# Once Again, Skeptics do the Math that Warmists Won't Do....



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2014)

This time it is Dr Pierre R Latour phD chemical engineering (let the character assassination begin).  Rather than simply assuming that because CO2 is called a greenhouse gas that it must cause warming, like a true scientist he goes back to the basics to actually see whether CO2 causes warming.

Contrary to warmist dogma, adding a radiative gas to an atmosphere does not reduce it's ability to radiatively cool itself.  Dr Latour mathematically replaces non radiative O2 in the atmosphere for CO2 and finds that the emissivity of the planet increases....



			
				Dr. Latour said:
			
		

> *I = σ e (T/100)4*
> 
> *If e increases with CO2 at constant I, T goes down. Therefore CO2 causes global cooling.*
> 
> ...



I have always contended that the climate sensitivity to CO2 was zero...seems that the math says that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than zero.  When you warmist cultists get through with the character assassination, perhaps you might point out any errors that he has made.


----------



## Crick (Oct 28, 2014)

The movement begins to feed on its own.  Roy Spencer, an actual scientist, decided to criticize Principia Scientific International, one of the most crap-ridden denier blogsites in existence, in the process of explaining the greenhouse effect to idiots like SSDD who would very much like to believe it isn't real.  Dr LaTour, a vice president at PSI, attempts to rebut Dr Spencer.

Since its inception, the primary raison d'etre of PSI has been to claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas but that it actually cools the planet.  They also claim that childhood vaccines are “one of the largest most evil lies in history.”

I'm going to grab a ringside seat and watch the fun.  SSDD, doesn't it ever bother you to have to rely on obvious fringe whack jobs for supporting material?  

Oh... I guess it wouldn't look that way to you, would it.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2014)

Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is.  Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands.  We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...

So where is the error in the calculations above?


----------



## Crick (Oct 28, 2014)

Where is the error in Roy Spencer's work?  He was first.

Why don't you summarize Spencer and then show us how LaTour has falsified him.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Where is the error in Roy Spencer's work?  He was first.
> 
> Why don't you summarize Spencer and then show us how LaTour has falsified him.




The error spencer made is that he assumes that CO2 will cause warming when it will not.  The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.


----------



## IanC (Oct 28, 2014)

Cotten is backed into a corner at Jeff ID's blog over this stuff. These guys simply refuse to answer basic questions on physics and just return over and over again to their talking points. I think they learned the method from climate science apologists.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Latour's work is indecipherable gibberish. Let us know when he can put it into a form that isn't indecipherable gibberish. Nobody is going to waste time with such babble.
> 
> He's also a crank who thinks photons intelligently choose not to radiate towards colder objects. That's all you really need to know.
> 
> Here's a thought, SSDD. Go step by step through it, and summarize what's going on. Show that _you_ supposedly understand it. After all, if you can't be bothered to go through it and explain what he's doing, you can't expect anyone else to be bothered.




And do the work for you so that you can start to understand what is happening?  I am laughing in your duplicitous face...if there is an error in the work, then point it out.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Latour's work is indecipherable gibberish. Let us know when he can put it into a form that isn't indecipherable gibberish. Nobody is going to waste time with such babble.
> ...


They wont because they cant..  The current empirical evidence shows us that a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C per doubling of CO2 MIGHT be possible but at current it sits at 0.0 with current cooling trend.


----------



## Crick (Oct 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The error spencer made is that he assumes that CO2 will cause warming when it will not.  The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.



So you believe all the thousands of experiments showing that CO2 absorbs infrared are incorrect?  You believe that this absorption spectra is incorrect:





Yes?  Do you think all the different people who've produced these data are all conspiring to lie to us?

Gee, that's a reasonable position.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2014)

Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere...  Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 29, 2014)

The direct measurements of backradiation show that your crank theory is laughable.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The direct measurements of backradiation show that your crank theory is laughable.



There are no direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature because it doesn't happen....every instrument used to measure "back radiation" is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 29, 2014)

Republican science class:


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Republican science class:




The greenhouse effect and resulting AGW hypothesis as stated by climate science is magical thinking..atmosphere warming the ocean...atmosphere warming the land...hell, to believe climate science, you must believe that the surface of the earth absorbs twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun....do you believe that to be the case?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 29, 2014)

Given direct measurements show that, of course any sensible person believes it. Only denier kooks deny directly observed data.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Given direct measurements show that, of course any sensible person believes it. Only denier kooks deny directly observed data.


 so Manmoth,  got that experiment to prove your point?  You remember the one right?  Or do you need me to repeat again?  I'll leave it up to you. WiNNiNg


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 29, 2014)

The Warmers can end the debate by posting the experiment that controls for 400PPM of CO2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Given direct measurements show that, of course any sensible person believes it. Only denier kooks deny directly observed data.



...when you add in all the warming eaten by the deep ocean


----------



## SSDD (Oct 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Given direct measurements show that, of course any sensible person believes it. Only denier kooks deny directly observed data.



Again..there are no, and never have been any direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature any more than there have been photos of unicorns and dragons...none of them exist.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 29, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Republican science class:


 disprove this:


----------



## mamooth (Oct 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Again..there are no, and never have been any direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature any more than there have been photos of unicorns and dragons...none of them exist.



But plenty of measurements exist from a chilled receiver.

If your cult affiliation has driven you insane, you could claim all of the military's FLIR units don't actually work, because they're chilled as well, and therefore the images on them are all fraudulent. Those who have used such FLIR units, however, would rightfully call your claim insane.

Same goes for kooks who think other IR measurements don't count because the receiver is chilled. They're just astonishingly stupid people.

jc, have you officially jumped on SSDD's bandwagon of stupid?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again..there are no, and never have been any direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature any more than there have been photos of unicorns and dragons...none of them exist.
> ...


 I'm merely waiting for you to disprove what I posted.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again..there are no, and never have been any direct measurements of back radiation at ambient temperature any more than there have been photos of unicorns and dragons...none of them exist.
> ...




Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot?  Perhaps because that is the only way to get radiation to move from the cooler atmosphere to the instrument?

You think FLIR violates the second law of thermodynamics?  Laughing in your stupid face I am,


----------



## mamooth (Oct 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> I'm merely waiting for you to disprove what I posted.



If you ever have an actual point to make, state it directly and back it up.

Given you refuse to do that, everyone simply writes you off as both clueless and gutless, and thus not worth wasting time on.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm merely waiting for you to disprove what I posted.
> ...


 Wow you are a trip.  So I asked and asked and asked for you or any of your pals to show the experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2, your number...what it does to temperature or climate.  I give you what the physics states and you tell me I have nothing.  Well...... that's just plain BS and your argument unproven.  WiNNiNg


----------



## mamooth (Oct 30, 2014)

Don't lie. We gave you the evidence, and you squealed and ran. Soiling yourself and then tossing feces at people is not an argument.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot?



To reduce thermal noise, of course.

Wow, you really stink at this. All the basics elude you.

Those devices still work without chilling, just very badly. That would be demonstration # 651 of how you fail so hard at thermodynamics.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot?
> ...


 and yet no experiment to prove your point.  I get a kick the way you think you can just skate away from this and then comment to someone else the exact same thing.  Take care of your laundry first and answer the question. LoSiNg


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think the devices must be chilled idiot?
> ...



Chilling would increase the thermal noise idiot....if back radiation were detectable at ambient temperature, chilling would increase the sensing range and in turn increase the noise...if you want to decrease noise, you decrease the range of input. 

The sensors must be cooled because energy only moves from warm to cool and to detect energy radiating down from the atmosphere, one must cool the sensor to a temperature lower than the atmosphere so energy can move from the cool atmosphere to the cooler instrument.

Make yourself a solar oven...take the temperature at the focal point....now point it away from the sun at open sky....take the temperature at the focal point again and see how the temperature is lower....exactly as the second law predicts....point it at open sky when the ambient temperature is 45 degrees or less ice will form....again, exactly as the second law predicts.  If the parabolic dish were collecting back radiation, do you think the temperature at the focal point would decrease?  What might cause that?....and how on earth might it cause warming?


----------



## Crick (Oct 31, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Wow are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




No answer and another ad hom...how unsurprising is that?


----------



## Crick (Nov 4, 2014)

Really, really stupid


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere...  Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.


Molecular oscillation causes heat/energy transfer between molecules. Each molecule in the chain has a different and always lower oscillation. Thus the wave length of the energy emitted is longer.

The sun emits in the 0.1um to 1.8um range as that wave length passes through our atmosphere it encounters molecules which alter it/absorbs and re-emits at a lower frequency as it passes. Reflection happens in the range of 1.9um to 2.3um at and band pass below that.

At no point does CO2 increase water vapor in our atmosphere. IN fact the increase (as little as 33ppm) at 40,000 feet doubles the amount of LWIR that band passes to space rapidly. Any increase in water vapor adds speed to heat loss at higher altitude.

All the empirical evidence points to AWG being a lie. Their chain of progression is simply wrong.  What they say holds energy infact releases it. Every little bit of evidence lays waste to more of the dogma.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Chilling would increase the thermal noise idiot...



So, we can add electronics to the long list of topics you totally fail at.

Thermal noise is proportional to the square root of the temperature. That's basic stuff.



> Make yourself a solar oven...take the temperature at the focal point....now point it away from the sun at open sky....take the temperature at the focal point again and see how the temperature is lower....exactly as the second law predicts....point it at open sky when the ambient temperature is 45 degrees or less ice will form....again, exactly as the second law predicts.  If the parabolic dish were collecting back radiation, do you think the temperature at the focal point would decrease?  What might cause that?....and how on earth might it cause warming?



And now we can add optics to the long list of topics you totally fail at.

Parabolic reflectors only concentrate _parallel_ beams of light/radiation. Backradiation is diffuse, not parallel, so a parabolic dish would not collect backradation.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> All the empirical evidence points to AWG being a lie. Their chain of progression is simply wrong.  What they say holds energy infact releases it. Every little bit of evidence lays waste to more of the dogma.



Yet you refuse to ever show us this information.

That's because you're a cult liar who just makes crazy shit up.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere...  Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.
> ...




And now, it has been learned that sea water has very low emissivity  to the far IR wavelengths...wavelengths in which CO2 radiates for example...the warmers assume that low emissivity means more warming....more wrong assumptions on their part..  Kirchhoff's law says that emissivity must equal absorptivity at all wavelengths....therefore if sea water has low emissivity in the peak emitting wavelengths of CO2, then it must have low absorptivity as well.

What does the fact that better than 70% of the earth's surface has very low absorptivity to the very wavelengths that CO2 emits do to the AGW hypothesis?....and the greenhouse hypothesis for that matter?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Parabolic reflectors only concentrate _parallel_ beams of light/radiation. Backradiation is diffuse, not parallel, so a parabolic dish would not collect backradation.



Nothing would collect back radiation at ambient temperature because it does not happen...and if back radiation were happening, the focal point of the dish would not be cooler...you guys have excuse after excuse for all the failures of climate science...that was just two more.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Parabolic reflectors only concentrate _parallel_ beams of light/radiation. Backradiation is diffuse, not parallel, so a parabolic dish would not collect backradation.
> ...



What part of "diffuse radiation isn't focused" is beyond your capability to grasp?

You can grasp it, of course. You're not as dumb as you pretend to be. You're just lying now. You know it, we know it, everyone knows it, but you don't care. You've got a choice between admitting what a total fuckup you've been and lying, and you choose to lie.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> What part of "diffuse radiation isn't focused" is beyond your capability to grasp?
> 
> What part of no back radiation at ambient temperature do you not understand......and as to diffuse radiation...solar collectors gather that type as well as direct....not as efficiently but if back radiation were present, you could not form ice when ambient temperatures were above freezing...especially 13 degrees above freezing.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

Trying to switch from "Solar ovens" to "Solar collectors" now?

Parabolic reflectors only focus parallel light. Period. Hence, a solar oven would not concentrate backradiation, hence the freezing trick a solar oven can do is not in any way incompatible with backradiation.

It is amusing to see how many denier leaders fail at the basics here.

John O'Sulliven

johnosullivan - Solar Ovens Prove Greenhouse Gas Theory is cooked

Hockey Schtick

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK AGW is Science Fiction Hiding Behind False Computer Models


----------



## Crick (Nov 9, 2014)

If there was no backradiation from greenhouse gases, a solar oven aimed at the sky would approach 2.7K.  Be a good boy and let us know when that is achieved.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> If there was no backradiation from greenhouse gases, a solar oven aimed at the sky would approach 2.7K.  Be a good boy and let us know when that is achieved.


Explain why to think that is true.  This should be interesting.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 9, 2014)

SSo DDumb, any explanation of real science goes right over your pointed little head.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> SSo DDumb, any explanation of real science goes right over your pointed little head.



So clearly, neither you nor crick can offer one...thus establishing that you are posing an article of faith...not a scientific fact.  Thanks for confirming.


----------



## Crick (Nov 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> If there was no backradiation from greenhouse gases, a solar oven aimed at the sky would approach 2.7K.  Be a good boy and let us know when that is achieved.





SSDD said:


> Explain why to think that is true.  This should be interesting.



Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Read the first sentence.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > If there was no backradiation from greenhouse gases, a solar oven aimed at the sky would approach 2.7K.  Be a good boy and let us know when that is achieved.
> ...



Sorry, it doesn't answer the question...if you believe it does, then you are even less informed than I had thought.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 10, 2014)

It's obvious that backradiation exists. It's what keeps the solar oven at a base temp of 290K or so. Without backradiation, it would quickly radiate away heat and reach a much more frigid temperature. Pointing it at the sky has nothing to do with it, since any object would drop below background air temp quickly if it wasn't receiving a constant bath of backradiation. All objects radiate IR at all times, and for thermal equilibrium, heat radiated out has to be balanced with heat in.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> It's obvious that backradiation exists. It's what keeps the solar oven at a base temp of 290K or so. Without backradiation, it would quickly radiate away heat and reach a much more frigid temperature. Pointing it at the sky has nothing to do with it, since any object would drop below background air temp quickly if it wasn't receiving a constant bath of backradiation. All objects radiate IR at all times, and for thermal equilibrium, heat radiated out has to be balanced with heat in.


 It's obvious?  Provide some proof of that.  I have found no evidence to support downward longwave radiation exists.  I see many who try and manipulate with models, but not with observed data.  Please, tell me how this can happen?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> It's obvious that backradiation exists. It's what keeps the solar oven at a base temp of 290K or so. Without backradiation, it would quickly radiate away heat and reach a much more frigid temperature. Pointing it at the sky has nothing to do with it, since any object would drop below background air temp quickly if it wasn't receiving a constant bath of backradiation. All objects radiate IR at all times, and for thermal equilibrium, heat radiated out has to be balanced with heat in.



Actually it is not obvious as it can not be measured at ambient temperature...The fact is, hairball, that most of today's spectrometers can't measure into the far IR wavelengths so climate science simply extrapolates the effects of far IR based on what they know about the wavelengths that they can measure...in short...they are just making it up and you believe it to be true.

Here, from Berkley Lab

Berkeley Lab Scientists ID New Driver Behind Arctic Warming



			
				Berkley Lab said:
			
		

> Many of today’s spectrometers cannot detect far-infrared wavelengths, which explains the dearth of field measurements. Because of this, scientists have extrapolated the effects of far-infrared surface emissions based on what’s known at the wavelengths measured by today’s spectrometers.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious that backradiation exists. It's what keeps the solar oven at a base temp of 290K or so. Without backradiation, it would quickly radiate away heat and reach a much more frigid temperature. Pointing it at the sky has nothing to do with it, since any object would drop below background air temp quickly if it wasn't receiving a constant bath of backradiation. All objects radiate IR at all times, and for thermal equilibrium, heat radiated out has to be balanced with heat in.
> ...


 don't you call that a guess?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 10, 2014)

No one will address the band widths and depth of Ocean penetration of the varying bands...



 

By simply looking at water on this graph you will see bands where absorption by water is 100% and other areas where scattering happens and no absorption occurs.  Add SALT and other items that are found in sea water and most areas of absorption do not absorb because they do not penetrate the oceans.

While this graph is for our atmosphere it shows how water will react to down welling radiation even in the high frequency IR bands.  Reflected radiation from CO2 is so negligible during the day time and nonexistent at night.

Note that anything longer wave than 8um is out going long wave (black body) radiation. Only areas of down-weling day time radiation in the 0.5um to 1.2um are absorbed by the oceans.  That area of wave length is adversely affect by NaCl and particulates.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is.  Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands.  We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...
> 
> So where is the error in the calculations above?



Expecting us to accept nonsense from unqualified people as valid science is tantamount to seeing nothing wrong with a brake mechanic conducting brain surgery.  You need a reality check, dude.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 10, 2014)

jc456 said:


> I have found no evidence to support downward longwave radiation exists.



Given that backradiation can be directly measured at any time just by pointing an IR spectrometer at the sky, what you said there is as insane as denying that gravity exists.

So, why did you said something so crazy? If you were just woefully ignorant of the basic science, let us know. I suggest you do use that as your excuse, because if you don't, it means you're either insane or deliberately dishonest.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 10, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> No one will address the band widths and depth of Ocean penetration of the varying bands...



Of course they do. 

They just do it sensibly, instead of babbling nonsense. We've learned it's never worth the effort to attempt to decipher your babble.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I would call it making it up as they go...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Predictably, the character assassination has begun by the true deniers....now how about you show where the math error is.  Failing to show any error in the work is failing to rebut it and as a result, it stands.  We both know that Spencer won't go to the math...he gets his ass kicked every time he does....neither will any warmist cultist because the real science shows that AGW is a fraud...if you aren't allowed to operate on assumptions, tampered data, and outright lies, you can't operate at all...
> ...



And yet another one weighs in with an admission that no math error can be found.  Thanks.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I have found no evidence to support downward longwave radiation exists.
> ...



Actually, you aren't measuring back radiation, but it is understandable that you could fool yourself so easily.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



If it was a math error that was the concern, it would be taken up with the publisher and the researcher in question, not posted on a blog and used as political fodder.  Why not?  Because that is not how science is done, Bubba.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 12, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




Really?  I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yes, really.



			
				ssdd said:
			
		

> I always thought that the way science was done was that a hypothesis was laid out, then tested in every possible way, and predictions were made based on the hypothesis...and if the predictions failed even once, the hypothesis was wrong and science went back to the drawing board to see where they went wrong...Tell me that is how climate science works and make yourself into the basest form of liar.



Apple and oranges.  We are talking about an alleged math error (and how that is handled in a professional setting), not the failure of a hypothesis.  Next.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 13, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Not apples and oranges...picking cherries.  Clearly you can find no error in the math...and clearly you know that in real science the AGW hypothesis would have been ash canned years ago due to failure and work begun on a more probable hypothesis...now you are just shucking and jivin.


----------



## Crick (Nov 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> Where is the error in Roy Spencer's work?  He was first.
> 
> Why don't you summarize Spencer and then show us how LaTour has falsified him.






SSDD said:


> The error spencer made is that he assumes that CO2 will cause warming when it will not.  The climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.



Then how do you explain this:






?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the error in Roy Spencer's work?  He was first.
> ...



Prove that absorption and emission equal warming....you seem to think that one equals the other and that simply is not true....like you seem to think a shallower angle on your ocean heat graph means accelerating heat accumulation...you are wrong on both counts.


----------



## Crick (Nov 13, 2014)

No, the real problem here is your failure to realize your own shortcomings.  You haven't made a valid point - once - since we first met.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, the real problem here is your failure to realize your own shortcomings.  You haven't made a valid point - once - since we first met.


Jiminie, you are a kick.. I love your posts, your nonsense is so humorous and it is daily.  Thanks for the daily laugh!!!!!! Too bad you don't know climate theory!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, the real problem here is your failure to realize your own shortcomings.  You haven't made a valid point - once - since we first met.



Says the congenital liar....you are a hoot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > No one will address the band widths and depth of Ocean penetration of the varying bands...
> ...



Do you even have any concept of what you are talking about?

The only one babbling here is you!


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

The problem attempting to discuss anything with you is your habit of making unsubstantiated assertions.  And then there's the frequency with which your unsubstantiated assertions turn out to be bald-faced lies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 14, 2014)

Ol' Billy Boob has yet to post a link to a credible source. His asshole is definately not a credible source, which is where the great majority of his assertations come from.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Strawman argument.  I am not attempting to find a math error.  I didn't make such a claim so it is not for me to support it.  That's your job.  So do get on with it, Bubba.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



My point was already made with the OP....either you can find something wrong with it or you can't...clearly the only thing wrong with it is that you don't like it...it calls your dogma into question.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



If the OP was your point, then you are admitting that you don't have a point.  As Crick has already pointed out, you're basing your argument on so-called information from one of the most fringe web sites in existence.  I'll also point as that if CO2 causes global cooling, as you claim, then Venus should be a giant snow ball - except that it not only is NOT a giant snow ball, it's atmospheric pressure is 93 times as great as our own, while the surface is hot enough to melt lead.  And what is the primary constituent of the Venusian atmosphere?  CO2.  Next.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Talk about strawmen...  let's see the hard evidence that additional CO2 causes warming


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> The movement begins to feed on its own.  Roy Spencer, an actual scientist, decided to criticize Principia Scientific International, one of the most crap-ridden denier blogsites in existence, in the process of explaining the greenhouse effect to idiots like SSDD who would very much like to believe it isn't real.  Dr LaTour, a vice president at PSI, attempts to rebut Dr Spencer.
> 
> Since its inception, the primary raison d'etre of PSI has been to claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas but that it actually cools the planet.  They also claim that childhood vaccines are “one of the largest most evil lies in history.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2014)

I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering.  What have you got?

The people I listen to have PhD's in a variety of applicable fields.  What does Anthony Watts have?  A high school diploma.

PS, You're aware that Katy Perry is a big Obama supporter aren't you?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So the ice caps are melting because CO2 can melt lead?

Wow

That's scary!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



AGWCult canned response: Turn on the Weather Channel, there's the "Proof"


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2014)

What sort of "hard evidence" would you accept, Frank?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> What sort of "hard evidence" would you accept, Frank?


 
A series of control tanks where the atmosphere is 80% Nitrogen, 19% Oxygen and the rest traces elements with varying amounts of CO2 in 100PPM increments from 0 to 1000 and test for increase in temperature, if any.

Why is that so difficult?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The fact that we have a habitable planet AT ALL is due to ghgs, dufus.  Otherwise, the Earth would be a frozen planet.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 27, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


280ppm...kept earth from freezing?

Yeah?

Then you wonder why we think you're a cult

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## mamooth (Nov 27, 2014)

A little-known fact is that Hank Hill first uttered his "The boy ain't right!" line to describe deniers.

The denier kooks here just ain't right. Most of them are some unholy combination of profoundly stupid and disturbingly demented. I can think of maybe 3 here that could take a psych eval without earning a "Institutionalize for their own safety" recommendation. That would be why the whole world ignores them, and why they have to gather in little kook cliques on message boards.


----------



## HenryBHough (Nov 27, 2014)

Why does Our Kenyan Emperor not just issue a diktat repealing all laws of thermodynamics and have done with it.

Then when he's done have a word or two with the tides.....


----------



## mamooth (Nov 27, 2014)

Henry helpfully illustrates the denier way of thinking for us, that science is only what a politician says it is.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> A series of control tanks where the atmosphere is 80% Nitrogen, 19% Oxygen and the rest traces elements with varying amounts of CO2 in 100PPM increments from 0 to 1000 and test for increase in temperature, if any.



Mythbusters did something close to that, and you cried and lied in response. Hence, nobody is going to waste time on you, being you'd just cry and lie again. Good work on convincing everyone that your cult is pathologically dishonest, by the way.

This stuff has been done since the 1950s. Sorry that they didn't put it on YouTube so lazy leeches like you wouldn't have to read. Deniers could do it themselves, but they won't. They know the results would show they're full of shit, and deniers don't want truth, they want excuses to keep whining and lying.

So, here are 131 pages of sources from the HITRAN spectral database. Refute it all.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Updated/ref-table.pdf

The data is assembled by those socialists at the Air Force, who are all very convinced about how CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Being the Air Force wishes to have IR homing missiles that work, they want to get the spectral data perfect. But according to some the deniers, the Air Force must be making fake weapons, as CO2 doesn't really absorb IR.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




specifically, water is the reason why our planet is inhabitable. water vapour is a GHG, clouds regulate how much solar input gets throuugh, ocean currents redistribute heat, etc, etc.

CO2 is a pimple on water's ass.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 28, 2014)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



All greenhouse gases influence the temperature of the atmosphere (and the oceans and land).  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




of course I realize that other GHGs exist other than water. they typically have one type impact on the climate and the world in general. water has many and is the most important balancing force on the planet. 

does CO2 form clouds? carry latent heat up into the atmosphere? etc?


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2014)

the MythBusters experiment showed a CO2 reading of over 3% in the middle of the run. 3 orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. if that caused a 1C temperature increase then 120 ppm CO2 would be far, far less.

Frank's experiment would be a good start, and I have called for similar experiments in the past. I actually believe they have been run but because they would show such small results they have not been publicized.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > A series of control tanks where the atmosphere is 80% Nitrogen, 19% Oxygen and the rest traces elements with varying amounts of CO2 in 100PPM increments from 0 to 1000 and test for increase in temperature, if any.
> ...



I didn't "Cry and Lie" Ricky Retardo, I pointed out that they were vague, at best and disingenuous at worst as to the CO2 levels. At 1:37 in the video there is a CO2 level of over 7%. And again, one could assume that they had to increase CO2 to that level to get any temperature increase


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 28, 2014)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No one is arguing that water is not a ghg.  The argumkent seems to be that CO2 is either not a significant ghg or not one at all.  And that is wrong.


----------



## IanC (Nov 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? 

define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling. 

on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 29, 2014)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Several people in these forums, in fact.  Haven't you been paying attention?



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> define significant. I believe doubling CO2 would cause a theoretical ~1C surface increase, all other conditions remaining the same. we are far from the first doubling and a long ways from the second doubling.
> 
> on the other hand water, in all its forms, has kept the Earth in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for 3 billion years despite massive changes in conditions. eg. the Sun being 15% less energetic in the far past.



And rising CO2 in the past has caused global temperatures to rise so much that it released the hydrate clathrates from the ocean floor, speeding up climate change and causing global anoxic conditions in the sea that also affected parts of the land, resulting in the largest extinction in geologic history.

Oh, and ever hear of the concept of feedback mechanisms?  Look it up.


----------



## IanC (Nov 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




hahahahaha. are you Old Rocks' sock puppet?

the clathrates didnt 'let go' in the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods during this interglacial. previous interglacials usually produced warmer temps than this one and there is no record in Vostock of runaway global warming due to 'feedbacks'. you guys listen to doomsayers and believe it must be true, even though proxy records can be made to show anything if you just pick the ones that support your conclusion and ignore the ones that detract.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 29, 2014)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Hahaha, what have you been drinking?  I was referring to the Permian extinction 250 million years ago.


----------



## IanC (Nov 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




we cannot get a decent proxy picture of what has happened in the last 2 or 5 thousand years and you want me to believe we have a clear picture of what happened a quarter billion years ago?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 29, 2014)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Since we can and have for both instances (the former being admittedly more precise than the latter), yes.  It is pretty clear that a rise in CO2 coinciding with the rise in methane levels had a devastating effect on the Earth's biosphere that lasted for a very long time (over a million years).  That tends to happen when continent-sized flood basalts erupt.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2014)

First, the MWP was not as warm as today, and I have not seen good evidence that the RWP was either.Second, neither involved a rise of 40+% of CO2 and a 250% rise in CH4. And the last inter-glacial was warmer than this one, sea levels 20 ft, or more, higher than today, with only a differance of 20 ppm in CO2. And, no the clathrates did not let go then. However, there is a significant differance between 300 ppm and 400+ ppm of CO2, and 800 ppb and 1800+ ppb of CH4. And we are seeing readings of over 2300 ppb over parts of the Arctic.

Now the media likes to focus on the possibility of a catastrophic outgassing of the clathrates, or even CH4 stored in the permafrost. However, that is not needed for a result that would be very detrimental to us. Given that, on a decadel level, CH4 is about 100 times as effective of a GHG as CO2, effectively, we are at over the equivelent of 500 ppm of CO2. In other words, almost at a doubling right now. And, with the increasing release of CH4 from the Arctic, we could easily see the equivelent of a quadrupling by the end of the century.


The Arctic Methane Monster 8217 s Nasty Little Helpers Study Finds Ancient Methane Producing Archaea Gorge on Tundra Melt robertscribbler

On the issue of the first and third questions, scientists are divided between those like Peter Wadhams, Natalia Shakhova and Igor Simeletov who believe that large methane pulses from a rapidly warming Arctic Ocean are now possible and warrant serious consideration and those like Gavin Schmidt and David Archer — both top scientists in their own right — who believe the model assessments showing a much slower release are at least some cause for comfort. Further complicating the issue is that estimates of sea-bed methane stores range widely with the East Siberian Arctic Shelf region alone asserted to contain anywhere between 250 and 1500 gigatons of methane (See Arctic Carbon Stores Assessment Here).

With such wide-ranging estimations and observations, it’s no wonder that a major scientific controversy has erupted over the issue of sea bed methane release. This back and forth comes in the foreground of observed large (but not catastrophic) sea-bed emissions and what appears to be a growing Arctic methane release. A controversy that, in itself, does little inspire confidence in a positive outcome.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' Billy Boob has yet to post a link to a credible source. His asshole is definately not a credible source, which is where the great majority of his assertations come from.


Any source I would post or data would be immediately dismissed by you morons. Anything I would present and all the things I have presented you dismiss because it does not fit your dogma and religious belief.  relying on you to define "Credible" is like picking up a piece of shit and you saying its not a piece of shit.  IT doesn't work that way..

Your straw man is on fire.....  Moron!


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Say WHAT????!!!   Water Vapor is THE dominant GHG!  By orders of magnitude too.


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...







Ever been able to demonstrate a "feedback mechanism" in anything other than your dreams?  Nope, didn't think so.  The only place where they seem to exist is in your computer generated science fiction stories.


----------



## westwall (Nov 30, 2014)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






Yes, he is.  He's one of many olfraud puppets.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> First, the MWP was not as warm as today, and I have not seen good evidence that the RWP was either.



Dead wrong...but what else is new?  The MWP was warmer than the present and the RWP was warmer still...discounting hundreds of studies for the hockey stick is just stupid.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I didn't say it wasn't.  Is english a second language for you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



My, my, ol' Walleyes once again makes silly statements.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
*
Sea Ice-Albedo Climate Feedback Mechanism*
*Judith A.Curry and Julie L.Schramm*
Program in Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado

*Elizabeth E.Ebert*
Bureau of Meteorology Research Center, Melbourne, Australia





*Abstract*
The sea ice-albedo feedback mechanism over the Arctic Ocean multiyear sea ice is investigated by conducting a series of experiments using several one-dimensional models of the coupled sea ice-atmosphere system. In its simplest form, ice-albedo feedback is thought to be associated with a decrease in the areal cover of snow and ice and a corresponding increase in the surface temperature, further decreasing the areal cover of snow and ice. It is shown that the sea ice-albedo feedback can operate even in multiyear pack ice, without the disappearance of this ice, associated with internal processes occurring within the multiyear ice pack (e.g., duration of the snow cover, ice thickness, ice distribution, lead fraction, and melt pond characteristics).

The strength of the ice-albedo feedback mechanism is compared for several different thermodynamic sea ice models: a new model that includes ice thickness distribution, the Ebert and Curry model, the Maykut and Untersteiner model, and the Semtner level-3 and level-0 models. The climate forcing is chosen to be a perturbation of the surface heat flux, and cloud and water vapor feedbacks are inoperative so that the effects of the sea ice-albedo feedback mechanism can be isolated. The inclusion of melt ponds significantly strengthens the ice-albedo feedback, while the ice thickness distribution decreases the strength of the modeled sea ice-albedo feedback. It is emphasized that accurately modeling present-day sea ice thickness is not adequate for a sea ice parameterization; the correct physical processes must be included so that the sea ice parameterization yields correct sensitivities to external forcing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2014)

*More evidence concerning feedback.*

*Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene Eocene thermal maximum Abstract Nature*

*Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum*
Appy Sluijs1,10, Stefan Schouten2,10, Mark Pagani3, Martijn Woltering2, Henk Brinkhuis1, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté2,4, Gerald R. Dickens5, Matthew Huber6, Gert-Jan Reichart4, Ruediger Stein7, Jens Matthiessen7, Lucas J. Lourens4, Nikolai Pedentchouk3, Jan Backman8, Kathryn Moran9 & the Expedition 302 Scientists33

The Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




55 million years ago, was a brief period of widespread, extreme climatic warming1, 2, 3, that was associated with massive atmospheric greenhouse gas input4. Although aspects of the resulting environmental changes are well documented at low latitudes, no data were available to quantify simultaneous changes in the Arctic region. Here we identify the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum in a marine sedimentary sequence obtained during the Arctic Coring Expedition5. We show that sea surface temperatures near the North Pole increased from 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




18 °C to over 23 °C during this event. Such warm values imply the absence of ice and thus exclude the influence of ice-albedo feedbacks on this Arctic warming. At the same time, sea level rose while anoxic and euxinic conditions developed in the ocean's bottom waters and photic zone, respectively. Increasing temperature and sea level match expectations based on palaeoclimate model simulations6, but the absolute polar temperatures that we derive before, during and after the event are more than 10 °C warmer than those model-predicted. This suggests that higher-than-modern greenhouse gas concentrations must have operated in conjunction with other feedback mechanisms—perhaps polar stratospheric clouds7 or hurricane-induced ocean mixing8—to amplify early Palaeogene polar temperatures.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2014)

*Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice - Holland - 2006 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library*

*Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice

Marika M. Holland1, 
Cecilia M. Bitz2and
Bruno Tremblay3,4
Article first published online: 12 DEC 2006

DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028024

*

*Abstract*
[1] We examine the trajectory of Arctic summer sea ice in seven projections from the Community Climate System Model and find that abrupt reductions are a common feature of these 21st century simulations. These events have decreasing September ice extent trends that are typically 4 times larger than comparable observed trends. One event exhibits a decrease from 6 million km2 to 2 million km2 in a decade, reaching near ice-free September conditions by 2040. In the simulations, ice retreat accelerates as thinning increases the open water formation efficiency for a given melt rate and the ice-albedo feedback increases shortwave absorption. The retreat is abrupt when ocean heat transport to the Arctic is rapidly increasing. Analysis from multiple climate models and three forcing scenarios indicates that abrupt reductions occur in simulations from over 50% of the models and suggests that reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions moderate the likelihood of these events.

*Look at the date, 2006. Now look at this graph. A definate prediction, fulfilled much sooner than thought possible.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2014)

Now there are a great many articles on Google Scholar concerning the Arctic feedback mechanisms. Oh, who to beieve, hundreds of active research scholars, or ol' Walleyes. Ol' Walleyes that just knows he is smarter than all the MIT engineers combined.


----------



## westwall (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Gee olfraud.  You make it so easy.

*"a new model that includes"*


In other words, more science fiction that exists only in MODELS, and not in the real world.


----------



## westwall (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *More evidence concerning feedback.*
> 
> *Subtropical Arctic Ocean temperatures during the Palaeocene Eocene thermal maximum Abstract Nature*
> 
> ...








Yet again more models...


 "match expectations based on palaeoclimate model simulations"


----------



## westwall (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice - Holland - 2006 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library*
> 
> *Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice*
> 
> ...








And lookey here, yet ANOTHER model.  Well, actually they ran seven of them.  Lots of science fiction going here, but not a lot of science...

"*ice in seven projections from the Community Climate System Model*"


----------



## westwall (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Now there are a great many articles on Google Scholar concerning the Arctic feedback mechanisms. Oh, who to beieve, hundreds of active research scholars, or ol' Walleyes. Ol' Walleyes that just knows he is smarter than all the MIT engineers combined.






Yes, there are.  And they all have one thing in common....they are all based on science fiction...er computer models.  Let me know when you come up with an original thought.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering.  What have you got?
> 
> The people I listen to have PhD's in a variety of applicable fields.  What does Anthony Watts have?  A high school diploma.
> 
> PS, You're aware that Katy Perry is a big Obama supporter aren't you?


 and you're wrong!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> A little-known fact is that Hank Hill first uttered his "The boy ain't right!" line to describe deniers.
> 
> The denier kooks here just ain't right. Most of them are some unholy combination of profoundly stupid and disturbingly demented. I can think of maybe 3 here that could take a psych eval without earning a "Institutionalize for their own safety" recommendation. That would be why the whole world ignores them, and why they have to gather in little kook cliques on message boards.


 glad to see you as a denier know you ain't right!!!! Thanks!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > A series of control tanks where the atmosphere is 80% Nitrogen, 19% Oxygen and the rest traces elements with varying amounts of CO2 in 100PPM increments from 0 to 1000 and test for increase in temperature, if any.
> ...


 nope!!! wrong again.  can't you get anything right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere...  Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.


 

*Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....*

That's an interesting claim. CO2 emits a wavelength that another CO2 cannot absorb. Link?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course CO2 absorbs infrared....but for you, that is where science stops....CO2 also emits that infrared...it doesn't warm up...and it emits at a wavelength that can not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule....it has no power to cause warming...it is magical thinking to believe that CO2 causes any warming at all beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere...  Simple absorption and emission do not equal warming although the entire hoax is based on an assumption that it does...an assumption with zero empirical evidence for support.
> ...



You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon?  You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?

If any energy is lost, then the emitting wavelength must be somewhat longer and since CO2 has such a narrow absorption band, any change at all would result in the energy being emitted at a wavelength that could not be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

So tell me toddster, do you really think no energy whatsoever is lost?  You really don't get this stuff do you?  You believe in the magic, spew a few talking points but don't actually grasp any of it do you?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So tell me, SSDDster, have yhou ever studied the laws of thermodynamics, and if so, did you actually understand them?  I ask because after reading the above - damn.


----------



## IanC (Dec 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Epic fail. Retarded


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



For once someone got it right.  Energy that is absorbed and re-emitted will always be in a much longer wavelength.

CO2 however has two properties to deal with. One is re-emittance and the other is reflection. Items reflected will retain their wave length as very little energy is lost in the reflection. SO the real question is, How much energy is reflected and how much is absorbed and then re-emitted?

I see several people here who can not determine which property they are dealing with. Absorption requires a loss of power and amplitude. When the remaining power is emitted it will be at black body wave lengths, all of which are not absorbed or retained by CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> So tell me, SSDDster, have yhou ever studied the laws of thermodynamics, and if so, did you actually understand them?  I ask because after reading the above - damn.



By that question, I wonder the same about you.  If you believe that CO2 absorbs LW radiation and emits a photon, you must also believe that there is some energy loss.  Do you believe there can be energy loss without changing the frequency and wavelength of the emitted energy?...and do you believe that CO2 can absorb energy outside of its absorption bands just because that energy was emitted by another CO2 molecule?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2014)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> Epic fail. Retarded



I suggest you read bullybobs post above...try to grasp the reality and stop believing in magic.  Do you really believe that energy absorbed and emitted will not always be emitted at a shorter wavelength?...or is it just energy absorbed and emitted by the magical CO2 molecule that can defy the laws of physics?


By the way, I see that toddster agrees with you...maybe you should set him straight.  You know full well that energy absorbed by a molecule is emitted at a longer wavelength and now you are leading toddster to believe something that simply isn't  true.  If you are to proud to do it in public, at least send him a private message.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So tell me, SSDDster, have yhou ever studied the laws of thermodynamics, and if so, did you actually understand them?  I ask because after reading the above - damn.
> ...



The issue isn't what I believe.  The issue is your lack of understanding of basic thermodynamics.  Take a class.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Clearly, I have a better grasp than you since you seem to believe that absorbed energy is not emitted at a longer wavelength and that magical CO2 molecules can absorb energy from another CO2 molecule even if it is not within their absorption bands.  We are obviously talking about your beliefs since it is a well known fact that when energy is absorbed and emitted, it is emitted at a longer wavelength.  It must also be your belief that magical CO2 molecules can absorb energy outside their absorption bands if that energy is from another CO2 molecule since the fact is that they can't.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You don't know what I believe because I have not told you what that is.  On the other hand, you have made clear to all of us what you believe, and, frankly, it would be very sad if it wasn't so funny. What is the 1st law of thermodynamic, dude?

Conservation of energy, dude.  Energy is not lost, only transformed.  You have repeatedly said that the energy is lost in the process.  Since you believe that to be the case, you clearly have no understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and should take your ball and go home, silly boy.


----------



## IanC (Dec 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > So tell me, SSDDster, have yhou ever studied the laws of thermodynamics, and if so, did you actually understand them?  I ask because after reading the above - damn.
> ...




absorption = emission. the whole point of QM is that there are fixed possibilities in the atom. the electrons exist in one orbital or another, they dont travel to the next orbital they just are where they are. there is no consumption of energy inside the atom. where would it go?

on the other hand, there is an increase in entropy. the momentum transferred by emission in the first molecule to the absorption in the second molecule drives both molecules away from each other. there is no perpetual motion machine even though the energy transfers inside theatom are cost free.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon?*

That is correct. When an electron absorbs a photon and gains 10 eV, no energy is lost when it then emits a photon of 10 eV. Because energy is conserved.

*You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?*

You think when a CO2 molecule gains 10 eV from a single photon, it can emit a single 9 eV photon and lose 1 eV, just because?

*So tell me toddster, do you really think no energy whatsoever is lost?*

So tell me SSDD, how does this energy magically get lost in your scenario?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 2, 2014)

> All things with a temperature above _absolute zero_ emit radiation. Everything, your body, your desk, your house, grass, snow, the atmosphere, the moon, they all emit a wide range of radiation. The source of this electromagnetic radiation are vibrating electrons that exist in every atom that makes an object.
> 
> Emitted radiation can be:
> 
> ...


 
So lets review.  Any molecule which absorbs energy from an incoming photon or other exciting item, which creates heat within the molecule looses the rate at which it was vibrating on entry and vibrates at the rate of the molecules heat which then emits it.  The reduction in amplitude and speed (heat output) is the deciding factor in the new wavelength.

In any energy transfer there is loss.

Source

As energy passes through CO2 the wavelength changes to a length that CO2 can not reabsorb.


----------



## Matted Joybeard (Dec 2, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> All things with a temperature above _absolute zero_ emit radiation. Everything, your body, your desk, your house, grass, snow, the atmosphere, the moon, they all emit a wide range of radiation. The source of this electromagnetic radiation are vibrating electrons that exist in every atom that makes an object.
> 
> Emitted radiation can be:
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 2, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> All things with a temperature above _absolute zero_ emit radiation. Everything, your body, your desk, your house, grass, snow, the atmosphere, the moon, they all emit a wide range of radiation. The source of this electromagnetic radiation are vibrating electrons that exist in every atom that makes an object.
> 
> Emitted radiation can be:
> 
> ...


* 
All things with a temperature above absolute zero emit radiation. Everything, your body, your desk, your house, grass, snow, the atmosphere, the moon, they all emit a wide range of radiation. The source of this electromagnetic radiation are vibrating electrons that exist in every atom that makes an object.*

SSDD disagrees.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 2, 2014)

Matted Joybeard said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > All things with a temperature above _absolute zero_ emit radiation. Everything, your body, your desk, your house, grass, snow, the atmosphere, the moon, they all emit a wide range of radiation. The source of this electromagnetic radiation are vibrating electrons that exist in every atom that makes an object.
> ...



Yes I know...  And I wast finished before i got interrupted..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 2, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > All things with a temperature above _absolute zero_ emit radiation. Everything, your body, your desk, your house, grass, snow, the atmosphere, the moon, they all emit a wide range of radiation. The source of this electromagnetic radiation are vibrating electrons that exist in every atom that makes an object.
> ...



I could be wrong, but as I see it everyone is using terminology differently and it means different things to different people. I'm not so hung up on the terms as i am the actions of energy.  In all energy transfers there is loss.  Very few things transmit energy without loss, especially Solar radiated heat energy.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> > All things with a temperature above _absolute zero_ emit radiation. Everything, your body, your desk, your house, grass, snow, the atmosphere, the moon, they all emit a wide range of radiation. The source of this electromagnetic radiation are vibrating electrons that exist in every atom that makes an object.
> >
> > Emitted radiation can be:
> >
> ...



It is difficult to talk to people who believe in magic...even if they believe the magic is relatively weak.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Toddster thinks that because a thing radiates, that everything else must absorb that radiation irregardless of whether that radiation will move to a state of greater or lesser entropy.  According to him, frequencies and wavelengths are just so much mumbo jumbo....the object radiates and everything else in the universe is obliged to absorb the radiation....period.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
Toddster thinks that because a thing radiates, it doesn't suddenly stop radiating, when a warmer object is nearby.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


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


 
*I could be wrong, but as I see it everyone is using terminology differently*

SSDD is using the terminology incorrectly. And then needs to go off on convoluted tangents, to defend his initial errors.
It's amusing.....and sad.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD is using the terminology incorrectly. And then needs to go off on convoluted tangents, to defend his initial errors.
> It's amusing.....and sad.



You get more like mammoth every day...are you one of her socks?  Blame the opponent for exactly what you do....poor strategy. So you believe energy transfer happens with no energy loss whatsoever huh?  Tell me, how does that work?  Give me a good explanation and there is most certainly a working perpetual motion machine in it...we can split the bazillions we will make off of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD is using the terminology incorrectly. And then needs to go off on convoluted tangents, to defend his initial errors.
> ...


 
*You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon?*

That is correct. When an electron absorbs a photon and gains 10 eV, no energy is lost when it then emits a photon of 10 eV. Because energy is conserved.

*You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?
*
You think when a CO2 molecule gains 10 eV from a single photon, it can emit a single 9 eV photon and lose 1 eV, just because?

*So tell me toddster, do you really think no energy whatsoever is lost?
*
So tell me SSDD, how does this energy magically get lost in your scenario?


----------



## IanC (Dec 3, 2014)

SSDD thinks the rules that govern macroscopic systems also govern the inner workings of atoms. QM was discovered exactly because it was necessary to get around the ultraviolet catastrophe and to explain why electrons didn't decay and fall into the nucleus.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD thinks the rules that govern macroscopic systems also govern the inner workings of atoms. QM was discovered exactly because it was necessary to get around the ultraviolet catastrophe and to explain why electrons didn't decay and fall into the nucleus.


QM wasn't discovered ian...it is a series of ad hoc constructs devised to try and explain things that were unexplainable...  There have been no discoveries...there have been theories posited which seem to explain phenomena....till they don't at which time new theories are posited.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 3, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon?*
> 
> That is correct. When an electron absorbs a photon and gains 10 eV, no energy is lost when it then emits a photon of 10 eV. Because energy is conserved.


Quantum Mechanics is primarily theroy as observations are impossible. Given your description above there should then be NO HEAT generated but this is not the case as empirical evidence proves otherwise. So where does your heat come from if there is no loss? The molecules can not warm up if there is no resistance and loss.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?
> *
> You think when a CO2 molecule gains 10 eV from a single photon, it can emit a single 9 eV photon and lose 1 eV, just because?


Actually, Yes! Or there is the loss of full photons (IE: Receives 10 and outputs 6) but there must always be a loss which generates heat (vibration). As this is quantum theroy we really dont know the answer to this question with certainty.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So tell me toddster, do you really think no energy whatsoever is lost?
> *
> So tell me SSDD, how does this energy magically get lost in your scenario?



Absorption causes the molecule to vibrate (become excited) and the interaction with other adjacent molecules is what creates the heat. Absorption means conversion from the original emitted vibration pattern -> into the electron causing it to vibrate -> When enough energy is stored the electron then sheds a photon vibrating at the new molecular temperature.  Again this is QM theroy being postulated.

The photon could very well be moving at 10 eV or it could be moving at 9 eV, we dont know for sure. What we do know for sure is that any time energy is absorbed or transferred there is loss. We also know that the mass emitting the new photon is what determines its vibration or frequency.

We know for instance that cylinder full of CO2 molecules, at 1000ppm using argon as its inert counter, bombarded by photons at 0.4um will emit at 6.0um to 13.0um which is the bandwidth that is not able to reabsorb the lower vibrating photons in CO2. The narrow spectrum generator was tested in several bandwidths always ending with the same result up to 2.2um.  Curiously as we hit areas of non-cunduction/absorbtion (or total band pass) we registered scatter and reflection. We didn't register how much heat was built up in the gas but that is for another day.

Again I dont really care about the terms, just be skeptical and ask questions. Remember, theory is just that, Theory!

There are a lot of questions and very few answers.  I'll butt out now.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon?*
> ...



Not much more point in talking to luke warmers than there is in talking to warckaloon warmers....they all believe in magic....just different levels of power in the magic.  Ian, for example accepts that gravity and convection play a part (unsure how large a part he thinks) but also believes in warming via CO2...never quite realizing that if you accept one, you negate the other. The acceptance of both changes all of the numbers....the greenhouse hypothesis has no place within for anything but itself....it is balanced on the edge of a razor...change one thing and suddenly it is failing.  The fact that sea water is a poor absorber of LW radiation which happens to be what CO2 emits could well be a death blow for the greenhouse hypothesis...gravity and convection having an effect on temperature would be more than the greenhouse hypothesis as it stands now could withstand.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon?*
> ...



In the magical theory, it doesn't require any energy to cause a vibration.  The energy passes through unchanged but expends a bit of magic to cause the vibration.   One would think that even magic requires energy though.  Wonder where that magic comes from?  Gaia perhaps?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 4, 2014)

One way magical photons. Just ask SSo DDumb.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 4, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> One way magical photons. Just ask SSo DDumb.



CO2 absorbs the energy like a sponge and multiplies it, then shoots its Heat Death ray toward Earth

CO2 -- it melts lead on Venus so you DENIERS!!!! better shape the fuck up!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


 
*You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon?*

That is correct. When an electron absorbs a photon and gains 10 eV, no energy is lost when it then emits a photon of 10 eV. Because energy is conserved.

*You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?*

You think when a CO2 molecule gains 10 eV from a single photon, it can emit a single 9 eV photon and lose 1 eV, just because?

*So tell me toddster, do you really think no energy whatsoever is lost?*

So tell me SSDD, how does this energy magically get lost in your scenario?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *You think no energy is lost with the emission of a photon?*
> ...


 
*You think the energy is absorbed by the molecule, a photon is emitted, and no energy is lost in the process?*

You think when a CO2 molecule gains 10 eV from a single photon, it can emit a single 9 eV photon and lose 1 eV, just because?

*Actually, Yes! Or there is the loss of full photons (IE: Receives 10 and outputs 6) but there must always be a loss which generates heat (vibration). As this is quantum theroy we really dont know the answer to this question with certainty.*
If heat is generated, the energy is not lost.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> So lets review.  Any molecule which absorbs energy from an incoming photon or other exciting item, which creates heat within the molecule looses the rate at which it was vibrating on entry and vibrates at the rate of the molecules heat which then emits it.  The reduction in amplitude and speed (heat output) is the deciding factor in the new wavelength.
> 
> In any energy transfer there is loss.
> 
> ...


 
*As energy passes through CO2 the wavelength changes to a length that CO2 can not reabsorb.*

Where do you get this? I didn't see it at your source. I did see the following.

*Kirchhoff's Law* says that good absorbers of a particular wavelength are also good emitters of that wavelength, and poor absorbers of a wavelength are also poor emitters at the same wavelength.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where do you get this? I didn't see it at your source. I did see the following.



It is called actually grasping a process.  I doubt that you will find much documentation that tells you explicitly that when you turn the handle on a faucet water is supposed to come out....


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If heat is generated, the energy is not lost.



Not lost, but the remainder must be at a longer wavelength...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you get this? I didn't see it at your source. I did see the following.
> ...


 
We've seen your failure to grasp already.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 4, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > So lets review.  Any molecule which absorbs energy from an incoming photon or other exciting item, which creates heat within the molecule looses the rate at which it was vibrating on entry and vibrates at the rate of the molecules heat which then emits it.  The reduction in amplitude and speed (heat output) is the deciding factor in the new wavelength.
> ...



A piece of steel laying on the ground is a good absorber of 0.4-2.9um but radiates at 3.6um during the day and 12.2um at night. That portion of Kirchhoff''s Law is subjective.




CO2's primary absorption bands are 0.4um, 1.2um, 2.6-2.9um, 6.1-7.5um and 9.5-15.6um. During sunlight it is not uncommon for CO2 to radiate its incoming power to its primary band of 9.5-15.6um. Power loss is inevitable. CO2 during the day will reflect or scatter outside its active bands. Once emitted CO2 will be unable to reabsorb because of entropy (cascading loss of frequency).  Everyone forgets that there are other gases in our atmosphere which are in play and they do not radiate their energy at band that CO2 can reabsorb.

It is the interaction of gases which makes it nearly impossible for CO2 to reabsorb its emitted energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


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


 
*CO2's primary absorption bands are 0.4um, 1.2um, 2.6-2.9um, 6.1-7.5um and 9.5-15.6um. During sunlight it is not uncommon for CO2 to radiate its incoming power to its primary band of 9.5-15.6um.*

Which CO2 emission bands are not absorbed by CO2?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 4, 2014)

Ah, Billy Boob, thank you for the comedy routine.


----------



## IanC (Dec 5, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Actually, Yes! Or there is the loss of full photons (IE: Receives 10 and outputs 6) but there must always be a loss which generates heat (vibration). As this is quantum theroy we really dont know the answer to this question with certainty.
> ......
> Absorption causes the molecule to vibrate (become excited) and the interaction with other adjacent molecules is what creates the heat. Absorption means conversion from the original emitted vibration pattern -> into the electron causing it to vibrate -> When enough energy is stored the electron then sheds a photon vibrating at the new molecular temperature.  Again this is QM theroy being postulated.



you are confusing kinetic energy of molecules with the excited state of CO2 which is called vibration. a CO2 molecule can absorb a specific photon and vibrate, and then emit the same photon and stop vibrating. there is no energy loss when jumping back and forth from these two states. this type of energy exchange is not dependent on temperature as it is just a single molecule.

average molecular speed, eg kinetic energy, is one of the definitions of temperature. when two molecules collide, their electron clouds are deformed and the combined speed of both is slightly less after the collision. when the electron clouds pop back into place they give off at least a photon each. this is the blackbody radiation. the hotter the object (faster moving molecules), the harder the possible collision, the more energetic the ejected photon. these collisions cause the typical Planck curve of radiation that has a large range of possible outcomes. this type of energy exchange is dependent on temperature because it involves more than one molecule and the speed (kinetic energy) of the molecules.

there are also hybrid  events when an excited molecule exits the collision in an unexcited state. that energy has been added to the kinetic energy or the radiation energy emitted, and is how CO2 warms the atmosphere. this type of event is dependent on both kinetic energy and the availability of excited GHGs.

this is a massively simplified explanation.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 5, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, Billy Boob, thank you for the comedy routine.



Translation: The science fails my AGWCult Theory so I have to resort to insults


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 5, 2014)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Yes! Or there is the loss of full photons (IE: Receives 10 and outputs 6) but there must always be a loss which generates heat (vibration). As this is quantum theroy we really dont know the answer to this question with certainty.
> ...



We are NEVER dealing in single molecules....  Maybe that is the problem, the hypothetical is overruling commonsense. QM theroy is still theroy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


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


 
*CO2's primary absorption bands are 0.4um, 1.2um, 2.6-2.9um, 6.1-7.5um and 9.5-15.6um. During sunlight it is not uncommon for CO2 to radiate its incoming power to its primary band of 9.5-15.6um.*

Which CO2 emission bands are not absorbed by CO2?


----------



## IanC (Dec 6, 2014)

absorption equals emission.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 6, 2014)

IanC said:


> absorption equals emission.



If we were a single gas planet this would have meaning.  We are not. Now lets add those other gases and see what happens.. This is precisely where AGW goes wrong. People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength (again QM theroy) again but they always leave out the other gases and water vapor.  How they affect CO2 is not what they expected.

Water vapor is expected to increase temperature but what we have found in empirical evidence is that it has no bearing whatsoever in accelerating warming but it does accelerate cooling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > absorption equals emission.
> ...


 
* People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength*

Wait, your original claim was wrong?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 6, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!  In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..

I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better.  My original point however, in our atmosphere, makes it virtually impossible to reabsorb due to other gases remains.  There is loss through CO2 in amplitude.  Where do those photos magically go?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


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


 
*It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!*

Quantum Mechanics? I thought we were discussing emission and absorption?

*In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..*

Wait, CO2 can't reabsorb the energy emitted by another CO2, because other gasses are in the way?

*I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better.*

Who said anything about my feelings?
If you were correct, prove it.
If you were incorrect, admit it.
Leave my inconsequential feelings out of it.

*My original point however, in our atmosphere, makes it virtually impossible to reabsorb due to other gases remains.*

Prove it.

*There is loss through CO2 in amplitude.*

Huh? Loss of what? How?

*Where do those photos magically go?*

What photons?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 6, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!*
> 
> Quantum Mechanics? I thought we were discussing emission and absorption?


Emission and absorption happen through quantum level mechanics. We are talking how electrons react to excitement.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *In a single gas atmosphere it may possible to reabsorb but in a multiple gas atmosphere with water vapor, not so much..*
> 
> Wait, CO2 can't reabsorb the energy emitted by another CO2, because other gasses are in the way?


Yes!   This is due to the properties of the other gases and the emittance of photons vibrating at frequencies which are not conducive to absorption by CO2. Were talking parts per million here leaving vast areas for other gases and water vapor. Do you think that all photons, at any frequency, can be absorbed by CO2?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I will give you an I was incorrect if it will make you feel better.*
> 
> Who said anything about my feelings?
> If you were correct, prove it.
> ...




Lest start with a cylinder of CO2 and argon gas at 400ppm CO2. Lets pass 100 watts of focused light through the cylinder 12" in diameter. How much energy is placed on the surface below if all 100 watts is directed in a 6 x 6 inch square area. there is a 12 inches between the source and the cylinder and 12 inches between the cylinder and the surface. Assume no resistance of the glass cylinder.

In a non-atmosphere condition, heat would register proportional to the surfaces ability to absorb the photons minus the black body emittance factor of the solid.

In the above described experiment, argon has no absorptive properties in the spectrum that CO2 does, so it is considered a zero factor. We will consider the bandwidth of 0.4um to 18.0um assuming the area around the cylinder is non-atmospheric. There is a measured loss of around 0.06 watts/square inch due to CO2.   The emitted long wave IR from the cylinder, measured @ 12" is 0.00021 watts/sq inch.

The emitted photons are a far cry from the absorbed photon energy. when you calculate the inside of sphere in square inches we have lost roughly 55% of the incoming energy. Granted its only 0.03 watts/sq inch and the gas in the cylinder rose just 0.32 deg C in one hour. (6 cubic feet of gas in total @ 1000kpa)

This same experiment done with all atmospheric gasses (except CO2) and 40% humidity had some astonishing results. When it was redone with CO2 @ 400ppm and the results compared there was no determinable trace of CO2 involvement.

What was interesting to watch is how adding items to the cylinder changed the outputs. When we added water vapor to the Argon/CO2 cylinder the emitted output fell to near zero and the cylinder temp rise slowed. Conversely the time it took to cool off increased slightly. When CO2 was increased to 5000ppm we regained the cooling rate but never over came the heat up rate loss. We never saw an increase of the heat up process. We also saw very little pass through loss but this was just clear vapor. The simple addition of water vapor killed CO2's absorptive/emittance properties. My take is water vapor is a negative feed back for CO2.

There are over 300 experiments to do in this atmospheric area to determine what does what in our atmosphere. The only problem is its not just the atmosphere, its the oceans too..  The cylinder gives us a limited look at how the different gasses react together. I am far from done and there will be many nights in the lab coming.

This probably wont satisfy as proof but it is observed scientific evidence. Empirical evidence which just happens to match what we have seen in our atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!*
> ...


 
*Emission and absorption happen through quantum level mechanics. We are talking how electrons react to excitement.*

And your original claim was the photons emitted by CO2 *could not* excite the electrons of another CO2.
So, you're off that claim, right?
Any wavelength that CO2 can emit, can be absorbed by another CO2, correct?

*This is due to the properties of the other gases and the emittance of photons vibrating at frequencies which are not conducive to absorption by CO2. Were talking parts per million here leaving vast areas for other gases and water vapor.*

Claiming that it's unlikely the "CO2 photon" can find another CO2, is very different from your original claim.

*Lest start with a cylinder of CO2 and argon gas*

Huh?

What does that have to do with ...

*"There is loss through CO2 in amplitude"*

And ...
*Where do those photons magically go?*


----------



## IanC (Dec 7, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > absorption equals emission.
> ...




you should be more careful in your statements. every time a skeptic spouts a falsehood the warmers say, "see? I told you so. the skeptics can't be trusted, they lie". saying that one CO2 molecule cannot absorb another CO2 molecule's emission is spectacularly wrong and that is what they will remember you for.

the general population is almost totally illiterate scientifically. the educated public is often worse because the little science they remember is often used inappropriately but they are certain that they 'know it'. CO2 theory alarmists have co-opted this second group. they sort of understand the whole CO2 absorbs and re-radiates in a random direction, half returns to the surface thing. some even apply the infinite series (1+1/2+1/4....=2) to get preposterous results. if you attack the things they 'know', you will lose them forever. if you show that there are complications and complexities further down the pathway you may make them think. but only if they trust you. lies and exaggerations wont do it because the paradigm is already in place.


----------



## IanC (Dec 7, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *It is possible to be wrong and still be right.. Again Quantum Mechanics is THEORY!*
> ...




indeed, these are the type of experiments that need to be done. how much IR does CO2 absorb, and what wavelengths. how much of that absorbed IR is re-emitted, and at what wavelengths. how much absorbed IR is thermalized by molecular collisions to increase the temperature of the gas. all good questions which I am pretty sure have been answered in previously done experiments. the fact that they are not readily available to the public leads me to believe that they do not support catastrophic CO2 theory in an emphatic enough way, so the results just stay in the drawer.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 7, 2014)

*

*

​





Home > Publishers > AIP Publishing > The Journal of Chemical Physics > Volume 91, Issue 4 > Article





Collisionally induced population transfer effect in infrared absorption spectra. II. The wing of the Ar‐broadened ν3 band of CO2
*BUY: $28.00*
*RENT: $4.00*​ 





J. Boissoles1, V. Menoux1, R. Le Doucen1, C. Boulet2 and D. Robert3
*



 VIEW AFFILIATIONS*
J. Chem. Phys. *91*, 2163 (1989); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.457024

 


*



 PREVIOUS ARTICLE​

TABLE OF CONTENTS​

NEXT ARTICLE 

​
*
*


 

 ​**



*
*

 



 

 

*​ 




*Abstract*​ 

*Full Text*​ 

*References (19)*​ 

*Cited By*​ 

*Data & Media*​ 

*Metrics*​ 

*Related*​ 

The absorption beyond the ν3‐band head of CO2 broadened by argon has been measured at room temperature. The absorption exhibits a strong sub‐Lorentzian behavior (several orders of magnitude) resulting from collisionally induced line interferences which transfer intensity from this wing region to the ν3‐band center. This wing absorption region implies detuning frequencies from resonances much larger than the reciprocal duration of collision. Consequently, finite duration of collisions in rotational energy transfers_a_ _n_ _d_ initial correlations must be included in absorption calculation. A line‐by‐line coupling theory accounting for both these effects has been recently proposed [J. Chem. Phys. *8* *9*, 625 (1988)] and is applied here to a detailed study of the CO2–Ar collisional system. A convenient generalized detailed balance correction is introduced in this theory to overcome the limitation of the assumed resonant character of the energy transfer in the short time limit with respect to the thermal time ( βℏ)− 1. The calculated absorption is in quantitative agreement with experiment. The origin and the nature of the empirical correcting factor currently used in similar studies are clearly established on a firm physical basis.
© 1989 American Institute of Physics








​


​

​


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 7, 2014)

*

*​

Export citations 


Home > Publishers > AIP Publishing > The Journal of Chemical Physics > Volume 91, Issue 4 > Article





Collisionally induced population transfer effect in infrared absorption spectra. II. The wing of the Ar‐broadened ν3 band of CO2
*BUY: $28.00*
*RENT: $4.00*​ 





J. Boissoles1, V. Menoux1, R. Le Doucen1, C. Boulet2 and D. Robert3
*



 VIEW AFFILIATIONS*
J. Chem. Phys. *91*, 2163 (1989); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.457024

 


*



 PREVIOUS ARTICLE​

TABLE OF CONTENTS​

NEXT ARTICLE 

​
*
*


 

 ​**



*
*

 



 

 

*​ 




*Abstract*​ 

*Full Text*​ 

*References (19)*​ 

*Cited By*​ 

*Data & Media*​ 

*Metrics*​ 

*Related*​ 

The absorption beyond the ν3‐band head of CO2 broadened by argon has been measured at room temperature. The absorption exhibits a strong sub‐Lorentzian behavior (several orders of magnitude) resulting from collisionally induced line interferences which transfer intensity from this wing region to the ν3‐band center. This wing absorption region implies detuning frequencies from resonances much larger than the reciprocal duration of collision. Consequently, finite duration of collisions in rotational energy transfers_a_ _n_ _d_ initial correlations must be included in absorption calculation. A line‐by‐line coupling theory accounting for both these effects has been recently proposed [J. Chem. Phys. *8* *9*, 625 (1988)] and is applied here to a detailed study of the CO2–Ar collisional system. A convenient generalized detailed balance correction is introduced in this theory to overcome the limitation of the assumed resonant character of the energy transfer in the short time limit with respect to the thermal time ( βℏ)− 1. The calculated absorption is in quantitative agreement with experiment. The origin and the nature of the empirical correcting factor currently used in similar studies are clearly established on a firm physical basis.
© 1989 American Institute of Physics


*Ian, use google scholar and the appropriate wording, and you can find many articles on exacty that subject. No conspiracy, just lack of knowledge on the part of those that want to engage in conspiracy theories.*







​


----------



## IanC (Dec 7, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *
> 
> *​
> 
> ...




hahahahaha.... again with conspiracy theories.

did I not say the experiments had already been done? the example you supplied has been cited 60 times, many of them by co-authors, and in non climate fields.

what did YOU get out of the abstract? any simple range of what was emitted as IR and how much went into thermalization?

please.....google me up a climate related paper that uses the data and info out there to make the case for how much influence CO2 has for warming the atmosphere. and how much potential influence emitted CO2 IR has for warming the surface.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 7, 2014)

IanC said:


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



The thermal loss by just adding water vapor is what astounded me. Water is a much better conductor (trapping) of photons than CO2 and takes 100x the energy to warm 1gram of water. At just 40% humidity it rendered CO2's thermal properties null. When you consider that 80% of the earths surface is at 40% humidity or greater CO2 looses its ability to affect and warm the atmosphere to any determinable level and below the one to one ratio shown in its LOG function of diminishing return.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 7, 2014)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You are correct.  I should have been more precise in my earlier statements.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 7, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Too Funny...

Tell me what the loss is and what the effect on the atmosphere is.. This is a very broad brush for a paper and it tells me nothing about the atmospheric actions in earths atmosphere. Did you even read this paper?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength*
> 
> Wait, your original claim was wrong?




No, the claim was not wrong.  CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs.  No less than the US Energy Information Administration used to have this information on its own website till someone noticed that word was getting around at which time it was removed and erased to the point that even the way back machine couldn't retrieve it.  This bit of information was posted before the US government got into the business of acquiring power via climate change.. There are still traces around...the same quote being repeated by multiple posters around the web.  Here are a few instances.

RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument



			
				post 278
I found this passage recently in a piece from the Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy

[URL said:
			
		

> U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - Ap
> 
> “What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation. Frequency of absorption also depends on how long the hot GHG molecules take to emit or otherwise release the excess energy.”




Recycling of Heat in the Atmosphere is Impossible A Note from Nasif S. Nahle - Jennifer Marohasy



Alan Siddons
Alan Siddons March 13 said:


> #[/URL]
> “…the energy of these quantum/waves cannot be reabsorbed by molecules of carbon dioxide.”
> 
> Critics, be cautious because professor Nahle is articulating and quantifying what is already known about so-called greenhouse gases. A US Department of Energy document says the same, although much more informally.
> ...




THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientists discover magical unlimited power source The Greenhouse Effect



			
				MS said:
			
		

> Nah, an honest eye reveals it clear enough: From 100 units of energy, 100 remain inside the box and 100 units escape. All you have to do is put a second box — transparent bottom, opaque top — on top of the first one. Then you can double the energy once again. And again and again and again.
> 
> The greenhouse premise, that 240 W/m² radiated to a two-sided “GHG layer” will generate 240 W/m² on both sides, 240 to add heat to the earth below and 240 that goes out to space. But no, such a layer has TWICE the surface area so it would radiate only 120 W/m² on either side. Climatologists forget what watts per SQUARE METER actually means.
> 
> ...



Believe what you want...there isn't much I can do about that, but the fact is that science has known that CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than it absorbs for a good long time now but the climate change hoax has caused it to no longer admit to the fact.


----------



## IanC (Dec 9, 2014)

you have brought up two paradoxes that have simple answers if you look at the whole, rather than just one part.

first up is the magical energy multiplier. while the infinite series { 1+1/2+1/4....} does equal 2, that is not what is happening. when you add the insulating factor, half of the original output is being diverted into raising the temperature of the energy source and the insulator. it is only once the heat sinks in those layers are filled that you get the full output once again. essentially you are changing the emitting source from the original surface to the insulators surface. once you stopped the original energy source the system would still radiate until the heat sinks were depleted. that is why the Earth's surface appears to radiate more energy than the solar input.

the other paradox is 'can CO2 absorb CO2 emission?'. yes, of course it can. individual molecular emission and absorption are exactly equal. is there other types of radiation given off by CO2 molecules? YES. blackbody radiation from molecular collisions has no constraints to be specific to CO2 bands.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * People get all giddy that CO2 passes and emits in specific wavelengths, and it may well be able to absorb that same wavelength*
> ...


 
*No, the claim was not wrong. CO2 emits at a slightly lower wavelength than at which it absorbs.*

Excellent! Now if you can show that CO2 cannot absorb any wavelength that CO2 emits, we'll be getting somewhere.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Don't need to show you anything more than I have.  Since that information from the EIC was pre AGW hoax...back when government scientists were actually in the business of doing science, I will take their word for it.  You believe in whatever magic you choose.  help yourself.....it won't lower my opinion of you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*Don't need to show you anything more than I have.*

I agree, your failure to prove your point does not mean you have to prove your point.

*Since that information from the EIC was pre AGW hoax...back when government scientists were actually in the business of doing science, I will take their word for it.*

Government published idiocy, with no proof, isn't correct just because it was (supposedly) published a while ago.

Come on, if info on emission and absorption frequencies are too difficult for you to find, you really shouldn't be debating any of these topics.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Don't need to show you anything more than I have.*
> 
> I agree, your failure to prove your point does not mean you have to prove your point.




My point stands supported...while you still can not provide a single observed, measured instance in all of time to support yours.  You have lost and don't even know it.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Government published idiocy, with no proof, isn't correct just because it was (supposedly) published a while ago.



Sorry, what is being published now is idiocy designed to support a hoax.  To bad you believe it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Don't need to show you anything more than I have.*
> ...


 
*My point stands supported...while you still can not provide a single observed, measured instance in all of time to support yours.* 

A single instance where absoption and emission spectra match? Are you sure?

I'll let you think about that for a while.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



IF the wavelength is outside the absorption band it cannot..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*IF the wavelength is outside the absorption band it cannot*

Where does the emission band not match the absorption band?


----------



## IanC (Dec 9, 2014)

It's frustrating, isn't it? If intra molecular events lost energy in the fashion they state then the universe would have ground to a halt long ago.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You do realize that carbon is an atom don't you?  An element.  CO2 is not carbon.  How many wavelengths do you think CO2 absorb?  How many wavelengths does the image you provided suggest are absorbed?

CO2 absorbs IR at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers.  Look closely at your spectrum....is that what it says?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2014)

IanC said:


> It's frustrating, isn't it? If intra molecular events lost energy in the fashion they state then the universe would have ground to a halt long ago.



Initiating a vibration constitutes work...work requires energy.  And again, your universe grinding to a halt statement is you just pretending to know something that all of science remains unsure of.  You seem to do that a lot....a hypothesis posits a thing, that thing remains unobserved, unmeasured, and untested and yet, you spout it as if it were fact.  Not surprising that you believe in magic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


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


* 
You do realize that carbon is an atom don't you? An element. CO2 is not carbon.*

You're shitting me. Really? LOL!
Next you'll tell me that oxygen isn't CO2 and that hydrogen isn't CO2.

Hey, asshole, if you can find an emission-absorption spectrum for anything where they do not overlap, post it.

Do it for CO2. And then be sure to point out the portion where CO2 emits a wavelength that it can't also absorb.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hey, asshole, if you can find an emission-absorption spectrum for anything where they do not overlap, post it.
> 
> Do it for CO2. And then be sure to point out the portion where CO2 emits a wavelength that it can't also absorb.



You don't think the American Energy Administration is familiar with the emission spectrum of a CO2 molecule?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, asshole, if you can find an emission-absorption spectrum for anything where they do not overlap, post it.
> ...


 
Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

LOL

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf


----------



## IanC (Dec 10, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL
> 
> http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf




Thanks Old Rocks. That paper clearly states that the excited states of CO2 last at least 10x longer than the interval between molecular collisions. The energy absorbed from IR is more likely to be thermalized than re-emitted as the same photon. 

While this may seem to be a quibble, it means that a certain percentage comes out as radiation that directly escapes to space through the atmospheric window.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 10, 2014)

And a certain percentage of that radiation is aimed back at the Earth.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.



Interesting, isn't it, that you can't find an image of a CO2 emission spectrum in this time of worldwide AGW hoax?  Wonder why?

And do you doubt that the EIA (it's the EIA) actually said that?  And do you wonder why the long known information was suddenly erased to the point that even the way back machine can't retrieve it?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> And a certain percentage of that radiation is aimed back at the Earth.




Right....where it is absorbed by the warmer surface of the planet in direct contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics....you magic believers are a hoot and would be grandly laughable if your dishonesty weren't actually costing me money.


----------



## IanC (Dec 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> A percentage of that radiation is aimed back at the Earth.



Yes of course. There is always radiation coming back from the atmosphere, GHGs or not.

Roughly 5-10% of the blackbody radiation at surface and atmospheric temperatures escapes directly. CO2 recycles most of its absorbed energy into BB radiation and it leaks out.


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> A percentage of that radiation is aimed back at the Earth.





IanC said:


> Yes of course. There is always radiation coming back from the atmosphere, GHGs or not.



The difference between no GHGs and the levels we currently possess are on the order of 33C.  Without GHGs, the warming of the rest of the atmosphere's gases (N2 and O2) would be insignificant.



IanC said:


> Roughly 5-10% of the blackbody radiation at surface and atmospheric temperatures escapes directly. CO2 recycles most of its absorbed energy into BB radiation and it leaks out.



What is BB radiation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Show me the emission and absorption spectra of CO2, then we can discuss what the AEA supposedly said.
> ...


 
Interesting that you can't show that CO2 emits a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb.
Despite your claim.
Were you confused or were you lying?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Again, do you think the EIC doesn't know how CO2 emits?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
If the EIA thinks that CO2 can emit a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb, they're wrong too.
I've seen no proof that the EIA thinks that. I know you think that, and I've seen no proof that it's true.
So find your proof and post it already.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Can't read huh?  Thought you were at least smart enough to read.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
It's true, I can't read an EIA link that you haven't produced.
Or the proof that CO2 can emit at a wavelength that CO2 cannot absorb, because you haven't produced that either.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 12, 2014)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...



You forgot 'In a perfectly pure CO2 environment'. Alarmists and Warmists even luke warmer's refuse to see this very basic point. The thermalization is rapidly offset in earths atmosphere because the number of molecules in the atmosphere is insufficient to thermalize big areas of the atmosphere.  This is why there is no mid-tropospheric hot spot which all of the CAGW crap is based on.  The empirical evidence indicates that CO2 is not capable of the warming that it is being attributed because of the other componates of the atmosphere which do not act in a positive feed back way.

Thus while the CO2 may ( and i say this because we do not know for sure how this actually works and it is theroy) absorb and re-emit photons vibrating at sufficient frequency to be reabsorbed by CO2 the surrounding componates in the atmosphere change that by absorption and emitance at lower temperatures.

IF CO2 actually acted as shown in the paper cited there should be a massive hot spot in  our mid-troposphere. There is not, so the premise,  disproved by empirical evidence, is wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 12, 2014)

*Oh yes, and Billy Boob is so much smarter than these people;

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Gilbert N. Plass, Infrared radiation in the atmosphere, American Journal of Physics,
24 , No. 5, May 1956.
• P.E. Martin and E.F. Barker, The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide,
Physical Review, 41, August 1, 1932.
• V. Robert Stull, Philip J. Wyatt, and Gilbert N. Plass, The Infrared Transmittance of
Carbon Dioxide, Applied Optics, 3, No. 2, February 1964
• R.T. Pierrehumbert, Principles of Planetary Climate, 2010

And the title reads Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. But keep lying about what is in a power point presentation you did not even look at.
*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 12, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Oh yes, and Billy Boob is so much smarter than these people;
> 
> http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcGehee/Se...2ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf
> 
> ...



You listed papers which are using pure CO2 environments...  Your trying to sell apples as oranges..


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 12, 2014)

And you are full of shit, Billy Boob.


----------



## kflaux (Dec 12, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> IF CO2 actually acted as shown in the paper cited there should be a massive hot spot in our mid-troposphere. There is not, so the premise, disproved by empirical evidence, is wrong.


If there were no such thing as wind, you might have had a point....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious that backradiation exists. It's what keeps the solar oven at a base temp of 290K or so. Without backradiation, it would quickly radiate away heat and reach a much more frigid temperature. Pointing it at the sky has nothing to do with it, since any object would drop below background air temp quickly if it wasn't receiving a constant bath of backradiation. All objects radiate IR at all times, and for thermal equilibrium, heat radiated out has to be balanced with heat in.
> ...



This is what is referred to as a SWAG...

Scientific Wild Ass Guess..  They have no basis in empirical observed evidence, just what they think will happen.  This is kin to witch doctoring.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2014)

kflaux said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IF CO2 actually acted as shown in the paper cited there should be a massive hot spot in our mid-troposphere. There is not, so the premise, disproved by empirical evidence, is wrong.
> ...


BZZZZZZZTT

Wrong Again!  You really shouldn't take you talking points from Old Crock..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> And you are full of shit, Billy Boob.


Show me the tropospheric HOT SPOT moron.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 13, 2014)

The tropospheric hot spot is a fingerprint of both solar-change warming and greenhouse-gas warming. So by denying it exists, Billy is proudly declaring his own "it's the sun!" theory is a fantasy.

Stratospheric cooling is the real fingerprint of global warming. And the opposite of what would happen with solar-change warming. We see that strong stratospheric cooling.

Of course, the tropospheric warming is there as well. I could link to that data, but first I'll need Billy to promise he won't just auto-declare the data is all fraudulent.


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




There is a considerible difference between acknowledging a mechanism exists, and agreeing with theIPCC version of feedbacks.

I think CO2 has an effect on radiative transfer in the atmosphere. I disagree that it is very important or that feedbacks multiply it. 

The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> *The tropospheric hot spot is a fingerprint of both solar-change warming and greenhouse-gas warming. So by denying it exists, *Billy is proudly declaring his own "it's the sun!" theory is a fantasy.
> 
> Stratospheric cooling is the real fingerprint of global warming. And the opposite of what would happen with solar-change warming. We see that strong stratospheric cooling.
> 
> Of course, the tropospheric warming is there as well. I could link to that data, but first I'll need Billy to promise he won't just auto-declare the data is all fraudulent.



Show me this fantasy hot spot you keep saying exists..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2014)

_Figure 2. Temperature trends for the satellite era. Plot of temperature trend (°C/decade) against pressure (altitude). The HadCRUT2v surface trend value is a large blue circle. The GHCN and the GISS surface values are the open rectangle and diamond. The four radiosonde results (IGRA, RATPAC, HadAT2, and RAOBCORE) are shown in blue, light blue, green, and purple respectively. The two UAH MSU data points are shown as gold-filled diamonds and the RSS MSU data points as gold-filled squares. The 22-model ensemble average is a solid red line. The 22-model average ±2σSE are shown as lighter red lines. MSU values of T2LT and T2 are shown in the panel to the right. UAH values are yellow-filled diamonds, RSS are yellow-filled squares, and UMD is a yellow-filled circle. Synthetic model values are shown as white-filled circles, with 2σSE uncertainty limits as error bars.

Source: Douglass et al. 2008_


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2014)

Figure 2

"The observed warming trends at mid-latitudes, with no warming near the equator, suggest that warm water was distributed poleward by ocean currents.  In the Pacific, that happens when El Niño events dominate, which was the case during this period, causing the excessive distribution of warm water toward those latitudes. Refer to *this comparison of Pacific trends *on a zonal-mean basis for the periods of 1944 to 1975 and 1976 to 2011.  It’s Figure 8-32 from my ebook *Who Turned on the Heat?* From 1944 to 1975, El Nino and La Niña events were more evenly matched, but slightly weighted toward La Niña. During that period, less warm water was released from the tropical Pacific by El Niños and distributed toward the poles. But from 1976-2011, El Niño events dominated, so more warm tropical waters were distributed to the mid-latitudes.

In looking at the unrealistic trends presented by the models, consider that climate models do not simulate the processes of El Niño and La Niña properly. See the discussion of Guilyardi et al (2009) *here*.

To overcome those failings, the sea surface temperatures in climate models have to be forced by greenhouse gases to create very high warming trends in the tropics, where observations show little warming.  Now consider that the Pacific Ocean stretches almost halfway around the globe at the equator and you’ll understand the magnitude of those failings."

Source

Catastrophic mid tropospheric warming doesn't exist..


----------



## mamooth (Dec 13, 2014)

So Billy, you agree you've disproven your own "The sun did it!" hypothesis by declaring there's no tropospheric hot spot?

Again, you need to promise to not declare the data is faked before I deign to teach you. I note how reluctant you are to do so. It's as if you already know you won't be able argue intelligently against it, and declaring that it's all fake will be your only option. Like you do with every other topic. I won't waste my valuable time on you unless you promise to behave.

Also, copying Bob Tisdale's crank rambling is never a good idea. Here's a thought. To show that you understand the issue, summarize what Tisdale said, in your own words.

You did a better with that diagram from Douglas et al 2008. Alas, that's regarded as a flawed paper by most in the field. It uses bad radiosonde and satellite measurements, and bad statistics. Santer et al 2008 is basically a big crushing refutation of it.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Santer_etal_1.pdf


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So Billy, you agree you've disproven your own "The sun did it!" hypothesis by declaring there's no tropospheric hot spot?
> 
> Again, you need to promise to not declare the data is faked before I deign to teach you. I note how reluctant you are to do so. It's as if you already know you won't be able argue intelligently against it, and declaring that it's all fake will be your only option. Like you do with every other topic. I won't waste my valuable time on you unless you promise to behave.
> 
> ...



You teach??  

Too Funny...  You attack those who tear your cult apart and its bull shit.. Santer Et Al has been shown garbage and not worth the paper it is written on..  Keep diggin moron..


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 14, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So Billy, you agree you've disproven your own "The sun did it!" hypothesis by declaring there's no tropospheric hot spot?
> ...


Now Billy Boob, you were shown a paper refuting what was published in the one that you linked to. Instead of flapping yap, how about a link to the refutation of that paper? That is how scientific debates work, you know. But you are improving, you did link to one paper.


----------



## IanC (Dec 14, 2014)

http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-c...ded-summary-the-missing-tropical-hot-spot.pdf

that covers most of the debating points, by some of those involved.

personally I think Santer preferring 'reanalyzed' data and wind shear over balloons and satellites is a little suspicious.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Garbage from Santer is refutation of nothing..


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2014)

So in summary, you won't promise not to auto-declare all the data you don't like has to be a fraud. Instead, you're auto-declaring even more stridently that all the data you don't like has to be a fraud.

And that's why nobody wastes any time on you. Enjoy your life of being thought of as a kook, kook.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2014)

IanC said:


> The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?



Radiative gasses enhance the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself ....they don't inhibit it.  Greenhouse gasses are cooling agents, not warming agents.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So Billy, you agree you've disproven your own "The sun did it!" hypothesis by declaring there's no tropospheric hot spot?



Why do you suppose the sun would cause a tropospheric hot spot?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2014)

IanC said:


> http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-c...ded-summary-the-missing-tropical-hot-spot.pdf
> 
> that covers most of the debating points, by some of those involved.
> 
> personally I think Santer preferring 'reanalyzed' data and wind shear over balloons and satellites is a little suspicious.




A milllion radiosondes can't find a hot spot but a few hours "analyzing" the data finds one?  Classic climate science.  If the actual data don't support your claim just make some shit up.


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?
> ...



explain in your own words how CO2 is a cooling agent.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> And that's why nobody wastes any time on you.



And once again, the hairball couldn't possibly be more wrong... take a look at the stats hairball...Billybob has almost 500 trophy points to your nearly 200....clearly your analysis is about as good as climate science expects.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Been done before Ian....I am through explaining to you only to have you "interpret" what I say into something I didn't say and then watch you argue against your interpretation rather than what I said.


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-c...ded-summary-the-missing-tropical-hot-spot.pdf
> ...




just out of curiosity, did you read the dialogue? did you agree with any of the participants more than another? did you learn anything?


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




as you wish. you have no reasoned opinions, just talking points that you cannot defend in any meaningful way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 15, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


 
Wow! He's getting worse.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> And once again, the hairball couldn't possibly be more wrong... take a look at the stats hairball...Billybob has almost 500 trophy points to your nearly 200....clearly your analysis is about as good as climate science expects.



And you have ... 85.

I never looked at trophy points before. But since you brought it up, I checked it out. The standards for awarding them are here.

Trophies US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

According to that list, Billy isn't even close to meeting standards that would get him 500 trophy points. How he got those points is kind of a mystery.

My guess would be his first short run of posts got > 50% likes, which scored him a quick 300, and then another 100 or so bonus trophy points based on having trophy points. Then when everyone understood he was crazy and his thanks-to-posts ratio nosedived, the points didn't get removed.


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




you explained CO2 as a cooling agent in your own words? I admit that I dont read all the threads here but I have never heard you explain anything substantive in your own words.

please link me up to your past explanation. thanks in advance


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2014)

SSDD has some rigid opinions, and some not-so-rigid opinions. the most important Rigid opinion is that not one iota of energy can go from cool to warm. eventually he declared photons (on a day where he believed in photons) have no time or distance in their event horizon, so they 'know' where they are going. I tend to agree with him somewhat because the virtual photons that make up electrical and magnetic fields simply disappear if they cannot find a partner to transfer energy to. that said, I am pretty sure that no information can be passed faster than the speed of light.

both the warm and cool objects radiate the almost exactly identical range of photons, with the warmer object producing more photons and at a slightly higher avg energy. if the cool object STOPS radiating then the warm object has to stop radiating the same amount of energy, and at exactly the same wavelengths. where does this information come from? and how does it control the molecular collisions that form the blackbody radiation?

I see no mechanisms for this, so I will simply go back to normal physics that say every body radiates according to its temperature, and that energy transfer is the net of radiation out minus radiation in. no magical stopping of radiation in both the warm and cool bodies, in exactly the right proportions. individual events are not controlled by average conditions. average conditions are controlled by individual events.


----------



## Crick (Dec 16, 2014)

;-)

Quantum Entanglement appears to be an FTL 'transfer' of information.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 16, 2014)

But SSDD states that QE does not exist, because QM does not exist.


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> ;-)
> 
> Quantum Entanglement appears to be an FTL 'transfer' of information.




hahahaha.....OK......smartass

I kinda meant useful information at normal conditions but yah....there are always exceptions at the edge of the envelope. wirebender (now having a reincarnation as SSDD perhaps?) and his lapdog gslack didnt like me saying that photons dont interact with each other except in the presence of matter so they brought up a case of ultra high energy gamma rays where one decomposes into a matter/antimatter pair which then interacts with the other gamma ray. it's kind of a counter example but pretty useless for describing  interactions for local conditions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 22, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD has some rigid opinions, and some not-so-rigid opinions. the most important Rigid opinion is that not one iota of energy can go from cool to warm. eventually he declared photons (on a day where he believed in photons) have no time or distance in their event horizon, so they 'know' where they are going. I tend to agree with him somewhat because the virtual photons that make up electrical and magnetic fields simply disappear if they cannot find a partner to transfer energy to. that said, I am pretty sure that no information can be passed faster than the speed of light.
> 
> both the warm and cool objects radiate the almost exactly identical range of photons, with the warmer object producing more photons and at a slightly higher avg energy. if the cool object STOPS radiating then the warm object has to stop radiating the same amount of energy, and at exactly the same wavelengths. where does this information come from? and how does it control the molecular collisions that form the blackbody radiation?
> 
> I see no mechanisms for this, so I will simply go back to normal physics that say every body radiates according to its temperature, and that energy transfer is the net of radiation out minus radiation in. no magical stopping of radiation in both the warm and cool bodies, in exactly the right proportions. individual events are not controlled by average conditions. average conditions are controlled by individual events.


 
His smart photons certainly are unique.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> ;-)
> 
> Quantum Entanglement appears to be an FTL 'transfer' of information.


 
Happy New Year!
I was wondering if you could take a look at this reasoning from one of the best numbers guys I've seen?

Russian Roulette Taxpayers Could Be On The Hook For Trillions In Oil Derivatives Seeking Alpha

1. Power at the earth's surface is about 500 watts per square meter, by NASA estimates from a detailed power budget.

2. That power suffices to maintain an average temperature of 291 degrees kelvin (18C).

3. The Stefan Boltzmann radiation law governs the relationship between power and temperature, and specifies that the power emitted by a radiating black body is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature (degrees kelvin).

4. By 2, an increase in mean surface temperature of 1C is a 292/291 change in the absolute temperature. By 3, that requires a (292/291)^4 increase in the total power, or a 1.38% increase in the total power. By 1, that requires 7 watts per square meter, continually operating.

5. The power presently provided by direct CO2 greenhouse is 1.6 watts per square meter, by IPCC's own estimates.

6. The mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and greenhouse power is a logarithmic function of the atmospheric concentration. This happens because the specific wavelengths intercepted by CO2 get saturated as that concentration rises, so the first bit has the largest effect, subsequent additions have less, and so on.

7. An upper bound for the power supplied directly by doubling CO2 concentration is log 2 times the effect of the present concentration, by 6. By 5, that effect is 1.6 watts per square meter so the bound on the direct effect is 0.693 x 1.6 = 1.11 additional watts per square meter. Notice, this is less than 1/6th the figure calculated above as necessary to raise mean surface temperature by 1C.

8. If 1.1 watts if new power are supplied at the top of a water column 3 km deep, the temperature of the column will begin to rise, as 1.1 joules per second (definition of watt) enter the water as heat. The heat capacity of water is 4180 joules per kilogram per degree kelvin. The mass of water is 1000 kilograms per cubic meter. A 3 km deep column has a mass (under each surface meter) of 3 million kg and a heat capacity of 1.254x10^10 joules per degree. If the column were well mixed, it would take 9,543 years for the temperature to rise one degree, ignoring for a moment the restoring force of the higher temperature. Just the top 100 meters of the water column have a heat capacity one thirtieth part of that, implying an instantaneous rate of increase in temperature of one part in 318th of one degree per year.

9. By the reasoning above, 1.1 watts on a 500 base are a change in the total power of 1.1/500, and in the equilibrium temperature of (501.1/500)^.25 or 0.00055 of the initial absolute temperature, or 0.16 degree. The temperature cannot rise more than that at the top of the column, because as soon as the top of the column gas warmed that much, its surface is reradiating as much additional power as the new forcing supplied, putting it back into equilibrium. This will take approximately 100 years for the top 100 meters, ignoring for now the slower diffusion of heat to lower layers of the water column. That 100 comes from the 318 years per degree figure above, averaged with zero at the end of the period, and a total temperature change if 0.16 degree. The temperature will describe a slowing curve, max rate at the start, falling smoothly to zero as the reradiation term rises with the temperature of the surface.

After that century long, 0.16 degree transient, it will still take millenia or the higher temperature at the top of the water column to reach thermal equilibrium with the deeper layers, which have 30 times the heat capacity, and will load with joules slower, as the hotter surface is already reradiating most of the new incoming power.
The very long run steady state is 0.16 degree hotter throughout the entire column, but will not be reached for thousands of years.

I didn't have to look up anything to give those answers. It is enough to know any physics and think through the problem for yourself.

The 3-5C warming prediction requires 21.1 to 35.5 watts per square meter of new, continually operating power. The larger figure is equivalent to moving the earth's orbit nearer to the sun by over 3 million miles. It is also 32 times the power anyone can expect directly from CO2 greenhouse from doubling its atmospheric concentration. To raise the surface temperature even 1 degree C by direct CO2 greenhouse would require a 31 fold increase in its atmospheric concentration, by the log formula. In reality those wavelengths would be saturated and opaque from below well before such an increase.

They don't have a power budget and cannot tell any of us who know the actual physics where they expect the other 20 to 35 watts per square meter of power to come from. They just wave their hands and say climate sensitivity. Every actual power source they have proposed has been checked, and they have random signs (as many negative as positive), and all are an order of magnitude too small to account for 3-5C warming.

Then the huge warming they predicted fails to appear, and they are surprised. People who asked where the power supposedly was to come from are not surprised.

Then all hide behind lawyer phrases, dodging the hopeless miss on the basic scale of the effect. Yes there is slight warming, in the record and in the reasoning. Yes the CO2 component of that warming is plausibly man made. But it is also less than a degree in direct effect. "Well, reasonable people can disagree about how much, the important thing is that it is happening etc". No. The important thing is the amount, which is nothing to worry about, on all empirical evidence and all actually scientific reasoning.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2015)

thanks Todd. the fact that the T^4 relationship is a natural negative feedback has certainly been brought up before.

dont expect much interest in this subject. it is both mathematical and important, therefore it is a thread killer. if you want feed back from other posters you have to talk politics or make stupid statements. CO2 is used to keep things COLD US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum anyone? hahahahaha


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2015)

You're aware, I assume, that the thread to which you link is from someone on your side of the argument.

BTW, math-wise, you might want to re-examine some of his basic assumptions.

SB would not tell us to look at (292/291)^4, which equals 1.0138 (not the 1.38 your author got), but (292-291)^4 which equals 1.000.  Neither takes us from 5 W to 7.

EDIT:  My bad.  SB would use (292-291)/291 for the increased power required.  That gives an increased power requirement factor of 1.0034.

Your author's treatment of the atmosphere, assuming the CO2 effect is saturated and the atmosphere static and passive, was refuted by Hulbert in the 1930s and Plass in the 1950s.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> You're aware, I assume, that the thread to which you link is from someone on your side of the argument.
> 
> BTW, math-wise, you might want to re-examine some of his basic assumptions.
> 
> ...


 
*which equals 1.0138 (not the 1.38 your author got)*

Yeah, you left off the % sign. He got 1.38%.


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2015)

No, he didn't.  1.0138 is not 1.38%.  It could be 101.38%, but that's not the same thing either and doesn't take you from 5W to 7W.  He just fucked up the math.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> No, he didn't.  1.0138 is not 1.38%.  It could be 101.38%, but that's not the same thing either and doesn't take you from 5W to 7W.  He just fucked up the math.


 
By 2, an increase in mean surface temperature of 1C is a 292/291 change in the absolute temperature. By 3, that requires a (292/291)^4 increase in the total power, or a 1.38% increase in the total power. By 1, that requires 7 watts per square meter, continually operating.

Which part did he fuck up?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 3, 2015)

The part about the backradiation increasing by almost as much.

The basics, in other words. He sort of forgot the atmosphere sends backradiation down.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 3, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The part about the backradiation increasing by almost as much.
> 
> The basics, in other words. He sort of forgot the atmosphere sends backradiation down.


 
I just reposted his original questions and his answers below. This should be clearer than the original post, which just had his answers. Any formatting errors are mine.

It looks like Answer 5 sort of covers backradiation.
Let me know if you agree or see anything else that you think looks wrong.
Thanks!


What is the current power at the earth's surface, as an average?

1. Power at the earth's surface is about 500 watts per square meter, by NASA estimates from a detailed power budget.

What average temperature does it presently maintain?

2. That power suffices to maintain an average temperature of 291 degrees kelvin (18C).

What physical law governs the relationship between power and temperature?

3. The Stefan Boltzmann radiation law governs the relationship between power and temperature, and specifies that the power emitted by a radiating black body is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature (degrees kelvin).
Exactly how much power is required to raise the surface temperature by 1 degree C? Show your reasoning.

4. By 2, an increase in mean surface temperature of 1C is a 292/291 change in the absolute temperature. By 3, that requires a (292/291)^4 increase in the total power, *or a 1.38% increase in the total power*. By 1, that requires 7 watts per square meter, continually operating.

What is the power estimated to be supplied by CO2 greenhouse currently?

5. The power presently provided by direct CO2 greenhouse is 1.6 watts per square meter, by IPCC's own estimates.

What mathematical function describes the relationship between a given gas concentration and the greenhouse power it can supply, and why?

6. The mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and greenhouse power is a logarithmic function of the atmospheric concentration. This happens because the specific wavelengths intercepted by CO2 get saturated as that concentration rises, so the first bit has the largest effect, subsequent additions have less, and so on.
What is an upper bound for the power that would be supplied by doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration?


7. An upper bound for the power supplied directly by doubling CO2 concentration is log 2 times the effect of the present concentration, by 6. By 5, that effect is 1.6 watts per square meter so the bound on the direct effect is 0.693 x 1.6 = 1.11 additional watts per square meter. Notice, this is less than 1/6th the figure calculated above as necessary to raise mean surface temperature by 1C.

If that much power is supplied to the top of a water column 3 km deep at a starting temperature of 15C, what are the dynamics of the temperature at the top of the column? At the bottom of the column? (Bounds are acceptable).


8. If 1.1 watts if new power are supplied at the top of a water column 3 km deep, the temperature of the column will begin to rise, as 1.1 joules per second (definition of watt) enter the water as heat. The heat capacity of water is 4180 joules per kilogram per degree kelvin. The mass of water is 1000 kilograms per cubic meter. A 3 km deep column has a mass (under each surface meter) of 3 million kg and a heat capacity of 1.254x10^10 joules per degree. If the column were well mixed, it would take 9,543 years for the temperature to rise one degree, ignoring for a moment the restoring force of the higher temperature. Just the top 100 meters of the water column have a heat capacity one thirtieth part of that, implying an instantaneous rate of increase in temperature of one part in 318th of one degree per year.

For what length of time will the dynamics continue before approximating a steady state?

9. By the reasoning above, 1.1 watts on a 500 base are a change in the total power of 1.1/500, and in the equilibrium temperature of (501.1/500)^.25 or 0.00055 of the initial absolute temperature, or 0.16 degree. The temperature cannot rise more than that at the top of the column, because as soon as the top of the column gas warmed that much, its surface is reradiating as much additional power as the new forcing supplied, putting it back into equilibrium. This will take approximately 100 years for the top 100 meters, ignoring for now the slower diffusion of heat to lower layers of the water column. That 100 comes from the 318 years per degree figure above, averaged with zero at the end of the period, and a total temperature change if 0.16 degree.

What mathematical form or shape will the temperature series describe in the meantime?

10. The temperature will describe a slowing curve, max rate at the start, falling smoothly to zero as the reradiation term rises with the temperature of the surface.

Does it reach a steady state, and if so at what value?


11. After that century long, 0.16 degree transient, it will still take millenia or the higher temperature at the top of the water column to reach thermal equilibrium with the deeper layers, which have 30 times the heat capacity, and will load with joules slower, as the hotter surface is already reradiating most of the new incoming power.
The very long run steady state is 0.16 degree hotter throughout the entire column, but will not be reached for thousands of years.

I didn't have to look up anything to give those answers. It is enough to know any physics and think through the problem for yourself.

The 3-5C warming prediction requires 21.1 to 35.5 watts per square meter of new, continually operating power. The larger figure is equivalent to moving the earth's orbit nearer to the sun by over 3 million miles. It is also 32 times the power anyone can expect directly from CO2 greenhouse from doubling its atmospheric concentration. To raise the surface temperature even 1 degree C by direct CO2 greenhouse would require a 31 fold increase in its atmospheric concentration, by the log formula. In reality those wavelengths would be saturated and opaque from below well before such an increase.

They don't have a power budget and cannot tell any of us who know the actual physics where they expect the other 20 to 35 watts per square meter of power to come from. They just wave their hands and say climate sensitivity. Every actual power source they have proposed has been checked, and they have random signs (as many negative as positive), and all are an order of magnitude too small to account for 3-5C warming.

Then the huge warming they predicted fails to appear, and they are surprised. People who asked where the power supposedly was to come from are not surprised.

Then all hide behind lawyer phrases, dodging the hopeless miss on the basic scale of the effect. Yes there is slight warming, in the record and in the reasoning. Yes the CO2 component of that warming is plausibly man made. But it is also less than a degree in direct effect. "Well, reasonable people can disagree about how much, the important thing is that it is happening etc". No. The important thing is the amount, which is nothing to worry about, on all empirical evidence and all actually scientific reasoning.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2015)

I couldnt be bothered to look at anyone's math but if I remember correctly an extra degree at OC adds about 5w, and every degree afterwards gains about 1/20 of a watt and every degree downwards loses 1/20 w. linear estimation but good enough for purpose. the poles warm up and cool down much easier than the equator does. 4w/C vs 6w/C. 

and then there are the inefficiencies and alternate pathways. adding energy doesnt just raise temps, it changes evaporation, convection, etc, etc.


----------



## Crick (Jan 4, 2015)

Ian, you said* "take a look at this reasoning from one of the best numbers guys I've seen"*.  But the fellow can't handle the basics.  And that mistake was the basis for his entire contention.

He still has the math error.  (292/291)^4 is NOT 1.38%  Check it yourself.  I'd also suggest you look up Stefan Boltzman cause it looks to me as if what he's looking for is ((292-291)/291)^4.  Does it seem reasonable to you that it would take a 40% increase in power (5W to 7W) to get a 00.34% increase (291K to 292K) in temperature?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 4, 2015)

Crick said:


> Ian, you said* "take a look at this reasoning from one of the best numbers guys I've seen"*.  But the fellow can't handle the basics.  And that mistake was the basis for his entire contention.
> 
> He still has the math error.  (292/291)^4 is NOT 1.38%  Check it yourself.  I'd also suggest you look up Stefan Boltzman cause it looks to me as if what he's looking for is ((292-291)/291)^4.  Does it seem reasonable to you that it would take a 40% increase in power (5W to 7W) to get a 00.34% increase (291K to 292K) in temperature?


 
*Ian, you said "take a look at this reasoning from one of the best numbers guys I've seen".*

No, I said that.

*He still has the math error. (292/291)^4 is NOT 1.38%* 

It is an increase of 1.38%.

_that requires a (292/291)^4 increase in the total power, *or a 1.38% increase in the total power*._

Which is what he said.

* Does it seem reasonable to you that it would take a 40% increase in power (5W to 7W) to get a 00.34% increase (291K to 292K) in temperature*


Huh?

_Power at the earth's surface is about 500 watts per square meter,_

An additional 7W is an increase of 1.4%.

*But the fellow can't handle the basics.* 

You might want to rethink your claim.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2015)

I would like to see the sideways radiation band at various altitudes. Do the CO2 bands remain high as CO2 theory demands or does it quickly fade after the first few tens of metres, or perhaps lie somewhere in between?

Blackbody radiation or specific molecular emission. They both come from the same available energy. Every CO2 photon that get recycled into BB radiation reduces the greenhouse effect. A natural negative feedback.


----------

