a dead zone in the beautiful gulf of Mexico the size of Rhode island, where no fish can live due to runoff pollutants from our rivers, the oxygen content around the world is decreasing as CO2 composition increases. We need oxygen to survive, we need air to breathe. It doesn't matter if you think it's causing a warming effect or not. On certain days in China you can see the pollution fog settling over the land. Respiratory illnesses there are staggering. More coral reefs, essential to maintaining fish life in our oceans go barren as acidic pollutants make them unlivable.
> 
> Toxic fishing practices such as dredging the sea floor with what equates to a semi truck tanker have devastated ocean habitats turning sea floor forests into nothing but mud. The amount of ocean floor made barren is the equivalent of ALL OF THE DEFORESTATION DONE BY MAN ON LAND SINCE THE START OF CIVILIZATION. And we did it in fifty years.
> 
> ...



So why the hell are we wasting $ and effort on idiotic "End of Days" climate rubbish when we have REAL work to do. I quite agree with a lot of what you have posted. AGW dastards are giving we who want to see a cleaner greener world the finger; for them it is about defeating Capitalism.

Greg


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > The sheeple sea said:
> ...




LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Of course if the hairball cat wants a different reading on climate model FORECASTING performance. Doesn't like the Dr Roy Spencer version, let's just submit the IPCC AR5 version...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What was funny, the IPCC added the GREY shaded section, which is outside of all their error bars, so that it would imply that their predictions were still somewhat valid.   Deception of the highest magnitude... You will note there is no descriptive ] block.  it was simply put their to deceive.


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Stratospheric observations cannot discriminate between atmospheric thickening from CO2 back radiation or natural warming.
> ...



Why Back-Radiation is not a Source of Surface Heating the Air Vent

Probably worth the intellectual curiosity but so??

Please explain the cooler 40's. I've seen it said that it was because of the A-Bomb. lmao.

Greg


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Of course if the hairball cat wants a different reading on climate model FORECASTING performance. Doesn't like the Dr Roy Spencer version, let's just submit the IPCC AR5 version...
> ...



That must be from the IPCC program managers. The ones that actually WRITE these reports with help from selected hired scientists. 
But you may be right.. Would have to check the description in that section of AR5..


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Lindzen and Choi (2009)? Universally regarded as a bad paper. Lindzen concluded temperature sensitivity was low. But to do so, he only used temperature data from the tropics, the region of the earth where the warming is smallest. That cherrypicking made the conclusions invalid.
> 
> He tried a rewrite in 2011, but he didn't address that fatal flaw, so the peer reviewers rejected it, and he could only find a publisher in an obscure Korean journal. Natural, Lindzen claimed he was persecuted after the peer reviewers universally rejected his flawed science.



On what basis was his paper rejected??



> We have corrected the approach of Lindzen and Choi (2009), based on all the criticisms made of the earlier work (Chung et al., 2010; Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010). First of all, to improve the statistical significance of the results, we supplemented ERBE data with CERES data, filtered out data noise with 3-month smoothing, objectively chose the intervals based on the smoothed data, and provided confidence intervals for all sensitivity estimates. These constraints helped us to more accurately obtain climate feedback factors than with the original use of monthly data. Next, our new formulas for climate feedback
> and sensitivity reflect sharing of tropical feedback with the globe, so that the tropical region is now properly identified as an open system. Last, the feedback factors inferred from the atmospheric models are more consistent with IPCC-defined climate sensitivity
> than those from the coupled models. This is because, in the presence of cloud-induced radiative changes altering SST, the climate feedback estimates by the present approach tends to be inaccurate. With all corrections, the conclusion still appears to be
> that all current models seem to exaggerate climate sensitivity (some greatly). Moreover, we have shown why studies using simple regressions of ΔFlux on ΔSST serve poorly to determine feedbacks.
> ...



New paper from Lindzen and Choi implies that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity. Watts Up With That 

Greg


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Of course if the hairball cat wants a different reading on climate model FORECASTING performance. Doesn't like the Dr Roy Spencer version, let's just submit the IPCC AR5 version...
> ...



they are stretching the truth 

--LOL


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Put a couple cyclical events together at a random phase and you can start to synthesize any shape temperature curve that you want..



You can, but you shouldn't. Theory comes first, predictions second. Attempts at curve fitting invariably lead to bad science.



> And what was the AMOUNT of the backradiation increase measured that you are relying on.. Did it explain ALL of the warming as seen from a GLOBAL number?



Let me check .... I think I gave a bad link before. Try this one.

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library
---
We found that daily _Ld_ increased at an average rate of 2.2 W / m^2 per decade from 1973 to 2008.
---

So yes, that puts in line with the radiative forcing of everything, including water vapor feedback.



> Was it done in the tropics and the arctic?



The tropics were well covered. The polar regions were not. You work with the very expensive SURFRAD stations that you have.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 14, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The draft had this one ....





You will note that it did not contain the grey areas, which show clearly that their predictions failed inside ten years.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> On what basis was his paper rejected??



On the basis that it didn't correct the error of the lack of tropical data. Lindzen said it didn't matter. The reviewers disagreed.


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > On what basis was his paper rejected??
> ...







> Conclusions and discussions
> We have corrected the approach of Lindzen and Choi (2009),
> based on all the criticisms made of the earlier work (Chung
> et
> ...



From his paper.

This emphasizes the importance of the tropical domain itself.

You sure about ignoring the tropics??? Seems that he gives it plenty of attention. lol

Greg


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




The MAIN point of the article IS CORRECT. And although that paragraph struggled to say it -- that backradiation from the GreenHouse does NOT heat the surface. It merely retards the rate of loss of heat (thus the insulation or blanket analogies). The heating of the surface actually comes from using the same furnace with the same BTU ratings  (the sun) to heat a better insulated home.. 

It's a semantical thing. There are true deniers of the GreenHouse who just claim it violates Physics, and then there's folks who TRY to explain it and get in trouble for saying that the GreenHouse "heats" the surface.. Not truly a heat source. But it RETARDS loss and therefore raises the interior to a higher temperature equilibrium..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

The "cooler 40s" Glenn --- comes from the hockey stick theorem. If you average the hell out of long historical record of anything and then tack on the UNFILTERED recent instrumentation record to the right end of the chart -- you can make ANYTHING look scary and unpredictable..


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2015)

Here's the actual AR5 graph. A few deniers, for inexplicable reasons, ignore the real graph and use an early draft that everyone agrees was erroneous. Naturally, those deniers also claim that fixing the bad graph proved a conspiracy. That's why everyone ignores them.

So, the projections are very good, especially if you extend temps to 2014. Temps run right down the middle of the models. Also note how the projections go out to 2035.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 
You are right.. That's now Exhibit 112 in the IPCC fraud folder..  



I had seen that EARLIER draft on Dr. Curry's site.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



indeed


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Here's the actual AR5 graph. A few deniers, for inexplicable reasons, ignore the real graph and use an early draft that everyone agrees was erroneous. Naturally, those deniers also claim that fixing the bad graph proved a conspiracy. That's why everyone ignores them.
> 
> So, the projections are very good, especially if you extend temps to 2014. Temps run right down the middle of the models. Also note how the projections go out to 2035.



Yeah quite familiar with that version as well. That was Exhibit #109 in the IPCC fraud folder.

If you have bad news about the last 20 years -- bury it in a graph that 4 times times TOO WIDE and fill it with really really irrelevant information points.. Makes your BOO BOO look 4 times smaller..    What a dupe....

There's a book called "lying with statistics" and should be one for "lying with charts"..


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2015)

And like I said, some will call it a conspiracy, which is why everyone ignores them.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> And like I said, some will call it a conspiracy, which is why everyone ignores them.



You should definitely start ignoring me and others that offend your religion or dares to question any of your GW beliefs..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> And like I said, some will call it a conspiracy, which is why everyone ignores them.


Some call it global warming and everyone ignores it


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




Speaking of FRAUD!!!






Adjustments are really cool if you want to cover one's tampering.

Greg


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So are we clear yet that radiation from the cool atmosphere can hit the warmer ground?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Naw, it doesn't make it to the ground


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Where does it stop? Why?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Good question, tell me.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Todd,

You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.

A cooler temperature is indicative of a lower level of heat or energy.

So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface but actually absorbs heat radiated from warmer surfaces.

So once again how does that work??


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What doesn't make it to the ground??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Your claim, you don't know?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I realize you were asking Todd, but it's really quite easy and doesn't stretch any laws of Physics. 
The problem is that in school --- they teach you about heat flow in thermodynamics thru convection and conduction in materials.. But there is barely a mention of Radiative Transfer. That's taught in Fields and Wave and radio stuff. Technically InfraRed light is NOT HEAT.. It's Light. But when absorbed by an object, it becomes heat very efficiently. And Radiative transfers follow different propagation rules. Like any "light source".. 

So it doesn't CARE about origin or destination temperatures and bodies give off IR flux proportionally to their temp. 
So a cooler object can not OVERWHELM the hotter object with IR flow, but it can REDUCE the NET flow from the warmer object. 

Simple subtraction of the Fluxes. And the Net flow of Radiative heat is always from the warmer to the cooler object. Or in this case from the ground to the sky. As the cooler object takes on more heat (GH gases). They retard the net heat loss to the sky.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




*You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.
*
Radiation is photons. All matter above 0K radiates photons.
*
So a cooler surface cannot radiate heat to a warmer surface
*
I'm talking about CO2 molecules. Molecules which radiate energy, as long as they are above 0K, which radiate in all directions, even if that means that sometimes they are radiating toward the warmer ground.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> And Radiative transfers follow different propagation rules. Like any "light source"..



You do realize "propagation" deals with plants not electromagnetic frequencies.

*propagation* mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a *propagation*, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).
From Wikipedia.



flacaltenn said:


> So it doesn't CARE about origin or destination temperatures and bodies give off IR flux proportionally to their temp.



Another basic concept, hotter objects give off more IR, guess that is why the fire department uses infrared cameras on fire scenes.




flacaltenn said:


> So a cooler object can not OVERWHELM the hotter object with IR flow, but it can REDUCE the NET flow from the warmer object



You mean like icing down a warm beverage. Yes when you start the process if you check the amount of IR given off by the beverage it will be more than if you take the same beverage add ice and shoot it again.

Your point is??




flacaltenn said:


> Simple subtraction of the Fluxes. And the Net flow of Radiative heat is always from the warmer to the cooler object. Or in this case from the ground to the sky. As the cooler object takes on more heat (GH gases). They retard the net heat loss to the sky.



Fluxes??

Also called field flux. A readily fusible glass or enamel used as a base in ceramic work. An additive that improves the flow of plastics during fabrication. A substance applied to a surface to be joined by welding, soldering, or brazing to facilitate the flowing of solder and prevent formation of oxides.
From Wikipedia

The next part rambles that the atmosphere being the cooler object will absorb heat from the ground, they(GHG's) then retard the net heat loss to the sky.....

Retard the net heat loss, you mean they warm up and act as a heat sink??

So the GHG have to absorb energy to be effected by this energy it stores, yet you folks claim it gives off the same amount of energy as comsumed.

So net in = net out plus energy to affect GHG

The Laws of Conservation of Energy says it ain't happening.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.
> *
> Radiation is photons. All matter above 0K radiates photons.
> *
> ...




Those laws are constants no matter which molecule / atom you speak of.

So what do you think the 0K is relevant to??

Once again a cooler object does not radiate heat to a warmer object no matter how you phrase it.

It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest .......................


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


IR Radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

*Another basic concept, hotter objects give off more IR,
*
Yes. Which doesn't stop IR from colder CO2 from traveling toward the warmer surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *You do realize that radiation in this case refers to heat being given off.
> ...



*So what do you think the 0K is relevant to??
*
Radiation.

*Once again a cooler object does not radiate heat to a warmer object no matter how you phrase it.
*
Once again, that's not the case.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Is that what I said? Nope. I asked you to tell me. Two way conversation.your turn to give your thoughts.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

The *Kelvin* scale is an absolute, thermodynamic temperature scale using as its null point absolute *zero*, the temperature at which all thermal motion ceases in the classical description of thermodynamics.

0 K refers to absolute zero and is only a concept believed to exist in black holes.

It refers to temperature at which all molecular / atomic level action is actually frozen.

Does not exist, just another red herring with no relevance to global warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Is that what I said?*

You said IR from the atmosphere won't reach the ground. You failed to explain why.

* I asked you to tell me.
*
Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Another basic concept, hotter objects give off more IR,
> *
> Yes. Which doesn't stop IR from colder CO2 from traveling toward the warmer surface.



No, once again heat only travels from the warmer to the colder.

What part of that is NOT sinking in??


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So what do you think the 0K is relevant to??
> *
> Radiation.
> 
> ...



How moronic can you be, heat travels one way, from the higher intensity to the lower intensity.

Period, that is physics and you can not change the facts.

Period.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> The *Kelvin* scale is an absolute, thermodynamic temperature scale using as its null point absolute *zero*, the temperature at which all thermal motion ceases in the classical description of thermodynamics.
> 
> 0 K refers to absolute zero and is only a concept believed to exist in black holes.
> 
> ...



*It refers to temperature at which all molecular / atomic level action is actually frozen.
*
And since our atmosphere is above 0K, it radiates.
In all directions.
Including the warmer surface.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Another basic concept, hotter objects give off more IR,
> ...



*No, once again heat only travels from the warmer to the colder.*

We're not talking about heat. we're talking about radiation.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

All objects do, makes no difference about Climate Change, no effect at all ...................


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They are the same, too bad you are so ignorant.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

Hey heat travels three ways, those would be??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> All objects do, makes no difference about Climate Change, no effect at all ...................



The atmosphere keeps the surface warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



You're making a fool of yourself.
Warm objects radiate. Even if a warmer object is nearby.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*

Your claim it won't reach the ground is mistaken.*
And you can't prove it does. If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I asked you to tell me.
*
I'm telling you it can and does reach the ground.

*And you can't prove it does.*

It's been proven.

*If it did, it would have to be absorbed or reflect.
*
Yes, this radiation coming from above is either absorbed or reflected.
Neither of which would happen if you were right about it not reaching the ground.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well then there would be more heat and that isn't happening.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Well then there would be more heat and that isn't happening.*

More heat than what? Without an atmosphere, the Earth's surface temp would be about 0 F.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> I realize you were asking Todd, but it's really quite easy and doesn't stretch any laws of Physics.
> The problem is that in school --- they teach you about heat flow in thermodynamics thru convection and conduction in materials.. But there is barely a mention of Radiative Transfer. That's taught in Fields and Wave and radio stuff. Technically InfraRed light is NOT HEAT.. It's Light. But when absorbed by an object, it becomes heat very efficiently.



We have been talking about IR heat which :
*Infrared* (*IR*) is invisible radiant energy, electromagnetic radiation with longer wavelengths than those of visible light, extending from the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum at 700 nanometers (frequency 430 THz) to 1 mm (300 GHz)[1.

Your point in this statement was??



flacaltenn said:


> And Radiative transfers follow different propagation rules. Like any "light source"..



You do realize "propagation" deals with plants not electromagnetic frequencies.

*propagation* mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a *propagation*, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).
From Wikipedia.



flacaltenn said:


> So it doesn't CARE about origin or destination temperatures and bodies give off IR flux proportionally to their temp.



Another basic concept, hotter objects give off more IR, guess that is why the fire department uses infrared cameras on fire scenes.




flacaltenn said:


> So a cooler object can not OVERWHELM the hotter object with IR flow, but it can REDUCE the NET flow from the warmer object



You mean like icing down a warm beverage. Yes when you start the process if you check the amount of IR given off by the beverage it will be more than if you take the same beverage add ice and shoot it again.

Your point is??




flacaltenn said:


> Simple subtraction of the Fluxes. And the Net flow of Radiative heat is always from the warmer to the cooler object. Or in this case from the ground to the sky. As the cooler object takes on more heat (GH gases). They retard the net heat loss to the sky.



Fluxes??

Also called field flux. A readily fusible glass or enamel used as a base in ceramic work. An additive that improves the flow of plastics during fabrication. A substance applied to a surface to be joined by welding, soldering, or brazing to facilitate the flowing of solder and prevent formation of oxides.
From Wikipedia

The next part rambles that the atmosphere being the cooler object will absorb heat from the ground, they(GHG's) then retard the net heat loss to the sky.....

Retard the net heat loss, you mean they warm up and act as a heat sink??

So the GHG have to absorb energy to be effected by this energy it stores, yet you folks claim it gives off the same amount of energy as comsumed.

So net in = net out plus energy to affect GHG

The Las of Conservation of Energy says it ain't happening.[/QUOTE]

______________________________________________


Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).

Propagate is the correct physics term. Light (of which IR is a subset) doesn't NEED matter or materials to propagate. It propagates as defined by the geometry of the emitter and travels without regard for temperature. Because IR "heat" is not heat unless it is absorbed by matter that is CAPABLE of absorbing it at that energy level and wavelength.

"Retarding net heat loss" simply means that the cooler body has some IR emissions of it's own that are directed to the warmer body. And that energy will land and CONVERT to heat regardless of the temperature. But since each body has the other in it's OPTICAL PATH -- there will be an EXCHANGE of IR Radiative energy such that the Warmer body WINS. But it WINS in the net flux transfer only to the extent that the flow from the cooler body reduces it. 

Hey --- lighten up here. You are out on the desert and night falls. Not a cloud in the sky.. How COLD is it gonna get compared to a sky that it is clouded? THAT -- is the backradiation part of Radiative transfer. Because water vapor (clouds) are the DOMINANT greenhouse gas.  The clouds "insulate" the ground. But they don't do that by actual HEAT TRANSFER. They do it by Radiative transfer. As a body,  they can emit IR proportional  to their warmer temperature (than a clear sky) and RETARD the loss of heat at the surface.. But the surface will ALWAYS cool with respect to the exchange. Just cools SLOWER with clouds raining down IR energy...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I promise I'll stay out after this. But DrDoom is almost there. The laws of thermo are the same for heat as they are for IR transfer. As DrDoom said --- ""It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest""

With HEAT flow, if I use a heatsink to DRAW the heat from an object, my ability to draw it will be due to how cool I can keep my heatsink. If I don't have enough airflow to carry the heat away -- the transfer will SLOW because "the cooler object" has warmed. 

SAME DEAL kinda for IR Radiative transfer. The NET transfer is always from the warmer object. But the magnitude of that transfer can be reduced by the amount of photons shot from the cooler object. Nothing is violated and cooler object never wins the transfer. 

In fact, for extry credit. Take two objects of similar IR absorption characteristics and start them at the same temperature and the NET exchange will bounce back and forth statistically. Similar to the occasional errant mechanical HEAT energy that goes the "wrong way" in a material. Statistically, SOME molecular energy WILL flow the opposite way in heat conduction -- but it never wins the battle.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




BINGO -- it is absorbed as heat energy or reflected as InfraRed light..

You shine an IRed Laser from a drone. What STOPS that light transmission? And what happens to that energy? Is the IR laser WARMER than the ground?  Does it CARE???


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).
> 
> Propagate is the correct physics term. Light (of which IR is a subset) doesn't NEED matter or materials to propagate. It propagates as defined by the geometry of the emitter and travels without regard for temperature. Because IR "heat" is not heat unless it is absorbed by matter that is CAPABLE of absorbing it at that energy level and wavelength.



Please provide a proper definition for "propagation" :
This Merriam Webster ..............

*propagation*
_noun_ prop·a·ga·tion \ˌprä-pə-ˈgā-shən\
*Definition of PROPAGATION*
*:*  the act or action of propagating: as

_a_ *:*  increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers

_b_ *:*  the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions

_c_ *:*  enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body   
Which of those would you like to try and fit into this conversation.

It really is simple, a printed ACCEPTED definition that you would like to use from a reputable source.



flacaltenn said:


> "Retarding net heat loss" simply means that the cooler body has some IR emissions of it's own that are directed to the warmer body. And that energy will land and CONVERT to heat regardless of the temperature.



Link to that assertion please.

Who mentioned "retarding net heat loss" are you thinking of some other conversation or just dancing for us??

NO, once again, objects have "heat signatures" but radiate implies to give off and the object which receives the radiation warms up.

Nope, it ain't happening and there is every scientific principle against you and zero for you.

More song and dance though, let's continue.



flacaltenn said:


> But since each body has the other in it's OPTICAL PATH -- there will be an EXCHANGE of IR Radiative energy such that the Warmer body WINS. But it WINS in the net flux transfer only to the extent that the flow from the cooler body reduces it



Optical path :

op·ti·cal
ˈäptək(ə)l/
_adjective_
adjective: *optical*

*1*.
of or relating to sight, especially in relation to the physical action of light.
"optical illusions"
constructed to assist sight.
devised on the principles of optics.

*2*.
Physics
operating in or employing the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
"optical telescopes"
op·ti·cal path
_noun_
Physics
noun: *optical path*; plural noun: *optical paths*

the distance of the path that in a vacuum would contain the same number of wavelengths as the actual path taken by a ray of light traveling through a medium.
From Wikipedia.

Which bodies are you eluding to??




flacaltenn said:


> Hey --- lighten up here. You are out on the desert and night falls. Not a cloud in the sky.. How COLD is it gonna get compared to a sky that it is clouded? THAT -- is the backradiation part of Radiative transfer. Because water vapor (clouds) are the DOMINANT greenhouse gas.  The clouds "insulate" the ground. But they don't do that by actual HEAT TRANSFER. They do it by Radiative transfer. As a body,  they can emit IR proportional  to their warmer temperature (than a clear sky) and RETARD the loss of heat at the surface.. But the surface will ALWAYS cool with respect to the exchange. Just cools SLOWER with clouds raining down IR energy...




I am being light.

You are no different than anyone else, if your story don't fly, it don't fly.

Here you want to come out and act all technically superior bur fail to realize the simple concept of cloud cover??

I guess all these scientific based results that I have been debunking your mumbo jumbo line with don't exist.


*Effects of Cloud Cover*  on forecasted temperatures

During the day, the earth is heated by the sun. If skies are clear, more heat reaches the earth's surface (as in the diagram below). This leads to warmer temperatures.








However, if skies are cloudy, some of the sun's rays are reflected off the cloud droplets back into space. Therefore, less of the sun's energy is able to reach the earth's surface, which causes the earth to heat up more slowly. This leads to cooler temperatures.








*Forecast Tip:* 
When forecasting daytime temperatures, if cloudy skies are expected, forecast lower temperatures than you would predict if clear skies were expected.


At night cloud cover has the opposite effect. If skies are clear, heat emitted from the earth's surface freely escapes into space, resulting in colder temperatures.






However, if clouds are present, some of the heat emitted from the earth's surface is trapped by the clouds and reemitted back towards the earth. As a result, temperatures decrease more slowly than if the skies were clear.








So one last question, based on the simple pictures above, how does this tie into your assertions??

You do realize as weather changes or just through sheer physical principles the heat still escapes just at a different rate and time.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> I promise I'll stay out after this. But DrDoom is almost there. The laws of thermo are the same for heat as they are for IR transfer. As DrDoom said --- ""It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest""
> 
> With HEAT flow, if I use a heatsink to DRAW the heat from an object, my ability to draw it will be due to how cool I can keep my heatsink. If I don't have enough airflow to carry the heat away -- the transfer will SLOW because "the cooler object" has warmed.
> 
> ...



So you can ramble, the relation to this conversation or the point you were trying to make??

You basically now are saying that I am absolutely right, but you still want every one to think you are ............

Is that about the size of it??'

Did I miss read that??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

*Wave propagation* is any of the ways in which waves travel.

With respect to the direction of the oscillation relative to the propagation direction, we can distinguish between longitudinal wave and transverse waves.

For electromagnetic waves, propagation may occur in a vacuum as well as in a material medium. Other wave types cannot propagate through a vacuum and need a transmission medium to exist.

Wave propagation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.. A lot of nibbling at definitions there. HEAT propagates through matter and materials by means of convection (heat differentials) or conduction (direct molecule to molecule PHYSICAL transfer of energy).
> ...







Nice picture. Look, it shows cooler clouds emit toward the warmer surface.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I promise I'll stay out after this. But DrDoom is almost there. The laws of thermo are the same for heat as they are for IR transfer. As DrDoom said --- ""It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest""
> ...




Don't know.. My impression was you were contending that GH gases could not influence the warming of the surface because of the warmer-cooler thingy.. If we're clear on that -- I apologize for rambling. Except that JC IS definitely  confused by this and is in this discussion as well.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Don't know.. My impression was you were contending that GH gases could not influence the warming of the surface because of the warmer-cooler thingy.. If we're clear on that -- I apologize for rambling. Except that JC IS definitely  confused by this and is in this discussion as well.



You are still trying to phrase this as I agree with your global warming rambling.

NO, NO, NO, NO NO NO ...............

You have not proved anything but you can ramble.

You certainly have not proved GHG's have any relationship to global warming / global climate change.

I wonder what your technical version of the "warmer-cooler thingy"  is .......

Another of those highly technical scientific terms that boggle the mind.

So no you have convinced me of nada, nada, nada ...................


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So, if it reaches and reflects, where does it go? It has to go back up. I didn't know CO2 absorbed IR waves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Durr.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Yeah, that's on me. Stated it wrong, I meant reflected waves,


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Yeah, you misunderstood the picture with the clouds. You should read what it states.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



It says clouds absorb some radiation emitted from the ground and re-emit back to Earth.
It doesn't say the energy never makes it. So where'd you get that idea? From poor SSDD?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 15, 2015)

I must say that jc, Doom, Billy Bob, and SSDD have provided some of the most interesting interpretations of basic physics I have ever seen.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I said ABSORBED or reflected. Most is absorbed. Because MOST matter absorbs IR..  And IF a molecule EMITS IRed at a certain energy and frequency (which CO2 does) -- it will absorb at that same frequency..

In fact, the Earth itself has a certain band of heat generated IR that it EMITS in order to cool itself..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know.. My impression was you were contending that GH gases could not influence the warming of the surface because of the warmer-cooler thingy.. If we're clear on that -- I apologize for rambling. Except that JC IS definitely  confused by this and is in this discussion as well.
> ...



Why don't you tell us WHY GHGases don't act to reduce the rate of cooling to space then? Something obviously does.. 
That's how they cause the surface to RETAIN more heat given that the source of heating (the sun) stays constant.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> I must say that jc, Doom, Billy Bob, and SSDD have provided some of the most interesting interpretations of basic physics I have ever seen.



Wow... TO bad you dont even know what basic physics is..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I promise I'll stay out after this. But DrDoom is almost there. The laws of thermo are the same for heat as they are for IR transfer. As DrDoom said --- ""It only flow one way, from the highest concentration of energy to the lowest""
> ...



Your really having a hard time with FREQUENCY PROPAGATION... it is defined as the rate of oscillation (wavelength), direction and intensity at which a magnetic wave is operating. A laser is a focused oscillation which propagates a single beam (single direction) at high intensity.  

Molecules are like two lasers pointed at each other. The photons leave each molecule at specific propagation of its thermal temperature and its mass (intensity).  While the weak laser is fired at the other laser, the strongest laser is the one that will reach the weak one causing a reaction. This is where we get into the quantum physics of the two opposing photons (collision) and little is proven.  More commonly called the Thermal Lapse Rate.  This is the rate at which two bodies of near same temperature slow their cooling/warming.


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 15, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The radiation goes both ways but the NET result is always warmer to cooler. It's a sorta "gotcha" question methinks. Sorta like vector addition in opposite directions. 

Greg


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your really having a hard time with FREQUENCY PROPAGATION... it is defined as the rate of oscillation (wavelength), direction and intensity at which a magnetic wave is operating. A laser is a focused oscillation which propagates a single beam (single direction) at high intensity.
> 
> Molecules are like two lasers pointed at each other. The photons leave each molecule at specific propagation of its thermal temperature and its mass (intensity).  While the weak laser is fired at the other laser, the strongest laser is the one that will reach the weak one causing a reaction. This is where we get into the quantum physics of the two opposing photons (collision) and little is proven.  More commonly called the Thermal Lapse Rate.  This is the rate at which two bodies of near same temperature slow their cooling/warming.



Show us a credible source that provides your definition (or any definition) of "frequency propagation".  I've seen 'audio frequency propagation', and 'radio frequency propagation' and 'electromagnetic frequency propagation' but I have never seen "frequency propagation" by itself.

Propagation is simply another term for moving, traveling, transmitting.  For instance, c is the propagation velocity of light.  It can get a little more complicated with wave phenomena: propagation velocity versus group velocity.  But that is not needed in this conversation

The rate of oscillation is the frequency, not the wavelength.

Lasers do not need to be focused.  The have minimal divergence, maximal coherence, because they have almost zero bandwidth.

Lasers are not necessarily high intensity nor do the always travel in a single direction.  An LED is a laser.  They have low intensity and are typically hemispherical radiators.

Photons are massless.

Photons cannot collide with each other.

Thermal lapse rate is a meteorological term describing the decrease of atmospheric temperature with altitude.  It has nothing to do with photons, quantum mechanics or lasers.

Fer christ's sake, Billy, that was pretty bad.


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2015)

I missed one.  Photons do not have "intensity".  They have frequency.  The intensity of a beam of light is determined by the number of photons per cross sectional area within the beam.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > I must say that jc, Doom, Billy Bob, and SSDD have provided some of the most interesting interpretations of basic physics I have ever seen.
> ...


Well, Mr. Billy Bob, I passed the Physics requirement for Geology. Obviously, you did not pass any courses in physics.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Why don't you tell us WHY GHGases don't act to reduce the rate of cooling to space then? Something obviously does..
> That's how they cause the surface to RETAIN more heat given that the source of heating (the sun) stays constant.



I don't need to explain anything.

You have yet to prove global warming is occurring, in fact all of your confused peers have changed that to climate change now that the warning trend has not been verifiable through legitimate scientific research.

So now you come out and make a statement like it is fact, knowing it is  based on a lie .................

You do realize how ignorant that makes one look, correct??

You failed miserably at this argument to either provide links or proof of your assertions.

While giving us intelligent adults some humorous material,.

I have heard parents tell their kids if they would keep their mouth shut, other people would not know how ignorant they were.

Perhaps there is a lesson there somewhere.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your really having a hard time with FREQUENCY PROPAGATION... it is defined as the rate of oscillation (wavelength), direction and intensity at which a magnetic wave is operating. A laser is a focused oscillation which propagates a single beam (single direction) at high intensity.
> 
> Molecules are like two lasers pointed at each other. The photons leave each molecule at specific propagation of its thermal temperature and its mass (intensity).  While the weak laser is fired at the other laser, the strongest laser is the one that will reach the weak one causing a reaction. This is where we get into the quantum physics of the two opposing photons (collision) and little is proven.  More commonly called the Thermal Lapse Rate.  This is the rate at which two bodies of near same temperature slow their cooling/warming.



Frequency propagation, how many time we gonna have to do this folks??

From wikipedia.
*Category:Radio frequency propagation*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





 Wikimedia Commons has media related to _*Radio propagation*_.
All articles regarding the propagation of radio frequencies.



As per forum\ rules this is your LIE, I need a LINK to verify.

Google say's you are full of shit.

No definition exist for that term in scientific circles, it may in fear monger warmer circles.

That means the rest of that shit is just that shit out of your head with not linkable proof.


Oh and in that rambling shit you also mention thermal lapse rate, why do you morons not Google this shit before making a fool of yourselves??

From  Wikipedia
*Lapse rate*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The *lapse rate* is defined as the rate at which atmospheric temperature decreases with increase in altitude. [1][2] The terminology arises from the word _lapse_ in the sense of a decrease or decline. While most often applied to Earth's troposphere, the concept can be extended to any gravitationally supported parcel of gas.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




No, they both have signatures that are viewable in the IR spectrum,

No gotcha quetion, there is no question.

Heat flows one way, PERIOD.

What part of that is not sinking in??

NO on is getting got but you, failure to understand but parrot nonsense defines you as ignorant.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



*Heat flows one way, PERIO*D.

yup


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...




All these non scientific folks want to ramble about energy flowing from a cold molecule to a warmer molecule.

That is like saying the heater in the room gets warmed by the cooler objects in it's surroundings.

Simple concept, I am sure there is tons of accepted scientific research to illustrate and support that assertion.

If someone would just kindly provide one of those linky thingys for that it would be fucking great, especially since they keep making the same asinine assertions.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...




i have posted several over the years 

simply ignored


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




This is an out right lie, link for this bull shit??


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




Right that is why you are posting the same one now??

Do you know how fucking moronic you sound??


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

I notice you are good at talking shit, would you like to try the actual subject or is that above your pay grade??


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2015)

Can I ask, DOCTOR Doom-n-Gloom, just in general terms, of what your science education consists?


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



This might help you understand.



> *The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Can Energy “Flow Uphill”?*
> In the case of radiation, the answer to that question is, “yes”. While heat conduction by an object always flows from hotter to colder, in the case of thermal radiation a cooler object does not check what the temperature of its surroundings is before sending out infrared energy. It sends it out anyway, no matter whether its surroundings are cooler or hotter.
> 
> Yes, thermal conduction involves energy flow in only one direction. But radiation flow involves energy flow in both directions.
> ...



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07...ts-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

Is this what you would like to see??

Greg


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Can I ask, DOCTOR Doom-n-Gloom, just in general terms, of what your science education consists?



Lot more than yours ..........


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...




I shoved that way up Cricks ass earlier in the thread, don't be the second dufuss, go back back and find where he got punked out with that non sense/


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

Paper by a fraudster climate hack, no matter what kind of letters he puts in front of his name.
He is not here, you don't understand his work and are not capable of defending it logically and scientifically, just like he can't.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

Hey stupid what is an entropy??

A configuration of a thermal system, so that configuration has what to do with energy flow??


The second *law* of *thermodynamics* states that the entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Hey stupid what is an entropy??
> 
> A configuration of a thermal system, so that configuration has what to do with energy flow??
> 
> ...




What isolated system??

Not a  bit of relevance .................


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Hey stupid what is an entropy??
> ...



lol. You really have half of a wit!!

Greg


DrDoomNGloom said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Hey stupid what is an entropy??
> ...



http://www.principia-scientific.org/images/stories/pdfs/Pierre_commentsadded.pdf

There is a lovely exchange at the end between two excellent thinkers. 

Greg


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



You provide a link to an irrelevant paper, no discussion ...................

Talk about half of something ..............

Must be a shame to be missing it all ................


----------



## gtopa1 (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



So you didn't go past page 10 or so?? lol

Read more; bloviate less. It is quite an interesting back and forth. You really must increase your attention span to beyond that of a gnat!!

Greg


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

Well looky what the Wikipedia states in Heat Transfer "

*Heat transfer*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




This figure shows a calculation for thermal convection in the Earth's mantle. Colors closer to red are hot areas and colors closer to blue are cold areas. A hot, less-dense lower boundary layer sends plumes of hot material upwards, and likewise, cold material from the top moves downwards.
*Heat transfer* describes the exchange of thermal energy, between physical systems depending on the temperature and pressure, by dissipating heat. The fundamental modes of heat transfer are _conduction_ or _diffusion_, _convection_ and _radiation_.

The exchange of kinetic energy of particles through the boundary between two systems which are at different temperatures from each other or from their surroundings. Heat transfer always occurs from a region of high temperature to another region of lower temperature.



That last statement, now you can frame it any way you like but semantics will not change physics.

As I have been stating, heat only flows from the higher to the lower temperature.

That is why science has two distinct technical phrases. 

Heating for the moving of energy from lower to higher concentrations.
Cooling for the absorption of energy by cooler objects(lower concentration) from higher heat objects(higher concentrations).


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...



I am not wading through that mumbo jumbo, either explain it, cut and paste the relevant parts or STFU about it, but whatever happens it is on you bro not me.

You make an assertion, document it and discuss it or move on ..............

But you seem to be the one posting content less post and spewing shit about bloviating .......................


----------



## Crick (Aug 16, 2015)

I bet you run into a lot of "mumbo jumbo", don't you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...



*You really have half of a wit!!
*
You're giving him too much credit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Well looky what the Wikipedia states in Heat Transfer "
> 
> *Heat transfer*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



*The exchange of **kinetic energy** of particles through the boundary between two systems which are at different temperatures from each other or from their surroundings. Heat transfer always occurs from a region of high temperature to another region of lower temperature.
*
If only we were talking about kinetic energy instead of radiation, you'd have a point.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your really having a hard time with FREQUENCY PROPAGATION... it is defined as the rate of oscillation (wavelength), direction and intensity at which a magnetic wave is operating. A laser is a focused oscillation which propagates a single beam (single direction) at high intensity.
> ...



What lie?? I suggest you quit while you can still rehabilitate yourself with some more reading. Propagation is the correct terminology to use for ANY Electro-Magnetic energy.. And guess what?? Both Radio and Light obey some of the some propagation rules and are considered both EMagnetic fields and waves.

You got a lot of "issues". And denying how the GreenHouse theory works is just one of them. Not sure WHAT links or facts you require. Spent my life working around these disciplines. You can DENY GWarrming all you want to. But you won't get any traction with just rejecting EVERYTHING that FRIENDLY folks try to tell you... Just read my sigline again and have a nice day..

BTW --- Lapse rate is thermodynamics effect -- not anything to do with Radiative Physics other than it provides a profile of atmospheric temperature and pressure that might affect how you model the thickness and concentration and heat of the atmos..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your really having a hard time with FREQUENCY PROPAGATION... it is defined as the rate of oscillation (wavelength), direction and intensity at which a magnetic wave is operating. A laser is a focused oscillation which propagates a single beam (single direction) at high intensity.
> ...



You have serious issues.  You also haven't a clue about what your trying to discuss. WIki is not a reputable source for many reasons. Made up crap is just one and rapid changes is the other..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Its really hard to try and explain why two molecules of near temperature will slow each others cooling rate. Probably a bad choice on my part but given the terms he was using I thought he might get the drift... Oh well..


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Funny I don't see any substance just a lot of bull shit about me and issue, grow the fuck up .................

By the  way I noticed  you used lapse rate in your first rant and when called and schooled on it, you want to come back and act like you knew that.

So if you knew that then why use it where it had no relevance in that first shuck and jive??


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Ad hominems do nothing but make you look ignorant and petty, grow the fuck up ................


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...




You are a fucking moron, see my post on heat transfer and stop spewing shit ........................


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It's idiots like you who make it difficult for us to debate the warmers who'd like to cripple our economy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



InfraRed radiation is not technically heat until it is absorbed by matter. But the transfer of energy that RESULTS in heat -- obeys the laws of the thermodymanics..  Now what?? You gonna tell us the light doesn't heat matter? Or that it can't flow from cold to hot?

Seen that issue before. The problem is largely an academic one. When they teach heat transfer, they don't INCLUDE Radiative transfer and propagation because that's taught in ANOTHER class on EMagnetic Fields and Waves..  You think RF energy in your microwave oven CARES if they leave an antenna that's colder or warmer than the food?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> InfraRed radiation is not technically heat until it is absorbed by matter. But the transfer of energy that RESULTS in heat -- obeys the laws of the thermodymanics..  Now what?? You gonna tell us the light doesn't heat matter? Or that it can't flow from cold to hot?



So you don't understand your own GW bull shit, isn't that what 0K refers to??

The THEORETICAL point in which all molecular / atomic motion stops because of no heat??

You see that being theoretical then as you folks say all things are above 0K, then all things have to have heat.

Yep, I have produced linked scientific literature that states heat only  moves from greater concentrations to lower concentrations.

That is a physics law that pertains to heat exchange and no matter how much you want to get on your soap box and rant otherwise, it is true now or will always be.

I once again go to forum rules and ask for a verifiable URl linked scientific statement to back your bull shit claim.




flacaltenn said:


> Seen that issue before. The problem is largely an academic one. When they teach heat transfer, they don't INCLUDE Radiative transfer and propagation because that's taught in ANOTHER class on EMagnetic Fields and Waves..  You think RF energy in your microwave oven CARES if they leave an antenna that's colder or warmer than the food?




Sure they do, I was in fire sciences for 10 years, you are being laughable now ...............

You can keep spouting that word propagation, look even more ignorant every time  I have to define it and you can provide no other definition.

*propagation* mid-15c., from O.Fr. propagacion (13c.), from L. propagationem (nom. propagatio) "a *propagation*, extension," noun of action from propagare "multiply plants by layers, breed," from propago (gen. propaginis) "that which propagates, offspring," from pro- "forth" + *pag-, root of pangere "to fasten" (see pact).

Makes you look really ignorant to keep beating that same dead horse.

Concerning your lame example with microwaves, you are asserting the food heats the oven / microwave emitter.

So don't plug it in and let me know how that works for you, idiot ................


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > InfraRed radiation is not technically heat until it is absorbed by matter. But the transfer of energy that RESULTS in heat -- obeys the laws of the thermodymanics..  Now what?? You gonna tell us the light doesn't heat matter? Or that it can't flow from cold to hot?
> ...



*Yep, I have produced linked scientific literature that states heat only moves from greater concentrations to lower concentrations.*

*That is a physics law that pertains to heat exchange
*
Why don't you research the physics law that pertains to radiation?

*Definition* of *PROPAGATION*. : the act or action of *propagating*: as. a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers. b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Funny that you would use the microwave as it actually is a good tool for teaching this subject.  Place different items, of the same overall mass, in it and turn it on for the same amount of time (mimicking our sun).  The amount of warming will not be the same due to the masses Infrared properties as will their time to cool in open atmosphere. This is why solar wind is so important to the earth and why lul's in solar wind allow cooling globally.  This is just one area where Lief and i disagree and one that has not yet been studied well.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > InfraRed radiation is not technically heat until it is absorbed by matter. But the transfer of energy that RESULTS in heat -- obeys the laws of the thermodymanics..  Now what?? You gonna tell us the light doesn't heat matter? Or that it can't flow from cold to hot?
> ...



Are you really this ignorant? 

IF all matter radiates at its thermal value, it radiates in ALL DIRECTIONS not just in ones towards colder objects. Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this. 

Please show us HOW these photons become smart and only radiate towards cooler objects.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



*Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.
*
SSDD and JC456 don't understand this.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Are you really this ignorant?
> 
> IF all matter radiates at its thermal value, it radiates in ALL DIRECTIONS not just in ones towards colder objects. Simple empirical observations show this, even the IPCC understands this.
> 
> Please show us HOW these photons become smart and only radiate towards cooler objects.



No but you apparently are, you can read correct??

By the way , statements like the wiki is an unreliable source makes you look totally foolish!!


[Snip]
*Heat transfer*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Heat transfer* describes the exchange of thermal energy, between physical systems depending on the temperature and pressure, by dissipating heat. The fundamental modes of heat transfer are _conduction_ or _diffusion_, _convection_ and _radiation_.

The exchange of kinetic energy of particles through the boundary between two systems which are at different temperatures from each other or from their surroundings. Heat transfer always occurs from a region of high temperature to another region of lower temperature.


[Snip]
*Heat Transfer*

*Heat* is energy or more precisely transfer of thermal energy. As energy, heat is measured in watts (W) whilst temperature is measured in degrees Celsius (°C) or Kelvin (K).The words “hot” and “cold” only make sense on a relative basis. Thermal energy travels from hot material to cold material. Hot material heats up cold material, and cold material cools down hot material. It is really that simple. When you feel _ heat_, what you are sensing is a transfer of thermal energy from something that's hot to something that is cold. 







 
The discipline of *heat transfer* is concerned with only two things: temperature, and the flow of heat. Temperature represents the amount of thermal energy available, whereas heat flow represents the movement of thermal energy from place to place. On a microscopic scale, thermal energy is related to the kinetic energy of molecules. The greater a material’s temperature, the greater the thermal agitation of its constituent molecules (manifested both in linear motion and vibrational modes). 

Heat Transfer


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoom observes...

_Yep, I have produced linked scientific literature that states heat only moves from greater concentrations to lower concentrations._

And that is true. The net transfer of heat will be from hotter to colder. The bit you're missing is that works also in the GreenHouse example. Because although there is IRed radiation coming back to the ground all the time, the NET result from that exchange with clouds and greenhouse gases, will always be the warmer earth losing heat to the cooler sky..

In the case of IRed heating there is an EXCHANGE of RF energy due to the temperatures of the objects and the net result is subtraction of the RF energy coming from the cooler one applied to the warmer stream.. Warmer still wins.

This "backradiation" from the GreenHouse is like a resistance factor that reduces the flow from the warmer object. It's just simple. Even in the Atmospheric Physic textbooks -- it is shown as simple subtraction.. 

Here's your "link"        






There's really no need to go postal here. I'm not bullshitting you or trying to win points.. Your simpler explanations of heat flow just dont extend to ElectroMagnetic energy heating matter. 
That's in the NEXT class after thermodynamics. And all those references you see in your pix referring to "kinetic energy" are about CONDUCTION of heat (or convection of heat). There is no "kinetic energy" raining down from water vapor or CO2. But yet there IS a energy transfer that RESULTS in heat at both places.. 

Go look up RADIATIVE heat transfers...  Like HERE --- 

19.3 Radiation Heat Transfer Between Planar Surfaces 

and you'll see the diff..


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

You really are getting to be a shuck and jive joke.

No link, some irrelevant picture with no source that does not even relate to the discussion, so you just can't do it??

Why the shuck and jive show??

Radiation Heat Transfer Between Planar Surfaces is a set of equations that cover the action of a photon of light emitted between two sheets of the same shade of gray .....................

Consider the two infinite gray surfaces shown in Figure 19.5. We suppose that the surfaces are thick enough so that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (no radiation transmitted so 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ). Consider a photon emitted from Surface 1 (remembering that the reflectance  ):

That is a theoretical physics equations defining interactions in a conceptual scenario .......... the "two infinite gray surfaces"  would be you first clue.

Has nothing to do with a point you were trying to BULL SHIT YOUR way through again though,   does it??


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So you're saying that none of the Suns UV is making it through the clouds? Mmmmmm, don't think so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*So you're saying that none of the Suns UV is making it through the clouds?
*
LOL! No.

It says clouds absorb some radiation emitted from the ground


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> So you're saying that none of the Suns UV is making it through the clouds? Mmmmmm, don't think so.



NO, that is a statement you made and attributed to me, I see you are short of intelligence and comprehension.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


I've been asking for seventeen months, got nadda.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> You are ignorant.  You're also a troll.  We are also done.  Enjoy the Ignore List.




No bitch, way above your pay grade.

In this scenario, it would be more like, Professional Sports fisherman ..............

Caught at least 3 shuckers and jivers this trip out.

This thread on climate change has been entertaining for sure.

When you figure out some basic concepts like thermal flow and laws of energy conservation come on back and give your BS another shot.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




That is because it is a line of shuck and jive bullshit.

I have provided numerous documented sources that state heat only flows from higher concentrations to lower, can't happen the other way around.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

By the way you noticed Joe there said he had posted several over the years, but could not produce one at the time.

Mind boggling thing ..................

Can we say LIAR??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You are ignorant.  You're also a troll.  We are also done.  Enjoy the Ignore List.
> ...



_Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. _

Science magazine says you're an idiot.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> I bet you run into a lot of "mumbo jumbo", don't you.


I do all the time in here.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth, and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer and that ain't happening.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Oh, there's no doubt that clouds absorb IR from the ground, but UV makes it through the clouds or it would be dark under them during daylight hours. And I wouldn't get a sunburn when it's cloudy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2015)

*Moderation Message:*

*Need to clean up the aftermath of our GreenHouse discussion. All the "goodbyes"*
*need to be gone.. Thread remains open for the benefit of the OP and where that poster wants to take it.*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying that none of the Suns UV is making it through the clouds? Mmmmmm, don't think so.
> ...


Yep, maybe so, but I know the sea levels aren't rising, ice is still at the poles and no one has provided evidence that added CO2 to the atmosphere has increased warming.  Now, I've asked and asked for it. Radiation from the upper atmosphere doesn't reach the ground. No one has provided evidence of this either.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

DrDoomNGloom said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


I agree. It doesn't take a science major to know that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*I understand one thing, no one on here has ever proved radiation exist back toward earth*

Do you drink a lot?  One minute you say you agree that all matter above absolute zero radiates in any direction, then you say it can't radiate toward the warmer ground. So why are you disagreeing with yourself?

*and if it actually did flow to the ground, then it would emit heat and make surface temperatures warmer*

Surface temperatures are warmer than they would be in the absence of an atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Oh, there's no doubt that clouds absorb IR from the ground*

And re-emit, even back toward the ground.

*but UV makes it through the clouds*

I don't think anyone ever claimed otherwise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It doesn't take a science major to know that we're discussing radiation, not heat.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes, and I stated it doesn't come to the surface. If IR did what you stated, why do Night goggles show an outline of a body? That vision seems to indicate it stays close to the source. Also, why wouldn't those goggles pick up IR off the ground? Or, is there another explanation?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


Then show the evidence! Why does that seem such a complicated thing to do?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Doesn't mean its based off CO2. My argument in this forum.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddster, you are fighting a losing battle. jc has about a third grade level of scientific understanding, and exhibits the classic Dunning-Kruger effect. There is no way that you will be able to introduce him to even basic physics.


Why does he have to? Show me the evidence. Again, why is this a difficult task?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Yes, and I stated it doesn't come to the surface*

Yes, that was an amusing error on your part.

* why do Night goggles show an outline of a body?
*
AFAIK, they amplify visible light.

*Or, is there another explanation?*

The explanation is, you are confused and night goggles don't disprove that radiation from the cool sky still hits the warm ground.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Doesn't mean its based off CO2.
*
Radiation from water vapor in the air also goes in all directions, including the warmer ground.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom (Aug 16, 2015)

JC if you are wondering why I don't respond to TTP.

I went rounds for a couple of hours with him the other day.

Another classic shuck and jive show.

When he finally got to a point he had made a fool of himself and still had no cognizant point,

He all of a sudden took my stance and acted like he was the intelligent one who had been arguing for it, instead of against it for the last few hours.

I just can not stand that level of stupidity.

Heat only travels one way, from concentrations of higher to lower.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > DrDoomNGloom said:
> ...


Which is heat.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2015)

*Moderation Note:*

*Well,, wouldja look at what time it is??? OP abandoned this puppy pages ago. The topic is what it was and if we all could continue this without all the violations stacking up -- we could keep the doors open.. *

*Thread is closed...*


----------

