# Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted...



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2018)

Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.

As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.

When the sun is active the flows from the sun, like wind, push against our atmosphere.  As the earth rotates this pressure pushes atmosphere to the poles increasing the mass of the atmosphere above them. The NASA photo below shows how solar wind pushes against the magnetosphere and against our atmosphere.






When the wind reduces so do the pressures against our atmosphere. If you spin a partially filled balloon and apply a wind pressure against it the center will flatten and the ends round.  This is what happens to earths atmosphere.

When there is high pressures against our atmosphere from the sun the depth of atmosphere above the equator decreases and above the poles increase.





This allows the polar jet to reside high in latitudes and warming of the equator will push towards the polls keeping the polar jet tightly constrained to the poles. This is a warming globe.

With cooling and low solar influence things are very different. With low pressures (as we have today) against the magnetosphere and atmosphere, the mass of the atmosphere is flung out due to earths rotation, allowing the atmosphere near the poles to be drawn to the equator.





The draw down of atmosphere causes the polar Cells to thin and widen pulling the polar jet to mid latitudes. This results in a paradoxical warming of the arctic regions and massive cooling of the mid latitudes. The thin atmosphere mass above the poles allows heat escape to accelerate.

What we see today is a natural and normal presentation of the earth entering a cooling phase.  With Solar influence now slated to be very low for the next 30-60 years our cooling is just beginning.

As we near the new thermal equilibrium of the earths new energy input/output levels, the zones will return to what we have seen as normal over recent years. When that happens, the poles will freeze over rapidly and glaciation will resume. Many Northern Hemisphere glaciers have already begun to increase in size.  The ice mass on Greenland has tripled in just three years.

This is just the beginning..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2018)

And Earths atmosphere is not uniform around the globe.  The thickness changes daily dependent on the opposing solar force applied..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2018)

In a warming world the polar jets will become tightly constrained and cold will be tightly kept locally until the warming and the heat retention of the atmosphere above the poles eventually warms it. Were nowhere near this eventuality.  Paradoxical presentation of a cold and constrained arctic in a warming world.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2018)

In our currently cooling world the wide and powerful polar jets cools the mid-latitudes while the heat is released above the pole from the reduced mass of the atmosphere and the heat being widely spread out, high in the reduced atmosphere. Again a paradoxical presentation of a warming arctic in a cooling world.

In both a cooling world and a warming world, when we reach near equilibrium the polar jet will expand to it median path or retract to its median path.  Right now were no where near the median path.

None of this fits in many peoples minds because they do not know how the system works or why.  Were just getting a good scratch on the surface. This is a very simplified explanation but one that is desperately needed to teach people that any man caused warming is extremely exaggerated.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

They claim global warming is responsible for the record cold....does that mean that global cooling is responsible for record warm?  Or is that warming also due to the magical properties of CO2?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> They claim global warming is responsible for the record cold....does that mean that global cooling is responsible for record warm?  Or is that warming also due to the magical properties of CO2?


They use the "warming" of both processes as evidence of man caused influence.  Neither is true.  As of just this month, the IPCC's hypothesis of influence dropped below 0.2 deg C over 150 years.

But you haven't heard a word about it...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 18, 2018)

Trending ever towards zero....where it belongs.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 18, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> This is just the beginning..



No, it's more of your nonsense, and this time it's dumber than usual. The solar wind has zero effect on the troposphere and weather. Your diagrams of global wind patterns have nothing to do with the solar wind. Your fundamental failure here is your inability to grasp the difference between the magnetosphere and the atmosphere.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Billy can show us he's not crazy, by linking to the actual science that backs up his claim that the solar wind pushes the troposphere (and not the magnetosphere) away on the sunlit side of the earth.

SSDD, Darkwind, feel free to do so as well. You two are both kissing up to Billy here, which means you're endorsing his nutty theory as well. That means you're obligated to back it up as well, if you don't want to be thought of as mindless cult sheep. If you do want to be thought of that way, snarl and cry at me now without linking to any science.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 19, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Two top shelf morons who don't have a damn clue about how the earth warms and cools....



Aint it the truth.  I just had an interesting read about the ability of IR to warm the atmosphere...seems that there are literally millions of hours of experimentation that demonstrate conclusively that no such thing is, has, or ever will happen.  

The article started with the early observations of the supposed authors of modern day climate catastrophe.  John Tyndal, for example, did extensive laboratory testing on the absorption of various gasses to "block" the transmission of IR radiation which he called calorific rays.  He tested gasses at concentrations of 80,000ppm.  Regarding CO2 or "carbonic gas" he observed:

 “*Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.*_”_ [2]

His observations of CO2 at atmospheric concentrations were that CO2 had no effect on the temperature of air and it didn't matter how much IR you passed through it.

_“_*Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays*.”

Then Svante Arrhenius ignored those findings and hypothesized that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere could actually heat the ground.  In 1900 Knut Angstrom experimented and published "On the Importance of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Absorption of the Atmosphere"  He observed that IR does not warm the air.

His observations have been confirmed by literally millions upon millions of hours of commercial application and testing of infrared heating.  

Statements regarding infrared heating:

*“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.”   …..

“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.”    …..

“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.” [1]
*
And back to John Tyndal who noted that while certain gasses absorb IR, they also emit IR.  
*
“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”*

As I have stated before, increasing the amount of IR reactive gasses in the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere and the idea that increasing the emissivity of a thing causes it to warm is among the stupidest hypotheses ever postulated.

Literally millions of hours of experiment and observation demonstrate conclusively that IR does not warm the air and yet, the wackos hold on to their magical thinking for dear life....not because of science, but because of politics.
*
*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn't know real science even if it smacked you upside of the head... The absence of any credible answer is evidence of your inability to understand it or refute what I have stated.
> ...


Anyone who has the slightest training in atmospheric process understands the BASIC PRINCIPALS.  Thanks for proving you haven't even the slightest clue or training..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Two top shelf morons who don't have a damn clue about how the earth warms and cools....
> ...


LWIR is so low in the physical processes that it is physically incapable of what the alarmists claim.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.
> 
> As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.
> 
> ...


So you say the ice mass in Greenland has tripled in 3 years? LOL Silly Billy, what you pulled out of your ass should stink even to you. There are 684,000 cubic miles of ice in Greenland, so you are stating either it increased by 1,368,000 cubic miles, or that it was only 226,000 cubic miles in 2014. Either way that is an impossible amount of snow for three years. 

A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing
*A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing*
*Posted on 27 April 2010 by John Cook*
I'm talking at the University of Queensland next week so I thought I might use Skeptical Science to test-drive a new visual metaphor. Sometimes in the climate debate, we get a bit lost in the data and statistical analysis, forgetting the sheer scale of the impact we're having on our climate. A vivid example is the amount of ice that Greenland is currently losing. When scientists talk about ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet, they refer to gigatonnes of ice. One gigatonne is one billion tonnes. To get a picture of how large this is, imagine a block of ice one kilometre high by one kilometer wide by one kilometre deep (okay, the edges are actually 1055 metres long as ice is slightly less dense than water but you get the idea). Borrowing from alien invasion movies, the scale is well illustrated by comparing a gigatonne block of ice to a famous, historical landmark like the Empire State Building:






How much ice is Greenland losing? This is monitored by satellites which have measured changes in gravity around the ice sheet over the last decade (Velicogna 2009). In 2002 to 2003, the Greenland ice sheet was losing mass at a rate of 137 gigatonnes per year.






However, the rate of ice loss has more than doubled in less than a decade. The rate of ice loss over the 2008 to 2009 period was 286 gigatonnes per year.






This is a vivid reminder that global warming isn't a statistical abstraction cooked up in a climate lab. Greenland is just one example of the physical realities of climate change. On the other side of the planet, Antarctica is also losing ice at an accelerating rate. All over the globe, glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate.

It's also a reminder of the massive amount of inertia at play in our climate. It takes time for the massive Greenland ice sheet to respond to warming. But this inertia is not our friend. Now that Greenland is losing ice at an accelerating rate, it's not like we can throw a rope around the ice sheet and hold it back. The steadily accelerating ice loss from Greenland is an ominous reminder that our actions now will have effects long into the future.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.
> ...


I wouldn't be touting John Cook on anything... What a moron...

And as usual the liar cook is wrong again...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Ever note how rocks goes about placing "funny" ratings on things...laughing like a monkey in a tree about things he doesn't even begin to understand...of course, relying on folks like cook goes a long way towards explaining why he is reduced to laughing like a gibbering idiot rather than actually supporting his position with anything like actual observed measurements.

The little blue boxes were pretty though..I can understand how a small mind might be fooled by them...you know...pretty colors and all..


----------



## mamooth (Jan 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> And as usual the liar cook is wrong again...



That chart just shows surface mass balance, which is snowfall minus melt. Snowfall is increasing due to warmer air holding more moisture, which the chart shows.

However, the chart does _not_ include glacier calving, which has accelerated massively, and which is causing the ice loss to accelerate.

By leaving that out, Billy is lying by omission.

He may or may not have known that. But he knows it now, and he'll still lie about it deliberately. Cook is scrupulously honest, while Billy and pals are all pathological liars.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.
> ...






Clouds 


Ureka!!!!!! Scientist just found out clouds cover Greenland!!!




.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Ever note how rocks goes about placing "funny" ratings on things...laughing like a monkey in a tree about things he doesn't even begin to understand...of course, relying on folks like cook goes a long way towards explaining why he is reduced to laughing like a gibbering idiot rather than actually supporting his position with anything like actual observed measurements.
> 
> The little blue boxes were pretty though..I can understand how a small mind might be fooled by them...you know...pretty colors and all..


I call them shit pellets...That's about all his bump of my liked count is good for...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > And as usual the liar cook is wrong again...
> ...


LOL

You missed that the ice deposited is 300 times the ice loss this year alone....  But then your agenda is paramount so lying about it is OK for you...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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


Silly little twit, ice does not get deposited. Snow does, and if it does not melt, over the years it become compressed to ice. And that figure you just gave is just plain insane. LOL


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


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



Reduced to picking fly specks out of the pepper...how sad for you..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


I spent three hours and a power point presentation in front of a group of PhD's and Grad students on the Paradoxical Presentation this week. You want to talk picking pepper specks... The two hours following the presentation was very enlightening as 90% of those who actively (on a daily basis) deal in atmospheric physics agreed with me. Only a partisan few were adamantly opposed and refused to even discuss their opposition.

The following three days of class time was spent going over pressure gradients and mass/energy calculations proving my assertions.

The highlight of one of the conversations with two PhD's was the question of 'how does the earth actually cool?', again showing the math on energy movement from equator pole-ward and release. The major component of which is, energy residency time, in the individual molecules of the atmosphere. When you do the math and proportion it to the mass of the atmosphere there is little warming that CO2 can do and depending on the thickness of the atmosphere above poles this can be decreased to near zero. Our current 0.1-0.2 deg C of warming attributed to CO2, which is currently observed, is right on the money.

The complexity of the problems to try and model are huge and change at about every 10deg of Latitude as the mass makeup of the atmosphere changes slightly as you go higher in latitude due to weight of the molecules, Coriolis rotation effect, water vapor content and the magnetic form of earth's layered bands.

One agreement I was able to obtain was that CO2's roll has been severely overstated and that the science has never been done correctly...  

Were making progress in scientific circles as more and more experts are now open to constructive debate and differing explanations for what we observe..


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2018)

LOL Silly Billy, you are a liar, worse even than Trump. There is no misinterpretation of your ignorance of science, nor your constant pulling of 'stinky fact' out of your ample ass. We know how the earth warms and cools, and we know that right now it is rapidly warming due to the GHGs that we have and are putting into the atmosphere.






UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2018: +0.26 deg. C «  Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2018)

Old Fraud is so wrong on so many levels..

Here are few real scientists who understand the earths presentation and how it is driven...



> Lubin and colleagues David Tytler and Carl Melis of UC San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences arrived at their estimate of a grand minimum’s intensity by reviewing nearly 20 years of data gathered by the International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite mission. They compared radiation from stars that are analogous to the Sun and identified those that were experiencing minima.
> 
> *The reduced energy from the Sun sets into motion a sequence of events on Earth beginning with a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer. That thinning in turn changes the temperature structure of the stratosphere, which then changes the dynamics of the lower atmosphere, especially wind and weather patterns. The cooling is not uniform. While areas of Europe chilled during the Maunder Minimum, other areas such as Alaska and southern Greenland warmed correspondingly.*
> 
> Lubin and other scientists predict a significant probability of a near-future grand minimum because the downward sunspot pattern in recent solar cycles resembles the run-ups to past grand minimum events.



The next 60 years is going to be a real eye opener for you alarmists...

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa124

2nd source


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2018)

*Study: Reduced Energy from the Sun Might Occur by Mid-century – cooling the climate*

*Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.*

*Study: Reduced Energy from the Sun Might Occur by Mid-century – cooling the climate*

Silly Billy, your own source says you are full of shit. The scientists are predicting that it might slow the warming down a bit. That might give us a bit more breathing space, but not much. And the reduction is in the ultraviolet range, they do not give a figure for the reduction of the TSI. I suspect it is far less than that of the UV.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> *Study: Reduced Energy from the Sun Might Occur by Mid-century – cooling the climate*
> 
> *Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.*
> 
> ...




LOL

You and never doing the math...Do you ever check to see if what they say and what the evidence says are in concert? Tell me moron, which is more important as to energy that the earth can absorb?

Again you took the razor sharp scissor SKS talking points and ran with them...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2018)

Look, Silly, that was your source. And they clearly stated that the reduction in UV by the sun would only slow the warming a bit. Deal with it yourself. 

We are past 410 ppm CO2 and 1850 ppb CH4. Normal would be 280 ppm of CO2 and about 700 ppb of CH4. So we are committed to a rapid warming for centuries.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Look, Silly, that was your source. And they clearly stated that the reduction in UV by the sun would only slow the warming a bit. Deal with it yourself.
> 
> We are past 410 ppm CO2 and 1850 ppb CH4. Normal would be 280 ppm of CO2 and about 700 ppb of CH4. So we are committed to a rapid warming for centuries.




as they say..........them there's the breaks!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 14, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Look, Silly, that was your source. And they clearly stated that the reduction in UV by the sun would only slow the warming a bit. Deal with it yourself.
> 
> We are past 410 ppm CO2 and 1850 ppb CH4. Normal would be 280 ppm of CO2 and about 700 ppb of CH4. So we are committed to a rapid warming for centuries.


Again you do not have the math to back up your assertions..

Can you tell me why the earth has a upper and lower limit of temperature range (12deg C) for its entire life span?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 14, 2018)

PT extinction event.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 14, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> PT extinction event.


You know as well as I do that was not caused by CO2 increase...

EPIC FAIL!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 14, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > This is just the beginning..
> ...




"The solar wind has zero effect on the troposphere and weather...."

What????


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 28, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


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


His ignorance is only surpassed by his useful idiotness...


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 28, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > This is just the beginning..
> ...


Perhaps *you* can provide a Link to substantiate *your* claim.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 28, 2018)

Indeependent said:


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


It can not.  There is so much evidence that it physically does affect our atmosphere out there that his bloviation is just that, bloviation. Lots of hot air and no substance.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 28, 2018)

One of the funny things about paradoxical presentation is the "stall" of storms and storm systems.  The blocking High pressures that form, in a cooling environment, like to do things massively to areas. The troughs that form adjacent to them create massive amounts of rain and snow. California is about to experience one...

6 to 8 feet of snow forecast for California mountains


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 2, 2018)

The bloviation of alarmists is stunning.. They just cant wrap their heads around why the earth presents opposite how they think it should.

A Warming arctic must take into account what the rest of the globe is doing, yet they do not.  They get tunnel vision and miss reality.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 22, 2018)

East coast getting another dose of reality... more of the paradox presenting itself..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 1, 2018)

Mother Nature plays April Fools Joke on Alarmists..

10 Day forecasts show the NH will remain below normal by about 7-10 deg F for the foreseeable future.  The Polar jet remains stronger than the equatorial jet so it will continue to dominate the weather patterns.

Its going to be a real wet and crazy spring time with low temps and snow in the forecast for most of the US above the 43 Latitude.  Definitely going to be active in Tornado Alley with the troughs that have formed and solidified.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 6, 2018)

The Paradox continues.. 67% of the northern hemisphere is -20 Deg F below normal.  The Arctic is now above the average melt slope for 15% sea ice coverage and mass coverage is at 100% again.  

And its April 6th..... 

Continental US is 71% covered by ....... wait for it..........




*SNOW*


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 7, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Study: Reduced Energy from the Sun Might Occur by Mid-century – cooling the climate*
> ...



Old Rocks doesn't seem to realize that there is little warm forcing power left to squeeze out of CO2, most of it was set in 500 million years ago when it was at the estimated 7,000 ppm level.

Here are but two of many published science papers showing low to very low CO2 sensitivity in a doubling of CO2:

*Idso, 1998 (*2X CO2 =* ~0.4°C)*

_Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming.

and,_

*Holmes, 2018 (*2XCO2 = *-0.03°C)*

_Calculate for a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 0.03% [300 ppm]: [formula found in text] Calculated temperature after doubling of CO2 to 0.06% [600 ppm] ≈ 288.11 K. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is ≈ 288.14 – 288.11 ≈ – 0.03 K.
The change would in fact be extremely small and difficult to estimate exactly, but would be of the order -0.03°C. That is, a hundred times smaller than the ‘likely’ climate sensitivity of 3°C cited in the IPCC’s reports, and also probably of the opposite sign [cooling]. Even that small number would likely be a maximum change, since if fossil fuels are burned to create the emitted CO2, then atmospheric O2 will also be consumed, reducing that gas in the atmosphere – and offsetting any temperature change generated by the extra CO2. This climate sensitivity is already so low that it would be impossible to detect or measure in the real atmosphere, even before any allowance is made for the consumption of atmospheric O2._

Many more HERE


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 7, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL Silly Billy, you are a liar, worse even than Trump. There is no misinterpretation of your ignorance of science, nor your constant pulling of 'stinky fact' out of your ample ass. We know how the earth warms and cools, and we know that right now it is rapidly warming due to the GHGs that we have and are putting into the atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ha ha ha, what a pathetic claim since the satellite data doesn't show how much is natural and how much is CO2 warm forced. It is simply a composite of data placed into chart form.

The chart shows it has not been warming for the last 20 years.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 7, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Look, Silly, that was your source. And they clearly stated that the reduction in UV by the sun would only slow the warming a bit. Deal with it yourself.
> 
> We are past 410 ppm CO2 and 1850 ppb CH4. Normal would be 280 ppm of CO2 and about 700 ppb of CH4. So we are committed to a rapid warming for centuries.



You should drop CH4 since its postulated warm forcing contribution is tiny from the start and rapidly goes downhill.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 7, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And the empirically seen and documented effect is 0.2 deg C or less.  Its amazing to me that they still tout their grossly failed and flawed modeling.


----------



## Crick (Apr 8, 2018)

Are you suggesting that the average outcome of all CO2 doubling studies is in that range?  I didn't think so.  They call that "cherry picking" Bob.  By the way, are you still claiming that the Meteorology 101 class you took at your local junior college granted you a degree in atmospheric physics?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Crick said:


> Are you suggesting that the average outcome of all CO2 doubling studies is in that range?  I didn't think so.  They call that "cherry picking" Bob.  By the way, are you still claiming that the Meteorology 101 class you took at your local junior college granted you a degree in atmospheric physics?



Show us a single piece of observed, measured, experimental data that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one...  Can't do it can you?  You wish you could, but you can't....and that is the cornerstone of the AGW hypothesis...imagine, a hypothesis upon which the very cornerstone is not supported by a single piece of observed, measured data...and you are a big enough dupe to believe in it.


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2018)

It was done a hundred years ago and a thousand times since.  The problem isn't the evidence and data available to me, the problem is your refusal to accept anything that you don't want to accept.  Your concepts of fundamental thermodynamics and heat transfer are the musings of a psychopath.  You're an idiot and a dozen people here have shown it to you (and the rest of the USMB audience) over and over and over again.  That you persist is simply evidence of your personal issues there's no need to get into in this forum.  Perhaps USMB could start an Abnormal Psychology board...


----------



## whitehall (Apr 15, 2018)

The sun is an anomaly in the blackness and frigid norm of the known universe. An entire species of sub-humans existed for thousands of years during a burp in the sun's energy when the geographical area we know as New York was under a hundred foot glacier. The point is that the current human footprint on earth is a fragile drop in the ocean of geologic time. The earth may be at the peak of the warming trend at the end of the last ice age 40,000 years ago and we should enjoy the concept but somehow there is a faction of mostly American left wingers who can't enjoy a warm day unless they can create a political and economic extortion scam out of it.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 18, 2018)

Crick said:


> It was done a hundred years ago and a thousand times since.  The problem isn't the evidence and data available to me, the problem is your refusal to accept anything that you don't want to accept.  Your concepts of fundamental thermodynamics and heat transfer are the musings of a psychopath.  You're an idiot and a dozen people here have shown it to you (and the rest of the USMB audience) over and over and over again.  That you persist is simply evidence of your personal issues there's no need to get into in this forum.  Perhaps USMB could start an Abnormal Psychology board...



Translation: I can't answer a science based question, because I am too busy ranting with name calling and ugly insinuations.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 18, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


The Holmes paper really put things into perspective and it pretty much shows CO2 has no power over its own to do anything.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 18, 2018)

Crick said:


> Are you suggesting that the average outcome of all CO2 doubling studies is in that range?  I didn't think so.  They call that "cherry picking" Bob.  By the way, are you still claiming that the Meteorology 101 class you took at your local junior college granted you a degree in atmospheric physics?



They have been trending downward for years now, CO2 doubling to 560 ppm postulated warm forcing effect is becoming smaller and smaller as people learn more and more about it.





I have many published science papers showing the much lower estimates than what it was back in year 2000 or so. Lets face it, the CO2 effect has been much overblown and the warming trend since 1979 are mostly caused by El-Nino's.

The collective science is more and more saying that CO2 has a tiny warm forcing left at the 400 ppm level, CH4 is practically irrelevant at the 1865 ppb level.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2018)

Crick said:


> It was done a hundred years ago and a thousand times since. .



If that were the case then you would have no problem at all bringing a single piece of observed measured experimental data here that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...alas, all you can seem to do is claim that there is a great deal of data and that the experiment has been done and recorded thousands of times...you don't seem to be able to bring any of it here...

I don't blame you...last time you tried, all you managed to do was show how low your threshold for "evidence" actually was and that what you believed was evidence was, in fact, not.  Don't guess you would want to have that happen again...SO..you just make claims that you drag out of your ass which are not based on any sort of observation or measurement and claim that the problem is someone else rather than your own belief in "science" that does not exist.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 19, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL Silly Billy, you are a liar, worse even than Trump. There is no misinterpretation of your ignorance of science, nor your constant pulling of 'stinky fact' out of your ample ass. We know how the earth warms and cools, and we know that right now it is rapidly warming due to the GHGs that we have and are putting into the atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your reply to his post 21, makes clear that you have no idea how weather works. The chart you posted actually help destroy the AGW conjecture, but your ignorance about it is why you did it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 5, 2018)

And today the paradoxical presentation is about to deliver a very cold winter to the Northern Hemisphere...

A forming La Niña, a cold AMO, PDO, APO and other long term oscillations, with a sun that is entering what could be a very long minimum and very low solar output.  All three to converge on the Earth as it has now passed 23.6 oblique axis tilt which is known as the tipping point for glaciation in _*Milankovitch*_ cycles.

All the items that can effect glacial cycles are present...  All we need is one good kick by a volcanic eruption..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 18, 2018)

With record cold being set in the polar regions and above theoretical maximum cooling taking place in Antarctica its time to revisit why the polar lows are being displaced. Why the atmosphere above the poles has thinned and why we see theoretical maximum cooling at the surface...

Antarctic temperatures recently plunged close to the theoretically coldest achievable on Earth!


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 18, 2018)

Dr Judith Curry....now retired due to the relentless fakery coming from the climate change industry....has been saying it for 10 years. Nobody knows dick for certain about what is driving the climate. Sure as shit, she's making the "real scientists" look st00pid!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 18, 2018)

Nothing like a ground blizzard earlier today on I-80 near Cheyenne, WY..  And not much is moving tonight in 65mph cross winds..   Got to love wind zone 5-6 areas...


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2018)

From: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...at-selected-Antarctic-stations_fig2_249612281


Also see: NASA -  Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming


----------



## SSDD (Nov 19, 2018)

Still can't read a graph i see.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2018)

Crick said:


> From: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...at-selected-Antarctic-stations_fig2_249612281
> 
> 
> Also see: NASA -  Satellites Confirm Half-Century of West Antarctic Warming


Having trouble with graphing still...??  Even NASA doesn't deny the cooling *IS *happening.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If that were the case then you would have no problem at all bringing a single piece of observed measured experimental data here that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere


I think it would be difficult because any measurements would be in very old archives. I certainly wouldn't waste time in searching for it because with modern science it is quite logical to deduce it from the conservation of energy, a fundamental law of physics. It is simple:

Absorption of IR means the loss of IR energy to the gas in a random fashion. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the IR energy loss. Gain of random energy of a gas is thermal energy. One can go into detail on how IR leads to increased vibratory energy of a GHG, which is very rapidly dissipated to the rest of the atmosphere, but the conservation of energy is sufficient to say that the absorbed IR increases the thermal energy. 

Do you have any other ideas about the nature of the energy transfer?


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still can't read a graph i see.



Let me guess: you see dramatic and unprecedented cooling in those data.  Right?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If that were the case then you would have no problem at all bringing a single piece of observed measured experimental data here that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere
> ...


And your hot spot is where again?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still can't read a graph i see.
> ...


Those graphs cherry pick a small area and are not a picture of the whole... Only small areas are warming all the rest are cooling... why do you cherry pick?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If that were the case then you would have no problem at all bringing a single piece of observed measured experimental data here that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere
> ...



So you have nothing...like i have been saying.  if there were anything in those old archives, it would be inescapable..there is, and never has been anything to support your beliefs other than models which don't jibe with observations.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you have nothing...like i have been saying. if there were anything in those old archives, it would be inescapable..there is, and never has been anything to support your beliefs other than models which don't jibe with observations.



No, you have nothing. It is simple physics. Here it is again step by step.

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Do you disagree with any of the above statements? Which ones?

.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you have nothing...like i have been saying. if there were anything in those old archives, it would be inescapable..there is, and never has been anything to support your beliefs other than models which don't jibe with observations.
> ...



So you have a failed hypothesis and still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge my statements...if you can't provide any, why do you keep talking?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you have a failed hypothesis and still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge my statements...if you can't provide any, why do you keep talking?


I'm addressing the fact that I disagree with your second statement.
Here it is again step by step.

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Which of the above do you disagree with?

You are avoiding the question.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you have a failed hypothesis and still not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge my statements...if you can't provide any, why do you keep talking?
> ...



Of course you disagree...so what?  You going to produce some observed, measured evidence to challenge it?  of course not...because there is none...why do you keep talking...bringing attention to the fact that you aren't producing ant actual evidence to challenge my statements?

If simple physics corroborated your belief, then you could certainly provide some empirical evidence to challenge my statements...you can't because your understanding is flawed and reality will never back you up with actual evidence.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.


Incorrect;

CO2 can not warm as the energy residency time is incapable of allowing warming of the molecule.  Your link has a huge hole in it..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.


Where are you getting this crap?

I don't know of any perpetual energy motion machines that do not have loss. 

My Gawd you people live and die by your failed modeling...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of course you disagree...so what? You going to produce some observed, measured evidence to challenge it? of course not...because there is none...why do you keep talking...bringing attention to the fact that you aren't producing ant actual evidence to challenge my statements?
> 
> If simple physics corroborated your belief, then you could certainly provide some empirical evidence to challenge my statements...you can't because your understanding is flawed and reality will never back you up with actual evidence.


Do you need measured evidence for every simple problem in physics??

Suppose you wanted to know the final speed of a disk rolling down an incline, and were given the moment of inertia, and the ramp angle and length. There are simple formulas to compute that. Would you shun those those formulas as models and not be satisfied unless you actually built the system and tried to observe and measure the final velocity of the disk?

That is exactly what you are doing all the time with the simple problems in physics. You have absolutely no imagination nor intuition in problem solving and would flunk a physics course cold.

Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
The conservation of energy requires the above.
Which of those five statements to you think are false. Do you have any understanding of a simple application of the law of conservation of energy? I'm curious how you will evade this question again.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
> ...



Their fundamental hypothesis is based on a belief in back radiation...energy from a cooler atmosphere warming the warmer surface...if you don't believe in perpetual motion, you can't join the cult.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Do you need measured evidence for every simple problem in physics??



If it were so simple, observed measured evidence would be no problem...if you were correct, measured evidence would be no problem...you lose on both counts and now you are conceding and saying just trust the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.

No thanks...i don't speak the language of Baaaahhh, nor do I possess the herding instinct of sheep.



Wuwei said:


> Suppose you wanted to know the final speed of a disk rolling down an incline, and were given the moment of inertia, and the ramp angle and length. There are simple formulas to compute that. Would you shun those those formulas as models and not be satisfied unless you actually built the system and tried to observe and measure the final velocity of the disk?



Yep...and i could trulyt egos formulas because they have been tested and proven right over and over and over...and if i wanted i could do the observation and measuring myself.

Not so with the flawed physics you are pushing...predictive failure after predictive failure...ad hoc fudge factors...etc., etc.  NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.



Wuwei said:


> That is exactly what you are doing all the time with the simple problems in physics. You have absolutely no imagination nor intuition in problem solving and would flunk a physics course cold.



You mean trusting time proven formulas which have proven their accuracy over and over, and over with experiment and observation of their accuracy, in some cases for hundreds of years but not trusting a mathematical model which can't even produce a single observed, measured example that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?  

That?  Yeah, I'm guilty.  if I weren't, I would be a dupe...and I don't want yo be a dupe.



Wuwei said:


> Blackbody radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
> That loss of EM energy to the atmosphere is random.
> Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
> That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If it were so simple, observed measured evidence would be no problem...if you were correct, measured evidence would be no problem...you lose on both counts and now you are conceding and saying just trust the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.


Geez, the conservation of energy really is quite simple in the case of a photon disappearing and giving energy to a molecule. And you can't even handle that!



SSDD said:


> No thanks...i don't speak the language of Baaaahhh, nor do I possess the herding instinct of sheep.


Let me translate that
_No thanks...i don't speak the language of a *physicist*, nor do I possess the basic science of classical and quantum physics that has been proven time and again._​


SSDD said:


> Yep...and i could trulyt egos formulas because they have been tested and proven right over and over and over...and if i wanted i could do the observation and measuring myself.
> 
> Not so with the flawed physics you are pushing...predictive failure after predictive failure...ad hoc fudge factors...etc., etc. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.


You are saying "yep" to building a system to test the speed of a tire rolling down a ramp. Wow, you really are a science skeptic.

However there is empirical evidence that the conservation of energy is valid and it explains radiation warming the atmosphere.



SSDD said:


> Not so with the flawed physics you are pushing...predictive failure after predictive failure...ad hoc fudge factors...etc., etc. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.


Nope, conservation of energy is not flawed when it comes to explaining how the atmosphere warms.



SSDD said:


> You mean trusting time proven formulas which have proven their accuracy over and over, and over with experiment and observation of their accuracy, in some cases for hundreds of years but not trusting a mathematical model which can't even produce a single observed, measured example that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?
> 
> That? Yeah, I'm guilty. if I weren't, I would be a dupe...and I don't want yo be a dupe.


Yep, only a dupe would distrust time proven formulas in the mathematical models of physics.



SSDD said:


> you assume that absorption and emission equals warming...there is no evidence of that. The rest is just gibberish steaming from your assumption. Prove that absorption and emission equals warming...that is fundamental to your claims and you will never prove it because absorption and emission do not equal warming.



Again you are denying the evidence of the conservation of energy quite dogmatically, it seems. Well nobody can help you when you are so entrenched in anti-science that you need to observe everything even if it uses time proven formulas.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 21, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If it were so simple, observed measured evidence would be no problem...if you were correct, measured evidence would be no problem...you lose on both counts and now you are conceding and saying just trust the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models.
> ...



S all that and still not the first piece of observed, measured, evidence that establishes a  coherent relationship between the absorption of nfrared radiation by eight gas and warming in the atmosphere.  Just more questions based on your flawed understanding of physics. You will never find answers to those questions and the physics you believe in because those physics are not reality.

Either post the dataof that challenges my statements or admit that you can't do it.  I have grown tired of your tedium.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of course you disagree...so what? You going to produce some observed, measured evidence to challenge it? of course not...because there is none...why do you keep talking...bringing attention to the fact that you aren't producing ant actual evidence to challenge my statements?
> 
> If simple physics corroborated your belief, then you could certainly provide some empirical evidence to challenge my statements...you can't because your understanding is flawed and reality will never back you up with actual evidence.


The evidence is observation that a significant amount of radiation from a planet does not make it out to space. 

The only conclusion is that you don't believe the law of conservation of energy. Or maybe you don't even know what or how you think... Whatever... You are just an anti-science troll.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Geez, the conservation of energy really is quite simple in the case of a photon disappearing and giving energy to a molecule. And you can't even handle that!


.
You are aware that the molecule determines how it will handle the incoming energy, don't you?  Energy is not just absorbed by what it hits. For instance, a CO2 molecule holding energy will pass all other energy and must pass all other energy before accepting more.  

I'm using simple sentences here as this is a very complex process that you do not seem to understand.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you disagree...so what? You going to produce some observed, measured evidence to challenge it? of course not...because there is none...why do you keep talking...bringing attention to the fact that you aren't producing ant actual evidence to challenge my statements?
> ...



That is only an observation that we don't know enough about the way energy moves through the system...  The bottom line is that if the atmosphere behaved as you believe, there wild be a pronounced, and easily measurable tropospheric hot spot.  There is none.   And there is the undeniable fact thad adding radiatively emissive gasses to the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere.  Explain in rational, measurable terms how you believe raising the emissivity of ANYTHING can result in that thing becoming warmer.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Geez, the conservation of energy really is quite simple in the case of a photon disappearing and giving energy to a molecule. And you can't even handle that!
> ...



I think he believes that only so called greenhouse gasses radiate energy.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> That is only an observation that we don't know enough about the way energy moves through the system.


"We" is just you. I'm only referring to what can impede LW IR, as traverses from earth to outer space.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I think he believes that only so called greenhouse gasses radiate energy.


That is a total lie. I have said time and again hot bodies radiate EM energy freely. It doesn't matter what it is.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That is only an observation that we don't know enough about the way energy moves through the system.
> ...


Tell me, CO2 at 400ppm in our atmosphere is energy saturated, what is it now slowing?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That is only an observation that we don't know enough about the way energy moves through the system.
> ...



CO2 doesnt impeded IR..it absorbs and emits in a frav=ction of a nanosecond...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision first.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> CO2 doesnt impeded IR..it absorbs and emits in a frav=ction of a nanosecond...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision first.


You got it totally backwards!!!

Molecules in a gas have average speeds of around 500 meters per second, and around *0.2 nanoSec between collisions*. This is at room temperature and pressure. The average relaxation time that a CO2 molecule can hold the *vibration state is much longer: 13 microsec*. A random molecule is *26000 times more likely to hit the vibrating GHG molecule before it has a chance to emit a photon*. That random molecule gains energy from the vibration and turns into heat.

My gosh you and billy have a tiresome lack of knowledge of physics, and yet you both continue to spout effluvium from your rectal sphincters. (metaphorically)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 doesnt impeded IR..it absorbs and emits in a frav=ction of a nanosecond...if it doesn't lose the energy via collision first.
> ...


Where are you getting this crap?

Energy residency is 0.03ns.  It is incapable of warming itself.. Empirically observed experiment proves that it can not warm itself...  Only collision with a warmer molecule will warm it..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2018)

"CO2 is in fact linear, therefore has no dipole moment and hence, not much of a vibrational spectrum. And even for molecules that are polar and couple to an EM field via rotation, excitation of pure rotational modes is typically in the microwave range. In the IR range, the role of the rotational spectrum is that it modifies the vibrational spectrum (adds a fine structure with an additional selection rule to purely vibrational excitations). "



Reference What happens when a co2 molecule absorbs an infra red photon?


In other words, The CO2 molecule can not vibrate and warm.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2018)

"As a linear molecule, CO2 has 3N-5 = 3(3)-5 = 4 normal vibrational modes. One of these modes is a symmetric stretch, which has a net zero dipole moment at all times; therefore, the symmetric stretch cannot interact with the IR photon, as there is no means to connect the initial vibrational state to the final vibrational state. The symmetric stretch is IR-inactive."

Reference What happens when a co2 molecule absorbs an infra red photon?

In other words, all the molecule can do is pass IR... It is incapable of warming without collision in the other three modes of vibration.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 22, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> My gosh you and billy have a tiresome lack of knowledge of physics, and yet you both continue to spout effluvium from your rectal sphincters. (metaphorically)


You haven't got a damn clue!


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Energy residency is 0.03ns. It is incapable of warming itself.. Empirically observed experiment proves that it can not warm itself... Only collision with a warmer molecule will warm it..


Residency of what and under what conditions. Give a link.


Billy_Bob said:


> "CO2 is in fact linear, therefore has no dipole moment and hence, not much of a vibrational spectrum. And even for molecules that are polar and couple to an EM field via rotation, excitation of pure rotational modes is typically in the microwave range. In the IR range, the role of the rotational spectrum is that it modifies the vibrational spectrum (adds a fine structure with an additional selection rule to purely vibrational excitations). "





Billy_Bob said:


> "As a linear molecule, CO2 has 3N-5 = 3(3)-5 = 4 normal vibrational modes. One of these modes is a symmetric stretch, which has a net zero dipole moment at all times; therefore, the symmetric stretch cannot interact with the IR photon, as there is no means to connect the initial vibrational state to the final vibrational state. The symmetric stretch is IR-inactive."
> 
> Reference What happens when a co2 molecule absorbs an infra red photon?
> 
> In other words, all the molecule can do is pass IR... It is incapable of warming without collision in the other three modes of vibration.



You quoted that out of context. In that same forum you quoted, only the inactive vibration mode:
_As a linear molecule, CO2 has 3N-5 = 3(3)-5 = 4 normal vibrational modes. One of these modes is a symmetric stretch, which has a net zero dipole moment at all times; therefore, the symmetric stretch cannot interact with the IR photon, as there is no means to connect the initial vibrational state to the final vibrational state. The symmetric stretch is IR-inactive. *In contrast, an asymmetric stretch involves a change in permanent dipole moment; therefore it is IR-active. Similarly, the two bending modes involve changes in the permanent dipole moments and are both IR-active.*_​
You left out what I bold faced!! Is that the only way you can make your point? By lying? You are being totally dishonest.

Rather than quoting opinions from a forum you should quote the actual experiments. 

https://www.researchgate.net/public...laxation_of_CO2_in_CO2-N2_and_CO2-O2_mixtures
Vibrational relaxation in CO2-N2 and CO2-O2 mixtures is studied via the optic-acoustic effect.
For CO2-N2 a relaxation time of *12.8 ± 1.5 μs*
for CO2-O2 *8.8 ± 0.3 μs atm*.

Measurement of vibrational relaxation times by the spectrophone. Application to CH4, CO2, N2O, COS, NH3 and HCN - Transactions of the Faraday Society (RSC Publishing)
The following times, expressed as relaxation times at 1 atm pressure, were required for vibrational energy excited in the modes indicated to transfer to translational energy:
... CO2, at 4.3 µ, *7.0±0.5 µsec*.. 

Here is the mean time between collisions in air:
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class-macro-micro/kinetic_meanfreepath.html
Determine the typical collision time by:
τ = λ/v ≈ 10^-10 sec. That is in the range of *0.01 nSec*.

That means collisions with excited CO2 is thousands of times more probable, or that CO2 can absorb photons from the earth and transfer it randomly to the other molecules in the atmosphere. 

That is from physics observation and experiments. You remain a bald faced liar.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Energy residency is 0.03ns. It is incapable of warming itself.. Empirically observed experiment proves that it can not warm itself... Only collision with a warmer molecule will warm it..
> ...


You are obviously a science denier..  Funny how, when you are shown facts about how a molecular structure reacts you deny it because you do not understand it.  This is exactly why I choose not to discuss these intricacies with people like you.

Tell me again where the tropospheric hot spot is again, empirically observed and verified proving your hypothesis...  I must have missed when you posted it.

CO2 requires collision to warm. CO2 does not stretch and therefore will not warm itself. The majority of gases in our atmosphere are opaque to LWIR and the amount of CO2 is so small that it will most likely not react with another CO2 molecule.  Again you fail to see the whole picture and you fail to  understand how the energy is transmitted and what is receiving it.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> You are obviously a science denier.. Funny how, when you are shown facts about how a molecular structure reacts you deny it because you do not understand it. This is exactly why I choose not to discuss these intricacies with people like you.



Cut the crap troll. I get it. You don't have a response that directly addresses the issues. You posted out-of-context science chat from a different forum, but are too afraid to address the observed, measured empirical data that denies your post #85-87.

Just face it. GHG's can cause the air to gain some of the 396 W/m^2 energy emanating from the earth surface, and you guys have no science do disprove it.


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.
> 
> As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.
> 
> ...



Non-linear dynamic systems are unpredictable..by definition. The natural component is unpredictable, by definition.

Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos | With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering


" Our work in the previous three chapters has revealed quite a bit about chaotic systems, but something important is missing: intuition. We know what happens but not why it happens. For instance, we don’t know what causes sensitive dependence on initial conditions, nor how a differential equation can generate a fractal attractor. Our first goal is to understand such things in a simple, geometric way."


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2 requires collision to warm. CO2 does not stretch and therefore will not warm itself. The majority of gases in our atmosphere are opaque to LWIR and the amount of CO2 is so small that it will most likely not react with another CO2 molecule. Again you fail to see the whole picture and you fail to understand how the energy is transmitted and what is receiving it.



You missed the boat again. 

First: CO2 actually does "stretch" in a longitudinal mode. It simply isn't a mode that can absorb LW IR. The transverse vibration modes are the ones that absorb LW IR or thermal photons from the earth. Look it up. 

Second: the majority of gases in the atmosphere are transparent, not opaque to LW IR. Look it up. 

Third: CO2 reacting with another CO2 has no bearing on the dynamics of the atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 requires collision to warm. CO2 does not stretch and therefore will not warm itself. The majority of gases in our atmosphere are opaque to LWIR and the amount of CO2 is so small that it will most likely not react with another CO2 molecule. Again you fail to see the whole picture and you fail to understand how the energy is transmitted and what is receiving it.
> ...


Tell me again where your empirically observed hot spot is again...

No matter how many times you delude yourself the empirical evidence outs your position as one that is falsified.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> First: CO2 actually does "stretch" in a longitudinal mode. It simply isn't a mode that can absorb LW IR. The transverse vibration modes are the ones that absorb LW IR or thermal photons from the earth. Look it up.


LOL

Try again: There are only 4 vibration modes in a CO2 molecule. The one that can cause warming within the molecule is "IR-inactive". The other three are kinetic in nature and can only warm with collision.  This was verified by empirical experiment just last year in the Boulder Colorado's AP lab. Where earths atmospheric mixture, minus water vapor, was placed in a 30' tube and narrow band LWIR was introduced. No warming was seen in the tube until water vapor reached 46% (humidity). The earths average is 38% with many regions (like the poles) which are <10%. 

Without water vapor our atmosphere is opaque to LWIR.

Again where is your 'Hot Spot'...  I'll wait..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> GHG's can cause the air to gain some of the 396 W/m^2 energy emanating from the earth surface, and you guys have no science do disprove it.


The Trenbreth miscalculations and doubling of energy within the earths atmosphere is a fraud.  There is only 396W/m^2 going out bound and less than 33W/m^2 is reflected or redirected towards earth. That is where Trenbreth failed in his calculations saying it is roughly 139w/m^2. Trenbreth inserted over 90W/m^2 into our atmosphere that does not belong.

There is no missing heat which is also why there is no hot spot.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> The one that can cause warming within the molecule is "IR-inactive".


That's wrong.


Billy_Bob said:


> The other three are kinetic in nature and can only warm with collision.


That's wrong.


Billy_Bob said:


> Without water vapor our atmosphere is opaque to LWIR.


That's wrong.


Billy_Bob said:


> Again where is your 'Hot Spot'... I'll wait..


The "hot spot" has to do with models involving water vapor and latent heat, etc. That is certainly a hot topic in the understanding of modeling complexities of the atmosphere, but state changes of water vapor is not related to the more basic physics of LWIR exciting the transverse modes of CO2 etc. It is premature to introduce more complex topics when you deny the simpler topic of accepted radiation physics. As I said before, I have not read any of the IPCC documents to know details of the controversy.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> The Trenbreth miscalculations and doubling of energy within the earths atmosphere is a fraud. There is only 396W/m^2 going out bound and less than 33W/m^2 is reflected or redirected towards earth. That is where Trenbreth failed in his calculations saying it is roughly 139w/m^2. Trenbreth inserted over 90W/m^2 into our atmosphere that does not belong.
> 
> There is no missing heat which is also why there is no hot spot.


I really don't care what Trenberth thinks. Since you deny the properties of radiation physics, I really don't care what you think anymore either.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


He just makes it up as he goes.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The Trenbreth miscalculations and doubling of energy within the earths atmosphere is a fraud. There is only 396W/m^2 going out bound and less than 33W/m^2 is reflected or redirected towards earth. That is where Trenbreth failed in his calculations saying it is roughly 139w/m^2. Trenbreth inserted over 90W/m^2 into our atmosphere that does not belong.
> ...



You accept the same flawed physics that result in the models being so wrong,,,the same physics trenberth applies.

Once again...in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


*"He just makes it up as he goes."*

I cited verified experiments. What verified experiments do you have?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


They have so much invested in the lie that they refuse to reassess their failures..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Your hot spot is where again?

The Boulder CO AP lab says your wrong about CO2... And yet you 'believe'..


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You accept the same flawed physics that result in the models being so wrong,,,the same physics trenberth applies.
> 
> Once again...in real science, what happens to hypotheses that experience even one predictive failure?


If you are talking about CO2 absorption of LWIR and back-radiation, it has been empirically measured. But you don't believe it and you believe Gareff who said, _*The temperature differences may be used to generate work, resulting in a decrease of entropy.*_

So now it seems you don't believe entropy always increases in the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



In real science, when you form a hypothesis and collect data, and make predictions based on how you believe that data relates to your hypothesis, and the prediction fails, what happens wo the hypothesis?  Do you adjust the hypothesis to try to sweep the figure out of sight and continue looking for some data to make the hypothesis seem valid, no matter how many predictive failures the hypothesis experiences?  Keep in mind, it is real science we are talking about here.

Oh, and where is that hot spot?

So which is it?  Will you answer, or will you dodge...i predict a dodge.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You accept the same flawed physics that result in the models being so wrong,,,the same physics trenberth applies.
> ...




No it hasn't....not with an instrument at ambient temperature..Being fooled by instruments dopant make what you thought they were measuring real.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

percysunshine said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.
> ...


History gives a look at how our chaotic system reacts... Given that history we have had levels well above 7,000ppm and our 12 deg C range over earths lifespan has never been breached..

You can place known limitations on a chaotic system...  Failing to do so allows you to make wild assumptions about Man Made Global Warming even though you can not quantify it or prove its causation in deference to Natural Variation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

l


Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The one that can cause warming within the molecule is "IR-inactive".
> ...


Again, these assumptions were proven wrong by physical experiment in the last two years...  Keep on believing....  Just like the mid-evil church and monarchs, its going to take getting kicked in the teeth by mother nature before you reassess, as people are dying..


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah, we all know your obsession with fake physics. You make a supposition about blocked radiation and then admit that you have no idea on how to explain that.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> In real science, when you form a hypothesis and collect data, and make predictions based on how you believe that data relates to your hypothesis, and the prediction fails, what happens wo the hypothesis? Do you adjust the hypothesis to try to sweep the figure out of sight and continue looking for some data to make the hypothesis seem valid, no matter how many predictive failures the hypothesis experiences? Keep in mind, it is real science we are talking about here.



We were talking about how GHG's stay in an excited state many thousands of times longer than the time between collisions from surrounding molecules. That wasn't a prediction; I gave you experimental sources somewhere. That shows how GHG's can pass random energy to those surrounding molecules.



SSDD said:


> Oh, and where is that hot spot?
> 
> So which is it? Will you answer, or will you dodge...i predict a dodge.


I have no idea if and where a hot might exist.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
i don't blindly accept models and mind experiments as being real like you.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> We were talking about how GHG's stay in an excited state many thousands of times longer than the time between collisions from surrounding molecules. That wasn't a prediction; I gave you experimental sources somewhere. That shows how GHG's can pass random energy to those surrounding molecules.



You just acknowledged that CO2 molecules lose their energy so rapidly due to collision that radiation becomes the next thing to irrelevant in our gravity/pressure controlled, convective troposphere.



Wuwei said:


> I have no idea if and where a hot might exist.



Dodge...just as i predicted.  You prefer to ignore predictive failures and sweep them under the rug as if they don't invalidate the hypothesis....that is more akin to religion than science,


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
> i don't blindly accept models and mind experiments as being real like you.


I accept models that have been verified to parts per billion or trillion. You don't. I don't accept models that predict climate 50 years into the future.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > We were talking about how GHG's stay in an excited state many thousands of times longer than the time between collisions from surrounding molecules. That wasn't a prediction; I gave you experimental sources somewhere. That shows how GHG's can pass random energy to those surrounding molecules.
> ...


The loss of radiation to excited vibration states to transfer by collisions increases the temperature of the atmosphere. That is a major point that you fail to realize, and has direct bearing to atmospheric physics.

Dodge hot spot prediction? How can I dodge something that I don't about?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
> ...



Those models have nothing to do with either the greenhouse hypothesis or AGW..and the models are abject failures..they have no predictive capability...they can't even hindcast.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Only if the energy is converted to heat...it isn't.  This goes back to the inability of iR to heat the air...If you acknowledge that the temperature is a result of gravity/pressure, and conduction, then you must give up on the nonsensical idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere dominated by gravity/pressure and convection.

And I am still waiting for you to describe the physical reason for the temperature variation at the grand canyon and other such places in the context of a radiative greenhouse effect.

By the way..here is an interesting tidbit about venus...

Venus Compared to Earth - Universe Today

“Venus’ surface temperature experiences little to no variation, owing to its dense atmosphere, very slow rotation, and very minor axial tilt. *Its mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C/863.6 °F) is virtually constant*, with little or no change between day and night, at the equator or the poles. *The one exception is the highest point on Venus, Maxwell Montes, where atmospheric pressure drops to about 4.5 MPa (45 bar) and the temperature drops to about 655 K (380 °C).*”

Care to explain that in the context of a greenhouse effect?

By the way...all one has to do is a quick search to see what you have said about the hot spot in the past to see that you are lying when you claim to know nothing about it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 24, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Just face it. GHG's can cause the air to gain some of the 396 W/m^2 energy emanating from the earth surface, and you guys have no science do disprove it.



The Boulder Co AP lab did a very extensive experiment on exactly this and found the earths atmosphere does not warm due to LWIR. IT IS INCAPABLE OF WARMING FROM THIS absent water vapor!!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Just face it. GHG's can cause the air to gain some of the 396 W/m^2 energy emanating from the earth surface, and you guys have no science do disprove it.
> ...




These guys just ignore the glaring empirical evidence that calls their hypothesis into question and just keep on believing.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I have tried several times to explain why CO2 can not do what they claim and each time I get into the mechanics of it, they refuse to even acknowledge recent studies that disprove their hypothesis.  They have become religious zealots and they have abandoned empirically observed and objective science.

I simply do not have time to teach these people what we see in our current studies and explain it mechanically to the molecular level. A lot of things we assumed are not being observed when we test them. I simply do not have time to bring these people back to reality.  You have much greater patience than I do. Kudos!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I gave up a while ago when I realized they never will accept that CO2 absorbs and release IR, *and nothing else*. It can't generate any heat with it or cause warming anywhere else since it is EMITTED IR and nothing else.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
> i don't blindly accept models and mind experiments as being real like you.


I don't accept them blindly. A vast amount of prior empirical scientific experiments have created modern physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Only if the energy is converted to heat...it isn't. This goes back to the inability of iR to heat the air...


You are wrong. I showed the air heats up. If you don't believe science, then I can't help you understand it.



SSDD said:


> If you acknowledge that the temperature is a result of gravity/pressure, and conduction, then you must give up on the nonsensical idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere dominated by gravity/pressure and convection.
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to describe the physical reason for the temperature variation at the grand canyon and other such places in the context of a radiative greenhouse effect.


The lapse rate is a simple equation.
Lapse rate = g/Cp.
g is the gravitational acceleration and cp is the specific heat.
Notice that that there are no other influences, such as sun energy or GH back radiation.



SSDD said:


> By the way..here is an interesting tidbit about venus...
> 
> Venus Compared to Earth - Universe Today
> 
> ...


Sure it's simple. Use the lapse rate formula above and substitute the two Venus parameters in the formula.



SSDD said:


> By the way...all one has to do is a quick search to see what you have said about the hot spot in the past to see that you are lying when you claim to know nothing about it.


Go right ahead and search. I'm not lying. You are probably thinking of someone else.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...my obsession with actual observations and measurements regarding observable measurable entities like energy and the atmosphere...
> ...



So lets see the one that demonstrates how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it.

Don't bother looking...it doesn't exist...thought experiments...nothing more.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are wrong. I showed the air heats up. If you don't believe science, then I can't help you understand it.



No you didn't..you provided a model with no empirical evidence to back it uo.  Lets see the experiment that supports the model.  

Lets see the observational evidence, or physical measurements that demonstrate how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes in increments of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it



Wuwei said:


> The lapse rate is a simple equation.
> Lapse rate = g/Cp.
> g is the gravitational acceleration and cp is the specific heat.



Always dodging...your screen name should be artful dodger..  I asked you to describe the physical process that formula represents.  The model works because it is describing a physical process that happens in reality.  Describe it.



Wuwei said:


> Sure it's simple. Use the lapse rate formula above and substitute the two Venus parameters in the formula.



 Waiting for you to describe the physical process that formula represents.



Wuwei said:


> Go right ahead and search. I'm not lying. You are probably thinking of someone else.



A quick search shows that you have expended a fair amount of words in trying to convince people that climate science didn't predict the tropospheric hot spot as the smoking gun for AGW even though the IPCC said otherwise.  So you lied...what else is new?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So lets see the one that demonstrates how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it.
> 
> Don't bother looking...it doesn't exist...thought experiments...nothing more.


That's right CO2 back radiation never heats or cools anything. The sun does the heating. The CO2 only prevents too much of the 396 W/m^2 from radiation all that back to space.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Always dodging...your screen name should be artful dodger.. I asked you to describe the physical process that formula represents. The model works because it is describing a physical process that happens in reality. Describe it.


The process involves the definition of an adiabatic process, the first law of thermodynamics, the definition of specific heat, and gravitational acceleration. The details of how these are put together are in
https://hs.umt.edu/physics/documents/BOREALIS/Lapse Rate Terms and Formulas2012.pdf 
and are too messy to put  here. What's your point?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So lets see the one that demonstrates how much, if at all, a body of water is heated or cooled by varying CO2 concentrations by volumes of parts per million (0.000001) up or down above it.
> ...


CO2 prevents no escape..  IT may slow it minutely but every bit of energy escapes to space..This is why you are duped.. You think it stops it.. It does not!


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

Really?  Let's see your data.  Cause, if radiation in equals radiation out, the Earth would be at equilibrium and temperatures should be stable.  Is that your contention?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> Really? Let's see your data. Cause, if radiation in equals radiation out, the Earth would be at equilibrium and temperatures should be stable. Is that your contention?



Not only that, but only 161 W/m² the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the earth. Even though the sun radiation is 341 W/m². A lot of it is reflected by clouds, by the surface and absorbed by the upper atmosphere. Since 161 W/m² is absorbed at the surface. That is all the can be radiated to space if the GHG's didn't do their job.

Since the earth radiates 161 W/m² you can go to the SB calculator at,
Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator
and plug in the numbers, you will get an equilibrium temperature of 232 K, or -41 C.
That comes from the conservation of energy. Energy in equal energy out. 

*Minus 41 degrees C would freeze the entire surface of the earth*. Thank heavens for the green house gases.


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 172131




Why does your diagram not show the pressure from the solar wind you claim is controlling its behavior?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 4, 2018)

Crick said:


> Really?  Let's see your data.  Cause, if radiation in equals radiation out, the Earth would be at equilibrium and temperatures should be stable.  Is that your contention?


They are stable or very near it..


----------



## Crick (Dec 4, 2018)

Sorry, fool, the Earth is not at thermal equilibrium.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2018)

Crick said:


> Sorry, fool, the Earth is not at thermal equilibrium.



Looks pretty stable to me...which part of this suggests wild instability to you?  Every time you talk, you just demonstrate how little you know...you just yammer on and on and none of it is anything more than an opinion that someone with a political agenda gave you...

I know you can't read graphs, but these two are important...get an adult, or even a moderately intelligent child to help you out with them...they are the actual extent of all your wild handwaving hysterics about out of control global warming...take a look and tell me exactly what about the two graphs below, you find alarming...and which part suggests that the earth's climate isn't damned closed to being in equilibrium?  Anomalies are tools used by people who want to fool uneducated dupes...yes, I'm talking about you....here are the actual temperature difference we are talking about since 1900 and they are at best, trivial.


----------



## Crick (Dec 10, 2018)

When I say "god are you stupid" it's not that your content is inherently ignorant, it's that you actually think you're fooling anyone.  So... god are you stupid.


----------



## Crick (Dec 10, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Let's see your data.  Cause, if radiation in equals radiation out, the Earth would be at equilibrium and temperatures should be stable.  Is that your contention?
> ...



Link?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2018)

Crick said:


> When I say "god are you stupid" it's not that your content is inherently ignorant, it's that you actually think you're fooling anyone.  So... god are you stupid.



And yet there you are with your ignorance hanging out for everyone to see.  No reply...no defense of your beliefs..nothing but name calling....of course, for you, between name calling, and actually trying to defend your position, name calling is the better option.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Guess the graphs didn't help you out much...what's the matter, couldn't find a moderately intelligent child to help you figure out what they mean?


----------



## Crick (Dec 10, 2018)

So, no link.  No suprise.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 11, 2018)

Crick said:


> So, no link.  No suprise.


No surprise that your to stupid to see that SSDD posted the evidence very clearly. Alas all you have is piles of bull shit... IF we were not near equilibrium our weather would be very wild and we have had the calmest weather for about 45 years now.. Again it warmed a bit but it did not cause the catastrophes you proclaimed would happen...  

I am laughing out loud at your insistence on ignorance and falsified science to promote your failed ideology..


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2018)

Equilibrium concerns energy in and out of the atmosphere.  By direct satellite measurement, energy in does not equal energy out.  That is why we have been warming for the last 150 years.  We are NOT at equilibrium.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

Crick said:


> Equilibrium concerns energy in and out of the atmosphere.  By direct satellite measurement, energy in does not equal energy out.  That is why we have been warming for the last 150 years.  We are NOT at equilibrium.




And you believe that CO2 created this additional energy?  You are truly a top shelf idiot.


----------



## Crick (Dec 14, 2018)

I and very nearly every single scientist on this planet believes that human GHG emissions iare the primary cause of that warming.  So, you believe the world's scientists are
"top shelf idiots".  This from the fellow that rejects quantum mechanics and believes matter controls its thermal emissions dependent on its surroundings.  God are you stupid.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

Yes... he is really that stupid.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Equilibrium concerns energy in and out of the atmosphere.  By direct satellite measurement, energy in does not equal energy out.  That is why we have been warming for the last 150 years.  We are NOT at equilibrium.
> ...


HE and his "every single scientist" meme is total bull shit. When physicists were asked that very precise question they laughed.  CO2 is incapable of "adding" energy that is not present from the sun or earths emissions. The position of some here is laughable and some times I have to take a break from the insanity they call 'alarmist science'.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> Yes... he is really that stupid.


Yes, you really are stupid.. But even non-scientists can see that...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are wrong. I showed the air heats up. If you don't believe science, then I can't help you understand it.
> ...


The evaporation and expansion in the skin of the water will not allow LWIR to penetrate it, the water can not warm due to LWIR as seen by empirical experiment.

I laugh my ass off every time an alarmist makes this claim..


----------



## IanC (Dec 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Equilibrium concerns energy in and out of the atmosphere.  By direct satellite measurement, energy in does not equal energy out.  That is why we have been warming for the last 150 years.  We are NOT at equilibrium.
> ...



You are the idiot. But then, if you did understand equilibrium and stored energy, you would have to give up your bizzaroland version of physics.

The amount of energy stored in a system is controlled by the NET gain or loss.

CO2 doesn't create energy, it reduces energy loss to space.


----------



## IanC (Dec 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Not this "LWIR can't penetrate the ocean skin therefore it can't affect warming" bullshit again.

If solar isolation was absorbed as efficiently as IR by the ocean surface, then every day the top few inches would boil away. Would you still say there was no heating of the water just because little of it got past the skin?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2019)

Brace yourself for a brutal winter: Experts say disruptions in the polar vortex could cause temperatures to plummet in parts of the US

Even NOAA is getting on board...I made this prediction over two years ago and now it  is coming to fruition..  A stable warming world vs an unstable cooling one..

_"The latest predictions come from Dr Judah Cohen, of Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), and are supported by models from several other researchers shared in the last few weeks.

The polar vortex is an atmospheric circulation pattern that sits high above the poles, in a layer of the atmosphere called the stratosphere.

This structure can weaken as a result of abnormal warming in the poles, causing it to split off into smaller ‘sister vortices’ that may travel outside of their typical range.

As of the end of December, the models show the polar vortex situated above Scandanavia could break apart to become two or even three vortices, bringing colder weather to the mid-latitudes and warmer weather in the Arctic."_

What he left out was the thinning of the atmosphere is what is causing the polar jet to be forced southward and cool the mid-latitudes, bringing the heat to the poles..  The omission is massive and an AGW twist, trying to not admit what is truly causing the change..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You just dont get it, or you are intentionally obtuse about the wavelengths of UPWELLING radiation and their capabilities..  Where are you getting your magical doubling of energy from?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 1, 2019)

IanC said:


> CO2 doesn't create energy, it reduces energy loss to space


Total Bull Shit of the highest order..

Tell me Ian, how does the earths 400ppm of CO2 stop all up-welling radiation? It can not because it is energy saturated and incapable of stopping it and the other routes of escape.

Funnier still, explain why CO2 has a LOG decrease in its ability to slow energy release if it can not be saturated..


----------



## IanC (Jan 2, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 doesn't create energy, it reduces energy loss to space
> ...



CO2 does not stop all upwelling radiation from the surface. But it does absorb to extinction the 8% of surface radiation that is emitted  in the band centred on 15 microns.

No surfaced produced 15 micron radiation escapes through the atmosphere. Some 15 micron escapes to space but it is produced by CO2 molecules high up in a cold region of the atmosphere .

The higher the concentration of CO2, the quicker surface 15 micron radiation is captured and the higher up (and colder) is the atmospheric 15 micron being produced (edit- that escapes).

You mentioned a logarithmic relationship for CO2 and temperature. Are you arguing against the actual effect of CO2 reducing the loss of 15 micron radiation to space? Or just the magnitude of change as CO2 concentration increased?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

IanC said:


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



The addition of so called greenhouse gasses increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..that is fact...what happens to a things ability to cool itself if you increase its emissivity?

Why does that simple, and undeniable fact escape you ian?  You really believe by increasing the emissivity of a thing you can induce warming?  Really?


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

The addition of greenhouse gases increases the amount of time it takes for LWIR to transmit.  Why does that simple and undeniable fact escape you Shit?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> The addition of greenhouse gases increases the amount of time it takes for LWIR to transmit.  Why does that simple and undeniable fact escape you Shit?


Wrong;

DO you know why CO2 has a LOG value?  Because more does less to nothing in retention but allows more to escape as it increases..   Wow.. top shelf idiot..


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Why don't you try to make that statement again in intelligible sentences


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

IanC said:


> CO2 does not stop all upwelling radiation from the surface. But it does absorb to extinction the 8% of surface radiation that is emitted in the band centred on 15 microns.


Prove this assertion...

Its pure bull shit Ian.. Empirical experiments show that this bandwidth increases output as the gas is increased, near surface (>1 meter) proving that there is more energy than the gas is capable of stopping.   IF it were stopping all of it, the amount of energy, at that wavelength, would not increase with increased gas levels.  Use some commonsense.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Why don't you try to make that statement again in intelligible sentences


IF you can not follow that, you have problems..  But you have issues with graphs and pretty pictures so it comes as no surprise..


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Some results from real scientists

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1982)039<2923:RHDTIC>2.0.CO;2

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037<0099:OTDOCC>2.0.CO;2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC084iC08p04949

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450(1979)018<0822:QCTPIO>2.0.CO;2

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC086iC07p06385

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065250408601567

West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Some results from real scientists
> 
> https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1982)039<2923:RHDTIC>2.0.CO;2
> 
> ...


LOL

Love it!  Every nut case paper on the subject and not one of them has one shred of empirical evidence. Every single one is MODEL DERIVED..



> Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
> (also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)
> 
> Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Billy Bob's Fantasies:  Making assertions which indicate ignorance of basic physics and a poor general education without ever presenting reference material to back his claims.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Billy Bob's Fantasies:  Making assertions which indicate ignorance of basic physics and a poor general education without ever presenting reference material to back his claims.


And you have yet to produce even one paper that proves mans influence above natural variations by empirical evidence...  Were even...


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Could you please explain the mechanism by which adding more CO2 increases the emissivity? Where in the atmosphere does this extra have an effect? 

I have tried to discuss this with you in the past but you just make your assertion and then run away.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 does not stop all upwelling radiation from the surface. But it does absorb to extinction the 8% of surface radiation that is emitted in the band centred on 15 microns.
> ...



The mean free path path for 15 micron radiation at STP can be both calculated and measured. It is roughly 2 metres  for recent CO2 concentrations.

The 15 micron  energy from the surface is totally absorbed within a few handfuls of metres, and that energy is quickly transformed into stored atmospheric energy by molecular collision.

Once you are away from the surface, the amount of 15 micron radiation is commensurate with the temperature of the atmosphere because the absorption is equal to emission. Less CO2 would emit less radiation but it would also absorb less radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> The addition of greenhouse gases increases the amount of time it takes for LWIR to transmit.  Why does that simple and undeniable fact escape you Shit?



So your claim is that increasing the emissivity causes warming?  And TOA measurements of outgoing LW dispute your claim...outgoing LW is increasing slightly..not decreasing...that increase is the missing hot spot that falsifies your AGW hypothesis...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Why don't you try to make that statement again in intelligible sentences



You should learn to read...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Some results from real scientists
> 
> https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1982)039<2923:RHDTIC>2.0.CO;2
> 
> ...



All models all the time...and they don't jibe with reality.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

IanC said:


> Could you please explain the mechanism by which adding more CO2 increases the emissivity? Where in the atmosphere does this extra have an effect?


Sure..conduction is the main means of moving energy thought the troposphere..conduction is a cumbersome means of moving energy compared to radiation...add radiative gasses, and you have a more rapid and more efficient means of moving energy than conduction...radiative gasses are open windows in a troposphere dominated by conduction.



IanC said:


> I have tried to discuss this with you in the past but you just make your assertion and then run away.



We have been through it all before...and you simply reject anything that doesn't jibe with your beliefs...are you going to now claim that increasing so called greenhouse gasses does not increase the emissivity of the atmosphere?


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Could you please explain the mechanism by which adding more CO2 increases the emissivity? Where in the atmosphere does this extra have an effect?
> ...



I see you are running away again.

You have declined to state where the extra emissivity occurs when you add extra CO2.

But you did add another foolish and unsubstantiated claim, ie that "radiative gasses are open windows in a troposphere dominated by conduction". GHGs stop the transmittance  of certain frequencies of radiation through the atmosphere . They are more like a door than a window.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

IanC said:


> We have been through it all before...and you simply reject anything that doesn't jibe with your beliefs...are you going to now claim that increasing so called greenhouse gasses does not increase the emissivity of the atmosphere?



I see you are running away again.

You have declined to state where the extra emissivity occurs when you add extra CO2.[/wuotye]

Are you claiming that adding so called greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere does not increase their emissivity?  A simple yes or no should suffice...I would suggest that you do a bit of reading before you answer though..



IanC said:


> you did add another foolish and unsubstantiated claim, ie that "radiative gasses are open windows in a troposphere dominated by conduction". GHGs stop the transmittance  of certain frequencies of radiation through the atmosphere . They are more like a door than a window.



Sorry...not true...They move energy through the troposphere at the speed of light...unlike conduction which is a cumbersome process...collision after collision after collision..  You are identifying a fundamental flaw in your thinking...

If so called greenhouse gasses prevented energy from moving more rapidly through the troposphere then they would reduced the emissivity....they don't...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


They always for get about the flip side of that LOG curve. The trade off which allows the molecules to freely emit the energy and then cool..  Any energy curve will have this.


----------



## IanC (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry...not true...They move energy through the troposphere at the speed of light...unlike conduction which is a cumbersome process...collision after collision after collision.. You are identifying a fundamental flaw in your thinking...




There are two things you need to explain.

How does adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that already contains CO2 going to change the emissivity? Which wavelengths are you talking about, and in which region of the atmosphere? 

Any local area of the atmosphere containing a GHG is both emitting and absorbing the same amount of radiation that is specific to the GHG. The actual amount of radiation is dependent on the temperature of that local area. This radiation that is equally emitted and absorbed does not affect the temperature.  There are two areas where this generalized equilibrium does not hold. Near the surface excess GHG specific radiation is absorbed and stored as kinetic energy which of course means an increase in temperature. The other area is high up in the atmosphere where the air is so thin that radiation produced from kinetic energy can partially escape to space taking the energy with it. This results in cooling.

The extra energy put into the atmosphere near the surface is less than the energy lost near the top of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

IanC said:


> How does adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that already contains CO2 going to change the emissivity? Which wavelengths are you talking about, and in which region of the atmosphere?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

Ian's reflects the understanding of every scientist you could find expert on the topic.  Yours reflects that of none.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> Ian's reflects the understanding of every scientist you could find expert on the topic.  Yours reflects that of none.



Ian assumes that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...Ian is quite wrong...as are you and anyone else who believes in a radiative greenhouse effect in a troposphere so overwhelmingly dominated by conduction and convection.


----------



## IanC (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > How does adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that already contains CO2 going to change the emissivity? Which wavelengths are you talking about, and in which region of the atmosphere?
> ...



Ahhhhh. So you have just changed the meaning of the word emissivity.  

I cannot honestly say there is no increase in emissivity because at lower altitude in the atmosphere there is a widening of the wings as the concentration of CO2 goes up. A little bit more of the surface produced radiation gets absorbed.  

But at high altitude CO2 specific radiation still only escapes when the actual CO2 molecules are far enough apart that emitted photons are not reabsorbed. More CO2 means that particular concentration is even higher up, in colder air, which produces less radiation. 

To reiterate, increasing CO2 results in more surface radiation being absorbed into the stored energy of the atmosphere , at a lower altitude.  And it results in less radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere .

Yet you feel that the opposite happens but you have no logical explanation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> Ahhhhh. So you have just changed the meaning of the word emissivity.



More likely, you never knew the definition of the word...you just assigned it a meaning to go along with your beliefs..

emissivity -

the ability of a surface to emit radiant energy compared to that of a black body at thesame temperature and with the same area.



IanC said:


> But at high altitude CO2 specific radiation still only escapes when the actual CO2 molecules are far enough apart that emitted photons are not reabsorbed. More CO2 means that particular concentration is even higher up, in colder air, which produces less radiation.



You are still laboring under the flawed assumption that radiation travels through the troposphere being absorbed, emitted, and reabsorbed...few molecules of so called greenhouse gasses ever actually emit anything...they lose the energy they absorb to collisions and the energy moves up through the troposphere via conduction and convection...radiation is little more than a bit player till the top of the troposphere is reached...



IanC said:


> To reiterate, increasing CO2 results in more surface radiation being absorbed into the stored energy of the atmosphere , at a lower altitude.  And it results in less radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere .



Sorry ian...not true...more CO2 is more opportunity to bypass the cumbersome means of energy transport via conduction and convection...open windows...every single CO2 molecule..

And observations of LWIR escaping at the TOA show increases...not decreases...yet another glaring predictive failure in your hypothesis....

Only the fact that IR can not warm the atmosphere...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You are still laboring under the flawed assumption that radiation travels through the troposphere being absorbed, emitted, and reabsorbed...few molecules of so called greenhouse gasses ever actually emit anything...they lose the energy they absorb to collisions and the energy moves up through the troposphere via conduction and convection...radiation is little more than a bit player till the top of the troposphere is reached..


CO2 absorbing energy and losing it to collisions means it warms the atmosphere via collisions.


----------



## IanC (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> emissivity -
> 
> the ability of a surface to emit radiant energy compared to that of a black body at thesame temperature and with the same area.



Your definition doesn't appear to be written for gases.

CO2 has 3 main frequencies for emission/absorbance. 2, 3, and 15 microns, if memory stands. It is very close to a blackbody at those frequencies but only at those three. The other terrestrial IR frequencies have little or no reactivity. Even the 2, and 3 micron frequencies are mostly useless because the CO2 rarely gets hot enough to produce them, although it will always absorb them if present.

So the list is 
1 micron 0
2 "             1
3 "             1
4 "             0
                  0
                  0
Etc
14 microns 0.5
15 microns 1
16 microns 0.5
17 microns 0
                     0
                     0
Etc.

How do you reasonably define the emissivity?  By restricting the range of frequencies and temperatures.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You are still laboring under the flawed assumption that radiation travels through the troposphere being absorbed, emitted, and reabsorbed...few molecules of so called greenhouse gasses ever actually emit anything...they lose the energy they absorb to collisions and the energy moves up through the troposphere via conduction and convection...radiation is little more than a bit player till the top of the troposphere is reached..
> ...



And energy transferred by collision is not radiation...therefore, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is simply not possible in a troposphere so overwhelmingly dominated by conduction and convection...that is the primary reason the climate models fail at predicting reality so badly...they are operating under a mistaken idea of how energy moves through the troposphere...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > emissivity -
> ...



If those frequencies increase the amount of radiative absorption and emission possible over simple air and oxygen, then the emissivity is increased..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You are still laboring under the flawed assumption that radiation travels through the troposphere being absorbed, emitted, and reabsorbed...few molecules of so called greenhouse gasses ever actually emit anything...they lose the energy they absorb to collisions and the energy moves up through the troposphere via conduction and convection...radiation is little more than a bit player till the top of the troposphere is reached..
> ...


Only if the CO2 molecule is warmer..

The empirically observed experiment we just finished proved the CO2 does not warm in the presence of LWIR only.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And energy transferred by collision is not radiation...therefore, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is simply not possible in a troposphere so overwhelmingly dominated by conduction and convection...that is the primary reason the climate models fail at predicting reality so badly...they are operating under a mistaken idea of how energy moves through the troposphere...



Radiation absorption is in the first few hundred meters, which is a few sigma beyond the mean free path of the radiation that resonates with the GHGs.  After that it's the lapse rate formula that governs the temperature to the top of the troposphere. Some distance above that, radiation again dominates. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And energy transferred by collision is not radiation...therefore, a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science is simply not possible in a troposphere so overwhelmingly dominated by conduction and convection...that is the primary reason the climate models fail at predicting reality so badly...they are operating under a mistaken idea of how energy moves through the troposphere...
> ...



Sorry guy...not even close...conduction is the predominant means of energy movement from millimeters off the ground to the top of the troposphere...the lapse rate is due to auto compression....


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



You seldom say anything pertinent . This line of discussion started with you saying that more CO2 increases the emissivity . I asked you which wavelengths and where it happens. Since then you have ducked the question.

Of course the original addition of a GHG changes the emissivity. But you said adding more of the same GHG will increase the emissivity even more. How?


A GHG acts like a sieve, albeit in 3 dimensions. More of the GHG shrinks the grid size, less widens it. 

CO2 already blocks 1/2 of 15 micron radiation in just 2 metres at sea level. The grid pattern is very fine.

It is only very high up in the atmosphere where the CO2 molecules are spread apart that 15 micron radiation can finally find a way through the sieve and escape to space. The grid pattern is coarse.

There are two boundaries here. High up where energy escapes, and at the surface where energy enters the atmosphere. Adding more CO2 means that the surface radiation is absorbed even sooner but the level where the 15 micron radiation escapes moves outward to an even colder height. There has been no change in emissivity, just in balance points.

SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy  (temperature ), and potential energy  (height of the atmosphere in the gravity field). Only to be recycled over and over again. Energy is stored in the daytime and released at night.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....


Really? My impression is that he maintains that CO2 IR absorption cannot warm the air. Thousands of "sales brochures" and home heating engineers claim that.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....
> ...



He and his minions claim a technicality by saying the energy is not turned into a temperature change directly from the IR. 

Is it ever?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I kept pressing him on that but he kept skirting the issue. I think he believes the indirect process, but for some reason won't admit it.


----------



## IanC (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


 
Hahahahaha.  He found out a long time ago that making seemingly small concessions  often led glaringly large inconsistencies and he would find himself painted into a corner.

So he disappeared and came back as SSDD, with no discussion only talking points. The more vague the better.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> Hahahahaha. He found out a long time ago that making seemingly small concessions often led glaringly large inconsistencies and he would find himself painted into a corner.
> 
> So he disappeared and came back as SSDD, with no discussion only talking points. The more vague the better.



Ah, I see. He is doing that in the Ozone Hole thread.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> You seldom say anything pertinent . This line of discussion started with you saying that more CO2 increases the emissivity . I asked you which wavelengths and where it happens. Since then you have ducked the question.



I seldom say anything that agrees with your flawed ideas of how energy moves through the atmosphere...that is unlikely to change...

Which wavelengths are irrelevant...Any wavelength that presents an opportunity to bypass the cumbersome movement of conduction and convection is, by definition, an increase in emissivity...



IanC said:


> Of course the original addition of a GHG changes the emissivity. But you said adding more of the same GHG will increase the emissivity even more. How?



Since conduction and convection take over as the primary means of energy movement long before CO2 has absorbed to extinction...again, any increased possibility of bypassing conduction and convection is an increase in emissivity....you are clearly laboring under the belief in back radiation even though you can provide no physical evidence of it...it doesn't happen outside of your models...



IanC said:


> A GHG acts like a sieve, albeit in 3 dimensions. More of the GHG shrinks the grid size, less widens it.


A additional gig molecules act like additional holes in the sieve...400 holes now vs 200 earlier...



IanC said:


> CO2 already blocks 1/2 of 15 micron radiation in just 2 metres at sea level. The grid pattern is very fine.


CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed..  The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything.



IanC said:


> It is only very high up in the atmosphere where the CO2 molecules are spread apart that 15 micron radiation can finally find a way through the sieve and escape to space. The grid pattern is coarse.



Your belief that CO2 blocks anything is a glaring flaw in your belief...it doesn't..



IanC said:


> There are two boundaries here. High up where energy escapes, and at the surface where energy enters the atmosphere. Adding more CO2 means that the surface radiation is absorbed even sooner but the level where the 15 micron radiation escapes moves outward to an even colder height. There has been no change in emissivity, just in balance points.



Again...that rests on the premise that radiation is the primary means of movement of energy through the troposphere...it isn't even close...it is barely a player at all..conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....
> ...



It doesn't...Ian has the habit of interpreting what is said just like you...and like you, he is rarely arguing against anything other than his own interpretation of what has been said.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



And yet, that is precisely the flawed thinking upon which both the greenhouse hypothesis, the AGW hypothesis, and climate models are based on...an unreality...that is why they are all failing..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Neither conduction, nor convection are radiation...the greenhouse hypothesis is based on radiation...radiation is not the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere....a conductive greenhouse effect, if you must use the word greenhouse,  would look quite dfferent from a radiative greenhouse effect,..and it is...which is why the greenhouse effect can't predict energy movement through the troposphere...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Got the first piece of evidence to back that up?  Didn't think so...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahahaha. He found out a long time ago that making seemingly small concessions often led glaringly large inconsistencies and he would find himself painted into a corner.
> ...




Actually, I have handed you and crick your ass on the ozone thread...you are both dupes without the first bit of critical thinking capacity...it is you and the skid mark who are conspicuously absent there...not me.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Neither conduction, nor convection are radiation...the greenhouse hypothesis is based on radiation...radiation is not the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere....a conductive greenhouse effect, if you must use the word greenhouse, would look quite dfferent from a radiative greenhouse effect,..and it is...which is why the greenhouse effect can't predict energy movement through the troposphere...



I never said that the radiative greenhouse effect predicted movement through the troposphere. The CO2 a few hundred meters near the earth is what captures the IR and transfers it to heat. The lapse rate concept prevails at least above that. Call it conduction if you want. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 8, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Actually, I have handed you and crick your ass on the ozone thread...you are both dupes without the first bit of critical thinking capacity...it is you and the skid mark who are conspicuously absent there...not me.


Nope. You were only awed by small numbers without the critical thinking to see what part of those numbers involved inelastic collisions.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Which wavelengths are irrelevant...Any wavelength that presents an opportunity to bypass the cumbersome movement of conduction and convection is, by definition, an increase in emissivity...




With no GHGs the atmosphere would have an emissivity of nearly zero for terrestrial infrared. 

The surface would lose all of its emitted radiation directly to space at the speed of light.

Somehow you have convinced yourself that GHGs that intercept surface radiation, and continue to absorb it anytime it is remitted until very high up in the atmosphere, is somehow more efficient than directly escaping to space.

Without GHGs the atmosphere would store less energy, therefore be at a cooler temperature.  The surface would also be cooler because there would be less energy to return to the surface at night.

You refuse to take mechanisms to their logical conclusions.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

IanC said:


> With no GHGs the atmosphere would have an emissivity of nearly zero for terrestrial infrared.
> 
> The surface would lose all of its emitted radiation directly to space at the speed of light.



Tell that to the planets who have essentially none of the so called greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres and yet, are considerably warmer than the earth in the depths of their atmospheres...



IanC said:


> Somehow you have convinced yourself that GHGs that intercept surface radiation, and continue to absorb it anytime it is remitted until very high up in the atmosphere, is somehow more efficient than directly escaping to space.



More interpretation...actually I said that so called GHG's with the exception of water vapor absorb energy then immediately emit it if they don't lose it first to collision with other molecules...CO2 for example, if allowed to absorb and emit will emit everything it absorbs till such time as it reaches its equilibrium temperature..something like -80F.

And yes, radiation is a more efficient means of moving energy than conduction and convection...and the evidence is what convinced me...the actual observable measurable evidence as opposed to a model that can neither be observed, nor tested.



IanC said:


> Without GHGs the atmosphere would store less energy, therefore be at a cooler temperature.  The surface would also be cooler because there would be less energy to return to the surface at night.



Observation on the planets within the solar system which have little to no so called greenhouse gasses prove you quite wrong...



IanC said:


> You refuse to take mechanisms to their logical conclusions.



You refuse to grasp that the mechanisms you describe aren't borne out by observation..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I have handed you and crick your ass on the ozone thread...you are both dupes without the first bit of critical thinking capacity...it is you and the skid mark who are conspicuously absent there...not me.
> ...



Sorry guy...your pseudoscientific appeals to complexity failed miserably.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Neither conduction, nor convection are radiation...the greenhouse hypothesis is based on radiation...radiation is not the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere....a conductive greenhouse effect, if you must use the word greenhouse, would look quite dfferent from a radiative greenhouse effect,..and it is...which is why the greenhouse effect can't predict energy movement through the troposphere...
> ...



Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you can reinterpret to mean what you need it to mean.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything




You don't understand how blackbody radiation happens in a gas. 

Molecular collisions are usually elastic  but they can also convert kinetic energy into an excited molecular state, or gain kinetic energy when an excited molecule  relaxes.

Even more rarely does an excited molecule actually relax by emitting a photon, which is typically immediately reabsorbed.

The amount of radiation only depends on the temperature of the gas. The percentage of the radiating gas does not matter. More GHG molecules emit more photons but they get reabsorbed faster. The Equipartition Theorum. Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space.


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And yes, radiation is a more efficient means of moving energy than conduction and convection...and the evidence is what convinced me...the actual observable measurable evidence as opposed to a model that can neither be observed, nor tested.



Conduction and convection are far superior and efficient means of moving energy when matter is present. It is only when energy has to be moved over empty space that radiation becomes dominant .


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CO2 for example, if allowed to absorb and emit will emit everything it absorbs till such time as it reaches its equilibrium temperature..something like -80F



You and BillyBoob keep making this type of statement. Try to explain yourself. Why do you think -80F has any special meaning?


----------



## IanC (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> A additional gig molecules act like additional holes in the sieve...400 holes now vs 200 earlier...



Hahahahaha, are you really that stupid that you don't understand that the GHG molecules are what stops the surface radiation from simply transiting the atmosphere ?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD correctly points out that most of the 15 micron radiation energy is stored as kinetic energy (temperature )....
> ...


Better read those pamphlets again...  They warm surfaces which in turn conduct and then convects to the atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 9, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A additional gig molecules act like additional holes in the sieve...400 holes now vs 200 earlier...
> ...


You truly do not understand how emisitivity works..


----------



## IanC (Jan 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you



Actually, if you look at an energy budget like Trenberth's Cartoon, it shows roughly 100/165 moving by conduction and convection, 40/165 directly escaping through the atmospheric window, and only 25/165 by other radiation.

Since when has far less than half been declared the primary means?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything
> ...



Again....you are assuming that radiation is the primary means of energy transport through the troposphere...it isn't...CO2 doesn't get the chance to absorb to extinction because almost all the energy absorbed by CO2 is lost via collision with other rmolecules.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A additional gig molecules act like additional holes in the sieve...400 holes now vs 200 earlier...
> ...



So says your unobservable unmeasurable untestable models...reality says otherwise


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you
> ...




Conduction is the means of transport for more than 90% of the energy from the surface to the troposphere..and that is why your models are failures...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you can reinterpret to mean what you need it to mean.


Back radiation exists. The GHGs a few dozen meters above the surface absorb and transfer IR to vibration. That in turn increases the atmospheric temperature via collisions. That is simple physics. You believe none of that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> CO2 doesn't get the chance to absorb to extinction because almost all the energy absorbed by CO2 is lost via collision with other rmolecules.


Correct!

You get it! Water vapor is the primary molecule that absorbs collision energy near surface. With slight warming they rise and as they rise they cool. The point where water vapor releases its energy is when it renucliates at cloud boundary where the emission is 20-100um in length.  After collision, the energy is trapped until it reaches space..

Conduction and then convection to cloud boundary where it becomes LWIR..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't mater what you said...you defend the radiative greenhouse effect and climate science says that radiation is the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere...sorry you didn't know what you were defending...perhaps if you read sometime for the purpose of learning something rather that simply skimming for something you can reinterpret to mean what you need it to mean.
> ...


Please provide your evidence of said warming and the science to back it up.  I have just finished an experiment that disproves this hypothesis clearly showing that the atmosphere cannot do this without water vapor above 43% relative humidity.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

IanC said:


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



How long ago did you decide for yourself that you have it all figured out and decided to stop trying to learn anything new?

From: *William Happer* Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: David Burton
Dear David,

Some response are entered below in square brackets and upper case.  Thanks for your interest!

Will

*From:*David Burton
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
*To:* William Happer
*Subject:* Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. *The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).*

*Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY.  I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]*

You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES.  I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES.  ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.

*So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]*

* In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]*

Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation






* Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY.  IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S  WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE.  A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK.  I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]*

(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE.  CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]

If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY.  WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.”  ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.  VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]

Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB.  YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

Talk to Dr. Happer about that zero percent.  I suppose he might explain to you how terribly wrong you are....In fact, the above email from him does just that.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> 1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.



More accurately the time between molecular collisions was measured to be about 0.2 nanoseconds.



SSDD said:


> The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).



That number is way off. You should check your sources.
The relaxation time for CO2 vibration was measured to be about 6 microSec. Not 1 second.



SSDD said:


> So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon.



Likewise that number is way off.
That makes the probability of absorption directly resulting in emission:
 = 0.2 ns / 6000 ns = 1 / 30,000 = 3.3 10^5 = .0033%
The probability of giving up energy by collision is 100 -0.0033% = 99.997%

That shows that GHGs warm the atmosphere. 


.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

IanC said:


> Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.


Well, not exactly zero.

The thermal conductivity in air 26 mW / m °C   (mW per temperature drop over a meter)

Lapse rate 9.8 °C / Km. = .0098 °C / m (temperature drop per meter)

Thermal conduction= 26 mW / m°C x 0.0098 °C / m = 0.255 mW / m².

Since the earth is radiating 400000 mW / m², 0.255 mW / m² is next to nothing. I would think convection alone would way over-power conduction.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > 1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.
> ...



Like I said...talk to Dr. Happer.    And nothing real shows that GHG warm the atmosphere since with the exception of water vapor...they don't.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.
> ...



Convection can only move energy that is in the process of conduction.  Conduction is the result of molecules being in direct contact with each other...energy transfer via collision...convection in the atmosphere is the result of air movement.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Convection can only move energy that is in the process of conduction. Conduction is the result of molecules being in direct contact with each other...energy transfer via collision...convection in the atmosphere is the result of air movement.


That is quite obvious, but the convection speed way out paces conduction at 0.26 mW per meter.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Convection can only move energy that is in the process of conduction. Conduction is the result of molecules being in direct contact with each other...energy transfer via collision...convection in the atmosphere is the result of air movement.
> ...



It still isn't radiation, and the numbers regarding energy transfer via collision that Dr. Happer provided stand...Radiation is barely a bit player in energy movement through the troposphere.  While convection is moving air around...conduction is still happening from molecule to molecule. within the air.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Radiation is barely a bit player in energy movement through the troposphere.


Then maybe you can tell me where the  15,700 W/m² radiation from the surface of Venus goes.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation is barely a bit player in energy movement through the troposphere.
> ...



Sure...soon as you state in plain English what this equation says...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Look in a textbook for that digression, and distraction. You don't know where the 15,700 W/m² radiation from the surface of Venus goes, do you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Shuck and jive...dodge and weave....duck and cover.  I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough....you, on the other hand can't even state what a simple equation says...an equation describing a physical law no less because it will challenge your beliefs...you are absolutely pathetic....


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2019)

Then explain it if you please.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY.




Why do you post up this sort of thing and claim it disagrees with me when it is saying the same thing as me?

Why do you post up this sort of thing and claim it supports your position when it says the opposite of your claims?


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Conduction is the means of transport for exactly 0% of the energy leaving the surface to escape to space...and that is why your absurd claims are meaningless.
> ...



You didn't read my comment with comprehension. All energy leaving the earth/atmosphere system exits as radiation.  The only exception I can think of is low molecular weight gases that migrate to the top of the atmosphere and leave if they manage to achieve escape velocity. 

Your point about the lapse rate and slowness of thermal conductivity is an advanced topic that may cause more confusion than understanding. The same goes for the wet lapse rate and the ŕelease of heat from phase change.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 11, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 blocks nothing...it absorbs and immediately emits whatever it has absorbed assuming that it doesn't lose the energy to collision with another molecule first...a very large assumption since so few ghg molecules actually get to emit the energy they absorbed.. The only time a ghg molecule might block IR is after it has reached its equilibrium temperature...at roughly -80F...till then, it absorbs and emits if it has the opportunity to emit...it doesn't block anything
> ...


_Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation does the gas start losing energy by escape to space._
How did you come up with this gem? According to you CO2 can trap photons for an indefinite time like some sort of Ghostbuster containment unit.


----------



## IanC (Jan 11, 2019)

polarbear said:


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



No 15 micron radiation radiation escapes to space from 100 metres up in the atmosphere. Each and every photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule before it has returned to the surface or escapes to space. Is that what you mean by a Ghostbuster Containment Unit?

Or are you arguing that there never comes a time were the air is thin enough that some of the 15 micron radiation does not get absorbed by a CO2 molecule and escapes to space?

I have explained what I think happens with CO2 radiation and emission, with the energy that enters at the surface boundary and the energy that leaves at the 'emission height'.

Feel free to grace us with monumental knowledge and explain what really happens.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > How does adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that already contains CO2 going to change the emissivity? Which wavelengths are you talking about, and in which region of the atmosphere?
> ...



*Every CO2 molecule is an opportunity to move a packet of IR on to space at the speed of light...add more CO2 and you get more opportunity to move energy more rapidly on to space...*

Without the CO2, the IR would have moved into space immediately, at the speed of light, instead of pausing in, and warming, the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You seldom say anything pertinent . This line of discussion started with you saying that more CO2 increases the emissivity . I asked you which wavelengths and where it happens. Since then you have ducked the question.
> ...



*Which wavelengths are irrelevant...Any wavelength that presents an opportunity to bypass the cumbersome movement of conduction and convection is, by definition, an increase in emissivity.*..

IR that escapes instantly, in the absence of GHGs, doesn't need to move via conduction or convection.
No GHGs means colder...faster.

You're like a guy claiming the Hoover Dam makes the Colorado River flow faster.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough.


We are waiting. 



SSDD said:


> ..you, on the other hand can't even state what a simple equation says..


Why do you keep lying about that. I stated exactly that well over half a dozen times.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 12, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*"You didn't read my comment with comprehension"*
Right. My mind was on the earlier topic of energy movement through the troposphere.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 12, 2019)

IanC said:


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


CO2 does not just absorb at 15 microns !!!!  And whatever it absorbs it re-emits in all directions.
Why would it be different from any other gas that absorbs light and re-emits it..
But I don`t care what you or the other armchair experts believe, who never had any hands on experience or formal education in that field. 
_Feel free to grace us with monumental knowledge_
Quit trying to be a smart-ass the only thing monumental here is the stupidity of your statement.


----------



## justoffal (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.
> 
> As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.
> 
> ...



Excellent post...this and many other natural effect inputs are nearly impossible to
Calculate as to their cumulative influence
On our ambient eco system.  Further complicating the matter is the hurclean path.
Which travels through various magnetic intensties as it winds round the galactic center every 230 million years.  The are far too many mysteries for anyone to claim
Settled science.

Jo


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments.  It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?  

The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR.  It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR.  Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions.  Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective.  When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.  

That is my understanding of what Ian has contended.  Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred.  Do you believe any part of that to be in error?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments.  It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?
> 
> The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR.  It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR.  Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions.  Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective.  When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.
> 
> That is my understanding of what Ian has contended.  Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred.  Do you believe any part of that to be in error?


Tell me moron, How much weight in mass does CO2 have and then tell me how much it warms with energy that is radiated at  -80 degC.  then tell how much the atmosphere will warm with the warming of CO2..  DO THE MATH RETARD!

1. CO2 does not warm by empirical experiment, so it warms NOTHING..


----------



## justoffal (Jan 12, 2019)

polarbear said:


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



Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
For thirty years dealing directly with
Heat transfer including the aqueous
Contaiment of Co2 at various energy levels
and temperatures.  From the very beginning of this debate some thirty years ago I always
Marveled at the sudden appearance of
Multiple experts pontificating about the utterly ludicrous. I have always wondered how anyone could possibly know whether
the atmospheric concentrations caused the warming or the warming caused the atmospheric concentrations since both are equally likely.  Yet they always seemed to be so certain that I assumed  I must simply be lacking in the appropriate knowledge of the matter. Then it occurred to me one day whilst Conversing with a Psuedo climatologist/expert about skinny Polar bears that these people aren't experts in anything but opinion, *that* they have an abundance of.

Regards:

Jo


----------



## justoffal (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments.  It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?
> 
> The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR.  It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR.  Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions.  Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective.  When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.
> 
> That is my understanding of what Ian has contended.  Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred.  Do you believe any part of that to be in error?



You do understand that heat transfer is
Function of temperature I assume? Yes?

Jo


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

I have a better question: are you disputing that the mean free path of an IR photon in the Earth's atmosphere is a few tens of meters?  See Mean Free Path Length of Photons in the Earth's Atmosphere


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments.  It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?
> ...



I have a decent understanding of heat transfer.  What is your point?


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
> For thirty years dealing directly with
> Heat transfer including the aqueous
> Contaiment of Co2 at various energy levels
> ...



Might I suggest a quick review of "Summary for Policy Makers" in "The Physical Science Basis" which may be found at www.ipcc.ch


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


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


We based a good portion of our experiment on Dr Happer's findings. Energy residency time and the fact the molecules reactions to EM excitement is bending (which fails to cause warming of the molecule).  Which is also why IR heaters do not warm the air.

What we found was a firm affirmation of Dr. Happer's observations.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
> ...


This is your go to pile of crap.  Appeal to Authority, and only the ones you think are valid, even in the face of empirical evidence showing them wrong..  Your not a scientist, your a political hack!

*Definition* of *Appeal* to *Authority* *Fallacy*: The *Appeal* to *Authority* *Fallacy* is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an *authority*.


----------



## justoffal (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Precisely... Additionally in all of this bluster about complex molecular and chemical behaivior we have abandoned what is probably no more than a simple heat transfer process wherein the accumulated thermal inertia can never be greater than the following transfer process according to the second law.... The inference of some complex maze of heat retention by atmospheric gasses that spurns the second law is fascinating if not amusing.

Jo


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

The work to which I linked has been reviewed explicitly by hundreds, if not thousands of degreed, published scientists.  Appeal to authority is valid if the reference is an ACTUAL AUTHORITY on the question under discussion.  That is certainly the case with the IPCC assessments.  

I have never claimed to be a scientist.  I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and have been working as one for the last 36 years.

You now claim to have empirical evidence "showing them wrong".  What evidence and who is "them"?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> The work to which I linked has been reviewed explicitly by hundreds, if not thousands of degreed, published scientists.  Appeal to authority is valid if the reference is an ACTUAL AUTHORITY on the question under discussion.  That is certainly the case with the IPCC assessments.
> 
> I have never claimed to be a scientist.  I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and have been working as one for the last 36 years.
> 
> You now claim to have empirical evidence "showing them wrong".  What evidence and who is "them"?


*Definition* of *Appeal* to *Authority* *Fallacy*: The *Appeal* to *Authority* *Fallacy* is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an *authority*.

I've show this to be bull shit of the highest order and I am just a lowly Doctoral candidate in Atmospheric Physics.  I am physically doing the science and the experiments your authorities refused to do, prior to pontificating...  And now they are shown WRONG... 

Time to wake up Crick... Your about to be thrown into the dustbin of history..


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

Poster justoffal, do not confuse the mean free path of a molecule prior to a collision and the mean free path of a photon prior to collision.  They are not the same thing.


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The work to which I linked has been reviewed explicitly by hundreds, if not thousands of degreed, published scientists.  Appeal to authority is valid if the reference is an ACTUAL AUTHORITY on the question under discussion.  That is certainly the case with the IPCC assessments.
> ...




1) Who do you believe your empirical evidence will show wrong?

2) What is your empirical evidence?

3) Claiming to be a doctoral candidate in atmospheric physics is simply an appeal to authority.  You may actually be an authority, but it will require some outside verification before we are required to accept it.  Like being employed as a researcher and publishing original research in a refereed science journal.  And then of course there are the numbers.  A great many more PhDs disagree with you than agree.

4) re Appeal to Authority

*Appeal to Authority  *from Appeal to Authority

argumentum ad verecundiam

(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

*Description:* Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true,* without any other supporting evidence offered*. 

Emphasis mine.  A great deal of evidence that these scientists are actual experts is available.

AND  from Why is an appeal to authority sometimes valid?

Presumably appealing to authority is non-fallacious precisely when it makes sense to believe the person offering the information is *reasonably expected* to be knowledgeable on the topic. In other words, it's a question of what for us would qualify as an "authority."

In this sense, it's going to tie into more basic epistemological considerations about knowledge. A general skeptic would have to say _no one_ is "reasonably expected" to be knowledgeable about the matter at hand.

Throwing out skepticism, one criterion appears for technical skills: _objective success in matters relating to what they are also commenting on._ Thus, I'd for instance take a successful carpenter to be someone I'd trust on matters of wood-working, an effective doctor on matters of medicine, etc.

For theoretical things, it's going to be harder to know whether to accept the authority or not. A further criterion might be: _are they accepted as an expert (in general? in my community?)_.

In arguments, we can adduce a further thing: _do we both *agree*_ here and now to treat this person as an authority?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> How long ago did you decide for yourself that you have it all figured out and decided to stop trying to learn anything new?
> 
> From: *William Happer* Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
> To: David Burton
> ...





Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


When you can post up a cognitive rebuttal we'll talk..  Until then, I will treat you as an idiot.


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy Boy, you aren't very good at answering questions.  Let's try this again.

1) Who (or what) do you believe will be refuted by your empirical evidence?

2) What is your empirical evidence?  If it is your much-discussed magic tube, please simply say so.  If this is the case, I would still like to hear a clear explanation of what you believe your results refute.


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2019)

polarbear said:


> CO2 does not just absorb at 15 microns !!!! And whatever it absorbs it re-emits in all directions.
> Why would it be different from any other gas that absorbs light and re-emits it..




When did I ever say CO2 only absorbs at 15 microns? In fact, I believe I mention the other two main absorbance frequencies in near infrared  in the last week or so. They play little part in the greenhouse effect because neither the atmosphere or the surface is warm enough to produce them in any significant quantity.

When did I ever say that CO2 molecules ever emit in something other than a random direction? We have hounded SSDD for years because he claims only certain directions are allowed. You ignore his statements, and make up false accusations against me. Or perhaps you are too stupid to understand that there are only two 'directions' that a photon can leave the atmosphere in...either to space or to the surface. Every Cartesian direction leads to both outcomes, it just depends where the starting point originated.


So far you have imparted little information, just a few pathetic ad homes and strawmen. When are you going to dazzle us with your brilliance? I've been waiting for close to a decade and most of the time you just screw up and run away back to your igloo. I expect no different this time.


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.
> ...




Hahahahaha . You two deserve each other! Two bloviating Cliff Clavins.


----------



## justoffal (Jan 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I'm tempted to jump in but I've already done this a dozen times on a dozen forums. It generally proves to be rather fruitless. Bear in mind this one thing. The claim that the Earth's carbon cycle is no more tolerant of change than a Swiss watch over a span of Mellenia is close to being insane. Sure they can produce examples of concentration readings over that span...but what they can never know is why. No other subject in all of the fields of science that I know of is affected by so deep a hubris as this AGW
Cult who have systemstically insisted in the face of virtually infinite odds that they have eliminated all other possibilities but the one extremely narrow path to enlightenment. How dare they mock religion? They are one.

Jo


----------



## polarbear (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments.  It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?
> 
> The Earth's surface absorbs a wide range of SWIR and LWIR.  It re-emits it primarily in broad band LWIR.  Energy in the 15 micron band and others is absorbed by CO2 within the first few meters of atmosphere and re-emits in all directions.  Energy transport from that point upwards is a combination of radiative, conductive and convective.  When energy gets high enough in the stratosphere, the rarity of the atmosphere allows radiated IR to escape to space.
> 
> That is my understanding of what Ian has contended.  Ian may certainly correct me if I have erred.  Do you believe any part of that to be in error?


And the next idiot piles on. Which I don`t mind at all, the more the merrier. According to IanC CO2 can trap and retain photons unless it`s so rare that it can`t reabsorb them: :
_"Only when the concentration of the radiative gas is so rare that it loses the capacity to reabsorb the radiation 
does the gas start losing energy by escape to space."_
I`m glad you also subscribed to this idiotic photon trap.where photons radiate into a CO2 gas cloud and nothing comes out ....and all the while the same idiots mock SSDD about a "photon dimmer switch" 
There must be photons from biblical times still trapped in my CO2 fire extinguisher according to Crick and IanC


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments.  It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?
> ...




Hahahahaha. That is hilarious!  BillyBoob calling someone else a math retard!

No, that mantle is yours, you've earned it.


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2019)

polarbear said:


> There must be photons from biblical times still trapped in my CO2 fire extinguisher according to Crick and



There is a very reasonable probability that one of the molecules of air expelled in Jesus's last breath is present in the next lungful that you breathe. Matter is long-lasting under typical conditions.

Photons exist only as long as it takes to carry energy from the emitter to the absorber. Once absorbed that energy takes a different form. Out of many forms.

I don't see how you can say a packet of energy that is originally  transported as a photon, then absorbed and turned into some variant of potential or kinetic energy, then transformed back and forth a few million times until perhaps it is used to create a photon that has a similar frequency as the first. Is this what you consider 'trapped photons'?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


You really don't get it... Sad.. Very sad..

Tell me IAN how much energy is in a photon radiated at  -80 deg C.  Do you know?  I DO..

You rail at SSDD about "dimming photons" and you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um..  Its the power contained within the particle and it changes with the molecule emitting at its temperature.

SO tell me IAN, how much power is contained in a photon emitted at 16um? Without knowing this number you can not hope to prove warming of our atmosphere by CO2..


----------



## justoffal (Jan 12, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That CO2 absorbs and re-emits at other than 15 microns does nothing to refute Ian's comments.  It has a strong band at 15 microns and it behaves as he contends. What error do you believe he is making?
> ...



Well not only will the CO2 be present but so will the entire array of organic molecules that compose our human bodies be present when our favorite star expands out to the perimeter of the Mars orbit neatly incinerating earth along the way.  Hydrocarbon combustion will no doubt be extinct long before that rather warm day....oh....and forget the sunscreen..it won't work.

Jo


----------



## justoffal (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Precisely why I referenced the second law earlier.

Jo


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



I think you're fibbing. Happer was commenting on other people's data.

Here is a telling quote from the Happer email chain-



> If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY



That is in direct opposition to surface IR not being able to hear the atmosphere, and it directly opposes the claim that the production of radiation is controlled by outside temperature.


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Radiation is measured as a macroscopic property. It doesn't matter how many photons it takes to make up a joule. A joule is a joule, and energy is conserved.

But don't get me started on entropy.


----------



## IanC (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me IAN how much energy is in a photon radiated at -80 deg C. Do you know? I DO



I have asked you a few times to explain to the message board what you mean when you claim CO2 radiates at minus 80C. You declined.

Do you want me to do your work for you? I will make you look as foolish as you are.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2019)

The actual equations physicists and meteorologists use for gas energy transfer ignore radiation because its contribution is insignificant. Convection and conduction rates in the atmosphere are high enough to easily carry away upward any mysterious energy that might appear at any altitude in the troposphere.

“Basic physics” is the antidote to “climate science” Lysenkoism.


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy, in your graduate school work, do you get away with providing references or substantiations for your claims as rarely as you do here?  If so, it must be a fantastic school... in the classical sense.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um..



It obviously doesn't. It has 50 times as much energy, because the frequency is 50 times higher.

Now Billy is even denying E = H * nu. What a loon.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um..
> ...



A single photon radiating at either frequency will be the same amount of energy....The EM fields however, will be very different.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> A single photon radiating at either frequency will be the same amount of energy....The EM fields however, will be very different.


Whoa! Now you and Billy are loons. Mamooth is right. The energy of a photon is Planks constant times the frequency. It is commonly written as 
E = H nu.  (nu is a common Greek symbol for frequency) 
I know you don't believe in Quantum Mechanics, but to go that far is pure loony.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 14, 2019)

It is utterly amazing how easily fooled you fools are..  Enjoy your circle jerk because that is about all you alarmists are worth... Jerking each other off seams to be the only thing you all like..  Peer Review by circle jerk pretty much sums up AGW as you all refuse to think critically or use cognitive thought..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> It is utterly amazing how easily fooled you fools are..  Enjoy your circle jerk because that is about all you alarmists are worth... Jerking each other off seams to be the only thing you all like..  Peer Review by circle jerk pretty much sums up AGW as you all refuse to think critically or use cognitive thought..



Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > you cant even quantify why a photon radiated at 0.2um will have 100,000 times more energy than a photon at 10um..
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> It is utterly amazing how easily fooled you fools are.. Enjoy your circle jerk because that is about all you alarmists are worth... Jerking each other off seams to be the only thing you all like.. Peer Review by circle jerk pretty much sums up AGW as you all refuse to think critically or use cognitive thought..



Planck's very simple formula E = H * nu was an enormous breakthrough that explained the ultraviolet catastrophe of classical physics and was instrumental in understanding black body radiation. It was the beginning of quantum mechanics. The fact that SSDD and Billy don't know that speaks volumes to their lack of education in basic college physics. Yet they both rant like maniacs when they are caught in their ignorance.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough.
> ...



No, alas you didn't..you have dodged over and over..

Tell me what does this equation say?    What does it describe?   x - y = z


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
> ...




Been through that over and over and by your own admission, it is an outrageous request to ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......it is outrageous to ask for a single piece of observed measured data which establishes a coherent relationsihp between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and I am being unreasonable to ask for a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by human activity has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...

That being the case, exactly what do you expect people to find there?  Do you just hope that everyone you send there is as easily fooled as you?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> The work to which I linked has been reviewed explicitly by hundreds, if not thousands of degreed, published scientists.  Appeal to authority is valid if the reference is an ACTUAL AUTHORITY on the question under discussion.  That is certainly the case with the IPCC assessments.
> 
> I have never claimed to be a scientist.  I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and have been working as one for the last 36 years.
> 
> You now claim to have empirical evidence "showing them wrong".  What evidence and who is "them"?




And yet, there isn't a single paper there in which our hypothetical warming has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses...nor is there a single piece of observed, measured data there which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

There is plenty of data there....but precious little evidence of anything other than if we have an influence on the climate, it is indistinguishable from natural variability.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > There must be photons from biblical times still trapped in my CO2 fire extinguisher according to Crick and
> ...





Crick said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Lol...I feel your pain. I have been at the trade
> ...



Why?  You have been challenged over and over to bring forward any sort of real observed, measured evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...You can't do it..and by your own admission, the information there is good enough to fool you...you can't bring any actual evidence forward, but you are fooled...you think everyone is as easily fooled as you?  You know there is noting there of any use and yet you keep referring people to it...Why?


----------



## Crick (Jan 15, 2019)

Those studies and the many before it were good enough to convince better than 97% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid.  The you - someone with no valid scientific education and a plethora of blatantly incorrect interpretations of fundamental physical laws - should choose to reject all of that concerns me not a whit.  What does concern me is that others visiting this site can be taken in by your faulty contentions.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Here is what all scientists understand the SB equation to be since 1879. It is the standard derivation in textbooks for an object at temperature T₁ and a surround at temperature T₂.

Rₑ = esT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission of an object.
Rₐ = esT₂⁴, . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption of an object.

The net rate is the difference between radiation and absorption.
Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = esT₁⁴ - esT₂⁴ = es(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

If the net is positive heat is flowing away from the object.
If the net is negative heat is flowing toward the object.

You were told that over a dozen times. Tell me what you think is the dodge.

You said, _I can explain the 16,000 W/m2 easily enough_.
Lets hear it.

*Edit: Oops. The Greek symbols sigma and epsilon in the formulas were erased by the text editor. I wrote them back as e and s.*


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> Those studies and the many before it were good enough to convince better than 97% of the world's climate scientists that AGW is valid.  The you - someone with no valid scientific education and a plethora of blatantly incorrect interpretations of fundamental physical laws - should choose to reject all of that concerns me not a whit.  What does concern me is that others visiting this site can be taken in by your faulty contentions.



And yet there isn't a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...that being the case, exactly what convinced them?  It wasn't the evidence...perhaps it was the vast trough of grant money associated with maintaining the narrative.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




So you can't even say what x - y = z is saying in plain language?

And the bullshit above certainly is not what this equation says...






Let me know when you learn to read a simple equation and say what it says in plain english.  Then I will be happy to tell you about Venus.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY.
> ...


you believe in back radiation.  that was simple.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> x - y = z


OK. I will play your juvenile game it means variable x minus variable y equals z.
Tell me why you think the standard derivation in textbooks of the SB equation is bullshit.

Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

Look at the top of page 411 of Stefan's paper just under the title, "_II. Uber die Bestimmung ......._"
This is the translation of the first two sentences
_
The absolute magnitude of the heat emitted by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of heat radiated by the body over the warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment._​
At the bottom of page 411, he writes,
_We choose the law of radiation as the formula of the fourth powers of the absolute temperature thus_
_H_₁ _= A _T₁⁴_ . . . H_₂ _= A _T₂⁴​_in which A is largely dependent on the surface of the body. _[Later called emissivity.]
_The cooling rate for the bare thermometer bulb is determined by_
w₁ = 3A/r₁cs (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)​
The Dartmouth excerpt even uses the same notation of temperatures T₁⁴ and T₂⁴. Stefan refers to heat with an H, for the German Hitze.
None of the hundreds of thousands of scientists since then have disagreed with Stefan. In essence you are calling the understanding of Stefan and thousands and thousands of scientists since then *bullshit*.

Au contraire, what you are saying is *total bullshit*.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

Tell me...what do you think _H_₁ _= A _T₁⁴_ . . . H_₂ _= A _T₂⁴ means?


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2019)

They describe the emission of the two bodies.  Where does it say that whichever is colder is simply zero?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Tell me...what do you think _H_₁ _= A _T₁⁴_ . . . H_₂ _= A _T₂⁴ means?



If you are referring to Stefan's paper these are quotes from him, 
_H₁_ is the_ "heat radiated by the body"_ in his experiment and
_H_₂ is the "_warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment._"​
I quoted that in my prior post. Why do you ask again? Of course you already think Stefan's seminal experiment is fairy dust. 

.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me...what do you think _H_₁ _= A _T₁⁴_ . . . H_₂ _= A _T₂⁴ means?
> ...


What makes you think you could get away with the blatant lies you posted here? 
SSDD may not be able to read German but I do! 
*Nowhere* in this paper does Stefan say anything about heat being transferred from the colder to the warmer object!!!! As in heat flowing from H(0) to H(100). H(100) was a mercury thermometer at 100 deg C in a Copper sphere H(0) at 0 deg C and he was determining the rate of cooling for H(100)-H(0) while reducing the air pressure inside the sphere to null out the heat conduction component for air.
Nowhere does he do a H(0) - H(100) reverse fuck like you keep advocating and nowhere in this paper does he mention heat absorption.....which you say is what you get if you subtract the hotter from the colder.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2019)

polarbear said:


> What makes you think you could get away with the blatant lies you posted here?
> SSDD may not be able to read German but I do!
> *Nowhere* in this paper does Stefan say anything about heat being transferred from the colder to the warmer object!!!



Chill out. Stefan recognized two way flow even though he didn't cool the object wrt the surround.
Why do you say it's a blatant lie? Stefan said this:
_H₁ is the "heat radiated by the body" in his experiment and
H₂ is the "warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment."_​
His statement clearly refers to heat simultaneously moving two ways between hot and cold bodies. EM radiation was understood at that time, but not in terms of heat flow. Understanding black body radiation would come later.

Do you agree with SSDD that radiation can only move one way from a hot object to a colder object and that photons can't move from a cold object to a warm object?


----------



## polarbear (Jan 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you think you could get away with the blatant lies you posted here?
> ...


What a pathological liar you are. Show me the original text in German where he says  what you claim.
In every equation the colder H gets subtracted from the warmer H. The colder H being the surrounding shell and the hotter H being the Mercury thermometer in the center. Not one instance where its the other way around as your lies would have it. Stefan states that the Heat H2 which is transmitted from the (colder) shell at the temperature u2 to the thermometer  determines the loss of heat by radiation from the thermometer for the time dt as:* 4πr^2 (H1-H2) dt *
with r being the radius of the thermometer bulb. That`s how he determined the rate of cooling for H1.
Nowhere does Stefan do a H2 - H1 subtraction with H1 being > H2 as you kept insisting...and come up with a negative value for H that can not be converted to a temperature because it implies a 4th root of a negative number which only dope idiots like you would do and Stefan was no dope head.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 19, 2019)

polarbear said:


> What a pathological liar you are.


Your'e not chilling out. You are pathologically confused.



polarbear said:


> Show me the original text in German where he says what you claim. In every equation the colder H gets subtracted from the warmer H. The colder H being the surrounding shell and the hotter H being the Mercury thermometer in the center.



I never said Stefan did an experiment where the surrounding shell is hotter than the object. Show me where you think I said that. But thanks for reading Stefan's paper. It was quite a breakthrough for that time.



polarbear said:


> Nowhere does Stefan do a H2 - H1 subtraction with H1 being > H2 as you kept insisting.



I never insisted that. I agree and understood from the beginning that he didn't try to reverse temperatures.  You have missed my point to SSDD again.

.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > What a pathological liar you are.
> ...


Hahaha now the dippy hippie denies that he was trying to use the German text to corroborate his bullshit from post # 280 "If the net is* negative* heat is flowing toward the object."
You know fucking well that means a subtraction of a higher temperature from a lower one! Or need I rub your face in some more of your "negative energy "  hallucinations ? It`s not as if you were off the hook just because I don`t want to bother. Everybody here, not just me  knows what you said.
So how is it that you never said Stefan experimented with a shell hotter than the object in it clears you from being a liar while claiming Stefan said something about the amount of heat the object absorbed from the shell in the format you kept using which resulted in a negative result.
Typical liar tactics !!!! I never said that you said that. You pulled it out of your asshole as usual to deflect.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 20, 2019)

"Wuwei" buried the bullshit meter needle when he posted this:
"_Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf"_
And pretended to know what Stefan wrote in this original German paper even though he does not speak German.
The idea was to masquerade as an expert who studied Stefan, Boltzman, Einstein, Planck ect etc  publications in German while in reality the only thing he does know is what the warmist  blogs say is stated in these texts.
That`s about as delusional as the hamburger flipper who claims it`s his cover while he is working for the CIA.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 20, 2019)

polarbear said:


> Hahaha now the dippy hippie denies that he was trying to use the German text to corroborate his bullshit from post # 280 "If the net is* negative* heat is flowing toward the object."


There are two related but different issues.
1. SSDD doesn't understand the SB equation.
2. SSDD doesn't understand the 2nd law.

The first issue was in Post #280.
The second issue was historically addressed by Stefan's interpretation - radiation exchange, _"warmth simultaneously absorbed by it, which latter is dependent on the heat radiated from the environment."_

I can understand why you are confusing the two, because Stefan's statement was addressing both issues. But on top of that you don't believe the standard textbook derivation of the SB equation either. You, Billy, JC, et al,  are all sycophants of SSDD. Congratulations on your unity and harmony.




polarbear said:


> "Wuwei" buried the bullshit meter needle when he posted this:
> "_Even Stefan in his original paper gave the same derivation in 1879.
> http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf"_
> And pretended to know what Stefan wrote in this original German paper even though he does not speak German.
> ...


Chill out.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me...what do you think _H_₁ _= A _T₁⁴_ . . . H_₂ _= A _T₂⁴ means?
> ...



Is there anything you won't reinterpret in an attempt to support your beliefs...he was merely showing you how to derive absolute temperature..he says nothing about energy exchange...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> His statement clearly refers to heat simultaneously moving two ways between hot and cold bodies. EM radiation was understood at that time, but not in terms of heat flow. Understanding black body radiation would come later.



Maybe in your nutty brain he clearly refers to heat simultaneously moving two ways...but then, you aren't reading what he actually says..you are reading what you wish he says...all he was doing was telling you how to derive absolute temperature..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> 1. SSDD doesn't understand the SB equation.
> 2. SSDD doesn't understand the 2nd law.['quote]
> 
> Of course I do...and I don't need to reinterpret either of them as I accept them as written...you on the other hand can't accept what they say and therefore need to reinterpret them to say what you wish they said.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Is there anything you won't reinterpret in an attempt to support your beliefs...he was merely showing you how to derive absolute temperature..he says nothing about energy exchange...


Nope. Review the following.
_Stefan: "heat radiated by the body"  "warmth simultaneously absorbed ..." 



SSDD said:



			Maybe in your nutty brain he clearly refers to heat simultaneously moving two ways...but then, you aren't reading what he actually says..you are reading what you wish he says...all he was doing was telling you how to derive absolute temperature..
		
Click to expand...

_
Nope. He actually said simultaneous radiation and absorption.




SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > 1. SSDD doesn't understand the SB equation.
> ...


Nope, your interpretation disagrees with all scientists and textbooks.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> [
> Nope, your interpretation disagrees with all scientists and textbooks.
> 
> .



The rest of your post is your typical bullshit...but which part of this statement do you think I am interpreting?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I don't see any part of that statement that needs interpreting....I agree with it 100%.  You on the other hand only accept it if it doesn't have to actually mean what it says.  You are laughable...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



* It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*

A body at -20C won't emit toward the ground at 15C.
But if I do some work and warm the body up to -19C, it will emit toward the ground at 15C?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The rest of your post is your typical bullshit...but which part of this statement do you think I am interpreting?


Is that the best you can do? You lost your fighting spirit?  Stefan said it loud and clear - simultaneous radiation and absorption. So you think 
the meaning of the SB equation has changed since Stefan? Who changed it? Do you have a reference? 



SSDD said:


> Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> 
> I don't see any part of that statement that needs interpreting....I agree with it 100%. You on the other hand only accept it if it doesn't have to actually mean what it says.



I also agree with the SLoT 100% without interpreting. I also agree with the textbook definitions 100%. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Is that the best you can do? You lost your fighting spirit?  Stefan said it loud and clear - simultaneous radiation and absorption. So you think
> the meaning of the SB equation has changed since Stefan? Who changed it? Do you have a reference?



In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative...Stefan never said any such thing...



Wuwei said:


> I also agree with the SLoT 100% without interpreting. I also agree with the textbook definitions 100%.



So you agree that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a higher temperature object?  That some work is required to make it happen?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> perhaps he did say such a thing.......Stefan never said any such thing...


That's a smart move for an idiot - state something and it's opposite in the same paragraph.



SSDD said:


> So you agree that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a higher temperature object? That some work is required to make it happen?



Yes I agree. Thermal energy can't do that without violating the law of entropy. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > perhaps he did say such a thing.......Stefan never said any such thing...
> ...



The concept of honesty entirely escapes you...doesnt it?

Taking a part of a statement and presenting it as a quote is lying...here, let me provide the entire statement..

"In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative..."

See hoe=w that works? I never said that he said such a thing other than in your wacked out mind...You are becoming more boring than toddster.





Wuwei said:


> Yes I agree. Thermal energy can't do that without violating the law of entropy..



The statement doesn't make qualifications such as thermal..it says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....energy being any sort of energy...so do you accept it with qualifications or do you only accept it if it doesn't have to mean what it says?

The first part of the statement addresses thermal energy when it says that heat will not flow from a cool object to a warmer object without work having been done to achieve the flow...the second part of the statement simply addresses energy...any sort of energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*it says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....energy being any sort of energy...*

You're lying.
That's why you haven't posted a single source that backs up your claim that photons only move from warmer matter to cooler matter.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Taking a part of a statement and presenting it as a quote is lying...here, let me provide the entire statement..
> 
> "In your wacked out mind, perhaps he did say such a thing...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative..."



Now that is really funny and ironic. You accuse me of quoting out of context, you do exactly the same thing. Here is the full quote with the highlighted phrases that make it ironic. You left out the second phrase.



SSDD said:


> In your wacked out mind, *perhaps he did say such a thing*...but then you, like climate science itself, heavily interpret, and change the meaning of all data you encounter for the purpose of supporting a narrative..*.Stefan never said any such thing*...



Oh yes, Stefan said such a thing.



SSDD said:


> The statement doesn't make qualifications such as thermal..it says that energy will not flow spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object....energy being any sort of energy...so do you accept it with qualifications or do you only accept it if it doesn't have to mean what it says?
> 
> The first part of the statement addresses thermal energy when it says that heat will not flow from a cool object to a warmer object without work having been done to achieve the flow...the second part of the statement simply addresses energy...any sort of energy.



Any sort of energy? Particles from a radioactive substance cannot emit from a cold rock? Your interpretation leads to idiocy.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Taking a part of a statement and presenting it as a quote is lying...here, let me provide the entire statement..
> ...



No interpretation...and radiation is all about frequency...what is the frequency of the energy radiating from the rock vs the frequency of IR radiating from the surface of the earth?  Or the frequency of IR radiating from your body...or any thing whatsoever radiating in IR wavelengths?


----------



## Crick (Jan 22, 2019)

Sixteen ways from Sunday, your magic photons require magic and magic is idiocy


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> No interpretation...and radiation is all about frequency...what is the frequency of the energy radiating from the rock vs the frequency of IR radiating from the surface of the earth? Or the frequency of IR radiating from your body...or any thing whatsoever radiating in IR wavelengths?


The point is particles from a radioactive substance emit from a cold rock. Your rambling, "_radiation is all about frequency_" does not address the point. You are digressing again.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> Sixteen ways from Sunday, your magic photons require magic and magic is idiocy



Nothing magic about obeying the laws of physics...interesting that you think magic is required....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No interpretation...and radiation is all about frequency...what is the frequency of the energy radiating from the rock vs the frequency of IR radiating from the surface of the earth? Or the frequency of IR radiating from your body...or any thing whatsoever radiating in IR wavelengths?
> ...



Sorry this is all so difficult for you...tell you what...you go ahead and just make up both sides of the discussion and save me the time and trouble of holding up one side of a discussion that grew boring weeks ago.  The routine is established...the second law says what it says...means what it means and you want it to mean something else...and will interpret whatever you need in order to maintain your narrative.

Is that ever going to change?  Because the second law isn't going to change and my position is based on what it says rather than some nutty interpretation...If it isn't going to change...why bother continuing?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry this is all so difficult for you...tell you what...you go ahead and just make up both sides of the discussion and save me the time and trouble of holding up one side of a discussion that grew boring weeks ago. The routine is established...the second law says what it says...means what it means and you want it to mean something else...and will interpret whatever you need in order to maintain your narrative.
> 
> Is that ever going to change? Because the second law isn't going to change and my position is based on what it says rather than some nutty interpretation...If it isn't going to change...why bother continuing?



OK. I will make up both sides of the discussion.

*SSDD says*: You fucking idiot; nuclear radiation can not emanate from an ore unless it is heated to above ambient temperature because, Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

*Wuwei replies*: Your physics is really quite bizarre.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry this is all so difficult for you...tell you what...you go ahead and just make up both sides of the discussion and save me the time and trouble of holding up one side of a discussion that grew boring weeks ago. The routine is established...the second law says what it says...means what it means and you want it to mean something else...and will interpret whatever you need in order to maintain your narrative.
> ...



_In the future, before you bring up the same shit....refer to the first time the topic was covered..or the second...or the third...or the fourth...I won't be going over it again...nor will I be looking up the original arguments for you. I will prepare a stock cut and paste referral back to any of the multiple times the topic has been discussed for when you get the idea in your nutty brain that somehow you have won the discussion via sheer tedium.

When you get something new, let me know....or when they change the second law of thermodynamics to state that energy can spontaneously move from a less organized state to a more organized state...do let me know._


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> or when they change the second law of thermodynamics to state that energy can spontaneously move from a less organized state to a more organized state...do let me know.



These people think a photon from a less organized (lower power and thus lower energy) state is capable of warming a more energized state (higher power more energized state).



Quantum Mechanics (QM) theroy precludes this from happening.  In fact it identifies the photon as a piece of matter which must be warmed by the higher energized state matter before it can be re-emitted at the higher energized state. This means it must consume energy cooling the matter.  QM QUESTIONS HOWEVER a black-body being able to absorb matter resonating at a lower frequency than itself.

Until QM and other theory's identify what a photon is and they observe its responses, we do not know how a BB will respond. The experiment we just finished failed to slow the cooling of the BB when lower energized photons were introduced. From what we observed, it had little effect on keeping the BB warmer and slowing cooling, until it reached the thermal output level of the lower energized matter.

WE found some interesting things over two years...  I have more questions than answers about what we found and why what we found was happening. What we found does not mesh with many of the equations used today.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Quantum Mechanics (QM) theroy precludes this from happening. In fact it identifies the photon as a piece of matter which must be warmed by the higher energized state matter before it can be re-emitted at the higher energized state. This means it must consume energy cooling the matter. QM QUESTIONS HOWEVER a black-body being able to absorb matter resonating at a lower frequency than itself



Just look at the utter stupidity of this comment! Hahahahaha, this is not the first time that BillyBoob has loudly proclaimed that light is matter.

How do you converse with someone so profoundly stupid?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2019)

SSDD said:


> In the future, before you bring up the same shit....refer to the first time the topic was covered..or the second...or the third...or the fourth...I won't be going over it again...nor will I be looking up the original arguments for you. I will prepare a stock cut and paste referral back to any of the multiple times the topic has been discussed for when you get the idea in your nutty brain that somehow you have won the discussion via sheer tedium.
> 
> When you get something new, let me know....or when they change the second law of thermodynamics to state that energy can spontaneously move from a less organized state to a more organized state...do let me know.



A stock cut and paste? How is that any different than what you have already been doing over the past years. 

Here are some stock cut and pastes you should consider. 
When you invent a theory that says why photons can violate quantum mechanics when they aren't allowed to move in certain directions paste your answer.

When you can explain that every experiment that man does is never spontaneous please paste it.

Let us know what work is done since you stated, "multiple theories on what sort of work is being done to move the energy from the surface to the corona...only you and toddster seem to think it is spontaneous." 

Let us know where in the CMB turns into resonant frequencies in the path as it hits the earth. Be sure and paste that too. 

Sure. Run away.


.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Just look at the utter stupidity of this comment! Hahahahaha, this is not the first time that BillyBoob has loudly proclaimed that light is matter.
> 
> How do you converse with someone so profoundly stupid?


The answer is not to respond to a troll at that level who is baiting you. Yes it is profoundly stupid... just monkeys on a typewriter.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> These people think a photon from a less organized (lower power and thus lower energy) state is capable of warming a more energized state (higher power more energized state).



I know I have shown this before a dozen times but there may be new readers.






This graph shows the type and amount of radiation coming off a blackbody at two temperatures 20C apart.

The range is almost identical, with the warmer object being capable of occasionally produciñg a slightly higher photon that the other cannot. Otherwise every wavelength is in common with the other. You cannot tell the difference in temperature by the type of radiation without sampling a huge number of photons.

But you can tell the temperature by measuring the amount of any one particular wavelength, and comparing it to the amount expected for different temperatures. Again you are sampling huge amounts of photons.

You cannot tell the temperature of an object by a single photon, (but you could get an estimate of its lowest range). There is no way that another object can accept or reject a single photon because of the temperature of the emitting object. There is no information on the photon. A 15 micron photon could be coming off an object at -80C, or it could be coming off the surface of the Sun.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2019)

Yes, I agree, but our local "doctoral candidate" is a brick wall.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, I agree, but our local "doctoral candidate" is a brick wall.



They seem to think any particular temperature has only one emitted wavelength. SSDD wouldn't respond directly but he implies that water only has one velocity for molecules at a certain temperature even though that would preclude evaporation.

These guys don't understand that changing physics in one area causes big problems down the road in another area.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I agree, but our local "doctoral candidate" is a brick wall.
> ...



I think they are confusing a single frequency with the peak of BB radiation given by Wein's law. When SSDD made that mistake years ago I retorted that he would be saying the temperature of a blue LED is somewhere around 5700 C because that is the peak using Wein's law. To someone that doesn't know the first thing about physics Wein's law can be deceptive to them. Simply plug in a single frequency out comes a temperature.

Yes, changing physics in one area has unintended consequences.

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I agree, but our local "doctoral candidate" is a brick wall.
> ...



Takes a lot of epicycles.....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Mechanics (QM) theroy precludes this from happening. In fact it identifies the photon as a piece of matter which must be warmed by the higher energized state matter before it can be re-emitted at the higher energized state. This means it must consume energy cooling the matter. QM QUESTIONS HOWEVER a black-body being able to absorb matter resonating at a lower frequency than itself
> ...


How long ago did you figure that you know everything there was to know and simply stopped learning?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> A stock cut and paste? How is that any different than what you have already been doing over the past years.



Hilarious...when it is you who keeps recycling the same old failed arguments over and over as if they were going to somehow produce a different outcome...if you are going to cover the same old shit...then simply review it the first several times you recycled it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > A stock cut and paste? How is that any different than what you have already been doing over the past years.
> ...



And still no sources that back you up.
All alone. 
Again.


----------



## IanC (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> How long ago did you figure that you know everything there was to know and simply stopped learning?



My position has evolved a great deal over the ten years that I have been posting here. 

On the other hand, you seem to be refractory to any new data or ideas.

Motes and logs. 

But to tell you the truth I don't want you to change. Who would we argue against?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Hilarious...when it is you who keeps recycling the same old failed arguments over and over as if they were going to somehow produce a different outcome...if you are going to cover the same old shit...then simply review it the first several times you recycled it.



I do not always recycle *arguments*. I and the people on this forum have also recycled *questions *that you have not or cannot answer. If you can answer these questions clearly and in a way that does not violate physics, then nobody will bother you with them again. 

Where between the top of atmosphere and the surface of earth do you think the cosmic microwave background becomes "a resonance frequency"?

Where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

Is the inside of a red hot hollow sphere black or red hot?

What quantum mechanical mechanism do you think prevents a photon from a colder object from hitting a warmer object?

Most spontaneous processes such as chemical light sticks, luminescence, phosphorescence, CMB, voltaic discharge, sun energy, etc. involve prior work.  You stated any energy release process that involves prior work is not spontaneous after the work is stopped. Can you name spontaneous processes that fall outside that category?  

Yes we have argued many times against your reinvention of physics, but the reason for that is that you never have come up with an answer to the above questions.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

To date...not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs, while ever observation and measurement ever made supports my position....note that I have a position based on actual evidence while you hold a belief not based on anything other than unobservable, umeasureable, untestable models.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2019)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Mechanics (QM) theroy precludes this from happening. In fact it identifies the photon as a piece of matter which must be warmed by the higher energized state matter before it can be re-emitted at the higher energized state. This means it must consume energy cooling the matter. QM QUESTIONS HOWEVER a black-body being able to absorb matter resonating at a lower frequency than itself
> ...


Yes, your profound stupidity is amazing...  Good luck being a duped fool...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> To date...not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs, while ever observation and measurement ever made supports my position....note that I have a position based on actual evidence while you hold a belief not based on anything other than unobservable, umeasureable, untestable models.



*while ever observation and measurement ever made supports my position....*

If that's true, why can't you post a single real source that agrees with your "cooler photons" can't hit warmer matter claim?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> To date...not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs, while ever observation and measurement ever made supports my position....note that I have a position based on actual evidence while you hold a belief not based on anything other than unobservable, umeasureable, untestable models.


That was not the point of my previous post, #327. I was not  promoting any evidence. I was asking you 5 questions about your beliefs that you have not fully answered.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Where between the top of atmosphere and the surface of earth do you think the cosmic microwave background becomes "a resonance frequency"?



Resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency. Frequencies at which the response amplitude is a relative maximum are known as the system's resonant frequencies, or resonance frequencies.  CMB resonance frequencies can exist anywhere there is CMB...The radio telescope that first picked up the resonance frequency could have picked it up pointing in any direction.



Wuwei said:


> Where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?



Be glad to tell you all about that radiation as soon as you state in plain english what this particular equation says.  Not your nutty version..not the dartmouth paper...not any other version....this particular version.  State what it says in plain english and I will gladly tell you about the 16,000W/m2 on venus that so interests you.








Wuwei said:


> Is the inside of a red hot hollow sphere black or red hot?



Do the experiment and let me know...keep in mind however, that if you use a camera to look inside, the camera must be the same temperature as the rest of the sphere.



Wuwei said:


> What quantum mechanical mechanism do you think prevents a photon from a colder object from hitting a warmer object?



No idea...what underlying mechanism causes a rock to fall when you drop it...gravity is far better understood than photons and yet, we have no real idea what mechanism is at work...the fact that one doesn't know the precise mechanism that causes rocks to fall doesn't alter the fact that rocks simply obey the laws of physics.

None of those are spontaneous processes...sorry you don't grasp what the term means..

All these have been answered before and this is the last time...in the future refer to any of the numerous times I have given the same answer.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To date...not the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs, while ever observation and measurement ever made supports my position....note that I have a position based on actual evidence while you hold a belief not based on anything other than unobservable, umeasureable, untestable models.
> ...



Of course you aren't...because there is none.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Resonance is a phenomenon that occurs when a vibrating system or external force drives another system to oscillate with greater amplitude at a specific preferential frequency. Frequencies at which the response amplitude is a relative maximum are known as the system's resonant frequencies, or resonance frequencies.


You ran away and hid from the question and substituted well know Micky Mouse physics as a non-answer.



SSDD said:


> Be glad to tell you all about that radiation as soon as you state in plain english what this particular equation says. Not your nutty version..not the dartmouth paper...not any other version....this particular version. State what it says in plain english and I will gladly tell you about the 16,000W/m2 on venus that so interests you.


That particular equation states that the power output from an object is emissivity times sigma times the area times the fourth power object temperature minus the fourth power of a colder background.
Now where does the 16,000W/m2 from Venus's surface go.



SSDD said:


> Do the experiment and let me know...keep in mind however, that if you use a camera to look inside, the camera must be the same temperature as the rest of the sphere.


Another run and hide from the question.



SSDD said:


> Do the experiment and let me know...keep in mind however, that if you use a camera to look inside, the camera must be the same temperature as the rest of the sphere.


So your brand of physics gives you another run and hide. I  can predict the inside temperature, but you can't.



SSDD said:


> None of those are spontaneous processes....


So you can't name any spontaneous process whatsoever. So if you think that no spontaneous process exists in nature, then all processes require work. Therefore your "physics" says all energy can flow without constraints as long as entropy is not violated.

Your physics isn't going very well.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 24, 2019)

Glad you finally admitted that the Stefan-Boltzman equation says nothing about two way energy exchange...nor does it provide any expression from which "net" may be derived.  Now...that wasn't so hard...was it?

So about Venus....Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas.   Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs.  Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.  

This happens in accord with the equation

H = PV=U

Where

H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure  (Pa)
V - Specific Volume  (m^3)
U = Specific internal energy  (kinetic energy)

Half of the very large mass of the atmosphere of Venus holds a VERY large amount of potential energy.....hence the 16,000W/m2 at the surface.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So about Venus....Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs. Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.
> 
> This happens in accord with the equation
> 
> ...



You didn't answer the question again. Enthalpy is used in the derivation of the lapse rate and has nothing to do with the question, What happens to the 16,000W/m2 radiation from the surface. It certainly doesn't all go to outer space. It must be absorbed by the atmosphere. Eh?

Are you going to run and hide again?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So about Venus....Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs. Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.
> ...



You got your answer....do the math.  Sorry you don't grasp the significance.

And if the sort of mental masturbation required to actually believe I would ever need to hide from the likes of you gets you though the night...masturbate on...it is the only way you keep coming back here anyway.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Glad you finally admitted that the Stefan-Boltzman equation says nothing about two way energy exchange...nor does it provide any expression from which "net" may be derived.  Now...that wasn't so hard...was it?
> 
> So about Venus....Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas.   Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs.  Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.
> 
> ...



*Glad you finally admitted that the Stefan-Boltzman equation says nothing about two way energy exchange...*

Still no luck finding anyone to back up your "one way only" photon theory. So lonely.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> You got your answer....do the math. Sorry you don't grasp the significance.
> 
> And if the sort of mental masturbation required to actually believe I would ever need to hide from the likes of you gets you though the night...masturbate on...it is the only way you keep coming back here anyway.


I got a non-answer. You didn't say what happens to the 16,000 W/m2 radiation from the surface of Venus like you promised. Just some of your usual non-sequitur. 

It's very becoming when you talk dirty.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

Sorry you don't understand...Like I said...find an adult to help you.


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2019)

Since you aren't one?  You've claimed repeatedly to be able to explain the atmospheric heating of all the planets.  Why have you resisted Wuwei's queries re Venus for so long?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

Sorry...guess 


Crick said:


> Since you aren't one?  You've claimed repeatedly to be able to explain the atmospheric heating of all the planets.  Why have you resisted Wuwei's queries re Venus for so long?




Guess you need to find an adult as well...of course that is a given...isn't it?

And the only reason I didn't post the information earlier....as I stated at least a dozen times...I would not provide the reason for the 16,000 W/m2 on venus till such time as he stated in plain english what the SB equation says...he finally did and I posted the information he wanted immediately.  What makes you so dishonest?


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2019)

You have NOT answered the question.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Of course I did....do the math...I provided the formula and you claim to be an engineer.  The fact that you don't like the answer is a non issue.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

You provided *a* formula.  It has no application to the question under discussion, but you don't care.  You think it provides the answer you want.  Your idea that compression will heat something forever reflects the understanding of a weak-minded child.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> You provided *a* formula.  It has no application to the question under discussion, but you don't care.  You think it provides the answer you want.  Your idea that compression will heat something forever reflects the understanding of a weak-minded child.



He pointed out that the surface of venus gets nothing like 16,000 W/m2 of energy and yet, the surface temperature suggests 16,000W/m2 of energy....What I provided explains the disparity between the energy that Venus receives from the sun and the apparent W/m2 required to produce the measured temperature.

Terribly sorry this is all so far over your head...Like I said..go find an adult to help explain it to you.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

Again, the idea that compression provides thermal energy on a continuing basis is ignorant nonsense.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You provided *a* formula.  It has no application to the question under discussion, but you don't care.  You think it provides the answer you want.  Your idea that compression will heat something forever reflects the understanding of a weak-minded child.
> ...



What you provided explains nothing about where the radiation goes. Just irrelevant smoke screen. 

Lets make it simple. The surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. Something that hot must radiate 16,000 W/m2. That radiation can't all go to space. Where does that radiation all go?

Yes we know the lapse rate can be computed and is equal to Grav Const / Specific heat. And it can be computed using enthalpy as part of the calculation.T*hat does not explain where the surface EM radiation goes*.  Your brand of alternate physics simply fails.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Wuwei said:


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



You got your answer...sorry it challenges what you believe...it does, however, explain the 16,000 W/m2...the greenhouse hypothesis misses by a mile...according to the greenhouse hypothesis, ever doubling of CO2 will cause the temperature to increase by about 3 degrees and change...18 doublings of CO2 would give you a similar concentration of CO2 here as on Venus...if each doubling raises the temperature by 3 degrees, how much would 18 doublings raise the temperature?  Is that number anything like the actual temperature on venus?  Anything at all?  There is the abject failure of your greenhouse hypothesis.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> That particular equation states that the power output from an object is emissivity times sigma times the area times the fourth power object temperature minus the fourth power of a colder background.





SSDD said:


> I would not provide the reason for the 16,000 W/m2 on venus till such time as he stated in plain english what the SB equation says...he finally did and I posted the information he wanted immediately. What makes you so dishonest?


You are the one who was dishonest.

The only reason I said a colder background is because you said you were calling Tc colder. But science recognizes that in the more general form, the background can be any temperature and the SB equation tells how fast an object gains or loses temperature depending on if the background temperature is higher or lower.

But you reneged on your promise to say where the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation goes. I understand perfectly why you changed the subject to the green house hypothesis. You simply can't answer where the 16,000 W/m² goes because you know it doesn't all go to outer space and you refuse to believe it becomes thermal kinetic energy in the lower atmosphere.

You are being dishonest to put it mildly. You simply can't answer the question without having your fake science make you look like a fool.

.


----------



## IanC (Jan 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The only reason I said a colder background is because you said you were calling Tc colder. But science recognizes that in the more general form, the background can be any temperature and the SB equation tells how fast an object gains or loses temperature depending on if the background temperature is higher or lower



The equation does not tell us the rate of warming or cooling. That is the problem, and why it is difficult to pin SSDD down on his claims.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> [
> The only reason I said a colder background is because you said you were calling Tc colder.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason I said a colder background is because you said you were calling Tc colder. But science recognizes that in the more general form, the background can be any temperature and the SB equation tells how fast an object gains or loses temperature depending on if the background temperature is higher or lower
> ...



I never said that it did...although that can be determined...just not via the SB law...but a basic assumption of the SB law is that the temperature of the background is lower than that of the radiator...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> but a basic assumption of the SB law is that the temperature of the background is lower than that of the radiator.


Nope. False. Fake science. Lie. Trolling. Whatever.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > but a basic assumption of the SB law is that the temperature of the background is lower than that of the radiator.
> ...




Sorry you are so uninformed...refer to the numerous other times you lost this point..


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

He has never lost this point.  You have; clearly and demonstrably.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No, you are a troll and a liar. There is absolutely no science text that agrees with you, and you know it. Read the last paragraph for the real science. Your fake science is inconsistent with the rest of physics.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2019)

Was reading some materials today on how the Aurora Borialis was affected during the LIA.

The thinning atmosphere lowers the threshold of atmosphere susceptible to electromagnetic interference to 70-75 deg longitude.  This makes the atmospheric event observable to 45th parallel.

Just one more correlation and hard physical observations to add into how our planet reacts to low solar output.

Auroral Evidence of Upcoming Mini or Little Ice Age?

"The auroral ring expands and contracts as the cold air dome expands and contracts. This means when the Aurora is seen closer to the Equator there is cold pervading the Northern hemisphere. This is the situation of the last several years. It is accentuated by the change of pattern in the Rossby Waves along the Polar Front from low to high amplitude Waves. It results in more extreme outbreaks of cold air pushing further toward the Equator and warm air penetrating further to the Pole as the cold air moves out of the way."


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



All bullshit all the time with you isn't it...oh so tedious..  By the way..


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> All bullshit all the time with you isn't it...oh so tedious.. By the way..


I didn't invent the SB equation and it's derivation. Why don't you blame your ennui on Stefan and Boltzman. Shout to the winds that S and B are full of bullshit. They are the ones giving you agonizing tedium. Write nasty letters to all major physics departments across the world. It will make you feel better and maybe relieve some of your tedium.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2019)

Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 10, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...



Of course I "noted" the final term. That's why I showed the derivation. What do you mean it says nothing about net? Look at the first term of equation 3. That defines net as the out-flow minus the in-flow of radiation. That is a normal usage of the word "net", as used in business finance, etc. The text also shows the meaning when T1 < T2. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Did you note that at the end of your equation...after the last equals sign, it says the same thing the equation I have been providing all along says...all you showed is the algebraic reduction to the equation I have been providing all along...which says nothing about net since there is nothing in that equation from which to derive net....same old tedious misunderstanding you have had since the beginning...
> ...



Simply saying net in front of an equation doesn't make it actually mean net...the ease with which you are fooled never ceases to give me a chuckle....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Still no back up for your "one-way flow only" claims.

Weird.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The middle two terms of the equation define net. So, yes, it actually does mean net.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 11, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence.  too fking funny. still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 11, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*as I've stated repeatedly, the mere lack of you providing the two way flow is the evidence.*






DURR.

*still waiting on that piece that shows a warm object getting warmer from a cold one.*

Why would it?
You're still really bad at the math, aren't you?

Try again?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Sorry guy...but in the end, the middle two terms were factored out.....they are meaningless...there is no net...but do feel free to provide observed, measured evidence of net energy exchange if you like...

No....never mind...you already lost that point over and over and over....refer to one of those past incarnations of this discussion...oh the tedium...


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

So, you never passed algebra, did you?  Or could you show us those terms being "factored out"?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...but in the end, the middle two terms were factored out.....they are meaningless...there is no net...but do feel free to provide observed, measured evidence of net energy exchange if you like...
> 
> No....never mind...you already lost that point over and over and over....refer to one of those past incarnations of this discussion...oh the tedium...



Again, the middle two terms show an emission minus an absorption that defines a net. The first term compiles the second and third terms. "Tedium" seems to be your argument when all else fails with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...but in the end, the middle two terms were factored out.....they are meaningless...there is no net...but do feel free to provide observed, measured evidence of net energy exchange if you like...
> ...



Yeah, but, salt....high blood pressure and stress......ulcers.


----------



## Crick (Mar 11, 2019)

Still waiting for SSDD to show us those two middle terms being factored out.


----------



## IanC (Mar 12, 2019)

SSDD took his position from the Slayer's handbook and has stonewalled ever since.

The funny part is that most of the extreme skeptics/deniers that he copied, have changed their stance since then.

SSDD is like the last Japanese soldier holding out on an unknown island.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2019)

IanC said:


> SSDD took his position from the Slayer's handbook and has stonewalled ever since.
> 
> The funny part is that most of the extreme skeptics/deniers that he copied, have changed their stance since then.
> 
> SSDD is like the last Japanese soldier holding out on an unknown island.




Still waiting on that observed, measured evidence that supports your models...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> So, you never passed algebra, did you?  Or could you show us those terms being "factored out"?


\
Here is a kids site that you might understand on factoring....

Factoring in Algebra

The final expression of that equation is what I have been saying all along...there is no expression there for calculating net...

engineer my shiny metal ass...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, you never passed algebra, did you?  Or could you show us those terms being "factored out"?
> ...



Still no one agrees with your solo misinterpretation.

Weird.


----------



## Crick (Mar 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, you never passed algebra, did you?  Or could you show us those terms being "factored out"?
> ...



Show us how you factored out the middle term, as you claimed asshole.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The final expression of that equation is what I have been saying all along...there is no expression there for calculating net...



That is not true at all. The SB equation you have been saying all along always had the expression,
 .... (T⁴ – Tc⁴) where you specified the second term was always colder. 

The textbook equation we are now referring to has the form
 .... (T₁⁴ – T₂⁴) where T₁ and T₂ can be any temperatures.

.


----------



## IanC (Mar 13, 2019)

The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment

Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.

An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object.  It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat.  This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 13, 2019)

IanC said:


> The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment
> 
> Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.
> 
> An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object.  It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat.  This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”



I stopped reading past the second paragraph after I saw things like this:
_steel greenhouse advocates literally believe that 5 = 1 conserves energy_​
The author goes on about this in that paragraph. I am missing some context because I assume that is a metaphor of some sort, but it came out of the blue and I don't know what it refers to.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The final expression of that equation is what I have been saying all along...there is no expression there for calculating net...
> ...



The second term is always colder...it is a fundamental assumption of the SB law...been over this over and over with you...that fact invalidates any equation in which the second term may be warmer...the tedium...it hurts...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

IanC said:


> The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment
> 
> Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.
> 
> An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object.  It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat.  This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”



I have no scientist heroes...and rarely agree wholeheartedly with any scientist.....you tend to make up arguments also to rail against....very tedious...


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

I think the point, Shit, was that Eschenbach and the other people discussing this make no suggestion that photons have any difficulty traveling from cold to warm and discuss net heat transfer as easily as if they believed it to be a real physical phenomenon.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The second term is always colder...it is a fundamental assumption of the SB law...been over this over and over with you...that fact invalidates any equation in which the second term may be warmer...the tedium...it hurts...


You know what the science is. We showed you the derivation of the SB law dozens of times. The bottom line is that you are totally wrong and you know it. 

If it is so tedious for you why do you keep bringing it up? Why do you keep wallowing in science ineptitude? Do you long for the attention of others that know more than you to the extent that you are willing to demean yourself? That is why people here keep referring to you as a troll.

.


----------



## IanC (Mar 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment
> ...



Sorry,  I didn't mean to distract you from dunning SSDD.

Carry on then.


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

I went looking for this thinking it was a denier meme but the only other reference I found was a Willis Eschenbach fantasy.  Did he originate it?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 14, 2019)

IanC said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to distract you from dunning SSDD.
> 
> Carry on then.


Really, I need a distraction. But can you tell me what the "5 = 1" paragraph means. 

The rest of the post looks like it was written better, but I only skimmed it.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


where's the experiment?  that's all made up shit.  I understand you don't know the difference between observed and hypothesis, but none of that is proven.  so technically you didn't prove anything.  just saying bub.

I'm waiting for the observed two way flow.  please please please post it up!! I'm growing tired of waiting.

Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*where's the experiment? that's all made up shit.  *

The Handbook of Modern Sensors printed "made up shit"?

By all means, post some of the hundreds of sources that agree with SSDD's moronic one-way only "theory".

*Still waiting on the coffee to get hotter in the refrigerator.*

Well, you're an idiot, so of course you are.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 14, 2019)

IanC said:


> The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment
> 
> Here is an article by one of SSDDs heroes. Wuwei, here is a good opportunity to pick out the flaws. Post up a handful and we'll see if our thoughts coincide.
> 
> An interesting quote- Thermal equilibrium is defined or established when the heat flow between two objects reduces to zero, and the heat flow between two objects is defined as the net difference of the power emitted by either object.  It is important to note here that heat is defined only as the net of the difference between the power emissions, and that therefore either power emission by itself is generally not heat.  This goes to the quote from Schroeder in “Thermal Physics” (Addison Wesley Longman, 2000) that: “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.”



I read the article and have a few comments. The writing is agonizingly verbose and awkward.

Equation 3b) is wrong. The background temperature for the sphere's radiation should not be To. It should be Tsh. Because the shell is the surround to the sphere, not the exterior background To.

Equations 4b) to 5b) cascades that error.

Equations 3 and 4 are identical. What's the point of all that verbiage. Very awkward.

Ironically his equation 3b') is a tautology and says nothing about the sphere or shell equilibrium temperature.

In this sentence the author doesn't understand that the shell is a sort of intermediary and floats to an equilibrium somewhere between Tsh and To.

_To raise the sphere’s temperature from emission from the shell would require positive heat flow from the shell to the sphere, but this is never possible because at most the shell emits the same power as the sphere._​
He doesn't understand that the shell isn't raising any temperature, but is shielding heat output from the sphere. The shell will come to a higher temperature equilibrium.

_To raise an object’s temperature requires either work performed on it or heat transferred into it._​
That is the same problem the sock puppet skeptics have.

Edit: He assumes an input power to the sphere, Psp. That is a constant and an important part of the system, but it disappears in the rest of his development.

What did you think of the article?

.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


You got observed? Otherwise made up shit .

No, post the one that proves yours!

You’re still a fail!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> I think the point, Shit, was that Eschenbach and the other people discussing this make no suggestion that photons have any difficulty traveling from cold to warm and discuss net heat transfer as easily as if they believed it to be a real physical phenomenon.



And they don't produce any actual evidence that they do either....imagine that...and they didn't manage to get the second law rewritten either did they...it still states that energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You know what the science is. We showed you the derivation of the SB law dozens of times. The bottom line is that you are totally wrong and you know it.



Sorry guy..it is you who is wrong but you cleary aren't bright enough to know it...such is the extent to which you have been duped..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2019)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Laughable...absolutely laughable...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*You got observed?*

Besides all the ones I previously posted that you ignored?

*No, post the one that proves yours!*






The Handbook of Modern Sensors isn't good enough?
Do you have any that refute this source of SSDD's?


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I think the point, Shit, was that Eschenbach and the other people discussing this make no suggestion that photons have any difficulty traveling from cold to warm and discuss net heat transfer as easily as if they believed it to be a real physical phenomenon.
> ...



The instant they use the term "net", they ARE saying that it moves in both directions.

And you have yet to even attempt to address the violations of conservation of energy and special relativity.  How does matter avoid radiating towards a hotter object moving with respect to the source?  Do you believe matter somehow does the calculation and leads the target?

and that last is a yes or no question that I am quite certain you will not answer.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You know what the science is. We showed you the derivation of the SB law dozens of times. The bottom line is that you are totally wrong and you know it.
> ...



You never learn do you. All scientists know what the SB equation is, and it isn't what you think it is, yet you are calling all physicists clearly not bright enough to know they are wrong. And all the scientists are duped to boot. You are trying to make it personal, but it's not working.

On the other hand if I would call you a troll, or a sad hapless fellow, that would be personal because only you and your sock puppets are so ignorant of science that you reinvent and BS your way through it until you miserably fail. 

Contradiction is arguable, but self-contradiction is abject failure.  

.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


None observed no! Remains no


----------



## Crick (Mar 14, 2019)

I think you missed the point.  SSDD's own reference source refutes his claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*None observed no!*

The authors of The Handbook of Modern Sensors show two way flow and mention "net thermal flux", 
but they're wrong and SSDD, with no backup, is right? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


good for them  all they have to do is record it and post the experiment.  One another can confirm.  That's science right?  so still no observed verified two way flow.  just isn't.  you can't post any.


----------



## IanC (Mar 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The Steel Greenhouse in an Ambient-Temperature Environment
> ...



To be honest, I don't know where the 5:1 number came from. I expect it is an extrapolation from the diagram used to illustrate the planet within a shell concept. Willis made it clear that the planet was large and the shell was close, therefore the surface areas of each were very close to equal. 

Another odd assumption made by Postma is that the radioactive material providing the power source is dispersed within the planet so that all locations are the same temperature. I doubt that this is even possible. What Postma is trying to do is imply that the temperature radiating 235w is the warmest that can be found, therefore the maximum temperature. 

There is also the implications of Q, the amount of energy available to heat the cooler of two objects. SSDD and I worked this one over years ago until he couldn't defend his side meaningfully and he simply ŕfused to discuss it anymore. The entropy of two different sets of objects both transferring the same nominal amount of Q can be significant. 

Postma and his brethren also denied the 'net' version of SB before. I don't know when he changed over. As you may have noticed, he is calculating the surface temperature using the ambient temperature even thought there is no actual contact with the environment, only the shell.

Sorry, got to go.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*good for them all they have to do is record it and post the experiment.  *

You should definitely contact them and tell them they need to prove that sensors 
work the way they claimed.

Be sure to post their response.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


> good for them  all they have to do is record it and post the experiment.  One another can confirm.  That's science right?  so still no observed verified two way flow.  just isn't.  you can't post any.



JC, have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor?  It's a bit of guidance by a fellow named William of Ockham, way back when, that says - more or less -  if you have two explanations for the same observation, the one that requires you make up the least number of new rules is the likeliest to be correct.

Let's set up a simple experiment.  We take two identical slaps of iron.  We use boiling water to heat one to precisely 100C.  We leave the other out in a shaded spot so it is at ambient temperature, say 25C.  Now we place them right next to each other with one centimeter separating them and monitor their temperatures over the next hour, writing all those temperatures and times down.

Now we repeat the experiment except while we heat one back up to 100C, we cool the other to 0C with a big pile of ice.  When they've both stabilized, we set them next to each other again with one centimeter separation.  Again we spend the next hour recording their temperatures.

I think we know what we will find.  The second experiment will show the hot block cooling faster and the cold block warming faster.  Tell me if you disagree.

Now, in light of the ongoing conversation on this board, we have two possible explanations:

1) Per Planck's Law, both blocks are constantly radiating photons at a frequency and intensity proportional to their absolute temperatures and their temperature trends are simply the results of the net energy flux between them: ie, the radiation going one way minus the radiation going the other way.

2) The hot block is able, by some unknown mechanism to tell the temperature of the cold block and and in a clear violation of Planck's Law, throttle its emissions so that they are NOT proportional to its own absolute temperature but to that of the colder, target block.  The cold block is able, by some unknown mechanism, to also measure the temperature of the hotter block and, in clear violation of Planck's Law, completely stop its emissions, in both experiments, because the other block is warmer.

So, one answer says that both blocks are doing the same thing all the time, in accord with a number of fundamental laws of physics and exactly produces the observed temperature changes.  The other answer requires that the blocks be able to tell the temperature of a separate object and throttle its radiative emissions in inverse proportion to the temperature of the target AND only in the direction of the target (the other side of the hot block would be radiating normally).  Besides violating Planck's Law that say all matter constantly radiates, this solution would have to deal with targets that are far away and moving with respect to the hot block.

Which of these would William of Ockham tell you to accept?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > good for them  all they have to do is record it and post the experiment.  One another can confirm.  That's science right?  so still no observed verified two way flow.  just isn't.  you can't post any.
> ...


Technically and scientifically set your benchmark and  you first need to know how each item changes temperature as standalone.  Then run your tests and compare to the rate of change to the standalone readings. Otherwise your tests prove nothing.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > good for them  all they have to do is record it and post the experiment.  One another can confirm.  That's science right?  so still no observed verified two way flow.  just isn't.  you can't post any.
> ...





jc456 said:


> Technically and scientifically set your benchmark



I know what all those words mean but given the way you have arranged them, I haven't the faintest idea what you're trying to communicate.  However, the purpose of this was not to conduct a quantitative experiment.  This was simply a thought experiment whose purpose was to demonstrate an application of Ockham's Razor on the contention that cold won't radiate towards warm.



jc456 said:


> and you first need to know how each item changes temperature as standalone.



You mean how each changes sitting by itself in the ambient conditions under which the experiment is run, yes?

 Why?

If each run of the experiment is done under the same ambient conditions and the only thing that changes is the temperature of the colder block, why can't the temperature's rates of change in the two experiments be compared?  What use will you make of the cooling rates measured on solo blocks under ambient temperature?



jc456 said:


> Then run your tests and compare to the rate of change to the standalone readings.



Why?  I have no interest in the change vs standalone.  I am interested in the change caused by altering the temperature difference between the two blocks. I opted to simplify things by only changing the temperature of one of them.



jc456 said:


> Otherwise your tests prove nothing.



I'm sorry JC but that is just not true.   So, I ask you again.  We find that the rates of change of the block's temperatures are dependent on the temperature difference between the two and we have two different explanations for why that might be: SSDD's and everyone else's.  Which of those two would Ockham say is more likely to be true.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


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


I don’t do thought experiments not well thought out.

I already know something cold in a warm room will get warm down to the room temperature.  I also know something hot will cool off to room temperature.  Put the two together, hot next to cold, nothing changes. The warm object will cool and the cold object will warm.  Now, what else do you think will happen?

Oh, with the hot object nect to the cold object, the cold object will warm faster. The warm object will cool at the same rate as it had alone.


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

I could take another interpretation but I won't.  If you want anyone to deal with you in an objective manner, you need to bring a little more effort to the table.  Presently, you are accepting the word of someone you ought to reject.  I am trying to show you why.  Use your OWN reasoning on the facts being presented to you and stop picking sides based on personalities.  SSDD is not your friend.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> I could take another interpretation but I won't.  If you want anyone to deal with you in an objective manner, you need to bring a little more effort to the table.  Presently, you are accepting the word of someone you ought to reject.  I am trying to show you why.  Use your OWN reasoning on the facts being presented to you and stop picking sides based on personalities.  SSDD is not your friend.


Who you talking to?


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

You.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> The instant they use the term "net", they ARE saying that it moves in both directions.



The second law of thermodynamics says nothing about net...any mention of net is an opinion not supported by anything like observation or measurement in the real world.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> I think you missed the point.  SSDD's own reference source refutes his claim.



Only the twisted version that resides in your stupid little brain..


----------



## Crick (Mar 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> I could take another interpretation but I won't.  If you want anyone to deal with you in an objective manner, you need to bring a little more effort to the table.  Presently, you are accepting the word of someone you ought to reject.  I am trying to show you why.  Use your OWN reasoning on the facts being presented to you and stop picking sides based on personalities.  SSDD is not your friend.




So, JC, any comment?  I'm not asking you which explanation YOU believe to be correct, I am only asking you which do you think William of Ockham would believe most likely to be correct.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The second law of thermodynamics says nothing about net...any mention of net is an opinion not supported by anything like observation or measurement in the real world.


Why do you bring up your opinions that defy all science observations and measurements when you think it's so tedious. We have given you many examples where EM energy from cold sources can hit any objects. Your objections to those observations lead you to self contradiction and a tedious repetition of falsehood. 

.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2019)

Europe is in for a big surprise this winter.  Pattern shifts are going to cool things off substantially and the MET office has missed their predictions again.


----------



## justoffal (Jun 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Europe is in for a big surprise this winter.  Pattern shifts are going to cool things off substantially and the MET office has missed their predictions again.



Gonna need Daddy Putin's pipe line!  
Maybe they should stop pissing him off.

Jo


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 29, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Europe is in for a big surprise this winter.  Pattern shifts are going to cool things off substantially and the MET office has missed their predictions again.
> ...


The weather patter change is global...  And just as I predicted in the first few posts of this thread, as the mid latitudes cooled, once thermal equilibrium was almost reached, the polar jets would pull back and the cooling would set in in earnest.

Surprising Summer Chill Baffles Global Warming Alarmists

Its begun and its in both hemispheres..


----------



## justoffal (Jun 29, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That makes perfect sense when you consider the Dynamics of heat transfer.
The motion of the fluid is always directly related to the total temperature differential.
The temperature differential becomes the driver and in effect when you remove or decrease the differential motion slows down considerably or even stops.

If this is the case then it follows that within the next decade or so we should see a rapid increase of polar ice both North and South.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 29, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...


Correct...

And this basic physics concept is lost on every alarmist I know. This also means there will be some eddies (small areas of high pressure) that will remain and cause higher than normal temps in small regions. Exactly what we see today in Paris and other small regions of Europe. As I was watching the news today I noticed they were pin pointing these small regions as the "Hottest the earth has ever seen" and I just shook my head that they would lie like this knowing the MEWP and the RWP were both significantly warmer. They are truly desperate to get control of people.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Turns out that the hottest day eval measured in paris came from a thermometer next to a concrete drain and a steel fence next to an asphalt highway......they really know how to place those stations to get the most pristine temperatures...the surface record is so completely screwed up as to be completely worthless..the only value it has is to support the alarmist narrative.  The only temperature gathering network on earth in which every station is properly placed shows no warming and it hasn't for more than a decade.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...



Thank You, I hadn't had the time to go research the hot spot to see what factors were affecting it. This would get engine heat and if the conditions were right, a small eddie could encapsulate heat in this location. Given the traffic congestion, asphalt, concrete, etc it would not surprise me that the temp was 2-3 deg C higher than actual surroundings.  Another epic fail by alarmists who thought we wouldn't check it out..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 29, 2019)

Time to update the thread...

The polar regions are now enlarging due to the loss of heat in earths oceans.  The air drag across the poles is now waning and rapid cooling is now the order of the day. This will push major storms farther south and the cooler atmosphere will increase the evaporation above earths oceans. 

This winter is going to be a wild ride for the Northern Hemisphere.. Buckle up Boys, I hope you brought your long johns...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 29, 2019)

^^^^
Kook babbling. As usually, what Billy claims is the exact opposite of reality.

Check this link. Note how the Arctic ocean temperature anomaly is way high over most of the Arctic. Arctic air temp anomaly is way high. It's very warm up there, which accounts for the 2nd lowest sea ice minimum.

Climate Reanalyzer

Climate Reanalyzer


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2019)

mamooth said:


> ^^^^
> Kook babbling. As usually, what Billy claims is the exact opposite of reality.
> 
> Check this link. Note how the Arctic ocean temperature anomaly is way high over most of the Arctic. Arctic air temp anomaly is way high. It's very warm up there, which accounts for the 2nd lowest sea ice minimum.
> ...



Projecting again hairball....all anyone needs to do is listen to what you blame others of in order to know what the left is up to.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^
> ...



The hairball is unaware that ocean surface temps are well below freezing and below average.  He is using the University Of Maine's Climate Re-analyzer (a computer program-model designed to add temperatures where they do not exist and is notoriously flawed as no reputable scientist will even use it for anything).

The very low ambient air temps are sucking the heat from the oceans so quickly that they are freezing to a depth of over 7 feet in as little as two weeks.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 18, 2022)

One more update on our paradoxical earth... 

La Niña is taking a third deep dip.  Ocean temps to 700 feet are cooling rapidly.  Polar jets remain strong due to the upper atmosphere cooling, causing wide swinging paths into the mid latitudes.  A third dip means things will get very cold this fall in the northern hemisphere.

This will also make our hurricane season less severe due to mid atmospheric wind shear and lack of energy from the ocean surfaces.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 19, 2022)

Thread summary:

Billy has been humiliating himself here for many years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 19, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.
> 
> As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.
> 
> ...



LOL Denier Boy!

Our AGW Consensus Mongers have already said the Sun has no impact whatsoever on something as complex as Earth's climate; it's all CO2. CO2  molecules the turtles supporting Earth in space

/sarcasm


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 19, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> Billy has been humiliating himself here for many years.



Oh the IRONY!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2022)

Yannow, even if the temperature difference between 100% CO2 was 200F, at 120PPM that would only yield .02F of "excess heat" No wonder, they never want to show us any experiments!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 20, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yannow, even if the temperature difference between 100% CO2 was 200F, at 120PPM that would only yield .02F of "excess heat" No wonder, they never want to show us any experiments!


Ya think?  LOL  

That is why there can never be a "runaway" earth..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2022)

Time to update the thread once again...

A new post on Jonova cites a new paper (Hat Tip- Sunsettommy) that describes this theory in detail.
Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis: New support for the effect of solar activity on lower atmospheric circulation | Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)

This graph from that paper by *Svetlana Veretenenko* goes into great details on the energy flow process and how it is affected by solar output:




This energy flow diagram identifies the solar input changes and how everything reacts to that change due to the change in THERMAL GRADIENT.

In a warming world the polar jets will become tightly constrained and cold will be tightly kept locally until the warming and the heat retention of the atmosphere above the poles eventually warms it. Were nowhere near this eventuality. Paradoxical presentation of a cold and constrained arctic in a warming world.

In our currently cooling world, the wide and powerful polar jets cool the mid-latitudes while the heat is released above the pole from the reduced mass of the atmosphere and the heat being widely spread out, high in the reduced atmosphere. Again, a paradoxical presentation of a warming arctic in a cooling world.


In both a cooling world and a warming world, when we reach near equilibrium the polar jet will expand to it median path or retract to its median path. Right now, were nowhere near the median path.


None of these processes fit in many people's minds because they do not know how the system works or why. Were just getting a good scratch on the surface. This is a very simplified explanation but one that is desperately needed to teach people that any man caused warming is extremely exaggerated.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2022)

More and more scientists are now seeing they have missed the boat entirely in the CAGW theory.  The dam has collapsed under its own weight of pseudoscience and political driven BS.  More and more on what we saw back in 2017 is being proven out in current research.


----------



## Crick (Oct 22, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> More and more scientists are now seeing they have missed the boat entirely in the CAGW theory.  The dam has collapsed under its own weight of pseudoscience and political driven BS.  More and more on what we saw back in 2017 is being proven out in current research.


Where and how are these scientists letting you know this Billy Boy?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2022)

Crick said:


> Where and how are these scientists letting you know this Billy Boy?


LOL... If you were a scientist and active in real scientific circles you would know.  As you are not, it is very likely you just want to bloviate your ignorance. 

Back to topic, which is not me.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2022)

Any action that slows energy out will cause warming and any action that slows energy in will cause cooling.

The earth's atmosphere thinning above the equator will allow more energy to reach the surface, The increasing atmosphere above the poles will reduce the flow of outgoing energy. Basic physics.

Conversely, low solar output allows the atmosphere to be flung out at the equator causing less heat to be taken up by the surface.  The atmosphere above the pole thins, make energy out increase.  Again, basic physics.

Now we have the transport systems response to that change in thermal gradient.

The new paper shows why man's influence is not having the affect they said it has in the CAGW hypothesis. The days of the CAGW theory remaining even remotely valid are gone.

This paper shows the Climate sensitivity number to be less than a 1 to 1 relationship.  Empirical evidence shows we are at a 0.6-0.8 to 1.0 deg C number.  I believe we are now nearing the truth about our climate relationship in CO2 vs our atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Oct 22, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL... If you were a scientist and active in real scientific circles you would know.  As you are not, it is very likely you just want to bloviate your ignorance.
> 
> Back to topic, which is not me.


Well, I didn't realize it was a requirement to be an active scientist to participate here.  That must be a new rule.  And you know what I'd say to such an assertion coming from you, so I won't bother.  But, let's try this again.  Where would I, a humble layman, go to hear about all these scientists changing their mind about AGW?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2022)

Crick said:


> Well, I didn't realize it was a requirement to be an active scientist to participate here.  That must be a new rule.  And you know what I'd say to such an assertion coming from you, so I won't bother.  But, let's try this again.  Where would I, a humble layman, go to hear about all these scientists changing their mind about AGW?


   

I just anticipated the bloviation that was to come.  Again, this is about the science, not any one person.  This particular paper is being talked about on Judith Curry's site and on JoNova..


----------



## mamooth (Oct 22, 2022)

If these scientists are so good, why do all of their predictions fail so completely every time? You know, just like all of Billy's predictions. 

How that's imminent strong cooling doing these days, Billy? You know, what you've been predicting nonstop for the past 10 years.


----------



## Crick (Oct 22, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> I just anticipated the bloviation that was to come.  Again, this is about the science, not any one person.  This particular paper is being talked about on Judith Curry's site and on JoNova..


I wasn't asking about the paper on Curry's site.  I was asking about your comment "More and more scientists are now seeing they have missed the boat entirely in the CAGW theory.".  Where have you learned that this is the case?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 23, 2022)

mamooth said:


> If these scientists are so good, why do all of their predictions fail so completely every time? You know, just like all of Billy's predictions.
> 
> How that's imminent strong cooling doing these days, Billy? You know, what you've been predicting nonstop for the past 10 years.


LOL.. No.  Failure is the alarmist's thing.  Their models fail without exception and this new paper show why.  Do the math.  It's all right there in black and white.


Crick said:


> I wasn't asking about the paper on Curry's site.  I was asking about your comment "More and more scientists are now seeing they have missed the boat entirely in the CAGW theory.".  Where have you learned that this is the case?


Please read the Paper.. The links to it have been provided. We're talking about the science not me.


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> We're talking about the science not me.



I'm asking about this comment of YOURS: "More and more scientists are now seeing they have missed the boat entirely in the CAGW theory."

What sources have given you this impression Billy Boy?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 23, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL.. No.  Failure is the alarmist's thing.  Their models fail without exception and this new paper show why.



Yes, yes, all the deniers are talking about how glorious and splendid the emperor's new clothes are.

It's just mathturbation. She looked at the data, and created a convulated mess of equations so that the input would result in something like the output.

Trouble is, no matter what any output is, you can always create some equations to get you that result. That's why scientists warn against mathturbation. It's too easy to fool yourself into thinking that curve fitting will explain everything.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Yes, yes, all the deniers are talking about how glorious and splendid the emperor's new clothes are.
> 
> It's just mathturbation. She looked at the data, and created a convulated mess of equations so that the input would result in something like the output.
> 
> Trouble is, no matter what any output is, you can always create some equations to get you that result. That's why scientists warn against mathturbation. It's too easy to fool yourself into thinking that curve fitting will explain everything.


Poor snaggletooth... Are your panties in a wad?  Please show where her math is inaccurate. I'll wait


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> I'm asking about this comment of YOURS: "More and more scientists are now seeing they have missed the boat entirely in the CAGW theory."
> 
> What sources have given you this impression Billy Boy?


You know, Billy Boy, the reason I ask this question and the reason you refuse to answer it is because if you're willing to post your fantasy as if it were fact, everything you tell us is put in doubt.  You know?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Poor snaggletooth... Are your panties in a wad?  Please show where her math is inaccurate. I'll wait


I see no response from cat lady


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I see no response from cat lady


Are you going to discuss Svetlana's Veretenenko's 2022 study on the impact of solar variability on poleward energy transport with him?  How about the PNAS article on the odd linearity of outgoing LW intensity vs latitude?  Or even the heart of the matter, Javier Vinos' Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (and tell me you don't hear Captain America and Bucky in there)?


----------



## BackAgain (Oct 24, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted.
> 
> As I watch many claim global warming for the current weather events, it appears it is time for some sanity and a reality check. The earth has always been a paradoxical presentation and its high time people were taught that what they see is in far to short a time span for any realistic determination to be made about what our climate is doing.
> 
> ...


Snowfall in unexpected regions is a paradoxical effect of AGW.  

SO, if it’s expected, it’s because of AGW. 

BUT, if it is unexpected, then it’s paradoxically caused by AGW. 

SURELY, a thing must be either expected or unexpected. Therefore whatever it is, it is caused by AGW.


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Snowfall in unexpected regions is a paradoxical effect of AGW.
> 
> SO, if it’s expected, it’s because of AGW.
> 
> ...


What if you're completely ambivalent about it?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> Are you going to discuss Svetlana's Veretenenko's 2022 study on the impact of solar variability on poleward energy transport with him?  How about the PNAS article on the odd linearity of outgoing LW intensity vs latitude?  Or even the heart of the matter, Javier Vinos' Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (and tell me you don't hear Captain America and Bucky in there)?


Why? It wasn’t my discussion, I was looking for her response to Billie. Haven’t seen it


----------



## BackAgain (Oct 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> What if you're completely ambivalent about it?


Blame AGW.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Snowfall in unexpected regions is a paradoxical effect of AGW.
> 
> SO, if it’s expected, it’s because of AGW.
> 
> ...


LOL...

No.

The paradox is in the Arctic and Antarctic.  At issue are the intensity and direction of the waves coupled with size of the polar lows.  It is this coupling, that cools the mid troposphere but warms the surface, as it pulls energy from the mid latitudes.  A cooling world with a paradoxical warming of the surface which the AGW faithful claim is man caused.  It has no human cause. The forcing change is due to solar input decreasing.


----------



## BackAgain (Oct 24, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL...
> 
> No.
> 
> The paradox is in the Arctic and Antarctic.  At issue are the intensity and direction of the waves coupled with size of the polar lows.  It is this coupling, that cools the mid troposphere but warms the surface, as it pulls energy from the mid latitudes.  A cooling world with a paradoxical warming of the surface which the AGW faithful claim is man caused.  It has no human cause. The forcing change is due to solar input decreasing.


Well, that would shoot my theory all the way to hell.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> Are you going to discuss Svetlana's Veretenenko's 2022 study on the impact of solar variability on poleward energy transport with him?  How about the PNAS article on the odd linearity of outgoing LW intensity vs latitude?  Or even the heart of the matter, Javier Vinos' Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (and tell me you don't hear Captain America and Bucky in there)?


And you choose to look away and demean... DO I have your idiocy pegged or what... YOU DO NOT like what the science implies so you demean the person rather than discuss the science. Vinos paper is quite accurate and is bearing out empirical reviews of his hypothesis.  Your AGW crap not so much.

What do you think of this linear, energy transport, route change? The shrinking of the atmosphere above the poles and due to that thinning, the energy loss increases and speed of that loss?  Empirical evidence removes CO2 and man from the cause of anything globally here.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 24, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Why? It wasn’t my discussion, I was looking for her response to Billie. Haven’t seen it


If you're going to lie, try not to be so stupid about it. I addressed the topic. You're running from it.

Also, I see the usual Republican gender-confusion.

Now, do you have anything to contribute to the topic, besides the personal attacks, red-herrings and deflections?

If you thought the paper was so great, tell us what you thought was great about it. You know, discuss the paper. Like I did.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 24, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The shrinking of the atmosphere above the poles


The "shrinkage of the atmosphere above the poles" is a _result_ of global-warming caused stratospheric cooling. It's not a cause of anything. It's a result.

We know the solar wind does squat in shaping the atmosphere. It just doesn't have enough mass. That leaves your theory without a real cause for why the atmosphere is changed shape (very, very slightly). AGW theory, of course, explains it well.

But let's humor you. Solar strength is on the uptick now. According to what you said in post #1, that should be making the polar atmosphere _thicker_. Yet you say it's getting thinner.

Dang, you even contradict your own theory.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2022)

mamooth said:


> If you're going to lie, try not to be so stupid about it. I addressed the topic. You're running from it.
> 
> Also, I see the usual Republican gender-confusion.
> 
> ...


Hey skirt wiener, go to the post I responded to! You’re welcome


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> And you choose to look away and demean... DO I have your idiocy pegged or what... YOU DO NOT like what the science implies so you demean the person rather than discuss the science. Vinos paper is quite accurate and is bearing out empirical reviews of his hypothesis.  Your AGW crap not so much.
> 
> What do you think of this linear, energy transport, route change? The shrinking of the atmosphere above the poles and due to that thinning, the energy loss increases and speed of that loss?  Empirical evidence removes CO2 and man from the cause of anything globally here.



I think Vinos' suggestions is the route change.  Keep in mind the dimensions and configuration of the Earth's atmosphere.  It is 100 miles thick.  From the equator to the poles is 60 times that distance.  And now consider what is driving radiative transfer.  The average temperature of the Earth's surface is 14C (287K).  From a radiative perspective, the temperature at the end of that 100 vertical miles of continuously rarifying air is -271C (2K).  The temperature differential taking Vinos' poleward route is significantly slower, particularly considering the photon's mean free path in the atmosphere.  The temperature drop going north is going to require over 6,000, uniformly dense miles to drop from an average equatorial temp of 27C (300K) to an average annual polar temp of -20C (253K) in the North and -44C (229K) in the South.

So: 
Going straight up to space is driven by a 285 Kelvin degree differential across 100 miles of air
Going poleward is driven by a 59 Kelvin degree average differential across 6,000 miles of air
Which path do you think most energy is going to take?   

To what empirical evidence do you refer that "removes CO2 and man from the cause of anything globally here"?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> I think Vinos' suggestions is the route change.  Keep in mind the dimensions and configuration of the Earth's atmosphere.  It is 100 miles thick.  From the equator to the poles is 60 times that distance.  And now consider what is driving radiative transfer.  The average temperature of the Earth's surface is 14C (287K).  From a radiative perspective, the temperature at the end of that 100 vertical miles of continuously rarifying air is -271C (2K).  The temperature differential taking Vinos' poleward route is significantly slower, particularly considering the photon's mean free path in the atmosphere.  The temperature drop going north is going to require over 6,000, uniformly dense miles to drop from an average equatorial temp of 27C (300K) to an average annual polar temp of -20C (253K) in the North and -44C (229K) in the South.
> 
> So:
> Going straight up to space is driven by a 285 Kelvin degree differential across 100 miles of air
> ...


You keep missing the elephant in the room.  LWIR is radiated above cloud top in the second path so the energy loss will increase.  The distance it must travel makes retention impossible and the reason the mid troposphere cools.  You miss the very basic physical processes that make CO2 irrelevant.


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> You keep missing the elephant in the room.  LWIR is radiated above cloud top in the second path so the energy loss will increase.


LW doesn't escape the atmosphere anywhere till it get up to the upper stratosphere due to the complete lack of water vapor and reduced air density.  The vertical path to space may be shorter at the poles but if it has to laterally penetrate 3,000 miles of air to get there, it's not going to be the favored path.


Billy_Bob said:


> The distance it must travel makes retention impossible and the reason the mid troposphere cools.


You frequently write sentences that make me think you are intentionally trying to be difficult to understand because you really don't know what you're saying but want to make your reader think its their shortcoming.  

How does WHAT distance make IR (I assume) impossible to retain?



Billy_Bob said:


> You miss the very basic physical processes that make CO2 irrelevant.


Then perhaps you could spell them out for us.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2022)

About 20 years ago Eskimos were noting that the windrows of snow had changed position in both the Arctic and Antarctic. This dynamic is when the shift in the transport system got moving across the poles. This is when the Rosby waves began to be driven by cooling and the polar vortices.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> LW doesn't escape the atmosphere anywhere till it get up to the upper stratosphere due to the complete lack of water vapor and reduced air density.  The vertical path to space may be shorter at the poles but if it has to laterally penetrate 3,000 miles of air to get there, it's not going to be the favored path.
> 
> You frequently write sentences that make me think you are intentionally trying to be difficult to understand because you really don't know what you're saying but want to make your reader think its their shortcoming.
> 
> ...


I think Javier's response tells the tale:

"For the time being climate change is only considered in radiative terms, not only by the entire IPCC orthodoxy, but also by most of the scientific skeptic community. That climate can change due to dynamical changes in the ocean-atmosphere coupled circulation is only being considered by a few that have taught themselves outside the dogma, like me, and are capable to see it in the evidence."

You folks are stuck on stupid and can't figure out why everything you do doesn't work.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

You're not bothered by "taught themselves outside the dogma" or the extreme measures Vinos has to take to demonstrate correlation between solar activity and poleward transport?  Where are the data demonstrating that "dynamical changes in the ocean-atmosphere circulation" cause climate change?  And, for that matter, where are the empirical observations I asked you to identify after you claimed they showed that neither CO2 nor man had any involvement in global warming?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> You're not bothered by "taught themselves outside the dogma" or the extreme measures Vinos has to take to demonstrate correlation between solar activity and poleward transport?  Where are the data demonstrating that "dynamical changes in the ocean-atmosphere circulation" cause climate change?  And, for that matter, where are the empirical observations I asked you to identify after you claimed they showed that neither CO2 nor man had any involvement in global warming?


You still don't get it.  SCIENCE IS BEING SKEPTICAL AND LOOKING FOR OTHER SOLOUTIONS.
Feynman stated: "If your hypothesis cannot be replicated and verified by empirical observation, its wrong." You keep trying to make this "personal" instead of looking at the science.  And that is why you fail.  You keep touting a failed hypothesis and refuseing to look at why your hypothesis failed. Someone comes along, with a new hypothesis, one that removes your control over the populace, by being able to regulate fuels and their uses, you go apoplectic.  That tells me your whole plan was population control, not science.

Javier's math is correct.  His premise is solid. Explain that away without going personal.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> You're not bothered by "taught themselves outside the dogma" or the extreme measures Vinos has to take to demonstrate correlation between solar activity and poleward transport?  Where are the data demonstrating that "dynamical changes in the ocean-atmosphere circulation" cause climate change?  And, for that matter, where are the empirical observations I asked you to identify after you claimed they showed that neither CO2 nor man had any involvement in global warming?


let me ask you a question, is there any other agency outside of those funded by governments that agrees with the nonsense the IPCC publishes?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> You still don't get it.  SCIENCE IS BEING SKEPTICAL AND LOOKING FOR OTHER SOLOUTIONS.
> Feynman stated: "If your hypothesis cannot be replicated and verified by empirical observation, its wrong." You keep trying to make this "personal" instead of looking at the science.  And that is why you fail.  You keep touting a failed hypothesis and refuseing to look at why your hypothesis failed. Someone comes along, with a new hypothesis, one that removes your control over the populace, by being able to regulate fuels and their uses, you go apoplectic.  That tells me your whole plan was population control, not science.
> 
> Javier's math is correct.  His premise is solid. Explain that away without going personal.


thank you, you are correct, they all make it personal.  Like our existence is our fault. Yet, no agency or group outside those funded by governments agree with their nonsense.  simply amazing I tell you.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> You still don't get it.  SCIENCE IS BEING SKEPTICAL AND LOOKING FOR OTHER SOLOUTIONS.
> Feynman stated: "If your hypothesis cannot be replicated and verified by empirical observation, its wrong." You keep trying to make this "personal" instead of looking at the science.  And that is why you fail.  You keep touting a failed hypothesis and refuseing to look at why your hypothesis failed. Someone comes along, with a new hypothesis, one that removes your control over the populace, by being able to regulate fuels and their uses, you go apoplectic.  That tells me your whole plan was population control, not science.
> 
> Javier's math is correct.  His premise is solid. Explain that away without going personal.



Science is always skeptical and looking for other solutions.  That does NOT mean that science has rejected what it currently holds as the best theory; it's just what science does.  AGW is has been repeated and verified thousands of times by thousands of studies.  NO ONE has verified Vinos' work.

You have no repeatedly claimed that AGW is a failed hypothesis when, as you well know, it is a VERY widely accepted theory.  You claimed that empirical observations had shown it had failed yet, even when asked, you have NEVER presented those observations. 

In this conversation I have assiduously stayed clear of discussions of the qualifications you claim.  Any comments I have made that you might want to take as personal were addressing your failure to produce the observations you claimed to possess.  That is, they were part and parcel of this discussion.  That can NOT be said when you accuse me of being motivated by a desire to exercise "control over the populace".  It cannot be said of ANY attempt to attach motives to my statements.

If Javier's (you're on a first name basis now?) premise is correct, perhaps you can explain how energy transport through 6,000 miles of air can overwhelm transport through 100 miles of air with 4.5 TIMES as great a temperature differential?  For that matter, if most of the Earth's heating is escaping above the Arctic, HOW do satellites find a linear relationship between surface temperature and OLW intensity?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Science is always skeptical and looking for other solutions. That does NOT mean that science has rejected what it currently holds as the best theory; it's just what science does


Science also doesn't mean it accepts that which is known as consensus.  yet you keep using the word while discussing the word science. Take that word and tie it off and hang it for your own use.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Science also doesn't mean it accepts that which is known as consensus.


Good fucking god... That is EXACTLY what it fucking means ! ! !


jc456 said:


> yet you keep using the word while discussing the word science. Take that word and tie it off and hang it for your own use.


HOW do you find out what scientists think about any particular theory?  HOW do you determine whether some particular theory is rejected, is considered iffy, is accepted or is widely accepted among scientists WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FUCKING CONSENSUS ? ? ?  What does the term "widely accepted" mean if not "has a high level of consensus?"


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Good fucking god are you STUPID. That is EXACTLY what it fucking means ! ! !


Link


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> HOW do you find out what scientists think about any particular theory? HOW do you determine whether some particular theory is rejected, is considered iffy, is accepted or is widely accepted among scientists WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FUCKING CONSENSUS ? ?











						Consensus Science and the Peer Review
					






					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				




I have always had a negative gut reaction to the concept of “consensus science.” But Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:



> I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.




And he continues:



> Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Consensus Science and the Peer Review
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I ask again, how would you determine whether or not a theory was "widely accepted"?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> I ask again, how would you determine whether or not a theory was "widely accepted"?


By repeating and replication


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

jc456 said:


> By repeating and replication


You are so stupid you make me want to pull out my hair.  Fortunately, its all long gone.  The question is NOT how do you verify a study, the question is HOW DO YOU FIND OUT HOW WIDELY ACCEPTED A STUDY IS AMONG OTHER SCIENTISTS? It is the scientists who do the repeating and replication.  Or perhaps you can tell us about your attempts to replicate the thousands of studies that you accept and take for granted every day of your life.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> You are so stupid you make me want to pull out my hair.  Fortunately, its all long gone.  The question is NOT how do you verify a study, the question is HOW DO YOU FIND OUT HOW WIDELY ACCEPTED A STUDY IS AMONG OTHER SCIENTISTS? It is the scientists who do the repeating and replication.  Or perhaps you can tell us about your attempts to replicate the thousands of studies that you accept and take for granted every day of your life.


I posted for your review and no way did you read it. 

You obviously can’t challenge with evidence, proof is your out of control post


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I posted for your review and no way did you read it.
> 
> You obviously can’t challenge with evidence, proof is your out of control post


TROLL


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> TROLL


Drop mic


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

TROLL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Science is always skeptical and looking for other solutions.  That does NOT mean that science has rejected what it currently holds as the best theory; it's just what science does.  AGW is has been repeated and verified thousands of times by thousands of studies.  NO ONE has verified Vinos' work.
> 
> You have no repeatedly claimed that AGW is a failed hypothesis when, as you well know, it is a VERY widely accepted theory.  You claimed that empirical observations had shown it had failed yet, even when asked, you have NEVER presented those observations.
> 
> ...


No one is so blind as someone who refuses to see.  

And this is why no one responds to your drivel. All you see is your own narrative you never look over the side of the box to see what else is going on.

Javier Vino's book is getting a huge review on Anthony Watts site. 








						Meridional Transport, the most fundamental climate variable
					

By Andy May “The atmospheric heat transport on Earth from the Equator to the poles is largely carried out by the mid-latitude storms. However, there is no satisfactory theory to describe this funda…




					wattsupwiththat.com
				




IF you take the time to actually read what has been written and do the math they go through, you might actually learn something. From the book and the two cited papers:


> The three factors responsible for Earth’s thermal stability then are the greenhouse effect, clouds, and meridional transport. Modern climatology ignores the last two and focuses exclusively on the first, by developing the CO2 “control knob” climate hypothesis. The effect of clouds and their variability on climate change is still largely unknown. According the IPCC AR6 report (on page 979) cloud feedback to surface warming could be positive or negative and it is the largest source of uncertainty in the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate.



Javier goes point by point why CO2 cannot be the driver.  Javier points out that the Green House is one of three processes that balance the thermal balance on earth.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> No one is so blind as someone who refuses to see.
> 
> And this is why no one responds to your drivel. All you see is your own narrative you never look over the side of the box to see what else is going on.
> 
> ...


Where are the empirical observations that you claimed show that neither CO2 nor man is involved in global warming?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Science is always skeptical and looking for other solutions.  That does NOT mean that science has rejected what it currently holds as the best theory; it's just what science does.  AGW is has been repeated and verified thousands of times by thousands of studies.  NO ONE has verified Vinos' work.
> 
> You have no repeatedly claimed that AGW is a failed hypothesis when, as you well know, it is a VERY widely accepted theory.  You claimed that empirical observations had shown it had failed yet, even when asked, you have NEVER presented those observations.
> 
> ...


IF you took the time to study what Javier purports, the second path takes the heat high into the atmosphere as it is pulled poll ward. This is above cloud boundary where LWIR can escape during transport.  This distance change is aiding in the energy loss.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Where are the empirical observations that you claimed show that neither CO2 nor man is involved in global warming?


You refuse to read.  I am not going to do your homework for you. Javier explains the why in great detail.  I highlighted the area where he explains why CO2 cannot drive anything.  Why do you refuse to look at what his hypothesis is?  There are THREE mechanisms which control the thermal balance. GHG's are a very minor to irrelevant roll, as he explains.

Read the post by Andy May on WUWT.  It will take you about 15 min to read it. Andy does an excellent job of summation.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Vinos paper is quite accurate


And how would you be judging that?  Whose work would you be comparing it to?  What other experts have weighed in on his book?  And Anthony Watts is not an expert.


Billy_Bob said:


> and is bearing out empirical reviews of his hypothesis.


What in the world is "an empirical review"?


Billy_Bob said:


> Your AGW crap not so much.


What in the world is "an empirical review"?


Billy_Bob said:


> What do you think of this linear, energy transport, route change?


As I explained, based on the Kelly and Koll PNAS article finding OLW intensity in a linear relationship with surface temperature, not much


Billy_Bob said:


> The shrinking of the atmosphere above the poles and due to that thinning, the energy loss increases and speed of that loss?


Unfortunately, as perhaps the temperatures might tell you, not a lot of the world's heat makes it to the poles.


Billy_Bob said:


> *Empirical evidence removes CO2 and man from the cause of anything globally here.*


And here, in red, is the ringer.  For the fourth time, WHAT "EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE REMOVES CO2 AND MAN FROM THE CAUSE OF ANYTHING GLOBALLY HERE"??

You made this statement.  Have the balls to defend it.


----------



## Crick (Oct 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> IF you took the time to study what Javier purports, the second path takes the heat high into the atmosphere as it is pulled poll ward. This is above cloud boundary where LWIR can escape during transport.  This distance change is aiding in the energy loss.


If it's escaping during transport, it isn't escaping at the poles, is it.  And, you know, I'm no atmospheric physicist, but I think the greater the differential between temperatures at the surface and in the stratosphere, the greater the flux rate of vertical convective transfer.  And that differential is a whole lot larger at the equator than at the poles.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> You refuse to read.  I am not going to do your homework for you. Javier explains the why in great detail.  I highlighted the area where he explains why CO2 cannot drive anything.  Why do you refuse to look at what his hypothesis is?  There are THREE mechanisms which control the thermal balance. GHG's are a very minor to irrelevant roll, as he explains.
> 
> Read the post by Andy May on WUWT.  It will take you about 15 min to read it. Andy does an excellent job of summation.


About those complex variations....​​Earth’s Spin, Tilt and Orbit​



Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit Affect the amount of *solar energy* received by any particular region of the globe, depending on latitude, time of day, and time of year. *Small changes in the angle of Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit around the Sun Cause Changes in Climate over a span of 10,000 to 100,000 years, and are Not Causing climate change today.*

Daily changes in light and temperature are caused by the rotation of the Earth, and seasonal changes are caused by the tilt of the Earth. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the Earth is pulled by the gravitational forces of the Sun, Moon, and large planets in the solar system, primarily Jupiter and Saturn. Over long periods of time, the gravitational pull of other members of our solar system slowly change Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit. *Over approximately 100,000 – 400,000 years, gravitational forces slowly change Earth’s orbit between more circular and elliptical shapes, as indicated by the blue and yellow dashed ovals in the figure to the right.

Over 19,000 – 24,000 years, the direction of Earth’s tilt shifts (spins). Additionally, how much Earth’s axis is tilted towards or away from the Sun changes through time, over approximately 41,000 year cycles. Small changes in Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit over these long periods of time can change the amount of sunlight received (and therefore absorbed and re-radiated) *by different parts of the Earth. Over 10s to 100s of thousands of years, these small changes in the position of the Earth in relationship to the Sun can change the amount of solar radiation, also known as insolation, received by different parts of the Earth. In turn, changes in insolation over these long periods of time can change regional climates and the length and intensity of the seasons. *The Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit continue to change today, but do Not explain the Current Rapid climate change.*




Adapted from Universe Today.

Changes in insolation result in cycles of ice ages, during which ice sheets expand (glacial periods) and contract (interglacial periods). These patterns of ice ages, also called Milankovitch cycles, were predicted by the Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch. Milankovitch predicted that glacial periods occur during times of low summer insolation at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere, which would allow ice sheets to remain from year to year without melting. Subsequently, scientists have found extensive evidence of Milankovitch cycles preserved in the geologic record, especially in layers of sediment and fossils in ocean basins that preserve chemical changes in the ocean and atmosphere during glacial and interglacial periods. Although a major cause of change over long periods of time in the past, Earth’s spin, tilt and orbit changes so slowly that it is not a cause of global warming and climate change today.
Changes in Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit have affected the Earth system in the past on various scales. Some of these ways include:



Increasing or decreasing amount of sunlight that is *absorbed* by different areas of the surface of the Earth. This can affect Earth’s *temperature*.
Increasing or decreasing temperatures, which can alter the distribution of *snow and ice cover*. By increasing snow and ice cover, especially at high latitudes, the *reflection of sunlight* can increase, which in turn decreases the amount of light that is absorbed by Earth’s surface.
Changes in the Earth system that are affected by snow and ice cover, including the *carbon cycle*, and how much carbon (including the *greenhouse gas* carbon dioxide) is transferred between the atmosphere, biosphere, and ocean.

'
Visit the *solar radiation* and *Earth’s energy budget* pages to learn more about how changes in the amount of energy in the Earth system can affect global processes and phenomena.



Earth's spin, tilt and orbit - Understanding Global Change​





 ugc.berkeley.edu


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 26, 2022)

Just wow... You all are stuck on stupid.


> The modern theory of climate change understands climate thermodynamics but fails to understand the role of energy redistribution. When studying climate variables, scientists normally work with what are called _“anomalies;”_ they are the residual of subtracting the _“climatology,”_ or the average changes over 24-hour days and seasons in the variables studied. This point of view magnifies small interannual variabilities but conceals the much larger seasonal changes. The result is that important seasonal changes in atmospheric and oceanic energy redistribution are usually ignored. The error is compounded because net energy transport within the climate system, if integrated for the entire planet, is zero (energy lost at one place is gained in another). Redistribution of energy by transport processes doesn’t matter to most scientists in terms of changing the global climate. To them, the TOA over the dark pole in winter is no different than the daylight tropical TOA, except in the absolute magnitude of the annually averaged energy flux. This narrow view obstructs a proper understanding of climate change.



Please read and quit attacking individuals.









						The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (VI). Meridional transport is the main climate change driver
					

by Javier Vinós & Andy May “No philosopher has been able with his own strength to lift this veil stretched by nature over all the first principles of things. Men argue, nature acts.&#8221…




					wattsupwiththat.com


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 26, 2022)

abu afak said:


> About those complex variations....​​Earth’s Spin, Tilt and Orbit​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice cut and paste...  But it's wrong.  This is only a minor part of what is going on.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Nice cut and paste...  But it's wrong.  This is only a minor part of what is going on.


We'll take you word for it boob.
I blew you off this mb long ago.
`


----------



## Crick (Oct 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Just wow... You all are stuck on stupid.
> 
> 
> Please read and quit attacking individuals.
> ...


Given that the planet as a whole is increasing in temperature the energy level within the system is increasing and thus the complete integration of energy transport within is not going to be zero; unless you want to ignore that troubling wee point.


----------

