# Nye's Quadrant



## SSDD (May 4, 2017)

*Pasteur's quadrant* is a classification of scientific research projects that seek fundamental understanding of scientific problems, while also having immediate use for society. Louis Pasteur's research is thought to exemplify this type of method, which bridges the gap between "basic" and "applied" research.The term was introduced by Donald Stokes in his book, _Pasteur's Quadrant_.







The result is three distinct classes of research:


Pure basic research, exemplified by the work of Niels Bohr, early 20th century atomic physicist.
Pure applied research, exemplified by the work of Thomas Edison, inventor.
Use-inspired basic research, described here as "Pasteur's Quadrant".
Notice the conspicuously blank lower left quadrant.  The originator must have been prescient.  Over the years, a new sort of "sciency" individual has emerged to fill in that conspicuous blank.  Their numbers are legion, but there exists a face to put there as representative of the entire group.






Unfortunately for human kind, far to much of what passes for science today originates from those who are the founding members of the Nye Quadrant.  The "science" that comes from this quadrant, and those who support that science are easily identifiable by the characteristics they exhibit.


Second order belief – allegiance to consensus. Individual has not  done primary research on the relevant topic or has not conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and research.
Shutting down scientific debate; science as dogma
Alarmism as a tactic to influence the public debate
Political activism and advocacy for particular policy solutions
Scientism: a demand that science dictate public policy
Advocacy Research

The first bullet point is the primary identifying characteristic wherever the topic of science is discussed.  These individuals belonging to the Nye quadrant pledge allegiance daily to whatever consensus they believe exists,  and clearly have not conducted any sort of independent assessment of the evidence and the research as evidenced by their fanatic belief in what they call mainstream science coupled with their complete inability to produce even a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, evidence in support of those same beliefs.

More information on the Nye quadrant can be found here .....It is funny because it is true.


----------



## MisterBeale (May 4, 2017)




----------



## jon_berzerk (May 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *Pasteur's quadrant* is a classification of scientific research projects that seek fundamental understanding of scientific problems, while also having immediate use for society. Louis Pasteur's research is thought to exemplify this type of method, which bridges the gap between "basic" and "applied" research.The term was introduced by Donald Stokes in his book, _Pasteur's Quadrant_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




nye is a solid libtard 

he will spout whatever the party demands he spout 

simple as that


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *Pasteur's quadrant* is a classification of scientific research projects that seek fundamental understanding of scientific problems, while also having immediate use for society. Louis Pasteur's research is thought to exemplify this type of method, which bridges the gap between "basic" and "applied" research.The term was introduced by Donald Stokes in his book, _Pasteur's Quadrant_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *Pasteur's quadrant* is a classification of scientific research projects that seek fundamental understanding of scientific problems, while also having immediate use for society. Louis Pasteur's research is thought to exemplify this type of method, which bridges the gap between "basic" and "applied" research.The term was introduced by Donald Stokes in his book, _Pasteur's Quadrant_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Sell the Sizzle, Not the Steak*

The formerly empty quadrant was also filled by Hollywood Science:  wild and impossible speculations derived from flimsy bases in real science.


----------



## mamooth (May 4, 2017)

Thread summary:

Deniers can't discuss actual science, so they're deflecting by pouting about media personalities. At least they're broadening their horizons, and pouting about someone other than Gore.

Have you asked Curry how much fossil fuel money her mysterious "forecasting company" is taking? You know, the one that doesn't name any clients, or show anything that it's "forecast". It sure looks like a way to take fossil fuel cash on the sly. Curry hasn't done any actual science for a long time, because she can't. She fled the science field in disgrace over her failures and unethical behavior, and now she's embarking on a new career as a paid propagandist.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 5, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> Deniers can't discuss actual science, so they're deflecting by pouting about media personalities. At least they're broadening their horizons, and pouting about someone other than Gore.
> 
> Have you asked Curry how much fossil fuel money her mysterious "forecasting company" is taking? You know, the one that doesn't name any clients, or show anything that it's "forecast". It sure looks like a way to take fossil fuel cash on the sly. Curry hasn't done any actual science for a long time, because she can't. She fled the science field in disgrace over her failures and unethical behavior, and now she's embarking on a new career as a paid propagandist.


LOL

Another Mantooth fail!  

Your projection of YOUR failures is stunning...


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 6, 2017)

Bill nye is fucking right...

I aint shutting up!


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 6, 2017)

I am loving what I am watching so far! Taking it to you fags!


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 6, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> Deniers can't discuss actual science, so they're deflecting by pouting about media personalities. At least they're broadening their horizons, and pouting about someone other than Gore.
> 
> Have you asked Curry how much fossil fuel money her mysterious "forecasting company" is taking? You know, the one that doesn't name any clients, or show anything that it's "forecast". It sure looks like a way to take fossil fuel cash on the sly. Curry hasn't done any actual science for a long time, because she can't. She fled the science field in disgrace over her failures and unethical behavior, and now she's embarking on a new career as a paid propagandist.




So now you mad you have the three stooges in the media?


Why Judith remains classy and to her science..


.


----------



## Crick (May 6, 2017)

IF Judith Curry was "classy", she'd still be doing science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 6, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Bill nye is fucking right...
> 
> I aint shutting up!


Nye is a fucking liar and a retard... Propaganda 101 is what he spews..  but you eat his shit up..  You must love yourself some shit to eat..


----------



## Crick (May 7, 2017)

Nye is not retarded (and you're a complete dick for using the term as an insult), he has a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering - so vastly more educated than are you. And he doesn't lie about his education as do you, so you calling him a liar just doesn't work.  What Nye says about the climate and global warming is all backed up by the thousands of published research papers that form the foundation of the consensus opinion: the world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are primarily to blame.

Again, let me repeat: YOU are the liar and until you are willing to speak honestly about yourself, your opinion re the honesty of others is absolutely worthless.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> Nye is not retarded (and you're a complete dick for using the term as an insult), he has a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering - so vastly more educated than are you. And he doesn't lie about his education as do you, so you calling him a liar just doesn't work.  What Nye says about the climate and global warming is all backed up by the thousands of published research papers that form the foundation of the consensus opinion: the world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are primarily to blame.
> 
> Again, let me repeat: YOU are the liar and until you are willing to speak honestly about yourself, your opinion re the honesty of others is absolutely worthless.



Thousands of published papers without the first piece of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...so what?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 8, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> Deniers can't discuss actual science, so they're deflecting by pouting about media personalities. At least they're broadening their horizons, and pouting about someone other than Gore.
> 
> Have you asked Curry how much fossil fuel money her mysterious "forecasting company" is taking? You know, the one that doesn't name any clients, or show anything that it's "forecast". It sure looks like a way to take fossil fuel cash on the sly. Curry hasn't done any actual science for a long time, because she can't. She fled the science field in disgrace over her failures and unethical behavior, and now she's embarking on a new career as a paid propagandist.


"Consensus" is not science, Warmer Boy


----------



## mamooth (May 8, 2017)

Would anyone here pay money for a Curry "forecast"? Of course they wouldn't. She's been consistently wrong on everything for years, and nobody is going to pay for failure, not even deniers. She's as capable of an accurate forecast as an astrologer or TheOldFarmersAlmanac.

Nobody who is paying Curry for "forecasts" gives a damn about those "forecasts". They're paying her so she can continue her career as propaganda-spouting shill. The forecasting business is a front that makes it legal to accept the bribes.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 8, 2017)

mamooth said:


> She's as capable of an accurate forecast as an astrologer or TheOldFarmersAlmanac.



Still beats Michael Mann, the IPCC, or James Hansen.. OR THIS guy... (Phil Jones) keeper of the lost climate data.  









Nye is a MEDIA character. He did science for 10 yr olds. To compare him on any juicy science topics to ANYONE in those fields is insane.

He loses debates on GW because his underlying thesis is -- There are Too Many People on the Planet. He's an activist enviro warrior with a malignant streak of genocidal tendencies...


----------



## flacaltenn (May 8, 2017)

As for Curry -- she's in that top right quadrant. Always worked on the HARD stuff. The way the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY works. Filling in those gaps of knowledge about time constants and delays and redistribution of heat. 

She's STILL be doing that if she wasn't targeted and blackballed for not "singing the correct hymn" out of the GW hymnal..


----------



## mamooth (May 8, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> As for Curry -- she's in that top right quadrant. Always worked on the HARD stuff. The way the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY works. Filling in those gaps of knowledge about time constants and delays and redistribution of heat



Let's check what Curry predicted in 2014. This is from her blog, and restates what her 2013 "Stadium Waves" paper predicts.

2014 → 2015

"In terms of global temperature, I expect the hiatus to continue at last another decade, but won’t pretend to predict year to year variations"

First, that flops hard because it talks about a fictional 'hiatus' that never existed.

But even worse, it was followed by 3 consecutive years of record-breaking temperatures. It would be hard to fail harder than Curry failed there. The opposite of what she predicted happened. So, has she revised her failed theory? Nope. She just cut and ran.



> She's STILL be doing that if she wasn't targeted and blackballed for not "singing the correct hymn" out of the GW hymnal..



And by "blackballed" you mean ... what? People pointed out her science predicted the opposite of reality? The nerve! They're supposed to be more PC than that!

Curry has been treated with kid gloves. On her side, she's flung accusations of fraud at fellow scientists, with zero evidence to back it up. That just isn't done, not by ethical people. Her behavior has been consistently vile.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 8, 2017)

Of course the hiatus existed. YOU are a denier..     Go look it up in the INdex of IPCC AR5.. 

And a hiatus can be of any real length actually. And even with an intervening El Nino (very large) -- all that thermodynamics that Curry was working on is STILL unwinding. Just like her "Stadium Wave" analogy.. 

So keep your pants and your tin foil hat on there Mr. Denial..  Climate takes its sweet ass time to work things out. It's NOT on a political cycle you know...


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Would anyone here pay money for a Curry "forecast"? Of course they wouldn't. She's been consistently wrong on everything for years, and nobody is going to pay for failure, not even deniers. She's as capable of an accurate forecast as an astrologer or TheOldFarmersAlmanac.



Curry doesn't make forecasts...and why?...because she grasps the problems with the models and actually addresses the vast uncertainty that exists in every part of climate science....actual scientists don't make predictions based on what they believe they know...and don't make predictions when uncertainty looms large in every aspect of their field of study...that is what political hacks and pseudoscientists do..



mamooth said:


> Nobody who is paying Curry for "forecasts" gives a damn about those "forecasts". They're paying her so she can continue her  as propaganda-spouting shill. The forecasting business is a front that makes it legal to accept the bribes.



Nobody pays her for forecasts because she doesn't make them...and anyone who "pays" for a forecast is paying for lip service and headlines considering the amount of uncertainty that exists in climate science...

Thanks though, for acknowledging that the left is actually paying for what they want to hear...and are willing to pay big so long as it produces big headlines...  forecasts when uncertainty looms so large is, by definition propaganda...good to know that you actually know what it is...to bad you are to brain dead to apply it property to your own situation.


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Curry doesn't make forecasts...



Sure she does. In 2013, she specifically predicted no warming for at least the next ten years.

"In terms of global temperature, I expect the hiatus to continue at last another decade, but won’t pretend to predict year to year variations"



> Nobody pays her for forecasts because she doesn't make them...



CFAN Climate Forecast Applications Network

If she's not making forecasts, why does she run, with her husband, the "Climate Forecast Applications Network"?

You suck as a liar. Lies are supposed to be at least somewhat plausible, and yours aren't.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Curry doesn't make forecasts...
> ...



And in which part of that web site do you believe they are making climate predictions?  My bet is that you didn't even visit the site...alas hairball, you are the liar..and the idiot...and the bitter old woman who hates everyone who isn't just as bitter as yourself.


----------



## mamooth (May 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And in which part of that web site do you believe they are making climate predictions?



So you're also saying Curry is running a front company to funnel in fossil fuel cash, a prediction company that makes no actual predictions.

Good. That was my point too. I'm glad everyone agrees.

You can't have it both ways, little pissaholic. Either Curry doesn't make predictions, and is running a front company, or she does make predictions, and you lied about it.

Ooh, sucks to be you.


----------



## SSDD (May 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> So you're also saying Curry is running a front company to funnel in fossil fuel cash, a prediction company that makes no actual predictions.



You really are a bitter little wacko....aren't you?  You make the claim that they are making climate predictions when you never even visited the site to see...then when it is pointed  out to youth they aren't..then you make up something else...So they got money from a fossil fuel company...they list other sources as well as valuable services to humanitarian projects as well

Are you claiming that no fossil fuel money goes into the coffers of green companies?  Is that your claim?



mamooth said:


> Good. That was my point too. I'm glad everyone agrees.



I would imagine that everyone agrees that your only "point" is on the top of your head...and that you are one of the boldest hypocrites on the board...



mamooth said:


> You can't have it both ways, little pissaholic. Either Curry doesn't make predictions, and is running a front company, or she does make predictions, and you lied about it.



There is a third option which I am sure you never considered...that the company is completely legitimate...provides a valuable service for pay and that you are simply full of shit.



mamooth said:


> Ooh, sucks to be you.



No hairball...it is great to be me...I am happy, content, and have great fun all the time surrounded by my family and friends...you, on the other hand are a dried up bitter old woman (or perhaps a bitter effeminate old queen if your prowess at name calling is any indication...and it is)...which as anyone can tell you ...would suck very much.


----------



## mamooth (May 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You make the claim that they are making climate predictions when you never even visited the site to see..



Dumbass, Curry has made predictions on her blog and in her papers, which I have posted here.

It takes a special degree of stupid, which you clearly possess, to declare that her company is the only possible place she could make predictions.

You really are just a profoundly stupid human being, not to mention a bitter weepy loser. What's it like, knowing that the whole board is laughing at your extremely-well-used cultist ass?


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2017)

mamooth said:


> It takes a special degree of stupid, which you clearly possess, to declare that her company is the only possible place she could make predictions.



You were the one who claimed that the company made predictions...it doesn't...now you are trying to wiggle out of your fake clam...you are the poster child for that special kind of stupid.


----------



## Crick (May 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No hairball...it is great to be me...I am happy, content, and have great fun all the time surrounded by my family and friends.



Since you know that your position is completely unsupportable, that you have NO actual allies in that regard, that everyone here realizes you are knowingly lying:  you cannot expect _anyone _to believe you are happy or content.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No hairball...it is great to be me...I am happy, content, and have great fun all the time surrounded by my family and friends.
> ...



Who needs allies when one is right?  You think allies and people agreeing with you is what makes you right?  What an idiot...You know what makes people happy crick...I mean truly happy?  Being right...and I am one of the happiest guys you will ever meet.  For all your arguments, and claims, you can't post a single piece of real, observed, measured data that challenges my position on anything...all you can say is that people disagree with me as if that means anything at all other than that is the only response you can make since you can't post up any actual data that challenges my position.


----------



## mamooth (May 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Being right...and I am one of the happiest guys you will ever meet.



You're more of an example of how ignorance isn't bliss. It would be the bitterness and misery in your posts that gives it away, not to mention your obsessive stalker-like behavior. Happy people always behave like that ... never.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Being right...and I am one of the happiest guys you will ever meet.
> ...



Again hairball...projecting your anger and bitterness upon others isn't going to help you get past it...denial just isn't productive.  Do a bit of back checking hairball..and you will find that you are the stalker...and claiming that I stalk effeminate old queens like yourself doesn't make it so.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 18, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Being right...and I am one of the happiest guys you will ever meet.
> ...





WTF....?


You are in the top three posters on this board of posting bitterness, all your post sound like they come from an old cranky hermit living under a bridge some where.



.


----------



## miketx (May 18, 2017)

Crick said:


> Nye is not retarded (and you're a complete dick for using the term as an insult), he has a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering - so vastly more educated than are you. And he doesn't lie about his education as do you, so you calling him a liar just doesn't work.  What Nye says about the climate and global warming is all backed up by the thousands of published research papers that form the foundation of the consensus opinion: the world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are primarily to blame.
> 
> Again, let me repeat: YOU are the liar and until you are willing to speak honestly about yourself, your opinion re the honesty of others is absolutely worthless.


Bill Nye the lyin' guy.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2017)

bear513 said:


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



She is completely divorced from reality...and when she makes an accusation, you can bet that she is in reality simply projecting her behavior onto whoever she happens to be making the accusation of.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




I have been on the internet now over 24 years? I have never seen a poster as constant cranky and bitter everyday...


.


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2017)

miketx said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Nye is not retarded (and you're a complete dick for using the term as an insult), he has a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering - so vastly more educated than are you. And he doesn't lie about his education as do you, so you calling him a liar just doesn't work.  What Nye says about the climate and global warming is all backed up by the thousands of published research papers that form the foundation of the consensus opinion: the world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are primarily to blame.
> ...




Nye is not retarded, but he is willing to lie for the 'Noble Cause' of global warming activism.

His fraudulent CO2 experiment on Gore's telethon a few years back is proof of that.


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2017)

Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised


----------



## IanC (May 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised




Do any of the warmers here support Nye's fraudulent experiment? Do you think it is OK to fudge results in the name of the Noble Cause?


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2017)

To cultists...I am sure that the ends justify the means.


----------



## Crick (May 19, 2017)

You obviously believe your ends justify your constant lies.


----------



## Crick (May 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Does whatever he did support the contentions of any of the deniers here regarding the actual behavior of the Earth's climate?


----------



## IanC (May 19, 2017)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...




Yes.

Nye lied and exaggerated. 

Are you OK with that? Are you willing to admit he lied? Or do you think lying for a Noble Cause is acceptable?

I'm just trying to get a handle on your ethical position here.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2017)

Crick said:


> You obviously believe your ends justify your constant lies.




Do you think a bald faced congenital liar calling me a liar makes an impression on anyone other than other liars?...Prove me wrong skid mark...post a single...just one...that is a *SINGLE *piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Step on up skid mark...show everyone how you are the honest one and I am a liar...show everyone that single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or don't and show everyone what a liar you are.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> I'm just trying to get a handle on your ethical position here.




Crickham....ethics?  Are you kidding?


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just trying to get a handle on your ethical position here.
> ...




Almost everyone thinks they are a little smarter, a little more honest, a little more kind or ethical than the average of the other people in the environment they are surrounded in. It's all relative. That's how criminals and politicians can live with themselves. Or climate scientists.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2017)

To the uninformed, or the zealots from either side, the climate science debate is an all or nothing position.

I believe that the globe has warmed since the LIA, that CO2 causes some warming influence, and that mankind has increased the portion of CO2. That puts me solidly in the 97% consensus.

But I disagree that the feedbacks will triple the 1C per 2xCO2 influence, so that makes me a denier. 

All or nothing just doesn't fit most people'sposition, or even the scientists' positions.

The models are wrong, the catastrophic conclusions drawn from them are improbable. We need a reset and do over of the CO2 hypothesis with more realistic assumptions. The precautionary principle has been projected as likely, the proposed solutions are foolish and expensive all out of proportion to the effect they will have with our present technology. The money being wasted cannot be used in more fruitful areas.


----------



## SSDD (May 21, 2017)

Since AGW is all about climate sensitivity to CO2, it is an all or nothing situation..since climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero...CO2, is, however sensitive to climate as ice core data tell us.


----------



## IanC (May 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Since AGW is all about climate sensitivity to CO2, it is an all or nothing situation..since climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero...CO2, is, however sensitive to climate as ice core data tell us.




Link please


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Since AGW is all about climate sensitivity to CO2, it is an all or nothing situation..since climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero...CO2, is, however sensitive to climate as ice core data tell us.
> ...




Link to what?  The fact that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere respond to the climate?  Look at the ice core data...

Or that climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero...that would be answered by the fact that after all these years and all those billions upon billions upon billions of dollars flushed down the  toilet by climate pseudoscience there still is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...not one.  Your lukewarm claims of "some" sensitivity to CO2 are just as fanciful as rock's claims of greater sensitivity...the are both based on magic which no amount of instrumentation, experimentation, or observation can seem to detect.  You are the one who believes in the magic...you show me some observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports your AGW fantasy over natural variability.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2017)

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth?  Why are we not at -18C?


----------



## SSDD (May 22, 2017)

Crick said:


> Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth?  Why are we not at -18C?



Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...


----------



## westwall (May 22, 2017)

Matthew said:


> I am loving what I am watching so far! Taking it to you fags!







I always knew you were racist but you're a homophobe too?  Pretty sad matthew.  Pretty sad.  As far as nye go's he's a great example of the lowest common denominator of science.


----------



## IanC (May 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth?  Why are we not at -18C?
> ...




Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.


----------



## SSDD (May 25, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Talk to the folks who devised the international standard atmosphere...it is correct and has remained correct even though so called greenhouse gas concentrations have increased...the increased amount of GHG has not prompted the first change in the standard atmosphere because they have no effect on lapse rates...

Been through the atmospheric thermal effect already...and the fact remains that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.


----------



## IanC (May 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


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




Yes. We have been through it before. You ran away then too.


----------



## SSDD (May 26, 2017)

IanC said:


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



No Ian...as always, you left because you could not prove a point...in the end, all you had was belief and models...no actual measured observation to support your position...SSDD


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2017)

At least I make points, and explain the reasons and evidence that led me to that conclusion.

On the other hand, you make declarative statements that are often absurd. And then refuse to provide the reasoning or evidence to back it up.

In this case it is atmospheric mass controlling surface temperature. You say it accurately predicts all the planets with atmospheres. Then you refuse to show the predictions, or even give the basic physics behind them.

You say greenhouse theory doesn't predict Earth temps without a fudge factor. You don't identify the fudge factor. 

Then you claim the Standard Atmosphere model is based on principles alone, yet if you actually read it you find it is derived by observation and only then are physical principles invoked to cautiously describe why the findings are there.


Crick scoffed at you when you stated that without GHGs the only way to lose heat would be conv(i)ction and conduction, obviously impossible to space. You did not defend yourself or clarify your statement.

I have been one of the few that have agreed, at least in part, with your garbled position. And the only one to actually explain it.

I know how gas planets lose heat. I doubt either you or crick actually do. That is why I asked both of you to put down a simple paragraph answer. But I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> As for Curry -- she's in that top right quadrant. Always worked on the HARD stuff. The way the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY works. Filling in those gaps of knowledge about time constants and delays and redistribution of heat.
> 
> She's STILL be doing that if she wasn't targeted and blackballed for not "singing the correct hymn" out of the GW hymnal..


Dumb ass, a real scientist with real evidence soldiers on, does not turn tail and try to make money off of their being ignored by the rest of the scientists. They continue to work, and present evidence, and, if they are right, they will win in the end. A prime example of that is J. Harlan Bretz. Curry is a quitter because her hypothesis, like those of Lindzen, did not stand the light of day.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 26, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > As for Curry -- she's in that top right quadrant. Always worked on the HARD stuff. The way the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY works. Filling in those gaps of knowledge about time constants and delays and redistribution of heat.
> ...



Not if they are cut from grants, harassed by the Univ, and can't get papers published because they are blacklisted.


----------



## anotherlife (May 26, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


A leftist will never admit to that.  Once I was trying to explain this exact same thing and the liberal scum was even an old person, yet had no integrity or wisdom enough to see this.  The other 3 quadrants are a fairy tale.  Hehe.


----------



## anotherlife (May 26, 2017)

Wow, 4 quadrants?  I am surprised.  Looks like some human resources officer has found yet another way of charting corporate efficiency planning.  High usefulness and low usefulness?  Some chart indeed.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 27, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Damn, fellow, read about the hassles that J. Harlan Bretz put up with.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 27, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I love that guy's fried chicken.  LOL..  Want to go toe to toe on academic political blackballing?  Didn't think so. My list would STILL be going up a month from now..  90% are primadonnas who think they can intimidate and overwhelm opposition with political correctness and group think.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 27, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


The GHG lapse rate change will only be affected until thermal equilibrium is reached. On Earth CO2's effect will be a few weeks at most. The greater effect is water vapor. Basically you will be unable to discern it from noise in our climatic system.


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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




You want me to repeat it yet again?

Let's focus on the simple case of CO2. CO2 absorbs several bands of surface IR radiation. One, the 15 micron band, would simply fly away to space at the speed of light were it not for CO2. The energy is captured and spread to the rest of the atmosphere by molecular collision, warming the air.

Close to the top of the atmosphere CO2 is excited by molecular collisions and emits 15 micron IR which escapes because there is not enough density to recapture it with another CO2 molecule unless the direction is back into the bulk of the atmosphere. The air is cooled by this radiation leaving.

CO2 warms the near surface air and cools the high air. But it absorbs more lower down than it releases higher up. For a net gain of atmospheric temperature. 

Lapse rate is the amount temperature change as you go from low to high. Warming the bottom and cooling the top by definition increases the lapse rate.

I hope this variation-on-a-theme explanation, which dovetails with all my other attempts,  will help you to understand. But I doubt it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 27, 2017)

IanC said:


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


The time energy resides in our atmosphere is dependent on mass and inhibiting factors.  Inhibiting factors, such as CO2, can only affect the lapse rate until equilibrium is met, at which time the in and out balance is neutral and can no longer affect it.

If I take CO2 and place it in a cylinder and compress it to 100% @ 3 atmospheres it will only warm until equilibrium is met and then it will begin to cool as all mass does.


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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




???? Non sequitur.

Release the gas and it will cool, a la a CO2 fire extinguisher. So what?

I said CO2's presence in the atmosphere increased the lapse rate. More CO2 will increase it more, less CO2 than now would drop it.

An atmosphere with no GHGs would have a low lapse rate. And a lot less stored energy. The much smaller temperature gradient from bottom to top would be a function of switching from mostly kinetic energy (temperature) near the surface, to mostly potential energy near the top.


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2017)

IanC said:


> At least I make points, and explain the reasons and evidence that led me to that conclusion.





IanC said:


> In most cases Ian...you have no "evidence"...you have unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.
> 
> On the other hand, you make declarative statements that are often absurd. And then refuse to provide the reasoning or evidence to back it up.
> 
> In this case it is atmospheric mass controlling surface temperature. You say it accurately predicts all the planets with atmospheres. Then you refuse to show the predictions, or even give the basic physics behind them.



I have shown you over and over and over...but like rocks, crick, and the hairball, you choose to either ignore that which questions your belief, or handily forget that you have ever seen it.  Here, once again....and book mark it this time so that you can go back and look at it for yourself.


Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp =* 737 K*

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = *~750 K*


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp =* 288 K*

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = *~294 K*


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = *165 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) =* ~169 K*


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = *134 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = *~133 K*


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = *76 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = *~77 K*

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp =* 72 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = *~73 K*



IanC said:


> You say greenhouse theory doesn't predict Earth temps without a fudge factor. You don't identify the fudge factor.



The fact that you don't know what the fudge factor is is pretty convincing evidence that you are no sort of skeptic at all.. you are simply a believer who doesn't believe the magic is quite as strong as the real wackos believe it to be...The fudge factor isn't for calculating AGW...it is for calculating the greenhouse effect itself..which is why I hold the position that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

The fudge factor goes something like this.....the amount of heat that gets added to the atmosphere (in w/m2)is 5.35 times the natural log of the amount of atmospheric CO2 after an increase in atmospheric CO2 divided by the previous amount of atmospheric CO2.  The w/m2 are then converted to a temperature increase by applying the SB equations.

The fudge factor is without the first inkling of scientific merit.   It removes saturation...and nothing can remove saturation...and there isn't even an attempt at explaining why saturation was removed...and in fact, it appears that the fudge factor was derived explicitly to remove saturation for no scientifically valid reason.

There are volumes on the topic available...warmers aren't interested however, because they have their models and the models represent reality to them.  You are a warmer no matter what you call yourself...the only thing you are skeptical of is the strength of the magic.


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2017)

IanC said:


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



The effect of CO2 on the climate is zero or less.  You are theorizing on the properties and effect of magic.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > At least I make points, and explain the reasons and evidence that led me to that conclusion.
> ...




So you admit the estimates for Earth and Venus are wrong, and Mars is missing.

Your position is an exercise in circular thinking. Of course the Ideal Gas Law will give a reasonable estimate, it is based on real observations. If you raise or lower the solar input, you also lower or raise the density, giving you the same general estimate.

I have always agreed with you that the simple fact that an atmosphere, just by existing, will provide a lot of information about possible temperature ranges and the energy inputs needed to hold it in place.

Your explanation has one serious drawback. It uses a local property (one bar of pressure) instead of the general property of density. 

The changes that GHGs make in the temperature profile of the atmosphere are not captured by a single point measurement. Gross general estimates do not permit the fine grain detail to be examined. A general range does not explain the changes that we are looking for, which are an order of magnitude smaller.


----------



## anotherlife (May 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



No magic.  Very simple.  No more global warming now, as no more CO2 emissions any more now, Auschwitz shut down all furnaces.  Problem solved.


----------



## SSDD (May 30, 2017)

IanC said:


> So you admit the estimates for Earth and Venus are wrong, and Mars is missing.



Geez Ian...corrections for incoming solar radiation must be made..the above is using nothing more than the ideal gas laws...for a guy who fancies himself as smart, you miss a great deal...and seem incapable of figuring out much.  Since you clearly can't manage mars by yourself, here.....

Mars atmosphere is very thin so minimum and maximum calculations are used as measured at the Viking Lander site....

6.9 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 20 (g/ m3) / 43.34 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 6.9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~182 K; or,

T = 9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~238 K




IanC said:


> Your position is an exercise in circular thinking. Of course the Ideal Gas Law will give a reasonable estimate, it is based on real observations. If you raise or lower the solar input, you also lower or raise the density, giving you the same general estimate.



Your position is an exercise in magical thinking...try applying the greenhouse hypothesis to the rest of the planets and see how far off you are.



IanC said:


> Your explanation has one serious drawback. It uses a local property (one bar of pressure) instead of the general property of density.



The pressure of 1 bar is convenience...the ideal gas calculations provide an accurate prediction of temperature regardless of the pressure...



IanC said:


> The changes that GHGs make in the temperature profile of the atmosphere are not captured by a single point measurement.



There are no changes that GHG's make beyond their contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.



IanC said:


> Gross general estimates do not permit the fine grain detail to be examined.



Neither do the calculations associated with the greenhouse hypothesis..in fact, they don't even come close to the accuracy achieved by the ideal gas laws...



IanC said:


> A general range does not explain the changes that we are looking for, which are an order of magnitude smaller.



You are looking for unicorns...and you will have better luck finding unicorns than you will have trying to find a human fingerprint in the climate due to so called greenhouse gasses.


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2017)

IanC said:


> Your position is an exercise in circular thinking. Of course the Ideal Gas Law will give a reasonable estimate, it is based on real observations..



And save us all from science that is based on real observations....right?  It seems that in your mind, science is only valid if it is based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The pressure of 1 bar is convenience...the ideal gas calculations provide an accurate prediction of temperature regardless of the pressure...




The ideal gas laws give reasonable estimates only under ideal conditions. The most important one is density, the volume of the molecules must be negligible compared to the volume of space being examined. Gravity is also assumed to be constant, as is the temperature gradient.

This works fine for a small volume of low density. Not so good for large volumes, especially when they have Temperature and gravity gradients, or high densities such as the surface of Venus.

Without CO2 intercepting its fraction of surface radiation energy the total energy of the atmosphere would be lower. Therefore the height of the atmosphere would be lower, therefore the density would be higher. Plugging a higher density into the gas equation spits out a lower temperature. Same mass, different temperature. Like I said, circular reasoning. The ideal gas laws will always give you a reasonable estimate of temperature but it is the density that gives the information on how much energy is stored in the atmosphere, and the range of input needed to hold it aloft in the gravity field.


----------



## SSDD (May 31, 2017)

IanC said:


> The ideal gas laws give reasonable estimates only under ideal conditions. .



Demonstrably wrong as evidenced by the calculations above...all estimates are damned close to the actual temperatures less some small adjustment for incoming solar radiation.



IanC said:


> This works fine for a small volume of low density. Not so good for large volumes, especially when they have Temperature and gravity gradients, or high densities such as the surface of Venus.



Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp =* 737 K  *

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = *~750 K *



IanC said:


> Without CO2 intercepting its fraction of surface radiation energy the total energy of the atmosphere would be lower.



CO2 doesn't intercept anything...it absorbs and emits and the energy moves on to cooler pastures.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 1, 2017)

IanC said:


> Without CO2 intercepting its fraction of surface radiation energy the total energy of the atmosphere would be lower. Therefore the height of the atmosphere would be lower, therefore the density would be higher. Plugging a higher density into the gas equation spits out a lower temperature. Same mass, different temperature. Like I said, circular reasoning. The ideal gas laws will always give you a reasonable estimate of temperature but it is the density that gives the information on how much energy is stored in the atmosphere, and the range of input needed to hold it aloft in the gravity field.



Just ran across a paper that discusses the ideas of so called skeptics...very interesting although I am sure that your faith will not allow you to put any real thought into what is stated...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Here....examination of your particular hypothesis on greenhouse mechanics...

*Definition 3*
A regular description of the ‘greenhouse gas’ heating mechanism is that referred to as ‘*back radiation*’. Atmospheric gases such as CO2, having a dipole moment, absorb some incoming solar radiation and some of the IR radiation the Earth’s surface radiates toward free space. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘re-radiated energy in the IR portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere keeping the surface temperature warm’. This *‘trapping’ is assumed to occur as the surface radiates to the atmosphere and the atmosphere radiates back to the surface*.

*The Critique*
The radiation emitted from the warmer surface absorbed by the colder atmosphere is readily detected by orbiting satellites. However, *back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface heating the surface further violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics*.

*There are two problems with that amount of down-welling radiation: the atmosphere is not a blackbody with unit emissivity and equally, is not radiating toward a receptive absorber*. *Yet it is depicted as radiating heat downwards to the warmer Earth’s surface in direct violation of the Second Law*.

The flow of heat is always from the hotter surface to the colder surface as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nowhere in the radiation field between the two surfaces is the flux of radiant energy equal to that which either surface would emit if they were facing a complete void. Thus, the simple use of the Stefan-Boltzmann term, δT4 to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in the manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation, is a misapplication of the equation and the notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It would therefore be clear that the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann term to simply characterize radiant energy being transferred from an object to its surroundings without reference to the conditions of the surroundings in radiative contact with that object is a misapplication of the equation.

It would be incorrect to talk in terms of radiation exchanging, since transfer occurs only from warmer to cooler matter, from higher energy level to lower energy level.



*Definition 4*
A proposed new definition of the greenhouse theory to overcome the objections raised against warming by back radiation argues that* IR absorbing ‘greenhouse gases’ hinder radiative transport from the Earth’s surface upwards* and aid to keep the surface warm and warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of those gases.

*The Critique*
The definition ignores the fact that those gases themselves emit radiation to free space adding to radiation loss from the system.  *Radiation loss to free space from the earth’s surface and its atmosphere is essentially the same with or without presence of absorbing gases* for the following reasons: the cooling by radiation to free space is a one-step process; in the presence of an atmosphere, it is a two-step process with the same loss, with or without, the absorbing and emitting gaseous atmosphere. When talking about radiation, it is absorbed radiation or emitted radiation that is being considered.


*Conclusion *
*The various stated definitions of the greenhouse effect* have been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny and application of the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. They were *found to be unreal*, and unless some new definition can be put forward that satisfies and complies with those laws, it can only be concluded that *the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated and is thus without merit*.


Like it or not ian, your position is based on belief..and that belief is rooted strongly in terribly misunderstood, misused, and mutliated laws of physics...the laws of physics as you "understand" them are incarnated in the GCM models...if they were correct, then the output of the models would mirror reality...we all know that they don't..and why?...because the physics they are based upon is fiction...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 1, 2017)

Crick said:


> Nye is not retarded (and you're a complete dick for using the term as an insult), he has a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering - so vastly more educated than are you. And he doesn't lie about his education as do you, so you calling him a liar just doesn't work.  What Nye says about the climate and global warming is all backed up by the thousands of published research papers that form the foundation of the consensus opinion: the world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are primarily to blame.
> 
> Again, let me repeat: YOU are the liar and until you are willing to speak honestly about yourself, your opinion re the honesty of others is absolutely worthless.


I agree, why insult the handicapped and disabled by including nye in that group.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

Don't know where you ran off to Ian but I just saw that N&Z have published a full blown alternative theory to the failed greenhouse hypothesis...but unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, their theory is based on fully vetted spanning a vast range of physical environments...and it accurately predicts the temperature across the board...

The paper was published in Environment, Pollution, and Climate Change...here is a link to the full paper..

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

Actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence...with all the methodology provided...reproduceable by anyone who cares to take the time...not hidden behind a paywall.....very unlike the methodology of the cult of the climate faithful...both the full blown wackos and those who still believe the magic but just don't think it is all that strong.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2017)

What a stupid paper. It starts out claiming the greenhouse effect is 90K. Why? Because they claimed it in another paper (under the names "Volokin and ReLlez", just their own names reversed).

It's not tough to calculate the greenhouse effect. We know what the black body temperature of an earth without an atmosphere should be. We know what the average temperature is. The difference is around 33K. That's the greenhouse effect.

So, they started out with a botched assumption. From there, they go into a curve fitting frenzy. Unfortunately, curve fitting isn't science, it's mathturbation. Twiddle the parameters and add fudge factors, and curves can be fit to anything. And that's what they did. For example, the actual data for Mars didn't fit their theory, so they simply made up some new data for Mars.

SSDD, why don't you summarize for us how the greenhouse effect is really 90K? After all, you endorsed that claim. If you know what you're talking about, it should be easy. And good luck with your perpetual motion machine science, as that's what all "static pressure creates heat" claims are. Even Spencer says it's nonsense.

Why Atmospheric Pressure Cannot Explain the Elevated Surface Temperature of the Earth «  Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> What a stupid paper. It starts out claiming the greenhouse effect is 90K. Why? Because they claimed it in another paper (under the names "Volokin and ReLlez", just their own names reversed).



Sorry hairball..but that paper actually supports the claims made within it with observed, measured, quantified data...unlike the quaint 19th century greenhouse effect model.



mamooth said:


> It's not tough to calculate the greenhouse effect. .



Sure...it is easy to calculate anything if you do it with ad hoc fudge factors...now making it work on other planets is a whole different thing and N&Z's theory works on any rocky planet no matter what the atmospheric composition while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here and then only with a completely made up fudge factor that has no scientific merit.



mamooth said:


> So, they started out with a botched assumption. From there, they go into a curve fitting frenzy. Unfortunately, curve fitting isn't science, it's mathturbation. Twiddle the parameters and add fudge factors, and curves can be fit to anything. And that's what they did. For example, the actual data for Mars didn't fit their theory, so they simply made up some new data for Mars.



Sorry hairball..but you couldn't be more wrong...but than that is how you roll...right?



mamooth said:


> SSDD, why don't you summarize for us how the greenhouse effect is really 90K? After all, you endorsed that claim. If you know what you're talking about, it should be easy. And good luck with your perpetual motion machine science, as that's what all "static pressure creates heat" claims are. Even Spencer says it's nonsense.



here...read the paper for yourself.

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/planetary_temperature_model_volokin_rellez_2015.pdf


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *Definition 4*
> A proposed new definition of the greenhouse theory to overcome the objections raised against warming by back radiation argues that* IR absorbing ‘greenhouse gases’ hinder radiative transport from the Earth’s surface upwards* and aid to keep the surface warm and warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of those gases.
> 
> *The Critique*
> The definition ignores the fact that those gases themselves emit radiation to free space adding to radiation loss from the system. *Radiation loss to free space from the earth’s surface and its atmosphere is essentially the same with or without presence of absorbing gases* for the following reasons: the cooling by radiation to free space is a one-step process; in the presence of an atmosphere, it is a two-step process with the same loss, with or without, the absorbing and emitting gaseous atmosphere. When talking about radiation, it is absorbed radiation or emitted radiation that is being considered.




I read the whole thing over at NTZ and I agree that many of the points have some merit but they are taken out of context of the complete system.

Take #4 which you quoted above. A simple analogy is a water hose. Once it is filled (!!!) then the water input equals the water output. That does not mean that there is no water in the hose, or that that reservoir of water has no function in moving water from one place to another.

We can take that analogy further by examining a hydro dam. The water input is variable but the water output is stable, with the reservoir used as a buffer to smooth out the swings in water input.

Let's compare this to the Sun/Earth energy cycle. Highly energetic solar radiation warms any spot on Earth with a sine-like intensity for daylight hours followed by no radiation in the night. The surface releases this energy by diffuse IR radiation. With no atmosphere the surface would be much warmer in daylight and much cooler at night.

An atmosphere smooths these extremes out, once the reservoir of energy is built up, like the dam or the water hose. Solar energy is stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential energy in the gravity field, and released in a relatively stable flow rather than the extremes that would be caused by solar input and no atmosphere.

Back to the criticism #4. Without CO2,a certain portion of surface radiation would escape directly to cold space. Instead, it is Incorporated into the total energy of the atmosphere which is constantly transforming it back and forth between kinetic, potential and radiation energies. It is not just a minor difference between a one step or two step escape. The second step is a whole complex atmospheric system that radically changes the thermal transport equilibriums.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

Ian...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if there were, then the models would be able to mimic reality...they don't even come close...the physics that they are based upon is pure fiction and fantasy which is why their output is also fiction and fantasy.

N&Z just had a revision of their paper published which answers all of the questions raised about their first paper...they are onto the truth and eventually, the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science is going to be tossed out...when you have one theory that correctly predicts the temperature of any rocky planet and is based on fully vetted observations and is chock full of observed, measured, quantified data...and a hypothesis which can only predict the temperature of one planet,  and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor and is completely lacking observed, measured, quantified data either as its basis, or its predictions...I can't think of a single reason to give even the slightest creedence to the second or a reason to give anyone who believes the second any credit for rational thinking at all....can you?


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Ian...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if there were, then the models would be able to mimic reality...they don't even come close...the physics that they are based upon is pure fiction and fantasy which is why their output is also fiction and fantasy.
> 
> N&Z just had a revision of their paper published which answers all of the questions raised about their first paper...they are onto the truth and eventually, the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science is going to be tossed out...when you have one theory that correctly predicts the temperature of any rocky planet and is based on fully vetted observations and is chock full of observed, measured, quantified data...and a hypothesis which can only predict the temperature of one planet,  and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor and is completely lacking observed, measured, quantified data either as its basis, or its predictions...I can't think of a single reason to give even the slightest creedence to the second or a reason to give anyone who believes the second any credit for rational thinking at all....can you?




Why have you changed the subject? Start a new thread on N&Z. It would be about time, as I have been asking you to debate it for years. Is the new iteration substantially different?


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> *Definition 3*
> A regular description of the ‘greenhouse gas’ heating mechanism is that referred to as ‘*back radiation*’. Atmospheric gases such as CO2, having a dipole moment, absorb some incoming solar radiation and some of the IR radiation the Earth’s surface radiates toward free space. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘re-radiated energy in the IR portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere keeping the surface temperature warm’. This *‘trapping’ is assumed to occur as the surface radiates to the atmosphere and the atmosphere radiates back to the surface*.
> 
> *The Critique*
> ...




First things first. This is a direct rebuttal of your use of the second S-B equation. As I have stated before, the differences in emissivity demand that the transfer of energy between two objects must be calculated individually, with the net power being one side of the equation being subtracted from the other. 

Heat always goes from warm to cool. The net heat amount is the warming influence of one object less the warming influence of the other.

This criticism #3 attempts to isolate atmospheric radiation and say that it is being claimed that it will warm the surface. It will not, does not. However it does reduce the cooling off the surface, if you isolated that by itself. Both objects are radiating at the same time. The amount and direction of net energy flow is dependent on both influences.

Earth's surface radiates~ 400w but the solar input is less than 200w. The difference is made up by the warming influence coming from the atmosphere. If there was nothing coming back from the atmosphere then the excess surface radiation would quickly and dramatically cool the surface.


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

Another criticism from your article-



> *Definition 2*
> Another common theme among the various descriptions of the effect is that the *‘greenhouse gases’ serve as a ‘blanket’* keeping the earth warm.
> 
> *The Critique*
> ...



The atmosphere keeps the surface both warmer and cooler than it would be, but at a warmer average temperature because radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.

GHGs are integral to the atmosphere and allow it to store more total energy. It is a stupid argument to say a person wouldn't be at a more comfortable temperature without it. Try standing on the Moon, you would either fry or freeze depending on whether the Sun was up.


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

> *Definition 6*
> All atmospheric gases that are believed to be ‘greenhouse gases’ absorb IR radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface. Their absorption spectra are well known and it is relatively easy to calculate the radiation flux, those gases absorb from the Earth’s IR emission.
> 
> *The Critique*
> ...


I have no problem with this. Although it does not make any effort to quantity or compare the amount of energy absorbed at the surface with respect to the amount released at the TOA. In the specific case of CO2, the amount absorbed at the surface is lower than what is released higher up. Not only that but it warms the near surface by absorption and cools the upper levels by emission. Even if the emission/ absorption we're equal it would still affect the temperature gradient and lapse rate.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> Why have you changed the subject? Start a new thread on N&Z. It would be about time, as I have been asking you to debate it for years. Is the new iteration substantially different?



There is nothing to debate...they crushed all the complaints you and yours had regarding the first paper...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> First things first. This is a direct rebuttal of your use of the second S-B equation. As I have stated before, the differences in emissivity demand that the transfer of energy between two objects must be calculated individually, with the net power being one side of the equation being subtracted from the other.



I have always said that the use of the SB equation in so far as the greenhouse hypothesis goes was incorrect...gasses aren't black bodies....Let me know when you get an actual measurement of two way energy movement...good luck with that.

You are operating on faith...no measurement...no observation...no quantification...nothing more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...it is sad that you have been duped so thoroughly by post modern science...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> The atmosphere keeps the surface both warmer and cooler than it would be, but at a warmer average temperature because radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.



Gasses are not black bodies...application of the SB law is, and always has been wrong.



IanC said:


> GHGs are integral to the atmosphere and allow it to store more total energy. It is a stupid argument to say a person wouldn't be at a more comfortable temperature without it. Try standing on the Moon, you would either fry or freeze depending on whether the Sun was up.



Faith...nothing more...do you know what happens when you put CO2 in a double glazed window as opposed to a non radiative gas like argon?  Which one actually slows the escape of energy...the CO2 or argon?....observation ian...measurement...quantification...when you actually test the hypothesis...it fails...if CO2 were able to slow the escape of energy, then your double glazed windows would be full of CO2 rather than a gas like argon which doesn't absorb and emit energy...CO2 acts as a cooling agent in between panes of glass and out in the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> > *Definition 6*
> > All atmospheric gases that are believed to be ‘greenhouse gases’ absorb IR radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface. Their absorption spectra are well known and it is relatively easy to calculate the radiation flux, those gases absorb from the Earth’s IR emission.
> >
> > *The Critique*
> ...



Sorry ian...CO2 doesn't warm anything...again, your entire position is based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...models which have failed SPECTACULARLY....the very fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can't predict the temperature anywhere but here...and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor should clue you in but does it?...not no...but hell ho...you are a believer...an acolyte...a dogma spouting follower.  You have been rendered incapable of questioning the failed greenhouse hypothesis in your mind..  It can never occur to you to ask why the greenhouse hypothesis can't predict the temperature anywhere but here...ask yourself why you don't seem to be able to ask yourself that.


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Why have you changed the subject? Start a new thread on N&Z. It would be about time, as I have been asking you to debate it for years. Is the new iteration substantially different?
> ...




Whatever. Keep your secrets.


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > First things first. This is a direct rebuttal of your use of the second S-B equation. As I have stated before, the differences in emissivity demand that the transfer of energy between two objects must be calculated individually, with the net power being one side of the equation being subtracted from the other.
> ...




Let me know when you get an actual measurement of radiation ceasing from an object when a warmer one comes into proximity. Good luck with that, hahahaha

Radiation is created by internal conditions of the emitting piece of matter, not by the local property of temperature for the environment, which doesn't even measure the total energy.


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere keeps the surface both warmer and cooler than it would be, but at a warmer average temperature because radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.
> ...




Non sequitur. Most of the efficiency of double pane windows is simply having two panes, close enough to impede convection but separated enough to impede conduction.


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > *Definition 6*
> ...




The ability of CO2 to absorb and emit certain bands of IR radiation is well known by empirical data from experiment.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sure...it is easy to calculate anything if you do it with ad hoc fudge factors...



What's the fudge factor in the standard greenhouse effect calculation?

T = [S(1-A)/(4*sigma)] ^ 1/4

A = Average albedo, 0.3

S = solar radiation flux, 1367 W/m^2

sigma = S-B constant.

Which leads to T = 255K. That's compared to an average temp on earth of about 288K, showing a 33k greenhouse effect.

You just told everyone that has a fudge factor in it. According to the paper you say is perfect, the real greenhouse effect is 90K. So, specifically identify this mysterious fudge factor for us, the one that supposedly changes things by 57K. If you weren't pushing a fraud, that should be easy for you. Please proceed.



> Sorry hairball..but you couldn't be more wrong...but than that is how you roll...right?



You didn't answer. Why did you and your masters have to fudge the Mars data? I'll answer. "Because it showed your theory was wrong."



> here...read the paper for yourself.



Did. Pointed out the obvious flaws in it.You didn't want to talk about them.

You might want to address one of Spencer's points as well. Temperatures in the stratosphere are essentially the same all through all of it, despite a hundredfold pressure difference from top to bottom. That real world observation destroys your "pressure causes heat" theory. Do you have a way to rescue it?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

IanC said:


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



What secrets...its all right there in the paper...no obscure language...no hidden methodology...no secret programing...all right there in the open to be duplicated by anyone who cares to do it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> Let me know when you get an actual measurement of radiation ceasing from an object when a warmer one comes into proximity. Good luck with that, hahahaha



Geez ian...don't you ever think...since you can't measure radiation  moving from a cooler object towards a warmer object, don't you think it stands to reason that it isn't happening?...Why do you suppose you can't measure it other than the fact that it isn't moving in that direction?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> Non sequitur. Most of the efficiency of double pane windows is simply having two panes, close enough to impede convection but separated enough to impede conduction.



No ian...if it were just two panes, then there would be no difference between filling the space with argon and filling the space with CO2...there is a difference...the window that is full of CO2 will transmit the energy from the warmer side of the glass much much faster than the window that is full of argon...that should tell you something if you weren't so brainwashed in the dogma.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> The ability of CO2 to absorb and emit certain bands of IR radiation is well known by empirical data from experiment.




So what?  Absorption and emission do not equal warming.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sure...it is easy to calculate anything if you do it with ad hoc fudge factors...
> ...





Idiot...C over Co represents the increase in CO2....the question was what would happen if CO2 doubled...hansen decided the fudge factor would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter....and rather than call it a fudge factor, he named it forcing...sounds better...right? More marketable...sounds like someone actually did some research and could prove that with the doubling of CO2 the energy change would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter.

Any idea where saturation might be in that fudge factor? Saturation is very important but not found within the greenhouse effect calculations? The fudge factor also removes all influences from natural variations....imagine...a hypothesis RE: the climate whose only support is a mathematical model that doesn't recognize natural variation...

In short, the fudge factor is a fill in for a mechanism that could not be found or even synthesized....it was an ad hoc construct put in place of a mechanism that doesn't exist..


----------



## polarbear (Jun 2, 2017)

Jeeeesus this *heating* with "back radiation" bullshit discussion will only end till each of you make 2 saran wrap tents and put a CO2 scrubber in one to see if the one without the scrubber gets thermometer measurably warmer than the other one with the scrubber.
Instead of hard to get LiOH you can use easier to get NaOH pellets or quick lime.
But I can tell you right now that none of you will see a higher temperature in the "CO2" tent unless you go ape and sock it with waaay more CO2, to the point where a human being would suffocate.
The next thing the forum "radiation experts" can`t come to grips with is that a heat source does not necessarily comply with the StB equation unless you alter the physics of the heat source to radiate similar to the way a black body would at the same temperature.
Best example of that is a gas fired Infrared heater. Which is basically a Bunsen burner internally firing a tube which is constructed with materials that simulate a black body as best as we can.
There is no way you could heat a distant object with the same Burner & reflector if you removed the tube.
I am getting sick and tired of climate dingbats who have absolutely no clue of physics and engineering... and sadly that includes Roy Spencer spreading all this cold heating hot radiation bullshit all over the internet.
Watch and learn, (which most warmers refuse to do):


----------



## IanC (Jun 2, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Jeeeesus this *heating* with "back radiation" bullshit discussion




Strawman again?

Back radiation inhibits cooling. Are you saying that the temperature of the atmosphere has no effect on the temperature of the surface?

CO2 stops the direct escape of certain bands of surface IR. Are you saying that this stored energy does not warm the atmosphere?

Or are you just saying that the mechanisms are real but the effects are small and should be ignored?

I think the effects of the atmosphere are large because of the vast amount of energy already stored there. I think the change caused by the increased amount of CO2 is trivial but the mechanism is real and cannot be totally discounted.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2017)

IanC said:


> Back radiation inhibits cooling. Are you saying that the temperature of the atmosphere has no effect on the temperature of the surface?



there is no back radiation...there is no inhibition of cooling as evidenced by the absence of an ever growing hot spot as a result of an ever higher atmospheric CO2 concentration...

Tell me ian...when observation proves you blatantly wrong...what sort of mind set causes you to persist in your belief?  



IanC said:


> CO2 stops the direct escape of certain bands of surface IR. Are you saying that this stored energy does not warm the atmosphere?



No it doesn't......if it did there would be a tropospheric hot spot...there isn't which is clear and undeniable proof that it simply isn't happening.  



IanC said:


> Or are you just saying that the mechanisms are real but the effects are small and should be ignored?



The mechanisms are fantasy...and the effects of fantasy mechanisms are non existent...



IanC said:


> I think the effects of the atmosphere are large because of the vast amount of energy already stored there. I think the change caused by the increased amount of CO2 is trivial but the mechanism is real and cannot be totally discounted.



There is no energy captured by CO2...if there were, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....refer back to the series of pictures I posted regarding the exit from the paris agreement...

SSDD:  You see this....if CO2 behaved as you believe, and did what you claim, there would be a tropospheric hot spot...there is no tropospheric hot spot...

Ian:  But CO2 inhibits the escape of certain bands of IR into space...

SSDD:  There have been a million plus radiosondes, and weather balloons, not to mention the satellite record...not a hint of a tropospheric hot spot which would be evident if CO2 impeded the escape of IR into space

Ian:  But CO2 must slow the escape of certain bands of IR into space because it absorbs them.

SSDD:  Look at me chief....No tropospheric hot spot...not even a small one...not even a hint of one.

Ian:  Well....maybe one that we just can't find...like maybe just millimeters above the surface.

SSDD:  No measurable hot spot.....anywhere

Ian:  Don't f*$k with me!!

SSDD:  I'm sorry Ian...but there simply is no hot spot...no matter where you look...clear and undeniable evidence that the mechanism which you believe so fervently in does not exist..it isn' there because it isn't happening...NOT REAL....

Ian:  Boo Hooo Hooo...but I believed in in so hard...first the Tooth Fairy, then the Easter Bunny, then Santa Clause....and now CO2 impeding the escape of certain bands of IR from the atmosphere....will there be no end to people dashing my heart felt beliefs upon the jagged rocks of reason?   Boo Hoo Hooooooooooooooooooo....


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Back radiation inhibits cooling. Are you saying that the temperature of the atmosphere has no effect on the temperature of the surface?
> ...




Why don't you explain what you think the hotspot is? 

To my understanding it is the consequence of increased water evaporation, not the radiative effect of CO2, except indirectly by temperature increase.

The fact that there has been no increase commensurate with model predictions means that the models are not capturing the proper physics of the situation. Eg there is no tripling of the CO2 influence, no feedback that is necessary to make catastrophic predictions.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2017)

IanC said:


> Why don't you explain what you think the hotspot is?
> 
> To my understanding it is the consequence of increased water evaporation, not the radiative effect of CO2, except indirectly by temperature increase.



As usual, your "understanding is half assed at best....The "trapped", "hindered", "impeded", "slowed" IR as a result of increased CO2 was supposed to cause the water vapor emission layer to ascend to a higher altitude, which would result in warmer temperatures in the atmosphere between 4 and 16km in altitude...since there is no slowing down, or trapping, or impeding, or hindering of IR from the surface by by CO2 the resulting ascension of the water vapor emission layer never happened.  



IanC said:


> The fact that there has been no increase commensurate with model predictions means that the models are not capturing the proper physics of the situation. Eg there is no tripling of the CO2 influence, no feedback that is necessary to make catastrophic predictions.



The physics that are not cooperating are the very physics that you argue so fervently in defense of...CO2 does not slow the escape of IR radiating from the surface...CO2 does not radiate energy back towards the surface...CO2 does nothing but absorb and emit and it rarely even does that because the time between collisions is about a billion times shorter than the time it takes a CO2 molecule to emit a photon (assuming photons exist)...all CO2 does is provide some slight cooling effect in the atmosphere...just as it does when you put it between two panes of glass.  It hurries IR on its way to space.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> [Idiot...



Little coward, I asked you to show where the 33K greenhouse effect calculation was wrong, and why the 90K figure in your paper was correct. In response, you have another meltdown.



> C over Co represents the increase in CO2....



That's nice, but the issue you're deflecting from is the hilariously stupid paper that you just told everyone was the best paper ever. That paper says the atmospheric effect is 90K. And you won't explain why that's true, or why the 33K figure is wrong.



> the question was what would happen if CO2 doubled...



No it wasn't. That question hadn't been brought up at all. You're bringing it up now as an excuse to cry and run.



> hansen decided the fudge factor would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter....and rather than call it a fudge factor, he named it forcing...sounds better...right? More marketable...sounds like someone actually did some research and could prove that with the doubling of CO2 the energy change would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter.



That was bizarre. You're just off in a cuckoo dimension.



> Any idea where saturation might be in that fudge factor? Saturation is very important but not found within the greenhouse effect calculations? The fudge factor also removes all influences from natural variations....imagine...a hypothesis RE: the climate whose only support is a mathematical model that doesn't recognize natural variation...



And now you're raving about "saturation" and "natural variation", in the hopes that you can baffle people with buzzwords, so that they won't notice you're just making crap up.

Now, back to what you're running from. Your most amazingest paper in the world says the atmospere causes 90K of warming. Explain to us why that's correct, and why the 33K figure is wrong.

And again, here's the problem with your paper:

"DA is a method for extracting physically meaningful relationships from empirical data"

That is, it's a paper based on curve-fitting. Thing is, you can always find a curve that fits any set of a limited data points, even random noise. It's just mathturbation, and real scientists know that, so they never do it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 3, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Little coward, I asked you to show where the 33K greenhouse effect calculation was wrong, and why the 90K figure in your paper was correct. In response, you have another meltdown.



I gave you a link to the study...was it all that far over your head?...maybe an adult near you can help you out...personally, I have grown tired of trying to explain anything to you.




mamooth said:


> That was bizarre. You're just off in a cuckoo dimension.



True..it is bizarre and yet, it is the fudge factor in the climate models...  Believe on crazy cat lady...believe on.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> [I gave you a link to the study...was it all that far over your head?



It's clearly way over yours, being you can't explain it. I've asked twice now, and you've cried and run each time.

You've been busted, oh gutless little fraud. You clearly don't have the slightest idea of what your precious paper actually said. 

You didn't even read the damn thing, did you? Yes, it really is that obvious. Someone told you the paper was official cult propaganda, so you're here spreading TheGoodNews.


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2017)

SSDD said:


> increased CO2 was supposed to cause the water vapor emission layer to ascend to a higher altitude




???? That is your understanding of the hotspot? Who said that? By what mechanism? Are you just putting down random words?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2017)

polarbear said:


> I am getting sick and tired of climate dingbats who have absolutely no clue of physics and engineering...



You're not ignored because you're dazzling anyone with brilliance. You're ignored because you're baffling everyone with bullshit. All you do is ramble crap about topics that have nothing to do with the science.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > increased CO2 was supposed to cause the water vapor emission layer to ascend to a higher altitude
> ...



Wow ian...you really do just go about making shit up for yourself and proclaiming it as science don't you?  You really have no idea what the hot spot is all about do you?...Here, let me run it by you one more time.  If you don't get it this time, perhaps you might try to actually look up what climate science says rather than make it up for yourself...both are wrong, but at least one isn't simply the product of your own imagination.

According to climate science and the ipcc the mechanism that is supposed to cause the tropospheric hot spot is part of the physical mechanics of the greenhouse hypothesis and goes as follows...and since you obviously have never bothered to look this up since the explanation to you seems to be just random words, I will back track a bit and explain a bit about the atmosphere itself...maybe all you think you know about the atmosphere is just shit you made up as well..

At its most basic...the portion of the atmosphere that  contains water vapor is called the troposphere.  Water vapor is the only gas in the atmosphere that actually rises to the definition of a greenhouse gas because it not only absorbs IR, but stores the energy...unlike other gasses which simply absorb IR and then immediately emit it right on into space....further since water vapor is so prevalent in the troposphere, a fair amount of the energy absorbed by the other so called greenhouse gasses gets transferred to H2O molecules via collisions before the so called greenhouse gas molecules can radiate the energy on towards space.

The troposphere itself is broken down into the upper and lower troposphere by the WATER VAPOR EMISSIONS LEVEl (WVEL)...also known by some sources as the characteristic emissions level (CEL) which is located one optical depth below the top of the troposphere.

Note:  if you don't know what an optical depth is, stop here and go look it up.  It has to do with how opaque any particular medium is to radiation passing through it.  It would take more time than I have to explain the whole concept to you and I am not sure you would listen anyway.  You apparently only listen to the voice in your head that helps you make it all up for yourself.

Above the line that constitutes the water vapor emissions level, radiation within the absorption frequencies of water vapor more or less radiate directly out into space...below the water vapor emissions level, it is more likely to be absorbed and perhaps retained, perhaps passed on via collision, or perhaps radiated on up into the atmosphere. 

Nevertheless, because of the property of water vapor which allows it to actually absorb and retain energy, the lower troposphere..that is the part of the troposphere below the water vapor emissions level is warmer than the upper troposphere which effectively radiates any energy within the H2O absorption frequencies right on out into space, and as a result, gets colder, the higher you go.

So once again....according to climate science, the climate models, and the ipcc, the mechanism that is supposed to cause the tropospheric hot spot goes something like this.


An increase in surface temperature will increase evaporation in the oceans which will then increase the amount of water vapor present in the troposphere.
This extra water vapor is added on to the water vapor that is already residing in the atmosphere which, in turn, enlarges the lower troposphere (one optical depth  below the top of the troposphere).  This enlargement of the lower troposphere is then supposed to push the water vapor emissions layer to a higher altitude.
By increasing the altitude to which the water vapor emissions level, the warmer portion of the troposphere is pushed up into the part of the atmosphere which was previously the colder portion of the troposphere which effectively radiated energy within the H2O absorption band right on out into space.  That part of the atmosphere now occupied by the portion of the troposphere that is below one optical depth from the top of the troposphere is warmer that it was when it was before the size of the lower troposphere increased.
The hot spot forms at the top of the lower troposphere.
This increased water vapor (which by the way, is supposed to increase because of the enhanced greenhouse effect that results from increased CO2) enlarges the lower troposphere which absorbs and holds more heat which causes the earth to warm...and this is in addition to the temperature increase supposedly caused by CO2 which caused the temperature to rise and cause more evaporation in the first place.  (that is part of the magic)
In addition, this increased water vapor will decrease the moist adiabatic lapse rate in the lower troposphere...this means that the temperature doesn't decrease as quickly as you increase altitude between the ground and the top of the lower troposphere...(one optical depth below the top of the troposphere)
This decrease of the moist adiabatic lapse rate which causes the top of the lower troposphere to increase in temperature to compensate which in turn causes the tropospheric hot spot.
All of this is supposed to happen as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere which will cause warming and as a result, more evaporation from the oceans.  But, since CO2 doesn't cause warming, there is no additional evaporation from the oceans, the troposphere remains the same size and no hot spot develops.

Now keep in mind that none of this, beyond the existence of the troposphere, and its division at the water vapor emissions level is real...it is all hypothetical and the basis for the greenhouse hypothesis, and the resulting AGW hypothesis due to more so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.  It is all a hypothetical effect resulting from a hypothetical cause..that being that CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses somehow slow down the escape of IR from the lower atmosphere.  It isn't going to happen because the magical property that climate science, and you have ascribed to CO2 are fictional....CO2 doesn't slow down the escape of IR into space..if anything, it speeds it up.

And here is the kicker...there has certainly been some warming over the past half a century or so...not as much as the manipulated record would like you to believe, but some small amount anyway...this bit of warming has not, according to the measured data caused the altitude of the water vapor emissions level to increase whatsoever. 

This is a prediction of not only AGW, but of the greenhouse hypothesis itself...it is part of the physical mechanics of the greenhouse hypothesis..it predicts that if you increase the surface temperature you increase the amount of evaporation and this increased water vapor in the troposphere will raise the altitude of the water vapor emissions level and cause a hot spot...according to the greenhouse hypothesis, any surface warming will cause this...not just warming due to CO2...

Now tell me ian...in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is tossed out in favor of a hypothesis that doesn't fail in its predictions...especially a big one like this.  Face it ian, the greenhouse hypothesis itself has failed and it has failed because of a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of physics....the very physics you so fervently believe in.

And here is another kicker...as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, the altitude of the water vapor emissions level has been observed to descend somewhat...precisely the opposite of what your understanding of the physics of energy transfer in the atmosphere predicted.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting sick and tired of climate dingbats who have absolutely no clue of physics and engineering...
> ...



Your actions show that he isn't being ignored at all...you like to pretend to ignore him in an effort to save face because you don't like it that his intellect stands so far above your own.

You are like some sort of broadcasting station telling everyone who cares to look exactly how you feel about any given topic no matter what you have to say about it.  I would suggest that you do a bit of research into the nature of psychological "tells" but you are just to damned entertaining...watching you thrash about trying to pretend that actual science is not finally catching up with climate pseudoscience and that the system you have invested so much emotional currency into is collapsing before your eyes.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > [I gave you a link to the study...was it all that far over your head?
> ...





Here you go hairball...after looking at the paper again, I can see why you weren't able to find it yourself...one would need at least a basic grasp of math to be able to even find it.  They provide a pretty good verbal explanation of how they derive 90K rather than 18-33k as climate science claims but you may need to find an adult close to you to help you with the big words and to explain some of the mathematical concepts by which they derive their statement.


A) Magnitude of the Natural Greenhouse Effect. GHE is often quantified as a difference between the actual mean global surface temperature (Ts = 287.6K) and the planet’s average gray-body (no- atmosphere) temperature (Tgb), i.e. GHE = Ts - Tgb. In the current theory, Tgb is equated with the effective emission temperature (Te) calculated straight from the S-B Law using Eq. (1): 

     EQUATION 1

Where So TOA TSI (W m-2) and αp is Earth’s planetary albedo (≈0.3). However, this is conceptually incorrect! Due to Hölder’s inequality between non-linear integrals (Kuptsov 2001), Te is not physically compatible with a measurable true mean temperature of an airless planet. In order to be correct, Tgb must be computed via proper spherical integration of the planetary temperature field. This implies first calculating the temperature at every point by taking the 4th root of the absorbed radiation at that point and then averaging the resulting temperature field across the planet surface, i.e. 


     EQUATION 2

where αgb is the Earth’s albedo without atmosphere (≈0.125), μ is the cosine of incident solar angle at any point, and cs = 13.25e-5 is a small constant ensuring that Tgb = 2.72K (the temperature of deep Space) when So = 0. Equation (2) assumes a spatially constant albedo (αgb), which is a reasonable approximation when trying to estimate an average planetary temperature. Since in accordance with Hölder’s inequality Tgb ≪ Te (Tgb =154.3K ), GHE becomes much larger than presently estimated. According to Eq. (2), our atmosphere boosts Earth’s surface temperature not by 18K—33K as currently assumed, but by 133K! This raises the question: Can a handful of trace gases which amount to less than 0.5% of atmospheric mass trap enough radiant heat to cause such a huge thermal enhancement at the surface? Thermodynamics tells us that this not possible.

The complete explanation and equations 1 and 2 can be found on page 3 of the paper HERE.  I can see why you never made it that far...Getting through the title page was probably pushing your limits and looking at the "greenhouse effect" basic probably pushed you over the edge...you will no doubt require some adult supervision to get through the above so good luck to you.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2017)

I, for one, am pleased with SSDD'S new found ability to do a little research and cut&paste relevant parts. I just hope he is reading and understanding it (unlike Old Rocks who never does).

So the tropospheric hotspot is supposed to act like an El Nino but on a permanent basis not just transiently. That is why Linden's Iris Effect was attacked so ferociously, and the Braswell and Spencer paper caused an editor to be forced to retire (edit-resign) for publishing it. Excess heat is simply lost to space and homeostasis returns the system to its previous conditions.

I really think the new N&Z paper deserves its own thread


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2017)

IanC said:


> I, for one, am pleased with SSDD'S new found ability to do a little research and cut&paste relevant parts. I just hope he is reading and understanding it (unlike Old Rocks who never does).
> 
> So the tropospheric hotspot is supposed to act like an El Nino but on a permanent basis not just transiently. That is why Linden's Iris Effect was attacked so ferociously, and the Braswell and Spencer paper caused an editor to be forced to retire (edit-resign) for publishing it. Excess heat is simply lost to space and homeostasis returns the system to its previous conditions.
> 
> I really think the new N&Z paper deserves its own thread



You go right ahead and pretend that it was me who didn't have a clue ian, but your post 109 tells the true story...you had no idea when I said essentially the exact same thing in my post 105...and my post 111 would have been entirely unnecessary had you had the first clue in the first place.

It is clear evidence that the greenhouse effect has failed as an hypothesis...and even more clear is the fact that CO2 doesn't possess the magical powers you and the rest of the warmers on this board ascribe to it...because the water vapor emissions layer has been observed to descend somewhat as CO2 levels have increased is ample reason to consider the very strong possibility that CO2 acts as a cooling agent in the atmosphere...precisely as I have been stating all along.  Like it or not, your version of atmospheric physics has failed while my understanding and acceptance of the laws as they are stated marches merrily along leaving my position unchallenged by observation or measurement.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Here you go hairball...after looking at the paper again,



Good! I got you to read the paper, at least enough to copy some words.



> In order to be correct, Tgb must be computed via proper spherical integration of the planetary temperature field. This implies first calculating the temperature at every point by taking the 4th root of the absorbed radiation at that point and then averaging the resulting temperature field across the planet surface, i.e.



Bad assumption. The earth doesn't radiate to space, the top of the atmosphere does. That's what you need to average.



> where αgb is the Earth’s albedo without atmosphere (≈0.125),



Apples and oranges error. If you're going to compare results with earth-with-atmosphere temps, you need to minimize differences. That means you should use earth-with-atmosphere albedo.



> and cs = 13.25e-5 is a small constant ensuring that Tgb = 2.72K (the temperature of deep Space) when So = 0.



So, a fudge factor. What a surprise.

And the integral didn't look right. It wasn't a surface integral over the surface of a sphere.

Glad I could help. Next time, have them get in touch with me for peer review.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 4, 2017)

Sorry haiball, you're SKS explanation fails every time it is tried...to bad you are unable to actually look at the observations and see that the hypothesis has failed and failed miserably.

The atmospheric thermal effect is based on actual observations, requires no fudge factor and accurately predicts the tempertuature of any rocky planet with an atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I, for one, am pleased with SSDD'S new found ability to do a little research and cut&paste relevant parts. I just hope he is reading and understanding it (unlike Old Rocks who never does).
> ...




Now you're just going back into a crazy mode again.

The THP is almost entirely driven by the water cycle and the energy transported aloft and released by phase change. Any increase of surface temperature should cause an increase of temp at the cloudtop level. That surface temperature change can be caused by solar input, indirectly by CO2, or natural variability such as an El Nino event. Didn't you learn anything from your cut&paste?


The energy released by phase change during condensation and precipitation is similar to the radiation produced by water at the surface. Eg a significant fraction is in the atmospheric window band, almost half of which will return to the surface unimpeded by the main atmosphere gases or the GHGs. 

How do we know this? An easy proof is an IR temperature gun. It is constrained to the atmospheric window band of radiation. All of this type of surface radiation escapes directly to space, yet the gun is reading radiation from the atmosphere. Hence it must be emanating from the atmosphere. The gun reads cool from open sky and much warmer from cloudy sky.

Cloudtops have very little water vapour above them, so the radiation previously intercepted by WV is now free to escape to space, if it is emitted upwards. CO2 is still blocking its bands, although the distance to extinction is much longer than the 10 metre figure at the surface. At a certain height, the air becomes so rarified that it becomes more probable that a CO2 specific emitted photon will escape rather than be recaptured by another CO2 molecule. According to satellite measurements, this corresponds to a height which is about -65C, if my memory is accurate. The energy needed to excite a CO2 molecule and produce a photon does not typically come from absorbing a photon. Rather it comes from molecular collision, turning kinetic energy into internal potential energy. The consequence of this is that increased amounts of CO2 should cause a decrease in temperature at this level by turning kinetic energy into escaping radiation. And this change is found to be happening but it is unclear if the rate matches the model predictions.


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry haiball, you're SKS explanation fails every time it is tried...to bad you are unable to actually look at the observations and see that the hypothesis has failed and failed miserably.
> 
> The atmospheric thermal effect is based on actual observations, requires no fudge factor and accurately predicts the tempertuature of any rocky planet with an atmosphere.




Arguing with the pooh flinging monkey again?

N&Z have a point that just the existence of an atmosphere will give you a range of possible surface temperatures.

Where they go wrong (in many places) is believing that their data fitting curve is the only solution, not one of many.

It is related to Pascal's Wager. Pascal was wrong because there are many different religions. N&Z are wrong because there are few data points, and different combinations of the scant data produce large changes in results.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> Now you're just going back into a crazy mode again.
> 
> The THP is almost entirely driven by the water cycle and the energy transported aloft and released by phase change.



No...the hot spot is driven entirely by the water cycle because CO2 does not do what you warmers believe it does...it provides no contribution whatsoever other than perhaps a cooling effect as evidenced by the fact that the water vapor emission level has been observed to descend somewhat while CO2 levels have increased.  The hot spot would be evident if CO2 played the role you and the other wackos believe it does.

And it appears that you have now taken to doing some research...a far cry from a few posts ago when you didn't have a clue...and by the way, I didn't cut and paste anything...




IanC said:


> How do we know this? An easy proof is an IR temperature gun. It is constrained to the atmospheric window band of radiation. All of this type of surface radiation escapes directly to space, yet the gun is reading radiation from the atmosphere. Hence it must be emanating from the atmosphere. The gun reads cool from open sky and much warmer from cloudy sky.



What exactly makes you think it is reading radiation "from" the atmosphere?   The fact is that the internal thermopile is simply changing temperature based on what it is pointed at.  It reads energy moving away from it as readily as it reads energy moving towards it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> N&Z have a point that just the existence of an atmosphere will give you a range of possible surface temperatures.



You think?  Every bit of observational and measured evidence says exactly that and yet, you wallow in the magical pseudoscience of the greenhouse effect and powers of CO2.



IanC said:


> Where they go wrong (in many places) is believing that their data fitting curve is the only solution, not one of many.



It isn't just a matter of data fitting...the fact that all of the rocky planets with atmospheres that we are aware of sit so tightly on a curve should speak a very loud and clear message to you regarding the physics at work....it doesn't get though though, because you are so indoctrinated in your dogma that you can't see the truth when it is placed squarely in your line of sight.

The fact that they have discovered that all of our rocky planets sit so squarely on that curve is precisely where they have gone right.  You like to think that the curve is only one possible solution because you can't stand to give up hope that your magical CO2 and fictional greenhouse hypothesis may still prove correct...it is a false hope and you are engaged in magical thinking by holding out that hope.  There is an undeniable physical reality which places those planets so tightly on that curve and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the atmosphere, or anything like a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> What exactly makes you think it is reading radiation "from" the atmosphere? The fact is that the internal thermopile is simply changing temperature based on what it is pointed at. It reads energy moving away from it as readily as it reads energy moving towards it



You are the person who linked up to the IR gun manufacturer's article describing how they truncated the IR bands measured to only include wavelengths unaffected by atmospheric molecules (ie a similar range to the atmospheric window). Any radiation detected in this range must be being created within the atmosphere because all surface radiation in this range escapes directly to space.

Are you now disavowing this link that you plastered over many threads? 

Will you claim 'fooled' by instrumentation yet again even though it is a common class of technology that is used extensively and found to be accurate by experiment? You often proclaim every measurement, every observation, every experiment supports your position. How do you reconcile this whole field of demonstrably reliable instruments with your opinion? Don't bother answering, we all know it involves smart photons, and/or smart emitters combined with a garbled version of thermodynamic laws that depend on your personal interpretation of the word definitions at the expense of the actual meaning.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> You are the person who linked up to the IR gun manufacturer's article describing how they truncated the IR bands measured to only include wavelengths unaffected by atmospheric molecules (ie a similar range to the atmospheric window). Any radiation detected in this range must be being created within the atmosphere because all surface radiation in this range escapes directly to space.[/wuote]
> 
> You really do just make it up as you go...don't you...you make up your own arguments and you make up arguments to rail against...
> 
> ...


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No...the hot spot is driven entirely by the water cycle because CO2 does not do what you warmers believe it does...




Like I said, you've slipped back into crazy mode.

The hotspot is a function of the water cycle. Period. Surface warming from any cause is supposed to trigger a large and permanent increase there.

CO2 and solar are two possible causes of surface warming but they are not large enough to definitively pick out of the background noise at this time.

El Ninos are large enough. The warming of the atmosphere is caused by increased water temperature and the subsequent increased evaporation which deposits large amounts of energy into the air at cloud level.

Do these El Ninos events cause permanent warming? Difficult to say. Most of the time the answer is no, but the 1998 event certainty appears to have reset the thermostat at a higher temperature. The 2016 event has not been followed by a similarly large La Nina. Will there be another upwards thermostat adjustment? Too soon to tell. 

I find it hard to believe that the relatively miniscule energy from industrialization has altered ocean currents in 150 years. I find it more believable that warming and cooling eras; RWP, dark ages, MWP, LIA and the present warming period are harmonics of each other. The ocean currents holding a memory of past conditions as they make the journey from surface to downwelling circulation and back to the surface again. Just a thought though.

SSDD- why don't you provide the evidence that the emission level has changed, and the mechanism by which CO2 has caused this change? I am always willing to learn something new. But I seldom put much credence in claims that are devoid of evidence or reasoning. Please, prove my skepticism of your statement is unfounded. I would be grateful.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You are the person who linked up to the IR gun manufacturer's article describing how they truncated the IR bands measured to only include wavelengths unaffected by atmospheric molecules (ie a similar range to the atmospheric window). Any radiation detected in this range must be being created within the atmosphere because all surface radiation in this range escapes directly to space.
> ...



You are once again deflecting and ignoring the particulars of the argument. Your link to the IR gun manufacturer explains in detail how the gun works. Do you now denounce what you thought was important enough to post on multiple threads?

The gun works by analyzing the amount of radiation entering and leaving the detector, the net flow. I say both the gun and the object are radiating according to their temperatures. You say only the warmer one emits, and even that emission is throttled down by 'knowing' the temperature of opposite object even though no information is coming from it. Your position doesn't make sense and it is contrary to physical laws, the most important of which is entropy.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > N&Z have a point that just the existence of an atmosphere will give you a range of possible surface temperatures.
> ...




A planet/atmosphere system shows it's energy input by its energy output . If they are not equal then it is either warming or cooling.

The height of an atmosphere shows its energy input. More input means more energy stored as potential energy in the gravity field and more energy returned to the surface.

If the Earth's GHGs were exchanged with the same mass of non GHGs what would happen? The 400w of surface radiation would simply escape to space, causing a deficit of about 200w. The surface would cool, quickly. The atmosphere would no longer be intercepting surface radiation and would cool. The atmosphere would no longer be receiving energy from the water cycle and would cool even more. A cooler atmosphere would mean a cooler surface, as less total atmospheric energy was available to return to the surface.

In the end, after the system achieved equilibrium again, would the Earth still fit on N&Z's graph? Why yes it would! The atmosphere would be lower, meaning the density would be higher, so the ideal gas laws would give a lower temperature.

Two different sets of conditions, two different surface temperatures, same adherence to the IGL.

The IGL gives a range of possible solutions. There is no single correct answer, you need to know more information about the conditions.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Jeeeesus this *heating* with "back radiation" bullshit discussion
> ...


_Or are you just saying that the mechanisms are real but the effects are small and should be ignored? I think the effects of the atmosphere are large because of the vast amount of energy already stored there. I think the change caused by the increased amount of CO2 is trivial but the mechanism is real and cannot be totally discounted._
I am saying for years what many other experts in spectral-analysis have also been saying for years, which is that  the "increase" is so insignificant that you may discount it the same way you would discount the increase of a truck`s momentum when it gets rear ended by a fly.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




I must admit that I tend to lean in that direction as well when it comes to the recent increase of CO2. 

I believe the total impact of all CO2 is more significant and needs to be taken into account. The initial bolus is the most important, decreasing quickly after that.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> The hotspot is a function of the water cycle. Period. Surface warming from any cause is supposed to trigger a large and permanent increase there.



Are you really this stupid ian...climate science and the ipcc claim that the hot spot will develop because the additional CO2 in the atmosphere would cause warming which would result in more water vapor...it didn't happen because it can't happen...the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> You are once again deflecting and ignoring the particulars of the argument. Your link to the IR gun manufacturer explains in detail how the gun works. Do you now denounce what you thought was important enough to post on multiple threads?



No ian...the link to the manufacturer said what it sees and what it doesn't...it doesn't say a word about how it works and you have demonstrated over and over that you don't have the slightest idea how it works...



IanC said:


> The gun works by analyzing the amount of radiation entering and leaving the detector, the net flow.



The gun isn't measuring net anything...it is measuring the amount and rate of change in an internal thermopile...nothing more.  Anything else beyond that is a product of your terribly flawed dogmatic understanding of physics and the precise reason you are so damned easily fooled by instruments.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> If the Earth's GHGs were exchanged with the same mass of non GHGs what would happen?



You can answer that question easily enough by direct observation...without so called GHG's  the earth would be a warmer place...because radiation would play no part in the movement of energy from the surface to the upper troposphere...  Reference double glazed windows...if you want to slow the transfer of energy you fill the space with a gas that does not absorb and radiate IR...if you want to hustle energy on through, you fill the space with a radiative gas like CO2....

It amazes me that you don't seem to be able to apply this straight forward observation in any real way....your dogma simply blocks all common sense and rationality before they can penetrate your brain.

The rest of your post is just more mental model bullshit that you can't even begin to prove and which is proven patently false by the every double glazed window on earth.


----------



## IanC (Jun 5, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You can answer that question easily enough by direct observation...without so called GHG's the earth would be a warmer place...because radiation would play no part in the movement of energy from the surface to the upper troposphere..




Incorrect. Without GHGs the atmospheric window would widen to the whole IR spectrum and all radiation produced by the surface would escape at the speed of light.


----------



## IanC (Jun 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Reference double glazed windows...if you want to slow the transfer of energy you fill the space with a gas that does not absorb and radiate IR...if you want to hustle energy on through, you fill the space with a radiative gas like CO2..




CO2 has less thermal conductivity than air, N2, O2 or water vapour. Only Argon has lower conductivity.

Why do you harp on incorrect statements? Do you 'figure something out by yourself' and then think I don't need to check to see if it's right, I'll just say it a few dozen times on the message board.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2017)

IanC said:


> Incorrect. Without GHGs the atmospheric window would widen to the whole IR spectrum and all radiation produced by the surface would escape at the speed of light.



Tell me ian..how does it feel to be as wrong as the hairball?  How long might it be before you wake up to the fact that your dogma has handicapped you to the point that you can't see truth when it is directly in front of you?

HEAT DISTRIBUTION IN THE TROPOSPHERE

clip: 
*The temperature of the earth's surface will have a significant influence on the surface air temperature due to the conduction process. The bulk of heat energy transferred in the troposphere is done by convection. Convection does not only mean thunderstorm clouds but means any mixing of air.
*
Introduction to the Atmosphere: Background Material

clip: 

The sun's heat that warms the earth's surface is transported upwards largely by convection and is mixed by updrafts and downdrafts.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...netsFS2016/160422_exop2016_chapter4_part2.pdf

clip: 
4.4.3 Tropospheric Convection

*Convection is the energy transport by gas flows and it is a dominant energy transport process in the troposphere*. Convection will occur if the following conditions are fulfilled

–  a gas parcel, which is slightly hotter, and therefore slightly less dense and lighter than its surroundings will start to rise,


–  the ambient pressure decreases and the parcel expands, and cools adiabatically (heat transfer to the surroundings can be neglected),


–  if the parcel is, after some upwards motion and adiabatic expansion (and cooling), still hotter and less dense than the surroundings then it will continue to rise in a convective flow. 

Convection - AMS Glossary

clip:   In the atmosphere, convection is the dominant vertical transport process in convective boundary layers,


Convective heat transfer - Wikipedia

*Convective heat transfer*, often referred to simply as *convection*, is the transfer of heat from one place to another by the movement of fluids. Convection is usually the *dominant form of heat transfer in liquids and gases*.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Reference double glazed windows...if you want to slow the transfer of energy you fill the space with a gas that does not absorb and radiate IR...if you want to hustle energy on through, you fill the space with a radiative gas like CO2..
> ...




Well at least you are partially right...at very cold temperatures, CO2 has less thermal conductivity than N2, O2, or H2O vapor.  For example...  at 200K the respective thermal conductivity of CO2, N2, O2, H2O, and Ar in milliwatts per meter kelvin are:  9.6, 18.7, 18.4, 0, 12.4.  Raise the temperature to 300K and the respective thermal conductivity in the same order are 25.1, 26.3, 26.0, 18.7. 17.9

So as you can see, at tropospheric temperatures, all the so called greenhouse gasses have a greater thermal conductivity quotient than argon...again, if CO2 had less thermal conductivity at warmer temperatures, they would be filling double glazed windows with CO2 instead of argon.  Once again...your dogma completely blinds you to the truth.

Simple observation should clue you in....why do you think they use argon if CO2 would work better at slowing the movement of heat?  After all CO2 is a good bit cheaper than argon.

Open your eyes to the truth...the earth would be a warmer place if there were no so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...  For all your pretense, I am afraid that it is you who is terribly confused...you seemingly don't have the slightest idea and the dogma you spew is wrong far more often than it is correct.  Post modern science strikes again...models, and apparently simply what you believe over observation and measurement.


----------



## IanC (Jun 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



Hahahaha. Now you are rising to the level of Old Rocks' dishonesty!

And had the nerve to call me 'partially right'. Hahahaha. I admit that I only looked at the numbers for 300K, 17C, ~60F.

What would I have seen if I looked at the 200K numbers? That CO2 had switched positions with Argon and now had the lower thermal conductivity!!!!!

So SSDD'S amazing 'proof' is shattered. Will he admit he was wrong? No. Will he repeat his misdirection in the future? Probably.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 6, 2017)

IanC said:


> So SSDD'S amazing 'proof' is shattered. Will he admit he was wrong? No. Will he repeat his misdirection in the future? Probably.



What is shattered...CO2 is able to absorb and emit IR where N2 and O2 are not.. CO2 provides some small cooling effect in the atmosphere due to the fact that it can absorb and emit radiation while N2 and O2 can not...and at normal temperatures, CO2 still has considerably more thermal conductivity than water vapor and you claimed otherwise.

My argument stands unchallenged.


----------



## IanC (Jun 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So SSDD'S amazing 'proof' is shattered. Will he admit he was wrong? No. Will he repeat his misdirection in the future? Probably.
> ...




Why do you keep arguing when you know you are wrong?

Why haven't you checked your figures?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 7, 2017)

The fact remains that the earth would be a warmer place were there no so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.  What small bit of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere would still move energy along faster than convection alone.


----------



## IanC (Jun 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The fact remains that the earth would be a warmer place were there no so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.  What small bit of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere would still move energy along faster than convection alone.




You keep making that naked statement but refuse to argue its merits.

Without GHGs all the surface IR radiation would simply escape to space. Instead of just the narrowed range of 8-16 microns.

On the other side of the coin, without GHGs the atmosphere would only be receiving energy by conduction from the surface. None of the surface radiation would be imparted to the atmosphere.

So we would appear to have a cooler surface and a cooler atmosphere because of increased radiation loss due to lack of GHGs.

Yet you claim the opposite. Where is the energy coming from to support your claim?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2017)

IanC said:


> You keep making that naked statement but refuse to argue its merits.



I already did...without so called GHG's, you would only have convection to move energy to the upper atmosphere.



IanC said:


> Without GHGs all the surface IR radiation would simply escape to space. Instead of just the narrowed range of 8-16 microns.



No ian...did you miss all the links I posted stating that convection is the main transport of energy through the troposphere?...Take away the greenhouse gasses and then convection remains the main transport of energy through the troposphere...the difference being that you take away the small amount of energy radiated by those so called greenhouse gasses to the upper atmosphere.



IanC said:


> On the other side of the coin, without GHGs the atmosphere would only be receiving energy by conduction from the surface. None of the surface radiation would be imparted to the atmosphere.



No ian...without greenhouse gasses, convection would still be the means of energy movement.  You are really coming out with some crazy ideas.  

Introduction to the Atmosphere: Background Material

Clip: Energy is transferred between the earth's surface and the atmosphere via conduction, convection, and radiation.[/quote]

It becomes more clear all the time that you deserve a seat up in the first class car of the AGW crazy train...you like to think I am confused, but geez ian.....you are really out there. Who would have thought that this particular topic would have brought all those crazy ideas in your head rushing out in such a torrent?



IanC said:


> So we would appear to have a cooler surface and a cooler atmosphere because of increased radiation loss due to lack of GHGs.



Don't say we...perhaps it appears that way from the landscape of your crazy world, but out here in reality...it just isn't so...



IanC said:


> Yet you claim the opposite. Where is the energy coming from to support your claim?



As I have always said...so called greenhouse gasses are holes in the proverbial blanket keeping the earth warm...without radiation, you would have the mechanism of convection, conduction, and less radiation to move energy to the top of the troposphere...greenhouse gasses subtract a bit of the total energy being moved by convection and add to the total amount of energy moving through the troposphere by radiation.  Holes in the blanket.


----------



## IanC (Jun 8, 2017)

I suppose your worldview and crazy opinions demand that you ignore rebuttals and criticism.

Convection only moves energy once it is in the atmosphere. The surface is not convecting energy to the atmosphere, it is conducting it.

Without GHGs, the only energy input into the atmosphere would be surface conduction, but on the plus side it would not be losing energy by radiation. The atmosphere would be in lockstep with surface temperature.

What happens at the surface when there are no GHGs? All of the IR radiation produced at the surface is free to escape to space. The solar input would simply be transformed into IR and leave. 200w in, 200w out. But 200w is a very cold radiating temperature.

There would still be a moderating and warming effect from the atmosphere as it stores energy during daylight and gives it up during the night but it would be much cooler than with GHGs.

How do GHGs warm the surface? They restrict the amount of radiation freely escaping to space. Only a fraction gets through, the remainder gets stored in the atmosphere where it is available to be returned to the surface. 

This is not free energy, this is recycled energy, stored in the gravity field. 

The surface receives 200w solar input, another 200w returning energy from the atmosphere which supports a 400w operating temperature. Of the 400w, 200w escapes freely and 200w is captured by the atmosphere, and the cycle repeats with energy input equalling energy output.

My numbers are grossly simplified, the mechanism is grossly simplified, but the process is real.


----------



## IanC (Jun 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> without radiation, you would have the mechanism of convection, conduction, and less radiation to move energy to the top of the troposphere...greenhouse gasses subtract a bit of the total energy being moved by convection and add to the total amount of energy moving through the troposphere by radiation. Holes in the blanket




Without GHGs there is little radiation produced by the atmosphere. You do realize that radiation is the only process that removes energy, right? It doesn't matter where the energy in the atmosphere resides if it cannot escape.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 8, 2017)

IanC said:


> I suppose your worldview and crazy opinions demand that you ignore rebuttals and criticism.



Sorry ian, but the crazy is coming from you....you are so set on being right, that you simply can't see how wrong you are.



IanC said:


> Convection only moves energy once it is in the atmosphere. The surface is not convecting energy to the atmosphere, it is conducting it.



And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....



IanC said:


> Without GHGs, the only energy input into the atmosphere would be surface conduction, but on the plus side it would not be losing energy by radiation. The atmosphere would be in lockstep with surface temperature.



And it isn't enough that you are wrong once...you have to keep repeating it.. I repeat...the bulk of the energy in the atmosphere comes from the ocean, and it doesn't get there via radiation.



IanC said:


> How do GHGs warm the surface? They restrict the amount of radiation freely escaping to space. Only a fraction gets through, the remainder gets stored in the atmosphere where it is available to be returned to the surface.



GHG's do not warm the surface...the earth heats the atmosphere...no way around it.



IanC said:


> My numbers are grossly simplified, the mechanism is grossly simplified, but the process is real.



Your hypothesis is grossly wrong...but hey, what else is new.


----------



## IanC (Jun 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....




You said an atmosphere without GHGs would be warmer. Are you now changing that to all GHGs except for water vapour?


----------



## IanC (Jun 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....



I thought you believed that surface temperature was entirely dependent on mass and gravity. Are you now saying the water cycle is a 'bulk' factor?


----------



## IanC (Jun 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....




Are you confused about the difference between convection and latent heat of phase change?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And this is a fine example of you not thinking...the bulk of the energy moving from the surface to the atmosphere is getting there via evaporation from the ocean surface...which immediately begins to convect to the upper atmosphere...radiation is at best a bit player....
> ...



We live on a water planet...and then there are the planets like uranus which have essentially no GHG's which are warmer than here deep in their atmospheres...and it isn't due to incoming solar...  Observational examples abound of you being wrong but you are blinded by the magic.


----------



## IanC (Jun 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


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




I am blinded by nothing, and nothing you have said proves me wrong.

General cases are built up from basic principles, ignoring the secondary details which soon lead to untenable complexity.

You said the Earth would be warmer without greenhouse gases. I went with your definition and showed that was not correct. Your rebuttal is to say it is a water world. Those two statements are mutually exclusive. Pick your poison, I will show I am more correct than you under any set of legitimate assumptions.

Now you are shifting the goalposts to Uranus. Fine. But first you need to explain your position about what is happening. I asked both you and crick to describe how the gas planets lose heat and balance their energy budget but you both ducked the issue.

It is a bit tiresome to be the only one stating a position, explaining it, and then defending it. You make naked claims and then fail to explain your reasoning, or defend it from legitimate criticism.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 12, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Of course you are and everything I have said proves you wrong....you have magic..and nothing else...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and they prove exactly squat...other than that you have been duped by post modern science itself which requires no empirical evidence....only consensus.




IanC said:


> You said the Earth would be warmer without greenhouse gases. I went with your definition and showed that was not correct. Your rebuttal is to say it is a water world. Those two statements are mutually exclusive. Pick your poison, I will show I am more correct than you under any set of legitimate assumptions.



No ian..you didn't prove anything...you posited an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model and called it proof...I pointed out that there are planets within our solar system that have no appreciable amount of greenhouse gas which are as warm or warmer than earth but don't get nearly as much solar input as we do...observation, I am afraid, trumps your pointless models.

Perhaps you would like to explain why those planets are warmer than here with no greenhouse gas if if what small amount of sola radiation they receive radiates directly out into space.

And do try to explain without using some unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable model.  If you can't do so without such nonsense, then just say we don't know...which i am sure you willl find painful since it will fall in the same category as the rest of your models.


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No ian..you didn't prove anything...you posited an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model and called it proof...I pointed out that there are planets within our solar system that have no appreciable amount of greenhouse gas which are as warm or warmer than earth but don't get nearly as much solar input as we do...observation, I am afraid, trumps your pointless models




Prove? No, neither myself or any others on this board are 'proving' anything. Am I describing specific mechanisms, explaininghow they fit into the overall picture and defending criticisms of my position? Yes.

In your above comment you claim planets that are as warm or warmer than Earth with less solar input. You don't name them, describe them, or show that they are a legitimate comparison. By process of elimination that means Mars and beyond. It isn't Mars so that means the gas planets,  or incorrectly described moons of them, or Pluto which apparently is no longer considered a planet. 

If your example is a gas planets then how are you comparing it to Earth? Your previous excursion into the N&Z curve fitting model gives a temperature of about 75K at Earth surface pressure. Presumably we have probe data that also show a similar temperature/pressure gradient. So where are your examples?

Can we legitimately compare rocky planets to gas planets anyways? Earth converts solar radiation into heat and IR radiation at the surface, what is the mechanism for gas planets? 

Your statement makes no sense and is easily confounded. Try again with more detail.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 12, 2017)

I for one prefer to agree with what other engineers who are in the top echelon have to say about the 2nd law of thermodynamics...which as it happens is almost exactly what you are trying to get across...with an occasional glitch in it, but not the kind that would disqualify the gist of your interpretation.
Second Law of Thermodynamics





This* is *the process and it does not matter how you package ΔQ. Unless Q has a human like awareness as soon as it resides in intelligent photons which decide to counteract either of the 2 possible heat transfers.
_"Total energy includes the potential and kinetic energy, the work done by the system, and the transfer of heat through the system. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that, while many physical processes that satisfy the first law are possible, the only processes that occur in nature are those for which the *entropy* of the system either remains constant or increases. 

If we have a constant volume process, the formulation of the first law gives:


dE = dQ = C (constant volume) * dT

Similarly, for a constant pressure process, the formulation of the first law gives:
dH = dQ = C (constant pressure) * dT

These equations can be integrated from condition "1" to condition "2" to give:

*S2 - S1 = Cv * ln ( T2 / T1) + R * ln ( V2 / V1)*

and

*S2 - S1 = Cp * ln ( T2 / T1) - R * ln ( p2 / p1)*

where *Cv* is the heat capacity at constant volume, *Cp* is the heat capacity at constant pressure
If we divide both equations by the mass of gas, we can obtain intrinsic, or *"specific"* forms of both equations:

*s2 - s1 = cv * ln ( T2 / T1) + R * ln ( v2 / v1)*


and

*s2 - s1 = cp * ln ( T2 / T1) - R * ln ( p2 / p1)
If we have a constant volume process, the second term in the equation is equal to zero, since v2/v1 = 1. We can then determine the value of the specific heat for the constant volume process. But if we have a process that changes volume, the second term in the equation is not zero. We can think of the first term of the equation as the contribution for a constant volume process, and the second term as the additional change produced by the change in volume. A similar type of argument can be made for the equation used for a change in pressure.*"
-------------------------------------------------------End of quote----------------------_
Not only do the AGW kooks ignore that the "back radiation" source is a gas that has nothing in common with a black body radiation profile but go on and cite the fact that a smaller ΔT resulting in a lower ΔQ per time is "proof"  of additional energy that would not be there if there were no CO2. And all the while we have developed turbines spewing out concentrated GHG but are so stealthy that not even heat seeking missiles can home in on....unless the pilot uses the after burner:




And you can see the characteristic standing wave pattern..."standing" in relation to the object of origin and how its almost all gone already in the 4th pressure oscillation.
What you see are "shock diamonds" that disappear just as soon as their pressure matches the ambient pressure and so does the IR emitted by the shock diamond.
But according to "climatology experts" none of that plays a significant role because they only deal with cyberspace air in a cyberspace dumber than that of a Microsoft XBox  and can bounce ΔQ packets off colder air back down to the warmer ground and not just prevent it from cooling in a 1 step go as soon as the volume changed but play ping pong with ΔQ till there is more of it than they started out with on the not so black body to begin with until they have their "temperature anomaly" and finally allow ΔQ to go where it did in the real world all the eons before the tree whisperer and other assorted crackpots modeled our climate into a hockey stick

_

_


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2017)

polarbear said:


> I for one prefer to agree with what other engineers who are in the top echelon have to say about the 2nd law of thermodynamics...which as it happens is almost exactly what you are trying to get across...with an occasional glitch in it, but not the kind that would disqualify the gist of your interpretation.
> Second Law of Thermodynamics
> 
> 
> ...




I can seldom figure out what your point is. Usually you start off with a reasonable bit of information but then veer off to an example that has little to do with the information, then you make a conclusion that is not drawn from either the information or the example.

ie. your cut&paste makes several good points about entropy and reversible/irreversible processes. For the atmosphere that corresponds to reversible energy storage in the gravity field, and irreversible transmission of energy from the surface through the air and out into space.

Then your fighter jet example just muddies the waters.

Then your conclusion is just an ad hom against climate scientists.




I agree that the greenhouse effect has been grossly oversimplified to give an understandable mental image to layman.

Why don't you present your less simplified version of how the atmosphere warms the surface? You do believe the atmosphere causes the surface to be warmer on average than without an atmosphere, right?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> ie. your cut&paste makes several good points about entropy and reversible/irreversible processes. For the atmosphere that corresponds to reversible energy storage in the gravity field, and irreversible transmission of energy from the surface through the air and out into space.



ALL...that is *ALL *natural processes are irreversible.



IanC said:


> I agree that the greenhouse effect has been grossly oversimplified to give an understandable mental image to layman.



There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > ie. your cut&paste makes several good points about entropy and reversible/irreversible processes. For the atmosphere that corresponds to reversible energy storage in the gravity field, and irreversible transmission of energy from the surface through the air and out into space.
> ...



I don't think chemists would agree with you there.

Take a liter of water at 20C and measure the pH. Warm the water to 25C and the pH goes up due to increased dissociation. Cool the water back to 20C and the pH returns to its original value.

You irreversibly added to entropy by heating and cooling the water but the water itself is identical before and after. A reversible process.

Likewise, the atmosphere has both reversible and irreversible processes acting upon it. Energy flowing through it increases entropy but the ability to store and release energy is reversible.


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the greenhouse effect has been grossly oversimplified to give an understandable mental image to layman.
> ...



Again, you are making a naked assertion with no relevant description of what details you are disagreeing with. Why don't you save yourself some typing by just responding "No" to everything I say?


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

There are many grossly simplified statements put out by the media and left uncorrected by climate scientists.

The biggest one is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR and reemits it in a random direction, some of which returns to the surface, directly warming the surface.

I disagree with all parts of that statement. I have contested all parts of that statement. It is an incorrect description of events yet the over all result is true. The presence of CO2 does lead to a warmer surface temperature, just not by the method described.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> I don't think chemists would agree with you there.
> 
> Take a liter of water at 20C and measure the pH. Warm the water to 25C and the pH goes up due to increased dissociation. Cool the water back to 20C and the pH returns to its original value.



Again with your crazy misunderstandings of actual science...the more you talk the more I understand how  you came to be duped...

What are Reversible and Irreversible Processes in Thermodynamics?

clip:  There are two main types of thermodynamic processes: the reversible and irreversible. The reversible process is the ideal process which never occurs, while the irreversible process is the natural process that is commonly found in the nature.

http://twt.mpei.ac.ru/TTHB/2/KiSyShe/eng/Chapter3/3-2-Reversible-and-irreversible-processes.html

Clip:  It is a matter of general experience that all natural spontaneous processes are irreversible, and no natural reversible processes exist.

SECOND LAW

_Clip: All natural processes are irreversible.
_
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemica...-fall-2003/study-materials/suppnotes_ch04.pdf

Clip:  All real or natural processes are not reversible. Hence reversible processes are only idealizations that are very useful in showing limiting behavior. The performance of real processes is frequently compared with ideal performance under reversible conditions. 

6(e). Laws of Thermodynamics

Clip:   and all natural processes are irreversible.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > I for one prefer to agree with what other engineers who are in the top echelon have to say about the 2nd law of thermodynamics...which as it happens is almost exactly what you are trying to get across...with an occasional glitch in it, but not the kind that would disqualify the gist of your interpretation.
> ...


"_Why don't you present your less simplified version of how the atmosphere warms the surface? You do believe the atmosphere causes the surface to be warmer on average than without an atmosphere, right?"_
Are you kidding? It`s you who keeps simplifying the entire process !
As you and the warmers must, by insisting that the atmosphere warms the surface instead of getting it right...which is that the surface is the main source for warming the atmosphere.
If the atmosphere would be warming the surface then it would be hotter in Malaysia than on the sunny side of the ISS.
Staying Cool on the ISS | Science Mission Directorate
_Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C)_
And the only reason why Malaysia does not plunge down to almost - 160 C at night as the shady side of the ISS is at, is because the atmosphere over Malaysia is a massive heat reservoir because it has *mass*. If the skin of the ISS would have a higher mass than it does it would also cool down slower..not because of this idiotic back-radiation Hippie-"science"  which has it that the additional mass would add any more energy into the ISS/+the added mass system that already is there.
I keep showing you examples of transistor radiative heat sinks that clearly show that the fins do not heat each other up with "back-radiation" and if that was the case then NASA engineers would be "deniers of settled science", because they pack even more "back radiators" per area into their heat radiators than we do in electronic applications.
Here is a thermal image of a VCHP NASA did at the Glenn Research Center:
VCHPs for Variable Thermal Links








*This is settled REAL SCIENCE*, not the kind of heat radiator back-radiation idiots would come up with which eliminates the phantom that does not exist and iron out the ribs that "back-radiate" at each other to make a perfectly flat "non-backradiation-radiator"
No wonder that NASA does not let these "settled science-backradiation scientists" anywhere near their hardware and gave them only a computer-model playpen safe space which extends right into the media and a  publication system which censors all but the Hippie "science"-playpen group think gibberish and their ridiculous doomsday horoscopes.


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> And the only reason why Malaysia does not plunge down to almost - 160 C at night as the shady side of the ISS is at, is because the atmosphere over Malaysia is a massive heat reservoir because it has *mass*




And that is what I have been saying over and over again while you guys keep saying no no no.

Energy is stored in the atmosphere. In both kinetic and potential form. 

Heat moves from one object to another according to temperature differential.

With no GHGs the atmosphere would only receive energy from the surface by conduction and much of the surface energy would just freely escape to space by radiation, the ratio of conduction/radiation would be determined the most efficient loss of energy possible.

If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, certain band of surface IR are absorbed and converted into stored energy by molecular collision. Some but not all of this energy is released at high altitude as IR. The atmosphere is warmer because of this extra stored energy at surface levels and cooler at the top.

If you add water, then you get even more surface radiation being intercepted by the atmosphere. Plus you get an extra means of warming the atmosphere with the water cycle depositing energy at the cloudtops by moving energy by evaporation/convection/precipitation. The total stored energy of the atmosphere has again increased. The ratio between conduction/radiation/conversation is still being determined by the most efficient means of expelling energy.

How does the atmosphere 'warm' the surface? By changing the equilibrium, the temperature gradient. Solar input causes higher surface temperature when less surface output is possible. 

There are two ways that the atmosphere returns energy to the surface. One is mass mediated. Air molecules are striking the surface and imparting their kinetic energy. The other is radiation, some by GHGs if they emit very close to the surface and the IR is not immediately reabsorbed, and the radiation produced by the latent heat release at the cloudtops during precipitation (less the GHG bands, and only the radiation going in the right direction)

The energy loss to space is always very close to the amount of solar input. Otherwise the globe would be warming or cooling. 

Disturbing the amount of CO2 causes the CO2 specific IR to be captured in a smaller volume of air near the surface. By definition putting the same amount of energy into a smaller volume will increase the temperature. Which of course means more energy returned to the surface by molecular collision.

I personally do not think this disturbance in saturation point makes a big change but it does cause a little change in the equilibriums of various routes of energy escape. 

You can change temperature of a specific point along the pathway of energy travel without changing the actual inputs and outputs. Throw a towel over your cable box and it will warm up. Where did the extra energy come from? It came from the energy not released to the environment while the towel/box came back to equilibrium. The same amount of energy would be released after the power to the cable box was turned off.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > And the only reason why Malaysia does not plunge down to almost - 160 C at night as the shady side of the ISS is at, is because the atmosphere over Malaysia is a massive heat reservoir because it has *mass*
> ...


As usual you are sooo close to how it really works and then just inches from the finish line you blow it. I know what you are trying to say about the towel on the breaker box, but an insulator impeding heat conduction is not experimental proof of "back radiation". The plastic covering the copper  wires is already doing more than a towel covering the box would...and CO2 has nothing in common with a towel..except that a towel that can`t expand like a warmed gas has to is solid matter in physical contact with a heat source. All that matters in that case is what the "R" factor of a heat insulator is...in addition to that Spencer f-ed up too with that analogy because as you well know when wires heat up their resistance goes up proportionally and that means the amps drop and with it the watts of the heat source...so please forget about that towel over "the cable box" because I would have to go along with a series of events that reality excludes.
Now back to reality...use a block of copper at high temperature and no atmosphere.
It radiates heat and cools down following the StB equation.
Now use 2 blocks that touch each other and have the same combined mass and temperature as the other single unit..they cool down at exactly the same rate while in direct contact  as the single block. Now separate them and behold...they still cool down as fast as the single block even though they "back-radiate" at each other* and no you are not allowed *the argument that we now have increased the surface area because back-radiation "experts" claim *this area* does not dissipate the system`s heat because for these 2 faces E=5.67*10^(-8)*(T1^4 - T2^4) and E=0 because T1=T2.
*Now you  need to throw in your towel*,...lets up the anti and use your towel to cover one of the 2 blocks...do you really expect an engineer to believe that the covered block stayed warmer longer because the bare block, already cooler block was "heating" it ?


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




I wrote a twelve paragraph comment that was chock full of ideas that interlocked together to form a consistent overarching description of energy movement in the sun/Earth/atmosphere flows of energy.

You took exception to the throw away example I used to illustrate the main idea in the last paragraph-



> You can change temperature of a specific point along the pathway of energy travel without changing the actual inputs and outputs. Throw a towel over your cable box and it will warm up. Where did the extra energy come from? It came from the energy not released to the environment while the towel/box came back to equilibrium. The same amount of energy would be released after the power to the cable box was turned off.



Did you address energy storage affecting temperature along the routes of energy flow?

You brought up higher temperature affecting resistance in wires. Non sequitur. Even in the electrical device it probably has negligible impact. But it is a real factor so I don't reject the mechanism, just the relevance.

You then give a garbled example of copper blocks and the S-B laws defining radiation. Apparently they have no power input, so that is a major difference from what I was discussing, heat sinks affecting temperature during energy flows.

Then you go off the rails by saying the two blocks together radiate the same as the two blocks apart. Did you mean that the two blocks were separated enough to stop conduction but still close enough that very little radiation leaks out? If you can see into the space between the blocks then the radiation can see you. That is why the S-B equations are so difficult to calculate unless one object is enclosed in another.

You mentioned Spencer. He did have a two block thought experiment. But one of the blocks was powered by a heat source. The powered block radiated equally on all sides until a second block was placed next to it. Then five faces radiated to the cold environment and one into the second block. Until equilibrium the second block was warming, using energy that no longer was escaping to the environment. As the second block warmed it started to return energy to the first block. Less energy was leaving the communal face of the heated block, so more energy was rerouted to the uncovered faces. At equilibrium all of the heated faces are radiating at a higher temperature and the second block has warmed up as well.

The blocks were originally at equilibrium with the power source. Input equaled output to the environment. Then came a period of time of lowered output to the environment with the deficit of radiation going into the heat sinks of both blocks, raising the temperature of each. At the new equilibrium, input again matches output. Yes Virginia, a cold object can make a warm object warmer. Simply by storing energy and changing the heat differential. 

The atmosphere does the same thing, only it uses radiation, conduction and convection instead of just radiation.


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Now use 2 blocks that touch each other and have the same combined mass and temperature as the other single unit..they cool down at exactly the same rate while in direct contact as the single block. Now separate them and behold...they still cool down as fast as the single block even though they "back-radiate" at each other* and no you are not allowed *the argument that we now have increased the surface area because back-radiation "experts" claim *this area* does not dissipate the system`s heat because for these 2 faces E=5.67*10^(-8)*(T1^4 - T2^4) and E=0 because T1=T2.




Are you stupid or what? You just added 20% more surface area and you are crowing that they cool at the same amount per time! I thought you were trying to _disprove_ backradiation. I think the blocks would lose heat at a slightly higher rate because of leakage from the two facing sides. And unevenly because of the similar temperature of the two facing sides. And of course the corners will cool faster as they have more area to volume. But that is just quibbling. I am glad you are now subscribing to backradiation, or at least a version of it.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 13, 2017)

You know I could just as easy call you stupid and before you do it again maybe you should go back and read again what I said...about you and your towel over a "cable box" + the "extra energy" you keep yapping about which isn`t there when the 2 blocks are separated or when you cover just one of them with your towel


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> *Now you need to throw in your towel*,...lets up the anti and use your towel to cover one of the 2 blocks...do you really expect an engineer to believe that the covered block stayed warmer longer because the bare block, already cooler block was "heating" it ?




You really should describe these scenarios better. If I make assumptions you accuse me of not understanding but you leave me no choice but to reasonably fill in the gaps. I ignored your last paragraph because it made little sense and needed to be 'interpreted'.

Okay, I'll interpret.

First assumption, you believe that the towel will slow the energy loss from the covered block because you said the uncovered block is already cooler. You also said they were in a vacuum, so some conduction to the towel, then only radiation loss. I guess I have to assume the emissivity of the towel is less than that of the block. Typically towels and blankets keep the heat in by holding pockets of air as insulation against convection. But not in this case, eh?

Second assumption, the blocks are much warmer than the environment. And that the adjacent faces are uncovered, because really, what would be the point of this stupid scenario otherwise?

Third assumption, this time on your part. You accuse me of stating that a cooler object can 'heat' a warmer object. I have never said this, and have repeatedly asked you in the past to simply quote any of my comments that could have led you to make this serious misunderstanding of my position. So far you haven't.

Now that I have cleaned up some of your incongruities and omissions I can get around to answering your question, namely-



> ..do you really expect an engineer to believe that the covered block stayed warmer longer because the bare block, already cooler block was "heating" it ?



I expect that the engineer will say that yes, the block that is warmer than the environment but cooler than the warmer block is indeed slowing the heat loss from the covered block because it is warmer than the environment and is sending back more radiation than the environment would. He would probably add that slowing heat loss is not the same thing as 'heating'. Heating only occurs when an object is receiving more energy than it is losing. Obviously the cooler object produces less radiation then the warmer block. 

According to your scenario, as best as I can decipher it, the covered block has less heat loss on some sides due to the towel, and less loss from the adjacent face because the bare block is warmer than the environment. The bare block is cooling faster because it has five sides radiating into the cold environment but the excess net radiation from the covered block does slow the cooling in the adjacent side. It cannot be called heating because both blocks started at the same temperature and both are cooling. One faster than the other.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Now use 2 blocks that touch each other and have the same combined mass and temperature as the other single unit..they cool down at exactly the same rate while in direct contact as the single block. Now separate them and behold...they still cool down as fast as the single block even though they "back-radiate" at each other* and no you are not allowed *the argument that we now have increased the surface area because back-radiation "experts" claim *this area* does not dissipate the system`s heat because for these 2 faces E=5.67*10^(-8)*(T1^4 - T2^4) and E=0 because T1=T2.
> ...


Am I stupid? Really, I could call you something far worse after your reply.
So where is the* EXTRA* energy that is supplied by the extra 20% area "back radiating" at each other across the open gap?
I could have claimed that the 2 cubes with the gap cool faster, which they would indeed but refrained from saying so just as the engineers at the Glenn research center refrained from making that claim until they did the experiment to verify the claim. 
But you claim without any experiment the extra back radiation energy is there because the other 5 sides of each cube cool faster.
Since when is slower cooling the same as heating?
Or do you need that towel you had on a "cable box" again to "heat" one of these 2 blocks?
That went right by you when I pointed that out. Either that or you realized you walked on thin ice with your "extra backradiation energy" and stopped short at that point before your towel was thrown into the equation....but if you refuse to walk past that point then I`ll drag you:
The block with the towel cools slower than the other bare & colder block which according to you continues to "heat" the warmer block at the 20% exposed interface area. How much of a fool are you not to realize that the warmer block with the towel is supplying the heat without which the bare block would cool even faster !
Only a total crack head would insist it`s the other way around !
Lets do something simple and better tailored for simpler minds.
Get some rocks and throw them into a stove. Did these rocks add any energy to the stove?
Yes you say because that stove took longer to cool off after the fire went out...and got away with it till some nit-picking engineer did an experiment to show you that it took way more fuel to heat a stove full off your "back radiation" rocks.
No matter how you add your idiotic back radiation energy source which you say can direct heat from the colder rocks to the hotter fuel fired stove...inside of it or piling them on top and all around it will always take more fuel to heat your "heat source"
The only people who would believe that the rocks are heating the stove have rocks in their head.
And the only people who believe that the cooler air is heating the surface below it are airheads.
When you claimed just a few days ago that "it takes a lot of energy to keep the air above the surface in a gravity field" you already showed that you might be one but now it`s official.


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> You know I could just as easy call you stupid and before you do it again maybe you should go back and read again what I said...about you and your towel over a "cable box" + the "extra energy" you keep yapping about which isn`t there when the 2 blocks are separated or when you cover just one of them with your towel



I'll call you stupid yet again. You don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference between something that has a power source, and a different thing that doesn't. 

Power can fill up heat sinks. No power can only cool. For someone who thinks they are so smart you seem to be deficient in some of the basics. We went over all of this in the thread with jc456. It seems as if you forgot it, or didn't understand in the first place.


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Am I stupid? Really, I could call you something far worse after your reply.
> So where is the* EXTRA* energy that is supplied by the extra 20% area "back radiating" at each other across the open gap?




Yes you are stupid. What extra energy? More surface area just means more energy loss. The block will cool down faster.


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> But you claim without any experiment the extra back radiation energy is there because the other 5 sides of each cube cool faster.
> Since when is slower cooling the same as heating?




Still stupid. Now you're adding plagiarism. I have said decreased output is not 'heating' a hundred times. When it involves a power source then it turns into an increased temperature via energy storage until the output heat loss again matches the input.


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> . How much of a fool are you not to realize that the warmer block with the towel is supplying the heat without which the bare block would cool even faster !
> Only a total crack head would insist it`s the other way around !



How you can strawman my position like that is beyond belief. I just finished stating-



> According to your scenario, as best as I can decipher it, the covered block has less heat loss on some sides due to the towel, and less loss from the adjacent face because the bare block is warmer than the environment. The bare block is cooling faster because it has five sides radiating into the cold environment but the excess net radiation from the covered block does slow the cooling in the adjacent side. It cannot be called heating because both blocks started at the same temperature and both are cooling. One faster than the other.



It now seems as if you have added lying to your repertoire.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Am I stupid? Really, I could call you something far worse after your reply.
> ...


I spent already more time than I should talking to a fence post like you.
I am not the one who claimed there is extra energy...you kept saying it all along and suddenly you conceded there is none and that the 2 separated blocks do cool faster.
That leaves your back radiation in total limbo because the additional surface area you now want to use as an explanation for the faster cooling should be unable to facilitate this, because as I now point out for the 3rd time net E=0 for that area
And that means no cooling or heating. Unless you are some sort of God and can create E from zero


----------



## IanC (Jun 13, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Get some rocks and throw them into a stove. Did these rocks add any energy to the stove?
> Yes you say because that stove took longer to cool off after the fire went out...and got away with it till some nit-picking engineer did an experiment to show you that it took way more fuel to heat a stove full off your "back radiation" rocks.



You have described a heat sink. The energy went into the rocks instead of the room. When the fire goes out the energy is released. 

How is this fundamentally different than what I have been saying?

The atmosphere stores energy in both kinetic and potential forms. Temperature and height. It is already close to equilibrium so most of the energy has already been stored.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 14, 2017)

Not that you would get it, but others will.
A given amount of energy can be released in shorter & higher amplitude portions or in longer duration and lower amplitude portions.
Just like the stove without the rocks versus the stove with rocks and a planet without an atmosphere versus one with an atmosphere....which results in longer duration but consequentially a lower amplitude with the same energy input. And after the Hippies discovered transcendental "thinking" energy was able to flow in the opposite direction from cold to warm and you could even increase it by doping the atmosphere with a few ppm of the same plant food that is used to grow the dope that enables the transcendental meditation state which spawned this nonsense.


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2017)

polarbear said:


> And the only people who believe that the cooler air is heating the surface below it are airheads.
> When you claimed just a few days ago that "it takes a lot of energy to keep the air above the surface in a gravity field" you already showed that you might be one but now it`s official



I wish you would directly quote me because your interpretation of what I said and what I actually said are seldom the same.

It takes a lot of stored energy to put an atmosphere into the gravity field above the surface. Do you disagree?

The atmosphere warms and fluffs up during daylight, shrinks and cools at night. How much energy would you have to remove to shrink it down to near surface level? A lot.

I don't know if you just want to contradict everything I say no matter how stupid it makes you look, or if you simply cannot think things through. 

Either way still makes you a stupid blowhard.


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Not that you would get it, but others will.
> A given amount of energy can be released in shorter & higher amplitude portions or in longer duration and lower amplitude portions.
> Just like the stove without the rocks versus the stove with rocks and a planet without an atmosphere versus one with an atmosphere....which results in longer duration but consequentially a lower amplitude with the same energy input. And after the Hippies discovered transcendental "thinking" energy was able to flow in the opposite direction from cold to warm and you could even increase it by doping the atmosphere with a few ppm of the same plant food that is used to grow the dope that enables the transcendental meditation state which spawned this nonsense.




Net energy flow always goes from warm to cool.

The Earth is warmer on average because the atmosphere dampens the temperature swings by storing and releasing energy. 

Energy loss is proportional to temperature to the fourth power. No atmosphere means very high daytime temps and very low nighttime ones. A constant temperature would give the warmest average. Everytime you increase the range between high and low the average goes down. 

Think back to elementary school math. A rectangle has less area to equal circumference than a square, and a circle has more than a square. And this is only a ^2 relationship. Temperature radiation is a ^4 relationship. A small time radiating at a high temperature uses up most of the solar input, leaving the surface temp very cold most of the time. Spreading out the solar input over the whole day supports a moderate average temperature that is much warmer than the average temperature of mostly cold with a few hours of very hot.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> I'll call you stupid yet again. You don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference between something that has a power source, and a different thing that doesn't.



You have finally done it...you have gone so far that you appear to be permanently stuck on stupid...and I mean really stuck...he is showing you real world, observable, measurable, testable examples of how you are wrong and you flatly reject them because they don't agree with your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...you have finally assumed your well deserved first class seat on the AGW crazy train...how is the view from up there?


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I'll call you stupid yet again. You don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference between something that has a power source, and a different thing that doesn't.
> ...




Hahahaha. So you have given up? All you have left is name calling? Hahahaha.

What have you guys refuted? Nothing. 

How are you getting along with your evidence and explanation that it takes energy to lower the height of the atmosphere? Hahahaha.

I see you actually quoted one of my comments. Do you disagree with it? Apparently it caused you to call me crazy or something. Non powered heat sources can only cool if the environment is cooler than the object. Agree or disagree? Powered heat sources have a range of possible temperatures depending on conditions that affect heat loss. Agree or disagree?

You guys repeat anything that sounds vaguely anti-AGW but don't think it through to see if it agrees with basic principles. Sometimes you just apply the wrong basic principles to the situation.

ie. Lowering the height of the atmosphere. You see it as performing work to compress it. That's the wrong way to look at it, the wrong use of basic principles. I see it as a function of stored energy. Take energy out and it lowers, add energy and it rises.

Which process happens on a daily basis? How would you compress the atmosphere even if you wanted to?

Start refuting my points with evidence and logic. Name calling is the last resort of a dullard who has run out of ideas and needs to bluster while he runs away from the debate.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. So you have given up? All you have left is name calling? Hahahaha.



So now you are the crazy black knight on mony python?...it's just a scratch?



IanC said:


> What have you guys refuted? Nothing.



What's to refute?...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mind experiments against real world observable, measureable, testable arguments?...sorry ian, but out here in the real world, the real wins every time.


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha. So you have given up? All you have left is name calling? Hahahaha.
> ...




So far, nary a scratch.

Have you figured out how to refute my statement that it takes a lot of energy to put the atmosphere into the gravity field above the surface?

Or should I take your silence as an admission that you were wrong? That's as close as you come to a gracious change of position. Remember your double pane windows rant? You could have simply said you misread the chart. Instead you just repeated that you were still right, actual evidence be damned.


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ...he is showing you real world, observable, measurable, testable examples of how you are wrong and you flatly reject them because they don't agree with your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...




Do you mean his copper block experiment? He described it poorly (a link would have been useful), then he fudged on the results only to recant afterwards when I pointed out it couldn't happen the way he said it did. 

It would seem that I corrected him, not the other way around.

Polarbear attributes crazy statements to me, and then attacks them. Strawman fallacy.

I have repeatedly asked him to directly quote my statements but he refuses because he can't refute the ideas I put forth. The only time he actually quotes me is when finds a grammatical mistake, ignoring the context and main thought. Remember his rant about how there are no air molecules, only molecules of air? How petty is that?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> Deniers can't discuss actual science, so they're deflecting by pouting about media personalities. At least they're broadening their horizons, and pouting about someone other than Gore.
> 
> Have you asked Curry how much fossil fuel money her mysterious "forecasting company" is taking? You know, the one that doesn't name any clients, or show anything that it's "forecast". It sure looks like a way to take fossil fuel cash on the sly. Curry hasn't done any actual science for a long time, because she can't. She fled the science field in disgrace over her failures and unethical behavior, and now she's embarking on a new career as a paid propagandist.



Mamooth, you get your ignorant ass kicked each and every time actual science is discussed.

The quest for federal grants is not the purpose of actual science.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> Polarbear attributes crazy statements to me, and then attacks them. Strawman fallacy.



So now that you are in the first class section of the AGW crazy train, you are going to behave like them as well?...Projecting is what the hairball is best at...accusing others of here very trademark tactic...you routinely make up arguments for others and then argue against them...accusing someone else of the behavior when it is you who does it doesn't help your argument.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Thread summary:
> ...




Mamooth very regularly kicks ass on science around here.  I haven't seen him topped by anyone. Be that as it may, his comments about Curry are accurate but have nothing to do with actual science. Deniers seem to believe that the entire field of climate science, world wide, is driven so hard by the desire for grant money that they have all formed a massive, massively disciplined and massively secret conspiracy to pass global warming off with no real science behind them at all. They seem to believe that grant money is simply a remunerative award given to scientists who produce favorable results and has noting to do with the cost of research, paying salaries, travel, equipment costs and the like. It all just goes into their pockets.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> Mamooth very regularly kicks ass on science around here.  I haven't seen him topped by anyone. Be that as it may, his comments about Curry are accurate but have nothing to do with actual science. Deniers seem to believe that the entire field of climate science, world wide, is driven so hard by the desire for grant money that they have all formed a massive, massively disciplined and massively secret conspiracy to pass global warming off with no real science behind them at all. They seem to believe that grant money is simply a remunerative award given to scientists who produce favorable results and has noting to do with the cost of research, paying salaries, travel, equipment costs and the like. It all just goes into their pockets.



The hairball is an idiot..and so are you if you really believe she ever wins on any scientific point...and recently she has been displaying a stunning ignorance of political philosophy as well.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Polarbear attributes crazy statements to me, and then attacks them. Strawman fallacy.
> ...




There is a significant difference between showing why a person's actual statement is wrong, and polarbear's habit of misstating of what a person said and then attacking the misstatement. 

If you ever feel that I have misconstrued your position just tell me, and explain your thoughts in more detail so that I don't have to fill in the gaps of your incomplete logic with assumptions as to what you are thinking. 

For example, you are a champion of N&Z's estimates of surface temperature. Yet you refuse to discuss any of the mechanisms. I have no idea if you have any grasp of the basics that lead to their reasonable figures even if they are a product of circular reasoning. If you did know the basics then you wouldn't make such stupid statements about the surface/atmosphere thermodynamics.

How do YOU think an atmosphere leads to a warmer surface? You do think an atmosphere leads to warmer surface temperature, right? Once you explain the mechanism, how do you defend it against being called a violation of the SLoT? I have done both, numerous times. Yet dullards like you and polarbear continue to strawman my position by refusing to address my actual words, but instead make up a bizarre misinterpretation.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> If you ever feel that I have misconstrued your position just tell me, and explain your thoughts in more detail so that I don't have to fill in the gaps of your incomplete logic with assumptions as to what you are thinking.



I have...over....and over.....and over...ad nauseum.  Which is why I constantly remind you that you simply make up arguments for your opponent and then argue against your own points...



IanC said:


> For example, you are a champion of N&Z's estimates of surface temperature. Yet you refuse to discuss any of the mechanisms.



What is to discuss?  They are thoroughly discussed in the paper.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > If you ever feel that I have misconstrued your position just tell me, and explain your thoughts in more detail so that I don't have to fill in the gaps of your incomplete logic with assumptions as to what you are thinking.
> ...




If you are incapable of putting down the energy exchange mechanism at the surface/atmosphere boundary in your own words, then simply cut and paste it from the paper. I didn't see it, but I could have missed it.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > If you ever feel that I have misconstrued your position just tell me, and explain your thoughts in more detail so that I don't have to fill in the gaps of your incomplete logic with assumptions as to what you are thinking.
> ...




I don't think I do that, but you may feel that way because you are frustrated by not having any legitimate defense against my criticisms.

Example. You have often said something like "greenhouse gases are like holes in a blanket, the atmosphere would be warmer without GHGs".

I counter with the GHGs absorb more energy at near surface levels than they release at near TOA levels, so what happened to the missing energy if it did'nt warm the atmosphere?

You then counter with "absorption and emission don't equal warming", completely ignoring the missing energy.

When I press you for details you bring up that conversation with Happer or Brown, that says absorption and emission in a single CO2 molecule only happens once in a billion times.

When I point out that means the energy is thermalized into the total energy of the atmosphere, and by definition means an increase in temperature, then you just run away or change the subject.


You are now saying I am creating strawmen of your statements, I see it as simple criticisms of your statements, that you cannot answer with an explanation. You consider running away from explaining yourself as 'winning', and the next time you are asked the same inconvenient question you reply that you already answered it and won't repeat yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> I don't think I do that, but you may feel that way because you are frustrated by not having any legitimate defense against my criticisms.



Such wild and crazy mental masturbation you engage in...keep kidding yourself.


----------



## Crick (Jun 15, 2017)

Shit, on the topics discussed on this board, you have no legitimate defense against anyone's criticisms.


----------



## IanC (Jun 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think I do that, but you may feel that way because you are frustrated by not having any legitimate defense against my criticisms.
> ...




Insults aren't answers. But it seems that is all you have.

One simple, basic question you have been asked literally dozens of times is "The Sun only delivers about 200w of input to the surface yet it radiates at 400w. Where does the extra energy come from?"

The one time you even tried to answer was "what about geothermal". I said it was insignificant, on the order of 2w. Is that still your best answer? How does the geothermal energy move through the oceans unnoticed? 200w is a lot to go undetected. Is it easier to detect on land? Do you have some evidence?

Or are you just talking out your ass? Again.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2017)

Your 200w to the surface number is bullshit...the sun would deliver 200w to the surface of a flat disk that was not rotating and was 4 times further away from the sun than the earth.


----------



## polarbear (Jun 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...he is showing you real world, observable, measurable, testable examples of how you are wrong and you flatly reject them because they don't agree with your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...
> ...


_I have repeatedly asked him to directly quote my statements but he refuses because he can't refute the ideas I put forth. The only time he actually quotes me is when finds a grammatical mistake, ignoring the context and main thought. Remember his rant about how there are no air molecules, only molecules of air? How petty is that?_
Like your "irrefutable air molecule idea" ?
"Air molecules" was a "grammatical mistake"?
N2,O2,O3,H20 and CO2 are molecules. Air is a mixture there is no molecular bond between these molecules. You might as well have said potato molecules. Why should I take science lessons from any person who is talking about air molecules ?
Now you say that it was "only a grammatical error" and that I allegedly said "there are only molecules of air". I said no such thing, but you must insist because you claim it was not a gross technical error, but "only a grammatical error" and "fixed it" by changing "air molecules" to "molecules of air".
"How petty is that"? Try and submit a chemistry patent and find out how "petty" the examination process is if you claim that by adding  more of something to air you made novel "air molecules".
It`s a bitch isn`t it, if your own words became your prison....and calling entire sections of chemistry and physics that deal with molecular bonding nothing more than a "rant" is not the way out either.


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2017)

polarbear said:


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




I made a cursory search for the original comments but they might be in a different thread. Perhaps you could find them easier as you post fewer comments.

I believe your rant was in response to my claim that it takes a lot of energy to put the mass of the atmosphere into the gravity field above the surface. The first of several numbered points.

Air is a mixture of various components. There are both molecules and atoms present. I am surprised that you did not call me out for that imprecision of language as well. 

As my claim dealt primarily with mass, not bonding, I find your reference to writing a chemistry patent to be specious.

This is a message board with conversational exchanges of ideas. There is no expectation of journal quality precision and conciseness. Your petty nitpicking over terminology while ignoring the central idea is annoying. I am not proud that I stooped to your level and started to return insults. If I used your level of intelligence and knowledge as the cutoff for being stupid then the vast majority of posters here would be labeled stupid.

Now that you have had time to mull over my claim that energy stored in the atmosphere is the source of energy returning to the surface, has your position changed at all?


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Your 200w to the surface number is bullshit...the sun would deliver 200w to the surface of a flat disk that was not rotating and was 4 times further away from the sun than the earth.




It is easy to calculate the amount of solar radiation intercepted by the Earth. Divide that by the surface area and you get a first estimate of input. Then you must factor in albedo, the amount of solar input that simply bounces away unabsorbed. Then...

I am reasonably confident that the estimates for average solar input at the surface are accurate in a bookkeeping sense. My use of 200w is actually high because I like to use rough estimates with few significant figures so I can easily make mental calculations that put me in the ballpark without making ridiculous claims of precision. Trenberth's cartoon claims it is 165w if memory serves.

Solar input is quite stable. Surface output is not. There is the whole temperature to the fourth power thing going on. Add in conduction and the water cycle convection thing as alternate routes for output and the complexity multiplies quickly. But we know the total input must match the total output to a fine degree or there would be warming or cooling. The imbalance causing a 1C change over a 100+ year period is probably beyond our ability to accurately measure it.


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2017)

SSDD is fond of claiming that there is only a gross one way only flow of radiation between two objects. Not a net flow, with the radiation from one being subtracted from the other. This leads to the absurd conclusion that no radiation is emitted at all when they are both at the same temperature. He is also fond of making analogies with matter related processes, like air coming out of a tire.

So let's use a matter related analogy with the surface and atmosphere. Air molecules come into contact with the surface traveling at various speeds, a wide but finite range. Some of these molecules impart energy to the surface in the collision, some take away more energy than they arrived with. In SSDD'S world this could not happen. Assuming that the surface is warmer, only collisions adding energy to the air molecules is allowed, according to his bizarre interpretation of the second law of thermodynamic. So if the temperatures of each are equal, then either no collisions take place (!?!?), or only collisions that exactly match input and output are permitted. 


This constant transfer of energy back and forth between the surface and atmosphere by molecular collision is, of course, one of the major pathways that atmospheric energy is either stored or released. The net energy transfer is towards the cooler atmosphere but that does not mean that there is no downward transfer.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2017)

Have your fun...and when you are done, let me know when they alter the language of the 2nd law to state net flow...then it will actually agree with your position rather than mine.


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Have your fun...and when you are done, let me know when they alter the language of the 2nd law to state net flow...then it will actually agree with your position rather than mine.




I'm sure this has been shown to you before but I don't think I ever actually read it myself-



> It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.


 Second Law of Thermodynamics

Nice and succinct.


----------



## IanC (Jun 16, 2017)

Wikipedia gives a history of how the SLoT was originally conceived, and its evolution towards the modern definition which is couched in terms of entropy.

The version SSDD uses dates back to the 1850's, before microscopic processes were known.

"


The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[22]His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the _Clausius statement_:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[23]

The statement by Clausius uses the concept of 'passage of heat'. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means 'net transfer of energy as heat', and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.
"


----------



## IanC (Jun 17, 2017)

Thermodynamics is an interesting topic.

Energy sources are not equal in their ability to do work. A bucket of warm water has more energy than a battery but which has more usable outcomes? The warm water can dissipate its heat to the environment but not much else, the highly ordered stored electricity in the battery can do many things.

Solar radiation is highly ordered and high energy density. It can power many processes as its energy travels through the Earth system. With each transformation it becomes more disordered and less energy dense until it escapes into space as practically useless diffuse IR. All the order has been used up, entropy has increased. The actual amount of energy is equal as input matches output but the quality of energy is decreased.

Climate models consider all energy as equal. They just count up the joules going in either direction. The increase of diffuse IR (or equivalent) returning from the atmosphere because of more GHGs is considered to be equivalent to more solar radiation. It is not. The order has been used up, entropy has already increased, the quality of energy is much lower. IR radiation is a placeholder for balancing the energy budget, not a driver of processes.


----------



## Crick (Jun 18, 2017)

You don't think GCMs adjust absorptivity coefficients for the frequency of the radiation they're dealing with?  I do.


----------



## IanC (Jun 18, 2017)

Crick said:


> You don't think GCMs adjust absorptivity coefficients for the frequency of the radiation they're dealing with?  I do.




Who was that comment directed at, and what was the context?


----------



## Crick (Jun 18, 2017)

SSSD claiming that GCMs treat energy from atmospheric IR emission and direct solar radiation, to the Earth's surface, identically.


----------



## IanC (Jun 18, 2017)

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/ne...s-treated-the-same-the-ground-is-not-the-sky/

Quote- 
The theory underlying the alarm about CO2 is built around a bizarre idea that blocking outgoing energy in the CO2 pipe is equivalent to getting an increase in sunlight. The very architecture of all the mainstream climate models assumes that the Earth’s climate responds to all radiation imbalances or “forcings” as if they were all like extra sunlight. (We call that extra _absorbed_ solar radiation (ASR) to be more precise. It’s all about the sunlight that makes it through to the surface.)

Extra sunlight adds heat directly to the Earth’s surface, and maybe the climate models have correctly estimated the feedbacks from clouds and evaporation and what-not to_ surface warming_. But it is obvious, in a way even a child could comprehend, that this is not the same as blocking outgoing radiation in the upper atmosphere, which is the effect of increasing CO2. Why would the Earth’s climate respond to this in an identical way? Why would we think that evaporation, humidity, winds and clouds would all change in the same direction and by the same magnitude, whether the warming occurred by adding heat to the ground or by blocking heat from escaping to space from the upper atmosphere? -end quote.

The article goes on to show a climate model computational schematic, and Hansen's own words about treating CO2 forcing in the same fashion as solar forcing.

The whole series is worth a read, although I don't think it is perfect. It spends a lot of time on the hotspot, and why it cannot and does not exist as the models predict.


----------



## IanC (Jun 20, 2017)

IanC said:


> http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/ne...s-treated-the-same-the-ground-is-not-the-sky/
> 
> Quote-
> The theory underlying the alarm about CO2 is built around a bizarre idea that blocking outgoing energy in the CO2 pipe is equivalent to getting an increase in sunlight. The very architecture of all the mainstream climate models assumes that the Earth’s climate responds to all radiation imbalances or “forcings” as if they were all like extra sunlight. (We call that extra _absorbed_ solar radiation (ASR) to be more precise. It’s all about the sunlight that makes it through to the surface.)
> ...




Bump for SSDD. Here is a critique of the missing hotspot. I believe I started a thread at the time giving a short explanation of the different chapters. Why do you keep asking me to defend the missing hotspot? I am obviously antagonistic towards the AGW viewpoint.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> Bump for SSDD. Here is a critique of the missing hotspot. I believe I started a thread at the time giving a short explanation of the different chapters. Why do you keep asking me to defend the missing hotspot? I am obviously antagonistic towards the AGW viewpoint.



The bottom line is that both the greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis failed...they made predictions that didn't happen...failure...now, in real science, what do we do with hypotheses that experience predictive failures?


----------



## IanC (Jun 22, 2017)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




I like these thought experiments. It allows you to separate out the basic mechanisms. 

Let's change your block for a sphere so that shape doesn't interfere. What happens when you put this sphere of homogenous temperature into a cooler environment? Let's use deep space so that we can ignore radiation coming back from the environment.

It immediately starts to lose energy via radiation and the temperature cools at the surface. This causes a temperature differential that 'wicks' away interior energy to the surface by conduction, leading to a temperature gradient from the centre to the surface. This all happens most quickly at the beginning and slows to a trickle as more and more energy is lost, until it is all gone.

The initial state of consistent temperature throughout is very seldom seen in reality. It is a highly ordered state that entropy attacks immediately. The S-B equations are built around
 ideal conditions, steady temperature being one of them.

All objects cool if they do not have an input of energy. The rate of cooling can be affected by local conditions but there is always energy loss to the environment.

For example the sphere may be split into two objects, an interior and an exterior, separated by just enough distance to stop conduction. Conduction is far more efficient at transferring energy than radiation, therefore the interior will stay warm longer and the temperature differential between the exterior and interior pieces will be larger. It will take longer for all the energy to be lost.

At this point you could cry foul! There are now two objects, the interior powering the exterior. But was this not always the case except for the initial condition of homogenous temperature? An artificial case where entropy was taken out of the system by adding order.

TBC


----------

