# Correlation between temperature and CO2



## IanC (Jun 29, 2017)

I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-






The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.

The first graph is the actual correlation between the two variables. Because the correlation fluxuates between positive and negative values we know it is not the prime driver of warming. Because the correlation spends more time in the positive phase we can assume that CO2 does cause some warming.

Sounds about right to me.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 29, 2017)

Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.


----------



## IanC (Jun 29, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.



The correlation is what it is. The data is what it is.

Are you arguing that the data is wrong? That the correlation is wrong?

Isn't it true that something like a fifth of all anthropogenic CO2 has been released since the millennium? With very little warming even with all the adjustments?

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 1, 2017)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.
> ...


CO2's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system..  When you assess all natural causes, the amount that is man caused is so minuet that it is meaningless..  The water cycle simply lays it waste.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.




_indicating that your political beliefs are so strong that they render you unable to spot dishonest and fraud.  unfortunate, but alas you appear to be one of those "born every second"._


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.



Does this mean that you are finally gibing up the magic and are coming around to the fact that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less?


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2017)

Same Shit,

can you not read?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2017)

Crick said:


> Same Shit,
> 
> can you not read?



Sure...can 't you?  He said .....  "CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent."


----------



## IanC (Jul 2, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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




I agree that it is difficult to discern the CO2 signal from the noise. 

What the actual size of CO2's warming influence is is up for debate. Just because it is lost in the noise, that does not mean it is tiny, just inseparable. I think the 1C/2xCO2 is probably pretty close. Of course we don't know how much it took for the first degree of warming. Are we in the fifth doubling or the tenth?

Where do the feedbacks occur? Some are close to the surface but others could be further up and even less understood. And let's not forget that the quality of the energy trapped and recycled by CO2 is poor. The potential for doing work and powering changes is low to non-existent. The climate models are wrong in equating it as equal to solar input.

The climate sensitivity estimates for doubling CO2 have dropped a lot over the last twenty years. From well over 3C to less than 2C, even though model predictions for a hundred years out remain the same (?!?!?).


----------



## IanC (Jul 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.
> ...




CO2 is a warming influence. I can see how it can be attenuated by negative feedback to less than the calculated 1C/doubling but I fail to see how the sign can be flipped and CO2 turned into a cooling influence.

Do you have some sort of evidence or explanation for your statement?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 2, 2017)

IanC said:


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


When you consider that the current warming trend is not unusual or faster than previous trends and that CO2 rise is offset from warming by as little as 20 years but always lags warming,it is a trailing indicator and not a cause.

Even in your OP you can see the crossover from warming to cooling as the paths cross and temp falls while CO2 continues to climb.. CO2 will soon follow.

Now all you need is proof that CO2 is causing warming as your graphing shows quite clearly that it is not a cause.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 2, 2017)

IanC said:


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


The original IPCC claims was that of 6 deg C warming for each doubling. However, today we see just 0.6 deg C of warming even thought we should have seen 1.6 deg C according to IPCC estimates and forcing models.  they failed miserably as we can attribute most of the 0.6 deg C warming to cloud cover changes. Barely 0.1 deg C can be attributed to CO2 but we have not ruled out other sources or causes yet..  now what is CO2 supposed to have done?


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 2, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.


Hansen got caught giving false 1998 temperature estimates. Later he got busted in the climategate emails. He knew that his paper regarding the urban heat island effect was bogus, but never retracted the paper. That is very unethical.

And we know his motivation. His motivation is wealth redistribution from rich to poor. We know that because he has indicated that publically. His egalitarian goal may be a worthwhile goal depending on your political point of view, however he has corrupted science in his effort to forward that goal. That is criminal and unforgivable. Now he wallows in the science hall of shame with the piltdown man fraudsters.

He obviously believes that the ends justifies the means. The problem with that philosophy is that you can never know what ends your means will produce, especially when you base it on lies.


----------



## IanC (Jul 5, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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








You could certainly add lags into the correlation calculations to see if it improved the correlation. It would be interesting to see how long the best lag is for correlation.

Are you up for it?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 5, 2017)

IanC said:


> I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-



It's a misleading graph, in that it focuses on the noise instead of the underlying signal.



> The second graph is an example of how any two increasing variables can be made to look related by creative use of the two y axis scales.



If both variables are moving the same way, they're correlated. The second graph shows an obvious correlation because there _is_  an obvious correlation. One can argue that correlation isn't causation, but denying the strong correlation is crazy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 6, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Got any actual evidence to support that claim...anything beyond failing climate models and a hypothesis with decades of failed predictions behind it?  

Of course you don't...and why?....because none exists...for all the billions upon billions flushed down the climate change scam toilet..not the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



Easy, the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. That single fact is sufficient to prove that CO2 is a warming influence. Quantifying the amount is more difficult to discern but it is certainly enough to prove the direction.


----------



## IanC (Jul 6, 2017)

So the Irish population is highly correlated to temperature. So what?

A modern style climate scientist would have truncated the graph at 1970 to further enhance the 'correlation'.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2017)

IanC said:


> Easy, the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. That single fact is sufficient to prove that CO2 is a warming influence. Quantifying the amount is more difficult to discern but it is certainly enough to prove the direction.



And yet more evidence that you are just another dupe...all that is evidence of is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR...look at the other side of that CO2 molecule and you will see that if it didn't lose it immediately due to a collision with another molecule, then it emitted it on to cooler pastures.  CO2 has no warming influence.  Only the most profound sort of idiot would believe that any substance that increases the emissivity of anything would result in warming...get up and go look in the nearest mirror and ask yourself seriously just how stupid you really are.


----------



## IanC (Jul 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Easy, the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. That single fact is sufficient to prove that CO2 is a warming influence. Quantifying the amount is more difficult to discern but it is certainly enough to prove the direction.
> ...



It seems to me that you are the one who is profoundly stupid. You don't grasp the implications of what you say.

Without CO2 all the 15 micron IR produced by the surface would fly away to space at the speed of light. You cannot expel energy faster than that.

Instead, all of the 15 micron surface energy is absorbed into the first few metres of the atmosphere. 

This energy is then spread around by molecular collisions, transformed into various forms of kinetic and potential energies. The increase of kinetic energy is by definition an increase of temperature. 

But this is a two way street. Energy in the atmosphere can also excite the CO2 molecule by collision in the same way as the 15 micron photon. CO2 molecules are constantly being excited by collision or absorption of a photon, constantly de-excited by collision or emission of a photon.

At lower levels this 15 micron energy cannot escape, there is not enough time between collisions, and the few actual emissions of 15 micron photons are reabsorbed.

At higher levels the air is less dense, the time between collisions is longer, the chance of a photon not encountering another CO2 molecule is greater, therefore more and more 15 micron photons start to escape.

If the amount of radiation escaping at the top was equal to the amount entering at the bottom of the atmosphere then there would be some truth to absorption and emission do not equal warming, although not totally. But emission is temperature dependant, unlike absorption. The temperature at the height where 15 micron radiation escapes is much colder than the surface, therefore less radiation is produced.

The difference between input and output powers warming in the atmosphere. Which in turn causes the surface to warm by reducing the temperature differential, which lowers the amount transferred by conduction. 

A new equilibrium temperature at the surface is warmer because it has to radiate more in the bands of IR that still escape freely to make up for the 15 micron radiation that is (partially) blocked.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2017)

IanC said:


> It seems to me that you are the one who is profoundly stupid. You don't grasp the implications of what you say.
> 
> Without CO2 all the 15 micron IR produced by the surface would fly away to space at the speed of light. You cannot expel energy faster than that.



It still flies off into space at the speed of light.  Pressure and water vapor's ability to hold energy is what maintains our temperature...other than water vapor, the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant.

You are a dupe.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2017)

IanC said:


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


where I liked the chart you posted, the fact remains, that after years of attempting to prove CO2 warms, you have failed.  And you continue to fail. CO2 warming is non existent.  Unless you have an experiment.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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


HEY IAN....THIS^^^^^^^^^^^ Billy's got it perfect.  fking perfect thanks Billy!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2017)

The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate | Principia Scientific International

Ian, again......you need back radiation and folks, it ain't there.  just ain't

*"Back-Radiation*
Greenhouse gas theory to support the notion of global warming, postulates heat transfer from cold atmosphere down to warm surface, heating surface further. The Kiehl-Trenberth diagram says back-radiation transfer rate is 333, which is 2.1x that impinging surface from the sun, 161. This extraordinary value defies common experience.

I have shown the existence of any back-radiation would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics; heat only transfers from hot to cold or from high intensity radiators to lower intensity radiators. If back-radiation existed, it would lead to creation of energy, a violation of the First Law of Thermo, constituting a perpetual motion machine of the first and second kinds, which is impossible, but just what AGW proponents need to support their perpetual global warming idea."

I loved this at the end of the piece:

*"Since I can’t find a mathematical description of a consensus greenhouse gas theory, I call it a greenhouse gas hunch. After all, CO2 is green plant food. No self-respecting environmentalist would consider depriving Earth’s flora of its sustenance. Even for personal political or financial gain. Would they?"*


----------



## IanC (Jul 7, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that you are the one who is profoundly stupid. You don't grasp the implications of what you say.
> ...




You have been repeatedly shown the radiation profile reaching a satellite from the atmosphere. Some bands radiate at the full power of surface temperature, showing they escape directly. The CO2 15 micron band radiates at a power that corresponds to about minus 60C, far up in height and considerably less than surface temperature.

I know you want to sidetrack over to water but we should clear up CO2 first. Do you agree that more 15 micron radiation goes in at the bottom than comes out at the top?   If you disagree then what is your evidence?


----------



## IanC (Jul 7, 2017)

jc456 said:


> The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate | Principia Scientific International
> 
> Ian, again......you need back radiation and folks, it ain't there.  just ain't
> 
> ...




I don't think you have a fucking clue about any of the PSI 'proofs' that you linked to. I dare you to prove me wrong.

One interesting point that they made concerns Trenberth's cartoon. He took the shortcut of representing all the energy leaving the surface, and all the energy returning from the atmosphere, as radiation. Yet he also added in a spot for thermal and the water cycle that was outside of the actual energy budget.

I have pointed out this flaw on numerous occasions only to be met with deafening silence. I won't repeat myself unless there is specific interest.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jul 7, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.



No, not virtually all. Only the ones who are getting paid to fool dupes like you...hook..line....and sinker!


----------



## IanC (Jul 7, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow, I think I will go with atmospheric physicists like Jim Hansen, rather than a anonymous poster on a internet board. Virtually all the atmospheric physicists state that the GHGs are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are seeing.
> ...




I think narrowness of focus and groupthink, combined with a liberal sprinkling of incompetence, are enough to explain the pathetic performance of climate scientists.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2017)

IanC said:


> You have been repeatedly shown the radiation profile reaching a satellite from the atmosphere. Some bands radiate at the full power of surface temperature, showing they escape directly. The CO2 15 micron band radiates at a power that corresponds to about minus 60C, far up in height and considerably less than surface temperature.



Well, at least you are partly right.  Those profiles have come up in conversation, but your belief in models is so strong, that even when you see the evidence that they are wrong, you are unable to accept the fact.  As I have said before, it is pointless to go over this with you because you can't accept anything that doesn't jibe with your beliefs, but what the hell, someone may get something out of this even if you can't.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.






 If AGW theory were correct, and the physics that you so fervently believe in were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.  What you believe simply isn't happening.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the *black* line represents the *actual measurement* taken by the sattellite, the *red line* represents *the prediction based on the physics you so fervently believe in* and the *blue line* represents the *difference between the model data and the actual data*.









Now copy and print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines *(ACTUAL MEASURED DATA)* are identical indicating this time, that there is *no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006.* Again, IF WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS HAPPENING WITH ENERGY IN THE ATMOSPHERE WERE ACTUALLY HAPPENING then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less in 2006 than it was in 1970....it isn't.   As the blue lines (difference between actual observation, and the model prediction) on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.  The higher figures on the blue line indicate that the actual measurement is considerably higher than the model predicts. 

The fact is that what you claim is happening simply is not happening because what you believe is happening is magic and as the graphs from 1970 to 2006 clearly indicate, there is no magic in the real world.  There is no reduction of outgoing LW IR in the CO2 bands.  There is some measured difference in the H2O bands but then water vapor can actually capture and hold on to IR whereas CO2 simply absorbs it and either loses it to a collision with another molecule or emits it on to cooler pastures.

You are wrong ian...your understanding of the physics is wrong and what you believe is happening in the atmosphere is demonstrably not happening.



IanC said:


> I know you want to sidetrack over to water but we should clear up CO2 first. Do you agree that more 15 micron radiation goes in at the bottom than comes out at the top?   If you disagree then what is your evidence?



CO2 is perfectly clear to anyone not so blinded by their belief in magic that they can't see it when it is posted right before their eyes.  CO2 does nothing but absorb and then lose the energy to cooler areas of the atmosphere.  That is all it does.  It doesn't even slow the escape of IR to space by a nanosecond.

And as to what I "believe"...it doesn't matter..and more importantly, it doesn't matter what you believe either...  The graphs above clearly show that all of the additional atmospheric CO2 increase between 1970 and 2006  has had exactly zero effect on the outgoing LW in the CO2 absorption bands.  The models predicted a difference but none was measured.  Chalk up yet another predictive failure for your hypothesis. 

Once again Ian, in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a hypothesis that more closely resembles the real observable world?


----------



## peach174 (Jul 8, 2017)

The single focus on just fossil fuels has hindered complete research into why so many of our planets atmospheres are changing. 
We need more data that would include the wild fluctuations in our magnetic poles, the change of our axis from the Japan earthquake, more readings and study of our oceans.
We need to add data of the changes our Suns atmosphere.
Add more study & data as to why Mars poles are mirroring our own poles.
Add why Jupiter's red spot has been shrinking since the 1930's.


----------



## miketx (Jul 8, 2017)

When will this bullshit end?


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You have been repeatedly shown the radiation profile reaching a satellite from the atmosphere. Some bands radiate at the full power of surface temperature, showing they escape directly. The CO2 15 micron band radiates at a power that corresponds to about minus 60C, far up in height and considerably less than surface temperature.
> ...




First off, I want to thank SSDD for a great American Thinker article!

Articles: The AGW Smoking Gun

This is exactly the right attitude to have towards peer reviewed papers. Look at the data and form your own conclusions. If they disagree with the official conclusion then that is a good area to investigate.

Well done SSDD. Everyone should spend the two minutes to read the article.


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2017)

Here is the modtran model for doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm. Not a lot of change in CO2 irradiance.










SSDD'S graphs are a little hard to read because they stop part way into the CO2 band but the portion that is there shows a small decrease in CO2 irradiance. 

Was SSDD trying to prove or disprove my case?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2017)

IanC said:


> Here is the modtran model for doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm. Not a lot of change in CO2 irradiance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ian you doofus...can you read?  The red line, which you point out shows slightly less IR in the CO2 band is the model...the black line is the observation and the observation from 1970 to 2006 is that there is no difference between outgoing CO2 in 1970 and 2006 despite the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

I even used colored text to point out to you that the black line was observation...the red line was the model and the blue line was the difference between the two...THE RED LINE IS THE MODEL and the black line shows that the model, and the physics upon which the model was based is flawed.  THE RED LINE IS NOT ACTUAL DATA...IT IS MODEL OUTPUT....  For Pete's sake, how many times does this have to be pointed out to you?


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the modtran model for doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm. Not a lot of change in CO2 irradiance.
> ...




I was referring to the black line. The differences we are looking for are small. At irradiance 260 at the far left of the graph the black line is visible under the red in both of your graphs, and 2006 is lower than 1970. It is unfortunate that much of the CO2 band is truncated.

It may also be over reaching to compare 1970 technology results to 2006 results.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2017)

IanC said:


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



There are no differences...and the reason the black line is visible under the red..just the same in both graphs is because the model (the red line) predicted less outgoing LW IR in the CO2 emission band.  The model was wrong...you have to look at the black lines which I why I suggested that you print out the two graphs and overlay them.  The black lines on both graphs are identical...the black line is observation..the red line is failed model prediction.


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2017)

SSDD'S graphs mostly cover the atmospheric window where most of the radiation escapes directly.

I took a ruler out and estimated the top of the line. The 2006 brightness temperature looks to be about 1/2 degree warmer. Does that sound about right? The snapshots must have been taken in the tropics because the temperature is over 20C.

2006 has a warmer temp but lower CO2 irradiance (I will accept similar or even the same irradiance). That is quite consistent with my position.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD'S graphs mostly cover the atmospheric window where most of the radiation escapes directly.
> 
> I took a ruler out and estimated the top of the line. The 2006 brightness temperature looks to be about 1/2 degree warmer. Does that sound about right? The snapshots must have been taken in the tropics because the temperature is over 20C.
> 
> 2006 has a warmer temp but lower CO2 irradiance (I will accept similar or even the same irradiance). That is quite consistent with my position.




BULLSHIT.... The black lines from TES and IRIS are identical...the only difference is the red line which is failed model prediction.

Look at the blue line at the top of each graph...they show you the difference between observation and model prediction...which, what do you know...matches your idiot misunderstanding of what you are seeing.  The blue line clearly shows that they were measuring more outgoing IR than the model predicted.  I can't believe that you are misunderstanding these graphs that badly considering that they are clearly labeled in the middle of the f'ing graph.


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


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




The models slightly over predicted OLR, across the whole range, with only the ozone  band having a noticeable difference.

The average differential between the model and reality is about 1/2 a degree of brightness. Anytime you can't see the black line it is within that range.

We are looking for a temperature difference that is also in that range. Do you think we have the necessary precision to make definitive claims here?


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD'S graphs mostly cover the atmospheric window where most of the radiation escapes directly.
> ...




Why do you not check your assumptions? 295 (actual) minus 296 (model) is minus one.

Did you not read the caption on the graphs?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2017)

IanC said:


> The average differential between the model and reality is about 1/2 a degree of brightness. Anytime you can't see the black line it is within that range.



Still misreading...wherever you can see the black line is where the models were wrong...the only relevant line in those graphs insofar as your position goes is the difference between the black line observation in 1979 and the black line observation in 2006...and there is no difference...they are identical in the wavelengths at issue.

Temperature is irrelevant as CO2 has no effect on temperature...and brightness temperature isn't going to be of any use to you in proving your beliefs anyway.


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The average differential between the model and reality is about 1/2 a degree of brightness. Anytime you can't see the black line it is within that range.
> ...




Why did you produce graphs measured in brightness temperature to rebut me if you think they are useless?

Are you going to admit your careless mistake this time? Even after I pointed it out, you are still claiming more measured IR than predicted IR.

What is with you and polarbear? You both say obviously untrue things just to argue with me, and then offer up evidence to prove you wrong and support my case.


----------



## IanC (Jul 8, 2017)

IanC said:


>



For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 8, 2017)

IanC said:


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


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2017)

miketx said:


> When will this bullshit end?


About the time we begin to plunge into the next glacial cycle... When we drop 3 deg C in 10 years it will be painfully obvious..


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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




From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.


----------



## miketx (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


When you can't win, insult the others intelligence. Classic liberal job.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.
> 
> My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.



Bullshit ian...your graph shows a model...whereas my graph shows actual measurements taken in 1970 and 2006 respectively.



IanC said:


> SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.



No ian...my graph shows actual measurement without regard to temperature....geez guy, the more you talk the more I see why you are such a complete dupe...for all your talk, you don't understand even the basics.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.



The exact same can be said of you considering how badly you have misunderstood this basic piece of data...at least jc isn't a f'ing poser pretending to have all the answers like you and talking down to people who grasp the topic to a far higher degree than you probably ever will due to your fervent belief in magic.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

miketx said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Nope. I just honestly believe jc456 is stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


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


I at least know the difference between models and observations. Proof and hypothesis


----------



## miketx (Jul 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


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


LOL! Lib says he's not insulting your intelligence and then calls you stupid. LOL!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2017)

miketx said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


All of his intelligence and yet doesn't know the difference between models and observations. Oh, he has yet to post any data that is observed. SSDD blows him away. I ask for proof, no one has ever provided any and I'm stupid


----------



## miketx (Jul 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Like all regressive libs, they assume if the say it over and over people will start to believe it.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.


----------



## miketx (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


More childish insults. What is it you libs think you will gain by doing that? You all do it and it makes you look like pompous arrogant schmucks.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

miketx said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Why do you think I am a 'lib' ?

I think it is funny that the extremists on the warmers side call me a denier, and the extremists on the skeptical side call me a warmer.

I must be doing something right.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

miketx said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Hahahaha. This is a specific case, not a generalization. jc456 is stupid. Not willfully ignorant but actually incapable of grasping concepts.

You may think it cruel of me to say that but at a certain point it becomes ridiculous to expect anything from him in the way of intelligent conversation.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

For those of you who didn't like the modtran graph here is a graph of measured data. Same shape, although it is for a higher temperature.

Graphs with irradiance on the y axis look like this. Graphs with brightness temperature on the y axis look like SSDD'S graph.

They both present similar information but visually they look different.

Some graphs use wavenumbers on the x axis, some use wavelength. The nomenclature looks different but they are describing the same thing.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I know that, SSDD posted actual. And you tell him he's full of shit posting models.  Dude, you can call me stupid all day long, but I'd never ever argue model vs observed to make a point like you just did. It's why I called bs


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


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


Anytime you want to, you can post up the atmospheric hotspot that proves your claim CO2 heats up. Five years I've been waiting .


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> For those of you who didn't like the modtran graph here is a graph of measured data. Same shape, although it is for a higher temperature.
> 
> Graphs with irradiance on the y axis look like this. Graphs with brightness temperature on the y axis look like SSDD'S graph.
> 
> ...


So why does it state theoretical in the graph?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


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



And I have come to honestly believe that you are stupid...arrogant and stupid....a terrible combination.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.



Well, you did make it clear that you don't understand even the basics...congratulations.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> Some graphs use wavenumbers on the x axis, some use wavelength. The nomenclature looks different but they are describing the same thing.



Once again ian...that graph isn't an observation from the top of the atmosphere...which is what started this whole thing in the first place...your claim that there was less outgoing LW in the CO2 absorption band....the black lines in the two graphs I provided..one taken in 1970 and the other taken in 2006 show beyond any doubt that there is not less outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere...your hypothesis fails yet again...and why?  because your hypothesis is based on magic and there is no magic...all the real data...all the observations...everything real supports my position regardless of how much you believe in models.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you who didn't like the modtran graph here is a graph of measured data. Same shape, although it is for a higher temperature.
> ...




Like I said, you are as dumb as a rock.

Go back and read the caption for the graph again. Then try to extract the meaning of the words.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Some graphs use wavenumbers on the x axis, some use wavelength. The nomenclature looks different but they are describing the same thing.
> ...




You think the makers of the graph we're lying when they said it was measured data from near Guam, April 27, 1970? Why?

To be honest I haven't checked the provenance of the source. It came from before the AGW fearmongering, so I assume it to be clear of obvious bias and therefore the best depiction of the data possible with 1970's technology.

Why is this graph flawed but your graph acceptable? They are both from the same time frame, both with measured and theoretical data sets, the only difference is that yours is scaled on brightness temperature and mine is on irradiance.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> You think the makers of the graph we're lying when they said it was measured data from near Guam, April 27, 1970? Why?



It really doesn't matter, you are still comparing observation to model...what matters is comparing the observation from 1970 to the observation from 2006...and seeing that there is no difference in outgoing LW...once again...your hypothesis has failed...the data prove it..you can compare models to observation till the cows come home and it won't mean jack...other than that the models are wrong...comparing observation to observation is the only real check and the observations made 36 years apart are identical...no change...no reduced outgoing IR in the pertinent bands...failure for your hypothesis.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Just out of curiosity, what point are you talking about?

You chimed in when I was explaining how irradiance and brightness temperature graphs are basically showing the same thing. I thought some people might be confused because they look different.

Surely that's not what you're pissed about. What are you pissed at? Be specific.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


You must have me confused with someone else bubba!


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You think the makers of the graph we're lying when they said it was measured data from near Guam, April 27, 1970? Why?
> ...



The 2006 graph looks to me like it is showing a fat 1/2 degree of extra brightness over the 1970 graph.

My explanation of the effect of CO2 says that the 15 micron IR from the surface is captured in a smaller volume of air when CO2 is increased. That increases the temperature of the lowest level of the atmosphere. When that air is warmer, the temperature differential with the surface is smaller, which reduces conduction. The reduced energy loss at the surface is a change of conditions that leads to a higher equilibrium temperature when the Sun adds energy.

This new, and warmer, temperature adds extra energy to the IR bands that escape freely to space (edit- the extra energy going through the atmospheric window replaces the energy that stopped being lost  by conduction).The same bands that comprise most of your graphs's range, also called the atmospheric window.

Your graphs supported my case so I didn't criticize them. Probably the most important piece of information missing is the actual water temperature on the two days being compared. It appears that they were very close, about 1/2C warmer in 2006. Was this just a coincidence?

The same problem affects the CO2 brightness. Was the temperature at the radiating height equal on both of the measured days? For that matter, what was the radiating height on either day? Did the increased CO2 raise the height? Probably. Did the increase in height change the temperature? A much trickier question. We assume the adiabatic lapse rate continues to cool in the troposphere but it goes squirrelly higher than that. An increase in the emission height of CO2 could bring it to a cooler, warmer or equal temperature.

But we always know the emission height of the surface. Hahahaha


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




As you wish. I knew it was foolish to respond to a dolt.


----------



## IanC (Jul 9, 2017)

Interesting diagram. Steady adiabatic decline in temperature for the troposphere. Then a steady temp for the first part of the stratosphere, followed by an increase. 

I don't know where CO2 radiation starts escaping. Up to 10 kms it would be decreasing radiation, the next 10 kms would be steady, and then it would be increasing up to 50 kms.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jul 9, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Good stuff in that article.

Thanks for bringing more attention to it.


----------



## keepitreal (Jul 9, 2017)

Oye vay...
God controls climate

How unfortunate, that so many people,
don't recognize bible prophecy unfolding!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

IanC said:


> The 2006 graph looks to me like it is showing a fat 1/2 degree of extra brightness over the 1970 graph.



But it isn't showing the first bit of difference in actual outgoing LW...you are caught up on the wrong measurement due to your belief in magic...you are grasping for straws in your desperation to be right....you aren't.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

IanC said:


> Interesting diagram. Steady adiabatic decline in temperature for the troposphere. Then a steady temp for the first part of the stratosphere, followed by an increase.
> 
> I don't know where CO2 radiation starts escaping. Up to 10 kms it would be decreasing radiation, the next 10 kms would be steady, and then it would be increasing up to 50 kms.



At the ground level...what you are seeing is the result of pressure....not CO2 capturing energy.Your hypothesis has failed and failed and failed and yet you believe..and why?...because you believe in magic.


----------



## IanC (Jul 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The 2006 graph looks to me like it is showing a fat 1/2 degree of extra brightness over the 1970 graph.
> ...



????

What are you trying to say? And how are your graphs supporting your claim?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

IanC said:


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



I already told you ian...print the graph from 1970 and the graph from 2006...the black lines are identical...not comparing observation to models...comparing observation to observation.


----------



## IanC (Jul 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I already told you ian...print the graph from 1970 and the graph from 2006...the black lines are identical...not comparing observation to models...comparing observation to observation.



Okay, observation to observation. Both graphs are taken under very similar conditions. They produce very similar results. So what? Which changes were you expecting? What is the size of those changes? Would they even be visible at the scale of these graphs?

I am trying to understand your point but you haven't made it clear. 

You are not talking about surface warming because you have defined the temperature as being similar (although it appears that the 2006 graph is about 1/2C warmer).

What specific information do you want me to glean from these graphs? And how is it important?

CO2 warms the surface. The amount would be around 1/2C for a change from 280-400 ppm. But CO2 wasn't 280 in 1970, nor 400 in 2006. Is 1/2C difference in brightness obvious in your graphs? Are the changes you are looking for smaller than the thickness of the line on the graph?

Specifically state what changes you think are missing from 1970-2006, keeping in mind that you are holding temperature invariant. And then point out where on the graph they would be found, keeping in mind that the range in your graph is for the atmospheric window where most of the GHG effects are not present.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2017)

IanC said:


> Okay, observation to observation. Both graphs are taken under very similar conditions. They produce very similar results. So what? Which changes were you expecting? What is the size of those changes? Would they even be visible at the scale of these graphs?



No ian, they produced identical results...one from 1970...one from 2006...outgoing LW is identical in the frequencies at question...there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 2006 than there was in 1970.  If your hypothesis had any merit, the lines would not be identical...the observed outgoing LW would be less if what you believe were true.  The outgoing LW hasn't decreased even though there is considerably more CO2 in the air...hasn't decreased means that your hypothesis fails...you have been wrong and the observed, measured, quantified data prove you wrong.



IanC said:


> I am trying to understand your point but you haven't made it clear.



Then you are either being obtuse or are stupid beyond belief.



IanC said:


> You are not talking about surface warming because you have defined the temperature as being similar (although it appears that the 2006 graph is about 1/2C warmer).



No ian, I am not talking about warming because this isn't about warming...this is about the amount of LW in the relevant bands escaping at the top of the atmosphere...according to your magical belief, more CO2 in the atmosphere should result in less outgoing LW in the relevant bands...there has been no change in outgoing LW between 1970 and 2006 even though there has been a considerable change in atmospheric CO2...that means that what you believe CO2 is doing with energy in the atmosphere isn't happening...the evidence proves you wrong.

CO2 is not doing anything...look to some other cause for whatever warming you believe is happening.


----------



## IanC (Jul 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No ian, they produced identical results...one from 1970...one from 2006...outgoing LW is identical in the frequencies at question...there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 2006 than there was in 1970. If your hypothesis had any merit, the lines would not be identical...the observed outgoing LW would be less if what you believe were true. The outgoing LW hasn't decreased even though there is considerably more CO2 in the air...hasn't decreased means that your hypothesis fails...you have been wrong and the observed, measured, quantified data prove you wrong




I didn't say there would be less OLR. I said the surface would warm up, so that extra energy would leave through the atmospheric window, and renew the balance between solar input and radiation loss to space.

While there would be some lag time between increased CO2 and increased surface temperature, it certainly isn't 36 years.

Seeing as you will not come out and specifically say what you think happened between 1970-2006, I will.

I think CO2 warmed the surface. That will push up the radiation in all of the wavelengths of the atmospheric window not affected by GHGs. Your graph identifies CO2, O3 and methane bands. I think the CO2 and methane bands will produce less radiation in2006 because they have both increased. I am not sure if ozone has increased or decreased, so I don't know if its radiation has changed, or in which direction.

The decrease in GHG bands will be matched by increases in bands that escape freely to space. The narrowed band in your graph may or may not exactly cancel out but the whole range of IR will (unless more heating or cooling was happening).

I believe the evidence that you provided supports my position as stated. I carefully looked at the graphs and you did not.

You base your claim on the strawman that OLR must go down with increased CO2. While there is a small lag time, much more likely to be a day (edit- a day/night cycle)  rather than a year, the OLR will always (edit- roughly) remain balanced with solar input in the IR range of wavelengths present in your graphs.

If you disagree, be SPECIFIC!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2017)

IanC said:


> I didn't say there would be less OLR. I said the surface would warm up, so that extra energy would leave through the atmospheric window, and renew the balance between solar input and radiation loss to space.



And do tell genius...how would the surface heat up due to CO2 without changing the amount of OLR at the TOA in the CO2 absorption band?  This is just another bit of wacko pseudoscience like your missing hot spot...your hypothesis keeps failing but you keep believing.  It seems that you are incapable of learning anything....or admitting that you are wrong no matter how much actual, observed, measured, quantified evidence you see.

You see just a bit of warming and claim it is due to CO2 without regard to the fact that if it were CO2 there would be certain undeniable fingerprints as a result...tropospheric hot spot...less OLR in the CO2 absorption bands...etc...none of those things is happening therefore whatever warming there is is not due to CO2 or anything you believe CO2 is doing.  Energy movement is a one way street...warm to cool...no energy moves from cool to warm without some work having been done to make it happen.

You believe you believe you believe...regardless of what the observed, measured, quantified evidence tells you...that should tell you something about yourself and the position you have taken ian, but you must have purchased the super deluxe blinders and they are certainly doing their job.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And do tell genius...how would the surface heat up due to CO2 without changing the amount of OLR at the TOA in the CO2 absorption band?



Excellent! You asked a specific question. Now I can address a single issue rather than explain the big picture over and over again.

CO2 warms the near surface atmosphere by absorbing all of the surface generated 15 micron radiation which is transformed into heat by molecular collision. None escapes directly, not at 280 ppm or 400 ppm.

The CO2 emission is generated much higher up, in rarified air where the photons can escape without being recaptured. CO2 emission on the graph has nothing to do with the surface.

Most of the IR emissions in the atmospheric window escape freely to space, directly from the surface with no interaction from the atmosphere. This radiation is completely dependent on surface temperature. The maximum brightness levels on your graph give the surface temperature.

If you put these two concepts together you can make a prediction about what will happen when CO2 is increased. First the lowest level of the atmosphere will warm because CO2 will put the 15 micron IR into a smaller volume of air (absorbed to extinction at a lower level). Second, the CO2 emission level will climb to a higher level because there is more CO2. If this new height is colder then the CO2 emission will be reduced because it is generated by molecular collision, which is controlled by kinetic speed (otherwise known as temperature).

There you have it. Atmospheric window controlled by surface temperature, CO2 emission controlled by the temperature at the height where it can escape. 

Is this clearer to you now? The data in your graphs confirm this. Under identical conditions the atmospheric window increased radiation, the CO2 emission decreased. The overall outgoing OLR remained the same to a very fine degree, as to be expected.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2017)

I thought I would look at the AmericanThinker article again to hunt for more clues to the paper which is the source of your graphs because the link is dead and Google images was no help.

Imagine my surprise when I saw this graph that I overlooked before!






Just what I was saying! Atmospheric window up, CO2 down.

It is also important to add that the amount of energy released is greater on the left side compared to the right side for equal brightness temperature. See the Planck curves for the reason why.

I can see why you neglected to add this graph. It points out the details that we're difficult to access in the coarse scale graphs that you provided. Just like I said. Remember when I said it appeared that the atmospheric window was up half a degree in brightness and the CO2 was down, or at least only equal? Here is the proof. 

As usual, when you attempt to prove me wrong it turns around and bites you in the ass by strengthening my case.

Hahahaha.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2017)

IanC said:


> I thought I would look at the AmericanThinker article again to hunt for more clues to the paper which is the source of your graphs because the link is dead and Google images was no help.
> 
> Imagine my surprise when I saw this graph that I overlooked before!
> 
> ...




You aren't getting any smarter ian...and you keep making the same stupid mistake...the black line is observation...one TES...one IRIS...both identical so they look like a single line...the red is the f'ing model which predicted less outgoing LW down in the CO2 band...the model was wrong because what you, and it, and all the other warmer wackos think CO2 is doing in the atmosphere simply isn't happening.  Now, if the TES and IRIS lines were not identical then you would have something...but all this graph shows is that no change has happened at the TOA in OLR in the CO2 absorption band and the model based on the physics you believe in so fervently was wrong....that is all that it shows...you are wrong and the observed, measured, quantified evidence proves it.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2017)

There are two lines on this graph. The red line is model out put so you can ignore it.

That leaves the black line. What is the black line showing? The 2006 values less the 1970 values. It is showing the differences between the two data sets, using a scale that allows the differences to be more easily seen.

For example- at wavenumber 700, the 1970 reading appears to be 223 brightness temperature. The 2006 reading appears to be 222.5 brightness temperature. But only if you zoom in on the spot and squint a bit. That means the difference is 222.5 - 223 = -0.5 brightness temperature. Extremely hard to see on a scale that covers over a hundred degrees of brightness.

That is where this new graph with a magnified scale comes into play. If we look at wavenumber 700, the difference has already been calculated from numeric data. It appears to be -0.25, although you still have to zoom in and squint. At 701 it has jumped down to -0.5, my estimate. CO2 brightness temperature dropped from The year 1970 to the year 2006.

edit- Convinced yet? I can add more of the same evidence from the other data set if you need a second opinion.

Personally I think you should put more effort into reading graphs for the information they provide, and less effort trying to distort them into showing something that they don't.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 11, 2017)

One simple term...........*MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD*..........done.

*http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/*

The climate crusaders never want you to know about it!! No SUV's rolling around the planet = lose.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> One simple term...........*MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD*..........done.
> 
> *http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/*
> 
> The climate crusaders never want you to know about it!! No SUV's rolling around the planet = lose.




The MWP and LIA certainly do show that CO2 is not the main control knob for climate. Natural factors rule (but CO2 still has a bit part).


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The disappearing North Polar Icecap, diminishing as well as disappearing glaciers and less mountain snowfalls in some regions indicates a global warming trend; t's cause, manmade or otherwise is irrelevant. 
The only reason I can see why there are those who object vehemently that the climate change is actually occurring, are those whose pocket books it may affect, should stringent global regulations put in place in an effort to resolve this.  If so, money to them is no different than cocaine or heroin to an addict.  They cannot get enough and don't want anything to diminish what they do get, even if it kills the planet and everyone in it, including themselves.
One of our planet's most brilliant minds, Stephen Hawking has estimated that humanity has about one hundred years left before the planet becomes uninhabitable due to temperature rises and a growing number of scientists are beginning to agree with that estimate and some others thinking that it might be sooner than that.
So, just for argument sake, let us say that years have passed and it turns out that the scientists were correct and you, very old, who may have been saying it wasn't true all along, are struggling to stay alive with your children and grandchildren, but people are overheating and dying around you, what would you say to your children and grandchildren who believed you, if they ask you why people didn't at least try to prevent the possibility of the earth overheating?


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > One simple term...........*MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD*..........done.
> ...










I don't even think it's effect is measurable.  I think that the GHG effect of water vapor is so overwhelming that the CO2 signal is for all intents, invisible.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

LuckyDuck said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-
> ...









The Arctic ice cap is within the 30 year average so it ain't going anywhere.  Hawkings statement is ridiculous on its face.  The Earth has PROVABLY had CO2 levels that were twenty times what they are now and nothing happened.  What is it?  The 5% of the CO2 global yearly budget that man produces is somehow different from the 95% of the natural CO2?  How about showing us how that works.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


The "hypothetical" question is......what would you say to those you love and who trusted you, were it all to be real?  This is all hypothetical doofus.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

LuckyDuck said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDuck said:
> ...








Your hypothetical is nonsensical.  We have LOADS of actual, verifiable, historical and paleoclimate evidence that shows the weeping hysteria of the global warming crowd to be silly and ridiculous.  We KNOW that it has been warmer in the not too distant past and not a single catastrophe that the warmers claim "might" happen.  Ever did.  Not once.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 12, 2017)

Thread *DOMINATED* by skeptic conveyed astuteness!!


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

LuckyDuck said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-
> ...




Sorry luckyduck, I am only interested in the scientific aspect of CAGW. I am not inclined to hold your hand and wipe away your tears because you are emotionally upset over a fairy tale that you foolishly believed.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Did any of you warmers out there actually get the point of the OP?

The first graph shows the actual correlation fluxuating over change in CO2 concentration. A direct comparison, as opposed to the misleading method of overlaying two graphs with different y axis, which will show a correlation between any two increasing variables, especially with creative scaling.

Should I put up the graph of Irish population/temperature again? It has a great r2 value. Much better than CO2/temperature.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I thought I would look at the AmericanThinker article again to hunt for more clues to the paper which is the source of your graphs because the link is dead and Google images was no help.
> ...




Please show me the observed, measured, quantified evidence that proves me wrong.

Why didn't you show that to me in the first place? Rather than go through the humiliation of seeing these graphs turned against you?


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...




I concur that H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas.

But CO2'S effect is not invisible, especially if you consider the total effect not just the effect of rising CO2.

If CO2 was not present the the atmospheric window would be widened, allowing more radiation to escape freely to space, and would cool the atmosphere by removing one of its sources of energy input.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









And here I disagree with you.  It is invisible.  Were there no water vapor its effect would be measurable.  However, as we all know, water vapor is the dominant GHG and it simply obliterates whatever effect CO2 would have absent the water vapor.   The effect from the CO2 is so miniscule as to be completely immeasurable.   We see this in the raw data that we do have access to.  No matter how much the CO2 level has increased, the net result has been zero.  

We see this in the paleoclmate record as well.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> Did any of you warmers out there actually get the point of the OP?



I've already pointed out how bad your use of statistics was, being that you chose to focus on short term noise instead of signal. No competent statistician or scientist would have made such a basic error

Your own second graph showed just how strongly CO2 correlates with temperature. It would be far more sensible for you to fall back to the "correlation is not causation" position, as at least that isn't directly contradicted by the data, like your primary claim is.

You later added on a big logical fallacy. You searched around, founding a better correlation, and implied that meant the first correlation doesn't exist. Your conclusion in no way follows from your premise. No competent statistician or scientist would have made such a basic error.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> And here I disagree with you.  It is invisible.  Were there no water vapor its effect would be measurable.  However, as we all know, water vapor is the dominant GHG and it simply obliterates whatever effect CO2 would have absent the water vapor.



As has been pointed out, CO2 blocks a different spectral window, so that claim is nonsense.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




I don't see how H2O removes or even obscures the CO2 effects at 15 microns. 

I can understand why you think H2O is dominant. I can't understand why you think that true statement proves CO2 has no influence.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1

This is a recent article on atmospheric physics and modeling. I don't necessarily agree with all of its statements and conclusions but it is good to know what climate science is thinking.

As is usually the case, there was an interesting tidbit of information that clears up an ignored anomaly on my part.

There is a sharp spike in the middle of the CO2 band. This is the most favoured and easily absorbed wavelength for CO2. Why is it at an increased level instead of decreased? The answer lies in the atmosphere's temperature gradient. The emission height for this narrow band is much further up in the sky, well into the stratosphere, at a height where temperature actually increases with height rather than decreases like in the troposphere. Good to know. Just like when a line cuts a curve into two segments there are two intercepts. In this case the intercept temperature is the one higher in the atmosphere rather than the lower one which I had (reasonably) assumed.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








I am talking about the temperature.  Water vapor retains enough heat that whatever effect CO2 could have is completely wiped out.  It's not a question about effect at X microns, it is simply the Earth is at this temp and the water vapor makes it so.  CO2 doesn't.  The belief that infinitesimally small amounts of gas can have inordinately huge temperature effects is simply not supported by anything.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1
> 
> This is a recent article on atmospheric physics and modeling. I don't necessarily agree with all of its statements and conclusions but it is good to know what climate science is thinking.
> 
> ...










No modelling that we have seen is worth a damn.  It just isn't.  They are so primitive that they do not reflect reality save by accident alone.  I look at the CFD models that the F1 race teams are using that cost tens of millions of dollars to operate and they are working almost 24/7 to develop parts.  They are dealing with relatively few variables compared to the Earth/Climate engine, and they are only able to produce beneficial results less than 1% of the time.  And those benefits result in tenths of a second speed improvement.

The majority is simply scrapped because the models don't give a benefit.  Then, when they actually build those parts and test them in the real world they are only beneficial 10% of the time.  Those are the most advanced computer models in the WORLD.  And they basically suck for the most part.

Yet you demand that computer models that would seize in an instant if they tried to do what these models are doing are somehow worth paying attention to is simply incomprehensible.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And here I disagree with you.  It is invisible.  Were there no water vapor its effect would be measurable.  However, as we all know, water vapor is the dominant GHG and it simply obliterates whatever effect CO2 would have absent the water vapor.
> ...









And it is such a miniscule amount of blockage that it simply doesn't matter.  The belief that the Earth is susceptible to nearly non existent gases is preposterous.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5#Fig1
> ...









I dunno. The modeling for this seems pretty good.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









Pretty graphs can be created from whole cloth.  They aren't real.   That being said, OK.  You are dealing with the upper atmosphere, which is basically inert due to density.  You have a few chemical compounds who's characteristics are extremely well known, and the models are still far enough off to make a significant alteration of the data line.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




I'm having a hard time figuring out how you are coming to the conclusion that CO2'S effect is invisible. You complain that the model output is different by a few widths of the line yet you ignore the large chunk taken out by CO2.






CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR and adds it to the total energy of the atmosphere. If CO2 was not present then all that energy would simply escape to space like the atmospheric window. 

I simply can't understand your reasoning. Water has practically no overlap at 15 microns.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...











I agree but the issue is the water vapor has already kept the planet warmed to a point that whatever effect CO2 could have is completely lost within the background.  If we REMOVED ALL the CO2 from the atmosphere we wouldn't notice temperature wise.  That's the point.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








I read somewhere that the missing CO2 chunk is about 8% of the total radiation. 1/12 of the area under the curve seems about right to me.

If we added that 8% to outbound radiation and subtracted the greater fraction of that 8% from atmospheric energy input, we would see immediate and massive cooling off the surface. 

How would H2O make up for increased direct energy loss to space and the decreased energy input into the atmosphere?

What you are saying does not make sense to me. Am I missing something?


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









Eight percent and they can't back that number up with observed data.  That's the problem.  Everything they have is based on models and nothing more.  The point I am trying to make is the climatologists have made a claim that the Earth is affected by incredibly tiny amounts of energy.  They can't show how this occurs, but they claim it.  I am saying that the water vapor is an enormous blanket that keeps the heat in and the reality is the climatologists can't see the forest for the very large tree's that are in their way.


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location. 

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.

I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.

You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it? 

Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.

Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.
> 
> How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.
> 
> ...











At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear.  What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.
> ...




A very primitive first estimate would be roughly 3/4 of the Greenhouse Effect of 33C. So about 25C colder.

Of course it would also effect the amount of energy going into the atmosphere, and it would basically kill convection so we would not have weather as we now know it.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...










In the concentrations that we have now?  Might want to recalculate that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.
> ...



*Atmospheric Moisture Residence Times and Cycling: Implications for Rainfall Rates and Climate Change
*

*Abstract*
*New estimates of the moistening of the atmosphere through evaporation at the surface and of the drying through precipitation are computed. Overall, the e-folding residence time of atmospheric moisture is just over 8 days*. New estimates are also made of how much moisture that precipitates out comes from horizontal transport versus local evaporation, referred to as ‘recycling’. The results depend greatly on the scale of the domain under consideration and global maps of the recycling for annual means are produced for 500 km scales for which global recycling is 9.6%, consisting of 8.9% over land and 9.9% over the oceans. Even for 1000 km scales, less than 20% of the annual precipitation typically comes from evaporation within the domain. While average overall atmospheric moisture depletion and restoration must balance, precipitation falls only a small fraction of the time. Thus precipitation rates are also examined. Over the United States, one hour intervals with 0.1 mm or more are used to show that the frequency of precipitation ranges from over 30% in the Northwest, to about 20% in the Southeast and less than 4% just east of the continental divide in winter, and from less than 2% in California to over 20% in the Southeast in summer. In midlatitudes precipitation typically falls about 10% of the time, and so rainfall rates, conditional on when rain is falling, are much larger than evaporation rates. The mismatches in the rates of rainfall versus evaporation imply that precipitating systems of all kinds feed mostly on the moisture already in the atmosphere. Over North America, much of the precipitation originates from moisture advected from the Gulf of Mexico and subtropical Atlantic or Pacific a day or so earlier. Increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere produce global warming through an increase in downwelling infrared radiation, and thus not only increase surface temperatures but also enhance the hydrological cycle, as much of the heating at the surface goes into evaporating surface moisture. Global temperature increases signify that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases and, together with enhanced evaporation, this means that the actual atmospheric moisture should increase. It follows that naturally-occurring droughts are likely to be exacerbated by enhanced potential evapotranspiration. Further, globally there must be an increase in precipitation to balance the enhanced evaporation but the processes by which precipitation is altered locally are not well understood. Observations confirm that atmospheric moisture is increasing in many places, for example at a rate of about 5% per decade over the United States. Based on the above results, we argue that increased moisture content of the atmosphere therefore favors stronger rainfall or snowfall events, thus increasing risk of flooding, which is a pattern observed to be happening in many parts of the world. Moreover, because there is a disparity between the rates of increase of atmospheric moisture and precipitation, there are implied changes in the frequency of precipitation and/or efficiency of precipitation (related to how much moisture is left behind in a storm). However, an analysis of linear trends in the frequency of precipitation events for the United States corresponding to thresholds of 0.1 and 1 mm/h shows that the most notable statistically significant trends are for increases in the southern United States in winter and decreases in the Pacific Northwest from November through January, which may be related to changes in atmospheric circulation and storm tracks associated with El Niño–Southern Oscillation trends. It is suggested that as the physical constraints on precipitation apply only globally, more attention should be paid to rates in both observations and models as well as the frequency of occurrence.

Atmospheric Moisture Residence Times and Cycling: Implications for Rainfall Rates and Climate Change

*If all the water vapor in the atmosphere were to disappear, in eight days we would be right back where we are now. 3/4 of the Earth's surface is covered with water, and the atmosphere would immediately absorb water in relationship to the temperature of the air. And then the winds would distribute that moist atmosphere back over the Earth.

*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2017)

*CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries*

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years*. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).*

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

*Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.*


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Are you pulling an SSDD now?

What does 'in the concentrations that we have now' mean? You said no water, same CO2. Make up your mind.

Better yet, put down your own explanations. You are still ducking the question about how water would make up for the direct energy loss to space if CO2 wasn't around to block the 15 micron band.


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








No, I'm not pulling an SSDD!  I am serious.  In the trace amounts of CO2 that exist in this atmosphere were all the water vapor to go away, what would the temp be?


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries*
> 
> In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).
> 
> ...








The RT for CO2 is 15 years.  The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries*
> ...


Link?


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years...  When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief.  But, they get the grants don't they.  And it's all about those grants.

_*Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere*
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, *we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates*, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the *CO2* increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and* the average residence time 4 years.*_
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Add this...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Dang..........well that sure makes the climate crusaders claims look silly!!


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Get to your point. I already answered your question in #117.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years...



So?

The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is measured in days. By your logic, that means the atmosphere should have entirely run out of water vapor.

So, now can you figure out the flaw in your logic? You're just failing hard at the most basic things, as usual.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years...
> ...









Compare the amount of water vapor to the amount of CO2 and then get back to us.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...












My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2.  None at all.  In a highly controlled lab experiment we can see that CO2 is indeed a GHG, however, the Earth is not a closed lab experiment, nor is it a greenhouse.  It is an open system, thus CO2 is incapable of having a measurable effect in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere.   

Ultimately the greenhouse gas theory requires CO2 to do something that it can't.   We know that the oceans are what regulate the temp of the Earth.  We know that UV radiation is the prime mover in that regard.  We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans.  Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?  It can warm the rocks, but the rocks then radiate it away again and don't retain it.  Only the oceans retain the heat.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




So, you are pulling an SSDD. 

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans.  Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 13, 2017)

Hey.....bottom line is, by far, most Americans have little concern about climate change............

*http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/23/most-americans-believe-in-climate-change-but-give-it-low-priority/*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 13, 2017)

*loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 13, 2017)

By the way..........does anybody know of any poll that asks the public how much they think fighting climate change will cost them personally?

Ive never seen one!!



*Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion*




By Dan Gainor



Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to _*$1.9 trillion*_ per year for 40 years. 

So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 _*trillion*_, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion






Does any poll ask........"Where do you think they are going to get the $$ to pay for going green?"


Ive never seen one!!!


Wonder why??!!


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









No, I'm not pulling an SSDD.  I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground.  Of that there is no doubt.  What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water.  Thus it can not warm water.  Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet.  I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.  

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking.  I am asking them to help understand them.  What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all








The surface radiates about 400w.  CO2 captures all the 15 micron surface radiation but the atmosphere regenerates a portion further up. About 35w is missing and was added to the total energy of the atmosphere.

How can you convinced yourself that this is insignificant? 

This is especially important at near surface levels. All the surface 15 micron IR goes into the first few 10s of metres of atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere is then less capable of receiving energy by conduction.

You have seen more than enough evidence to understand that CO2, even at a small concentration, has a significant effect.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all
> ...







No, I haven't because the historical and paleo records show beyond question that the global temp swings hot and cold no matter what the CO2 concentration has been.  The Vostock cores show a period of cooling when the CO2 levels were above now, and likewise show warming when they were lower.  There IS no correlation between CO2 and global temp.  There just isn't.  There is only theory and models.

The only time we see a temperature impact from CO2 is in very highly controlled lab experiments.  And even there the scientist halved the potential rate of temp increase after further experimentation.  And to date there has been no lab experimentation on the GHG effect of CO2 since then.  We have instrumentation that is far more sophisticated than he did, my hope is that the subject will be revisited.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




My claim is that total CO2 has warmed the surface and atmosphere, and that increasing CO2 will add more warming influence.

I have never claimed CO2 could overwhelm natural factors, or that it was the main climate control knob. Just the opposite actually.

What I cannot abide is when people claim it has no effect at all. The mechanism is real, the effect is hard to quantify.


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








Never said it does.  Just have been saying that based on what we KNOW, at this point in time, it can't affect the global temps as the theory stands..  That's why I am trying to learn as much as possible.  We simply don't even really understand the basics which is why all of these claims are simply silly.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




You are not asking yourself the right questions.

The emissivity of the surface approximates a Blackbody. The atmosphere does not.

Radiation going through the atmospheric window is not affected by the atmosphere. It is simply escaping to space.

Radiation in the CO2 band is completely blocked. None gets through from the surface. It stays in the atmosphere adding to the total energy, hence warming the atmosphere.

Other bands are intermediate to these two extremes.

You should think about this until the consequences of this are clearer in your mind.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I love it, here you are making a statement of "believe like me or else"  wow.  Is that supposed to be like a trance for a hypnotic state or something?  dude, really?  nothing observed to back any of it.  it's been repeated and repeated in here.  and still today, you got nothing.  adding C02 in the atmosphere has done nothing to warming.  Nothing.  and, you can't prove it.  Can you?


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet.  Thus I *AM* asking the right questions.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Any step up in surface heat is gonna be a VERY LONG and delayed response at 500M down in the oceans. But IT WILL go there --- towards equilibrium.  Be it from rain, runoff, melting ice, SMALL surface exchanges, 
etc... 

Except if the step in surface heat is not PRIMARY long wave but total solar daily pumping or frequency/power shifts in the spectrum of the irradiation..  So if BTK found it at 700M, and it was IMMEDIATE in time response, must be the Sun stupids....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2017)

IanC said:


> You are not asking yourself the right questions.



You are the one not asking yourself the right questions ian...you should be asking yourself how goofy an individual has to be in order to believe that a substance which increases the emissivity of a thing could possibly be responsible for warming that thing...can you think of any real world example of such a thing happening or does it only happen in the case of magical CO2?


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







I agree with almost everything except the "but it will go there".  Here I disagree.  Mixing can only take the heat down to around 40 meters.  At that point the heat is rising ever faster towards the surface.  The only heat we know of that can reach that deep is the high energy UV that will penetrate down to 500-600 meters.  Then, you get mixing down to the thermocline at 700 meters.  That's it.  No magical Long Wave IR can exist at that depth.  It just can't.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


_*The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence)*. Depending on the RCP scenario considered, *about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years.* This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale._
_
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne


Abbildung 1: CO2-Verlauf der letzten 800.000 Jahre. Quelle: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, via Climate Central.





_
*The residence of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is less than 5 years. But as one molecule is absorbed by the ocean or vegetation, another is emitted into the atmosphere. So the balance remains the same, and, as the author points out, we are looking at a thousand years or more to completely remove the CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere. And the author also points out it will be warming the atmosphere the whole time.*


----------



## westwall (Jul 13, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Which is sheer and utter bullcrap.  But who cares.  CO2 doesn't drive global temps.  Never has, never will.  And it is my contention that it in fact has no measurable affect., and to date there is not a single experiment that can show it does.  Not one.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey.....bottom line is, by far, most Americans have little concern about climate change............
> 
> *http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/23/most-americans-believe-in-climate-change-but-give-it-low-priority/*


*Everybody talks about the weather. But the climate? Only in some places.*
Counties where adults discuss global warming at least occasionally






Mapping How Americans Think About Climate Change


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2017)

*Americans want to restrict carbon emissions from coal power plants. The White House and Congress may do the opposite.*
Percentage of adults per congressional district who support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants






20%

30

40

50

6
Mapping How Americans Think About Climate Change


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


What fucking bullshit.


Dr. Richard Alley, a real scientist.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You are not asking yourself the right questions.
> ...




Good ole SSDD. He says things he thinks are smart but they usually come back to bite him in the ass.

This post of his is no exception. I told Westwall to consider the emissivity of the atmospheric window at zero, and the CO2 band at one.

What are the consequences? The atmosphere in the atmospheric window has none. It is as if it wasn't there at all. At those wavelengths the surface is radiating at full power into space, unimpeded. This is a case of the single object S-B equation being in play. All radiation loss, none coming back. You don't have to consider net power because the flow is only in one direction.

On the other hand, CO2 is absorbing ALL of the 15 micron radiation that the surface produces within metres of its emission. If the surface was warm enough to produce twice as much 15 micron radiation it would still be all totally absorbed.

This is where the two object S-B equation comes into play. Emissivity is very close to one for both objects, the area is equal because one object is enclosed by the other, only the temperature makes a difference between outgoing and incoming radiation at the surface. 

Two things must be repeated for clarification. The ability to absorb a certain wavelength is exactly the same as the ability to emit the same wavelength, for any substance. It is called emissivity. 

Area for a gas is a bit of a misnomer. The volume of gas that is capable of absorbing the radiation is a closer definition. Therefore the average temperature of the whole slab must be used in the S-B equation. Even this is not quite right but is close enough for our purposes. For 15 micron radiation the depth of the slab is roughly 10 metres, at STP.

Any object that absorbs and emits will affect a nearby object if it is replacing area exposed to a cooler environment, like space. If the nearby object has a power source then the equilibrium temperature will rise, if the nearby object is only warmer but not powered then the heat loss will be reduced.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOL Only every single Scientific Society of Physicists in the world states that you are dead wrong. And go ahead and claim it is an international conspiracy of greedy scientists in every nation in the world. Shows you up for the dumb ass you truly are.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Here rocks...have a look at some actual science...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE



> “*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2  emissions*.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year.  … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphe**re*.”








And it isn't like this is something new...we have known this for quite a while...it has just been ignored by the politically motivated climate pseudoscientists.

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf



> “*The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement*, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”




https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature







*(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.







*
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research



> “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”




http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r



> “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then *supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. *This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”




http://journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509789876772



> “*The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature*. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by the fact that *a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide*.”




*IPCC AR4 (2007): “Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature changes in Antarctica with a lag of some hundreds of years.”

Caillon et al., 2003     “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”

Fischer et al., 1999    “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.”

Monnin et al., 2001     “The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.”

Kawamura et al., 2007   “Our chronology also indirectly gives the timing of the CO2 rise at [glacial] terminations, which occurs within 1 kyr of the increase in Antarctic temperature.”

Indermuhle  et al., 2000    “The [CO2] lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a [CO2] lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.

Landais et al., 2013     “[F]rom 130.5 to 129,000 years ago, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations lagged that of Antarctic temperature unequivocally….At mid-slope, there is an unequivocal lead of δ15N[temperature] over CO2 of 900 ± 325 yr”.

Schneider et al., 2013    “Furthermore, a  5,000 yr lag  in the CO2 decline relative to EDC [East Antarctica] temperatures is confirmed during the glacial inception at the end of MIS5.5 (120,000 yrs before present).”

Stott et al., 2007     “Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ∼2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ∼1000 years.”
*







> “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking.  The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”   – Hansen et al., 2013



Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?



> “*[T]he trend in the airborne fraction *[ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity]* since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.* The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. *Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found*.”



And it goes on and on and on...not only are your claims that we are causing a change in the global climate via our CO2 emissions bullshit, the very claim that we are the primary drivers of atmospheric CO2 is bullshit.  Research shows that it is as I have said all along...we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the variations in the Earth's own CO2 making machinery year to year.
*
*


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Bottom line ian...are you arguing that additional CO2 does not increase the emissivity of the atmosphere even though the observed, measured, quantified experimental evidence says that it does?  Is that what you are saying?

Your claims and though experiments mean exactly squat in the face of observed, repeatable experimental evidence that says flatly that you are wrong...magical thinking simply can't overcome reality.


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Bottom line ian...are you arguing that additional CO2 does not increase the emissivity of the atmosphere even though the observed, measured, quantified experimental evidence says that it does? Is that what you are saying?




Are you stupid, or what? I just said that CO2 adds an emissivity of one for the 15 micron wavelength. More CO2 widens the wings a bit. The other two vibrational states are not as important because they are overlapped by H2O.

SSDD is confused because the presence of CO2 has different consequences depending on where in the atmosphere it is.

High up in the atmosphere CO2 takes energy from molecular collisions and transforms it into 15 micron photons that can escape because the air is so rarified. This is the only piece of the puzzle that interests him.

At the surface CO2 absorbs all the available 15 micron radiation. That energy is transferred to the rest of the atmosphere by molecular collision or occasionally re-emitted. The atmosphere is also exciting CO2 molecules at the same time. All the 15 micron energy is constantly being switched back and forth between kinetic and potential energy, none can escape. This piece of the puzzle is ignored by SSDD.

Emission of radiation is temperature dependant while absorption is not. The surface radiates an amount commensurate to about 15C. The height at which CO2 emits 15 micron radiation that can finally escape is much colder, -50C or less.

The amount of 15 micron energy the atmosphere receives at the surface is more than the atmosphere loses higher up, because of the temperature difference. This surplus of energy warms the air which in turn warms the surface (edit- causes the surface to warm towards a higher equilibrium temperature by solar radiation input), until radiation loss in other wavelengths balances the energy budget again.

This is a relatively simple concept, born out in the data collected during the satellite era. How anyone can deny it is unfathomable to me.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> I just said that CO2 adds an emissivity



That was enough...a substance that reduces the emissivity of the atmosphere might cause warming...a substance that increase the emissivity does not, will not, and can not cause warming...THE END...FINI...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *Americans want to restrict carbon emissions from coal power plants. The White House and Congress may do the opposite.*
> Percentage of adults per congressional district who support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants
> 
> 
> ...


polls are unacceptable, you wish a change put it to a fking vote.  kapeesh?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


no they don't.  simply a lie.  sheez


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


per your definition, not mine.  sorry sock


----------



## westwall (Jul 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








And ALL of it is factually correct unlike your anti science fiction.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL Only every single Scientific Society of Physicists in the world states that you are dead wrong. And go ahead and claim it is an international conspiracy of greedy scientists in every nation in the world. Shows you up for the dumb ass you truly are.



You know rocks...I just had a revelation, and came to realize that you are even more gullible than I though you were.  I took a little trip in the way back machine all the way back to 2008 when you first showed up here...you were pushing the same line of bullshit then that you are are now...tell me rocks, how many failed predictions does "every scientific society" have to support and thus entice you on the bandwagon before you wake up to the fact that you have been duped?

Or have you been bent over the kitchen table by "every scientific society in the world' for so long now that you have come to like it..and can't imagine not being screwed by them every day of your life?


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I just said that CO2 adds an emissivity
> ...



I'm open to new or better ideas.

Explain your position. If you point out something I missed I would appreciate it.

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't help much.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Grab yourself a basic physics book ian...look up emissivity...see if you can find an observed, measured example of a substance that increases the emissivity of a thing causing that thing to warm...just one...with something other than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models for support.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


here is a real climate scientist

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’

*MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’ *

*Dueling Datasets: Satellite temperatures show no warming for over 18 years, while heavily adjusted ground based data shows alleged 'hottest year'*

*Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months*


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Grab yourself a basic physics book ian...look up emissivity...see if you can find an observed, measured example of a substance that increases the emissivity of a thing causing that thing to warm...just one...with something other than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models for support.



????

Shine radiation on any material. If it capable of absorbing that radiation it will warm up. If it can't then there will be no change because the radiation was either reflected or transmitted.

The surface shines 15 micron radiation at the atmosphere. It absorbs it and warms up. The surface also shines other wavelengths, some of which are simply transmitted through, which have no effect on the atmosphere.

In either case the surface itself is losing energy by shedding radiation. 

Explain what you meant by your statement. It doesn't appear to make sense.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet.  Thus I *AM* asking the right questions.



By the same "logic" that Westwall uses to justify that insane claim, it's impossible for sunlight to heat a rock, being that sunlight can't penetrate into a rock more than a few microns.

Westwall has never explained that rather obvious flaw in his crazyland physics. When pressed, he'll mumble something about a magical difference between liquids and solids, but won't explain it any further.

He also doesn't explain why his crazyland physics is allowed to violate conservation of energy, being that in his model, the longwave IR strikes the oceans and then vanishes into a mystery dimension.


----------



## westwall (Jul 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet.  Thus I *AM* asking the right questions.
> ...









Going full retard on us again ya little one?  Please point out where I said that.  As far as the statement I made, it is FACTUAL.  Unlike your ridiculous claims.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.
> ...




When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?

The amount of CO2 we can live with is vert exact.  Go higher than that amount and you die. That is not up for debate.

We all learned that fact in 6th grade General Science class along with the process called "photosynthesis".

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?



Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?
> 
> The amount of CO2 we can live with is vert exact. Go higher than that amount and you die. That is not up for debate.
> 
> ...




I disagree. 

The numbers aren't exact. We didn't learn it in elementary school. CO2 isn't toxic, although it does have side effects in concentrations much, much higher than 400 ppm. There is no LD50, except as an asphyxiant by displacing oxygen.

On the other hand, concentrations of less than about 180 ppm CO2 WOULD kill off most plant life, which in turn would kill off the animals who eat them.

Are you thankful for the increased crop yields and greening of the Earth due to CO2?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> Going full retard on us again ya little one?  Please point out where I said that.  As far as the statement I made, it is FACTUAL.  Unlike your ridiculous claims.



Excellent. You're asking me to humiliate you again, so I will.

Your bizarre claim is that longwave IR can't heat the ocean, because it can't penetrate the ocean skin.

By the same logic, sunlight can't heat a rock, because it can't penetrate the 'skin' of the rock.

Since sunlight certainly can heat a rock, your crazyland physics is obviously totally wrong.

If you don't think your theory is wrong, explain to us why sunlight can heat a rock, but longwave IR can't heat the ocean.

Then, tell us where the longwave IR energy that strikes the ocean goes, if it's not going into the ocean.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL Only every single Scientific Society of Physicists in the world states that you are dead wrong. And go ahead and claim it is an international conspiracy of greedy scientists in every nation in the world. Shows you up for the dumb ass you truly are.
> ...


Egad, the guru of smart photons is saying that the predictions of increasing warming has failed since 2008? LOL, what a really dumb fuck. Six of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since then.






10 Hottest Years on Record


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2017)

IanC said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?
> ...


Really? 






Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Here in Oregon during the ice ages, there were vast lakes where the high desert is today. There were spruce forests, and a far greater diversity of large mammals than there is in any place in North America today. I don't know what the low level is for shutting down plant life, but it has to be well below 180 ppm.


----------



## westwall (Jul 14, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Going full retard on us again ya little one?  Please point out where I said that.  As far as the statement I made, it is FACTUAL.  Unlike your ridiculous claims.
> ...







Wrong you imbecile.  Long wave IR can warm solids quite easily.  That is a well documented FACT (facts are something you seem to have trouble with eh bub), and it is an equally well known FACT that long wave IR CAN'T penetrate more than a few microns deep into water.  The IR that hits the water is reflected back up into the air.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2017)

*Can Infrared Radiation Warm a Water Body?*
April 21st, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I frequently see the assertion made that infrared (IR) radiation cannot warm a water body because IR only affects the skin (microns of water depth), whereas solar radiation is absorbed over water depths of meters to tens of meters.

Before discussing the issue, though, we first must agree that temperature and temperature change of a body is related to rates of energy gain and energy loss by that body. If we cannot agree on the basic concept that temperature changes when energy gain does not equal energy loss, then there is no basis for further discussion.

If the surface of a water body is emitting IR, then IR must be part of its energy budget, and therefore of its temperature. Evaporation only occurs at the skin, and we know that evaporation is the major component of heat loss by water bodies. How is it that evaporation can perform this function, and IR cannot?

The temperature of land clearly is affected by IR, and that only occurs at the surface of the soil. So, how can IR affect land temperature and not ocean temperature?

If you claim that any _additional_ IR (say, due to increasing carbon dioxide) is immediately lost by the water body through evaporation, how exactly does that occur? The surface doesn’t know why it has the temperature it does, it will evaporate water based (partly) on surface temperature, and it does not distinguish where the heat comes from (solar radiation from above, mixing from below, IR from above, sensible heat flux across the air/water interface). To claim that any energy gain from IR is immediately lost by evaporation is just an assertion.

Can Infrared Radiation Warm a Water Body? «  Roy Spencer, PhD

*A pretty good answer.*


----------



## IanC (Jul 14, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...




I wouldn't stake my reputation on the 180 figure. 

And plant life would probably adapt to diminishing CO2 level. C4 plants developed in response to low CO2, and C3 became more efficient.

Sorry, I was being hyperbolic, like so many others here, including you.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> Wrong you imbecile.  Long wave IR can warm solids quite easily.  That is a well documented FACT (facts are something you seem to have trouble with eh bub), and it is an equally well known FACT that long wave IR CAN'T penetrate more than a few microns deep into water.  The IR that hits the water is reflected back up into the air.



Optics theory says reflection only occurs at a boundary of differing indexes of refraction.

You're saying that's all wrong, and that the IR penetrates the water, and then does a U-turn further down.

That is, optics is another branch of physics that you're rewriting.

Oh, the reflectance of seawater has been measured. It's about 3% in the far IR. That's another way that reality smacks down your crazyland physics.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2017)

Also

Use of ATSR-measured ocean skin temperatures in ocean and atmosphere models
---
Studies of the bulk-skin temperature difference (the "skin effect") show that it has a typical daytime value of 0.3 K (Schlussel, 1990) for high latitudes.
---

That is, people have measured ocean skin temperature. It's not boiling. That means the longwave IR being absorbed is not being lost to evaporation, and it is heating the ocean.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong you imbecile.  Long wave IR can warm solids quite easily.  That is a well documented FACT (facts are something you seem to have trouble with eh bub), and it is an equally well known FACT that long wave IR CAN'T penetrate more than a few microns deep into water.  The IR that hits the water is reflected back up into the air.
> ...








Air and water don't have different indexes of refraction?  Do tell....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?



Sorry you can't read for comprehension.



Luddly Neddite said:


> The amount of CO2 we can live with is vert exact.  Go higher than that amount and you die. That is not up for debate.



Who said it was.  The US Navy tries to keep the CO2 levels in its submarines to about 8000 ppm which sailors live in for up to a year at a stretch.  The atmospheric CO2, to the best of our knowledge has never been much above 7000ppm.  Right now, it is around 400ppm.  So exactly what the hell are you talking about?



Luddly Neddite said:


> We all learned that fact in 6th grade General Science class along with the process called "photosynthesis".



Did you learn how much more 8000 is than 400?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> By the same logic, sunlight can't heat a rock, because it can't penetrate the 'skin' of the rock.



Interesting how after all this time, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between solids and liquids and they way they handle energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So which highly massaged record does that chart  represent...and smart photons are all yours rocks...you invented them since you seem to belive that they must be intelligent in order to obey the laws of physics...and rocks must be smart in order to fall down instead of up and on and on.


----------



## Crick (Jul 15, 2017)

The reflectance for s-polarized light is





while the reflectance for p-polarized light is





where _Z_1 and _Z_2 are the wave impedances of media 1 and 2, respectively, μ1 and μ2 are the magnetic permeability of the two materials, and ε1 and ε2 are the electric permittivity of the two materials (at the frequency of the light wave).

For non-magnetic media (i.e. materials for which _μ_1 ≈ _μ_2 ≈ _μ_0 
**********************************************************************

and thus proportional to the ratios of the indices of refraction of the two media.  Your interpretation Mr Westwall, is crap.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> Air and water don't have different indexes of refraction?  Do tell....



And apparently the hairball thinks that water and rocks have the same refractive index as well.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> The reflectance for s-polarized light is
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So are you claiming that IR from either the earth, or the atmosphere is polariarized?


----------



## IanC (Jul 15, 2017)

I think the upshot to all this is that any solar radiation that enters the oceans is eventually absorbed and added to the total energy content, no matter how weakly it interacts with water.

Unlike the atmosphere, where radiation that is transmitted will eventually escape to space. The mean free path keeps getting longer as density decreases with height.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Interesting how after all this time, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between solids and liquids and they way they handle energy.



By all means, explain the difference. As you're the self-proclaimed expert, you should have no problem. Tell us why energy will heat a solid that it only barely penetrates, but won't heat a liquid that it only barely penetrate.

That is, why do you say liquids can magically make energy disappear, but not solids?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> Air and water don't have different indexes of refraction?  Do tell....



Pay attention.

You say the longwave IR only barely penetrates the water. If it barely penetrates, it has still penetrated. It has passed the air-water interface, and is entirely in the water. Your theory states that's when the IR does it's magical U-turn. So what causes it to do that?

And again, the reflectivity of seawater has been measured in the lab to be about 3% in the far IR. That is, 97% of it is passed through and quickly absorbed. That's not a theory, that's direct measurement by experiment. Your theory doesn't agree with experiment. So ...

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Air and water don't have different indexes of refraction?  Do tell....
> ...



Just for fun hairball, what is the emissivity of sea water?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


That would make the IPCC an "outlier"  or we could just call it what it is.. an outright fabrication..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


LOL

What a bunch of crap..

The farce is strong with this one...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

IanC said:


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


"On the other hand, CO2 is absorbing ALL of the 15 micron radiation that the surface"

Your assumption is total bull shit.  Water absorbs 99.79% of 14-21um wavelength at the surface..  Epic fail..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The reflectance for s-polarized light is
> ...


LOL

If its polarized, then photons can be rejected by molecules of like polarization and thus can not warm or be absorbed to warm them.... Is this how they get smart photons?

I believe this is the exact premise I tried to explain to Todd a while back and he laughed at me... Now Crick/Hairball are promotin it...  Too Funny~!!


----------



## IanC (Jul 15, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your assumption is total bull shit. Water absorbs 99.79% of 14-21um wavelength at the surface.. Epic fail




I thought you were part of the group saying that water couldn't absorb LWIR, and therefore couldn't warm the oceans.

Where did your suspiciously fake looking 99.79% number come from? Do you have a link?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your assumption is total bull shit. Water absorbs 99.79% of 14-21um wavelength at the surface.. Epic fail
> ...


Tell me again, what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 at sea level?  And given that amount, in ppm, what percentage of the available LWIR could it absorb?

0.21% is probably severely over estimating its ability at 400ppm..

Water vapor on the other hand, fully absorbs it as it is a boundary vapor (between liquid and vapor) .  Sea water however, will not allow it beyond the 10 micron boundary layer and can not be absorbed by it..


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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




More bafflgab from Billy Bob.






Any of the humps on the component's line that do not reach 100% mean that some of that wavelength is transmitted rather than completely absorbed.

On the other hand, any hump that reaches 100% absorbs all the radiation but doesn't limit how much it is capable of absorbing.

A radiation monitor tag has a range. If it is maxed out, that is the minimum radiation you were exposed to, it could be 1000x more.

Water vapour could absorb some 15 micron IR but it is already completely absorbed by CO2.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 16, 2017)

IanC said:


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


LOL

More BS from Ian...Your forgetting that emissions do not represent absorption.  Your making an* assumption* not based in the facts.  Why do you omit black bodies on earth which actually do  over 99% of the emissions?


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2017)

This diagram contains a lot of information. It is well worth studying.

Almost all of the surface radiation energy that escapes freely to space is in the range of 8-14 microns, otherwise known as the atmospheric window.

Other energy also escapes but it is generated higher up, in the atmosphere.

When the surface loses part of its ability to shed solar input energy it reacts by increasing surface temperature so that more radiation is lost through the atmospheric window band.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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




????

What point are you trying to make? I have stated a dozen times or more that emission is dependent on temperature but absorption is not. If the surface was warm enough to double the 15 micron IR, CO2 would still absorb it all, it would just take a slightly increased volume of air to do it. Perhaps 15 metres instead of just the first ten metres. The actual numbers don't really matter, the concept behind it does.

What blackbodies do you think I am ignoring? Their emissions are related to their temperatures. What is your point, and how does it dispute anything I have said?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> Any of the humps on the component's line that do not reach 100% mean that some of that wavelength is transmitted rather than completely absorbed.g



That is assuming...and it is a bit assumption that the energy doesn't get transferred to another molecule via collision and move on in the form of convection...it is a billion to one shot of any given molecule actually radiating anything .



IanC said:


> On the other hand, any hump that reaches 100% absorbs all the radiation but doesn't limit how much it is capable of absorbing.



Again, assuming that the energy isn't moved on by convection.

The fact is ian, that the notion of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere so completely dominated by convection is ludicrous.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> More BS from Ian...Your forgetting that emissions do not represent absorption.  Your making an* assumption* not based in the facts.  Why do you omit black bodies on earth which actually do  over 99% of the emissions?



Ian is big on making assumptions based on nothing more than  his faith in models.  He don't need no stinking evideidence.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2017)

IanC said:


> This diagram contains a lot of information. It is well worth studying.



And it is virtually meaningless in an atmosphere so completely dominated by convection.


----------



## IanC (Jul 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> That is assuming...and it is a big assumption that the energy doesn't get transferred to another molecule via collision and move on in the form of convection...it is a billion to one shot of any given molecule actually radiating anything



Thanks for actually saying something. It makes dialogue much easier.

Let's get convection tidied up a bit first. Convection is a parcel of gas (sometimes liquid) that is lighter than the surrounding gas because it is 1. warmer or 2. different composition, ie contains more water vapour.

This whole parcel moves upwards, powered by gravity, taking its energy with it. Cooler drier air rushes in to replace it. This is a primarily a gravity effect not radiation or the analogue of conduction for gases.


Now back to surface emitted radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere. Let's use surface emitted 15 micron IR, and atmospheric CO2 as the example because it is the least complicated.

All the emitted energy is absorbed quickly, within a few handfuls of metres. Once absorbed it is passed around by molecular collisions, transformed into kinetic and potential energies. Above this height all 15 micron IR is produced by the atmosphere, none by the surface.

At, say, one kilometre of altitude, what is happening? There are still molecular collisions spreading energy around, transforming it into different combinations of kinetic and potential energies. What about the CO2?

The CO2 is still absorbing all the 15 micron IR it encounters, mostly passing it off by collision but occasionally re-emitting a photon. Sometimes it gets the energy from a collision and radiates a photon.

The Equipartition Theorum states a volume of gas will emit the same amount of radiation it absorbs if it is at a steady temperature. 

Sorry GTG. TBC


----------



## IanC (Jul 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The fact is ian, that the notion of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere so completely dominated by convection is ludicrous.




I'm tired of doing the explaining, why don't you elaborate on your claim.

Convection does move a lot of energy past the bottleneck at the surface, up to the cloudtop. Trenberth and others put the amount at about 60% of the solar input, or about 25% of the radiating power of the surface. Is this what you mean by dominating? Or do you have some different figures?

Once the energy gets to the cloudtop what happens next? Does it just keep rising by convection? Energy can only escape by radiation, so where does this energy transport by convection flip over to energy loss by radiation?

Thanks in advance. I am sure there are a lot of us waiting on pins and needles to be finally told the 'truth'.


----------



## IanC (Jul 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > More BS from Ian...Your forgetting that emissions do not represent absorption.  Your making an* assumption* not based in the facts.  Why do you omit black bodies on earth which actually do  over 99% of the emissions?
> ...



You have stated in the past that the N&Z model for planetary temperature is all that is needed to explain our present surface temperature. How is all this convection incorporated into their model? Do the other planets also have similar convection? By what mechanism?

Thanks in advance for clearing up this confusing aspect to planetary temperature.


----------



## IanC (Jul 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This diagram contains a lot of information. It is well worth studying.
> ...









By meaningless do you mean negligible? Surely the free escape of radiation through the atmospheric window counts for something. How much energy do you think it accounts for? Is it such a small amount that it can be ignored? 

Where does the outgoing radiation come from then? 

Thanks in advance for clearing up this issue.


----------



## IanC (Jul 18, 2017)

Just as I thought. SSDD has no answers to even the simplest criticisms of his claims.

He paints himself into a corner and then runs away.

But he'll be back on another thread, spouting the same indefensible nonsense. And after his initial bluster he'll run away again.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2017)

Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away...  Water vapor accounts for most of the radiation that gets absorbed from the surface, and water vapor like all the other so called greenhouse gases is a billion times more likely to pass on the energy via convection than via radiation.  In the troposphere, convection is so dominant that the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect is ludicrous on its face.


----------



## IanC (Jul 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away...  Water vapor accounts for most of the radiation that gets absorbed from the surface, and water vapor like all the other so called greenhouse gases is a billion times more likely to pass on the energy via convection than via radiation.  In the troposphere, convection is so dominant that the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect is ludicrous on its face.



convection con·vec·tion (kən-věk'shən) n. Heat transfer in a gas or liquid by the circulation of currents from one region to another. Fluid motion caused by an external force such as gravity.

Do you have a different definition of convection that you are using? 

Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.

What is this billion to one nonsense in favour of convection? 10% of the surface radiating power (25% of the Sun's surface input) escapes directly through the atmospheric window band. 

Now you say the top of the troposphere is where all the radiation is generated from. What is the temperature there? Minus 60C? Hasn't most of the water vapour already given up its latent heat far below that, close to the freezing point of water? I think you need to fill in some more details.

Gravity moves the parcels of lighter air upwards. What causes the the lighter air in the first place? Conduction from the surface causes thermals. Evaporation increases the amount of water vapour, which lowers the molecular weight of a mole of air, absorption of surface radiation by GHGs warms the air making it less dense. Am I missing any other mechanisms? Probably but those three constitute the main pathways to initiate convection. Two of them are the result of greenhouse gases. Yet you reject that they have any influence.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 18, 2017)

IanC said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?
> ...


CO2 is plant food


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.



There is no radiation bottleneck until you reach the top of the troposphere.....convection is so dominant in the troposphere that radiation is barely a bit player.



IanC said:


> What is this billion to one nonsense in favour of convection? 10% of the surface radiating power (25% of the Sun's surface input) escapes directly through the atmospheric window band.[/uote]
> 
> Talk to Dr Happer about the billion to one "nonsense"...compare credentials and lifetime achievements regarding the topic and you two decide between yourselves who is spouting nonsense.



He is readily available via email and he will even answer questions from a magical thinker such as yourself.


----------



## IanC (Jul 19, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Convection is a macroscopic elevator ride that transports energy past the surface radiation bottleneck up to the cloudtops, and it is powered by gravity. Like I have said countless times before, and which you disagreed with, scoffed at. Apparently you have changed your mind.
> ...




I have seen the conversation between Happer and the journalist. Why didn't you cut and paste it again?

Because it doesn't mention convection! SSDD is confused about what convection actually is. Convection is a macroscopic movement of a volume of mass that takes its energy with it as it moves.

Radiation and molecular collision are atomic scale processes that redistribute energy between molecules.

Hey SSDD, why didn't you address any of my points above? Is it because you don't have any answers or explanations?

Are you going to continue your blustering and stonewalling? Are you going to admit you screwed up with the meaning of convection?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2017)

IanC said:


> I have seen the conversation between Happer and the journalist. Why didn't you cut and paste it again?
> 
> Because it doesn't mention convection! SSDD is confused about what convection actually is. Convection is a macroscopic movement of a volume of mass that takes its energy with it as it moves.



Once again ian, for all of your high opinion of yourself, you prove that you know just enough to think that you don' need to look any further...and once again, it doesn't serve you well.

Here, from Heat and Thermodynamics:  Oakes  pp 82



> Heat transfer through condition requires the physical transfer of energy through molecular collisions.  *CONVECTION IS A COMBINATION OF HEAT TRANSFER THROUGH DIFUSSION, WHICH HAS THE SAME MECHANISM AS CONDUCTION, AND THE MASS TRANSFER OF GASOUS MOLECULES.[./quote]
> *
> And the reason I didn't address any of your points is because they are all bullshit.  Products of your magical thinking.  More mental experiments which just happen to not have an analog in the real world or mental experiments which can not be conducted out here in the real world....Take your talisman, and your bags rat bones and chicken feet and confer with other magical thinkers...and let me know when you get some actual physical evidence in the form of observation and measurement to support your beliefs.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2017)

You surprise me ian...I thought at least you would jump on the spelling error or the formatting mistake.


----------



## IanC (Jul 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You surprise me ian...I thought at least you would jump on the spelling error or the formatting mistake.



Yes, I did notice the spell checker insertion of condition for convection, and the double s instead of double f. I figured you were copying something that you couldn't cut and paste.

That still left an idea that couldn't be ignored, even if you didn't add the context.

I re-examined my understanding of the concept of convection, and found it to be too simplistic, too general. There are other mechanisms that can power convection besides gravity, or that focusing on the rising bolus of energetic mass ignores the descending fluid and the reconditioning of the fluid as it turns the corner between rising and falling.

It gives me pleasure to re-think old topics in a deeper fashion, and for that I thank you.

Next, I wanted to find outside corroboration. Convection is too general a term, convective transfer of heat brings better and more specific information.

"
Convective heat transfer is one of the major types of heat transfer, and convection is also a major mode of mass transfer in fluids. Convective heat and mass transfer take place both by diffusion – the random Brownian motion of individual particles in the fluid – and by advection, in which matter or heat is transported by the larger-scale motion of currents in the fluid. In the context of heat and mass transfer, the term "convection" is used to refer to the sum of advective and diffusive transfer.[1] In common use the term "convection" may refer loosely to heat transfer by convection, as opposed to mass transfer by convection, or the convection process in general. Sometimes "convection" is even used to refer specifically to "free heat convection" (natural heat convection) as opposed to forced heat convection. However, in mechanics the correct use of the word is the general sense, and different types of convection should be qualified for clarity
"

As usual, physics is a complicated subject that is governed by simple Laws, but those laws can seldom be totally separated out from the complexity of reality.

In the case of the Earth's sun/surface/atmosphere/space flow of energy the three components of radiation/conduction/convection cannot be fully compartmentalized because they are all happening at the same time. You can however make general estimates of the amounts following any of the three pathways.

Your description of convection seems to include all three of the pathways. That is the opposite of informative. You have again taken a statement out of context and imbued it with your own interpretation.

The generally accepted meanings for the three modes of heat transfer are- 

Conduction, energy passed along by physical contact.

Radiation, energy passed along via emitted packets of energy with no contact necessary.

Convection, energy passed along by bulk movement of the mass containing the energy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2017)

[/QUOTE]


IanC said:


> Your description of convection seems to include all three of the pathways. That is the opposite of informative. You have again taken a statement out of context and imbued it with your own interpretation.



No ian...I have only applied reality...look it up...take it for a test drive sometime.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 20, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away...



The military would be very surprised to learn how all the time they spent defining the IR absorption characteristics of the atmosphere were wasted. It seems they just could have had SSDD tell them that the stratosphere is totally transparent to all IR, as he did there, and then base all their technology off of that claim.

Of course, our IR-seeker missiles then wouldn't work, but crippling our defense would be a small price to pay to support SSDD's ideological purity.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2017)

mamooth said:


> The military would be very surprised to learn how all the time they spent defining the IR absorption characteristics of the atmosphere were wasted. It seems they just could have had SSDD tell them that the stratosphere is totally transparent to all IR, as he did there, and then base all their technology off of that claim.



So your claim is that IR gets conducted and convected into space?  Is that your claim hairball?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2017)

IanC said:


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



So you believe that molecular collision doesn't happen in the mass?  You don't believe that the mass will receive incoming radiation or give it off?

Well; this explains why you still believe in the 'atmospheric bottle neck" that has NEVER manifested itself...

Come on Ian use your damn head!

All three processes are part of the Convection flow and they can not be separated. This is precisely why the "Atmospheric bottle neck" is fallacy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



And it is all moving from warm to cool...hell, even if it were possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, what is the chance it would actually make it to the earth without being absorbed by some other molecule which would then 999999999 times out of a billion then simply pass it along to another molecule via collision..a molecule being moved on by the convective movement upwards towards cooler pastures.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> So your claim is that IR gets conducted and convected into space?  Is that your claim hairball?



Obviously not. That retard theory appears to be entirely your invention. Don't ask me to explain why your diseased mind thought up such nonsense.

Now, let's do what you hate most, and just go right back to what you're deflecting from.

You say the stratosphere is transparent to IR.

The military disagrees with you.

Given that you're just a cult retard crying on the internet, why should we believe you over the military?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So your claim is that IR gets conducted and convected into space?  Is that your claim hairball?
> ...



I said " Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away.."

To which you apparently claimed that it didn't...as if there were some other means of transporting energy on out of the atmosphere than radiation...above the troposphere, convection and conduction are merely bit players in the movement of energy just as radiation is a bit player within the troposphere.  Sorry you are so stupid.

Given that you're just a cult retard crying on the internet, why should we believe you over the military?[/QUOTE]

Frankly, I could give a shit what you believe hairball...and alas, it is always you who is crying bitter tears...trying to defend the indefensible, trying to make excuses for the inexcusable....such is the nature of bitter crazy old cat ladies I guess.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I said " Once it gets to the top of the troposphere, it is all radiated away.."
> 
> To which you apparently claimed that it didn't...



Because that's obvious to normal people, given that the stratosphere is not transparent to IR.



> as if there were some other means of transporting energy on out of the atmosphere than radiation...



The correct statement "Energy does not freely radiate to space from the top of the troposphere" in no way leads to your deranged conclusion there. Your cult logic is nothing like our mere earth logic, so our earth logic can't explain it.



> above the troposphere, convection and conduction are merely bit players in the movement of energy just as radiation is a bit player within the troposphere.  Sorry you are so stupid.



That's why the greenhouse effect predominates in that area. Are you finally grasping the basics that you've failed so completely at for so many years?



> Frankly, I could give a shit what you believe hairball...and alas, it is always you who is crying bitter tears...trying to defend the indefensible, trying to make excuses for the inexcusable....such is the nature of bitter crazy old cat ladies I guess.



My sweet little bitch, your snowflake tears are like a bitter but sweet nectar to me. Now, back to what you're running from, to make you cry some more. Mmmm. So tasty.

The military says you're a shit-gobbling moron, so why shouldn't everyone laugh hard at your reality-defying cult babbling?

Answer: They do laugh. And it's so delightful to watch you cry about it.


----------



## IanC (Jul 21, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



There are three basic methods of moving energy. Radiation, which does not require either a media for transport, nor proximity. Conduction, which transports energy by physical contact. And convection, which moves the substrate containing the energy, and needs gravity to function.

Got that? Radiation has no constraints, no necessary preconditions other than to have energy to move.

Conduction needs intimate contact. We could go into more detail by comparing conduction in solids, liquids and gases but that would defeat the purpose of defining the basic mechanism.

Convection is the odd man out. It needs both gravity and a fluid. It is not a particle to particle transfer, it is a bulk movement of mass.


Are all three happening at the same time? Of course. That doesn't mean we can't catagorize energy transfer into the three basic pathways.

Gravity also affects conduction in fluids by constraining the shape of the volume. Is this an integral part of the mechanism of conduction, or just a macroscopic complexity?

Radiation is a free agent, that cares not about gravity, media etc. But it does depend on available energy. So do we say gravity, media, etc are an integral part of the radiation process? I don't think so. 

Local conditions are what they are. Nature finds the most efficient way of shedding energy. It combines radiation, conduction and convection (and other processes that we haven't specifically named such as latent heat) to accomplish this.


I have tried to point out specific parts of the puzzle, and give them a general direction without giving them a precise quantification. We can't know the affect of one puzzle piece without knowing all the other pieces.

CO2 absorbs more surface radiation than it eventually releases in the upper atmosphere. Therefore it is a warming influence on the atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere accepts less conduction energy from the surface. This reduced energy loss from the surface leads to a higher equilibrium seeking temperature when the Sun is shining.

I can't give you an exact figure for how much warming should happen by increasing CO2 but I can give you the direction. Even if cooling happened while CO2 increased that would not disproves CO2's warming influence, that would just mean the warming influence was overwhelmed by other competing influences.

If you want to convince me that CO2 has no influence then you have to break the chain of logic for the mechanism. 

Prove that there is not enough CO2 specific radiation emitted by the surface, or that CO2 doesn't absorb it, or that CO2 emits the same amount at the TOA, or that the atmosphere doesn't warm by absorbing surface radiation, or that conduction isn't reduced by a smaller temperature gradient, or that the ability to lose energy isn't just as important to equilibrium temperature when something is being actively warmed by an outside power source.

I have looked at all those facets of the problem and found them to be conclusive. CO2 is a warming influence.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > above the troposphere, convection and conduction are merely bit players in the movement of energy just as radiation is a bit player within the troposphere.  Sorry you are so stupid.
> ...



You know hairball..just when I think you have pegged out on the stupid meter...you go and say some thing like that and redefine the whole damned term. You believe the greenhouse effect predominates in the stratosphere? Let me just ask the question?...how f'ing stupid are you?




mamooth said:


> My sweet little bitch, your snowflake tears are like a bitter but sweet nectar to me. Now, back to what you're running from, to make you cry some more. Mmmm. So tasty.



You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you hairball.  I will say it again, you should change your name to Barco, because you are a top shelf projector.  Imagine, even suggesting that I am an extremist liberal who gets offended by any view that doesn't match my own?...again, just how stupid are you hairball?  Can you point to anything that I have ever said that would make a thinking person think that I am even a little bit liberal?...much less a f'ing snowflake like you?  You just get further and further out into the deep end..


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> You know hairball..just when I think you have pegged out on the stupid meter...you go and say some thing like that and redefine the whole damned term. You believe the greenhouse effect predominates in the stratosphere? Let me just ask the question?...how f'ing stupid are you?



You clearly still don't know what the greenhouse effect is.

Again, let's get back to what you keep running from. You won't address it, because you're a seriously cowardly beeyatch, but it's fun to watch you wet yourself and run.

The military says your kook theories about the stratosphere being transparent to IR are laughable bullshit. Is it your contention that the US military is part of the great conspiracy?

How do you explain the fact that IR-seeking missiles work very well, given that they're based on the science that you say is wrong?

And do you have those court documents about Mann yet?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2017)

IanC said:


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


Everything you just stated has been modeled and has failed to produce what empirical evidence shows is actually happening.

So what part of your theory is flawed?

*"Are all three happening at the same time? Of course. That doesn't mean we can't catagorize energy transfer into the three basic pathways."*

Your calculations of what affects what and by how much are garbage.

*"CO2 absorbs more surface radiation than it eventually releases in the upper atmosphere."
*
This statement is a factually wrong, unproven, hypothesis that has been shown wrong by empirical evidence.  CO2 does in fact radiate the same amount that it absorbs at both altitudes when you consider the mass reduction at the top of the troposphere.

The major loss is to other gases and water vapor in the convection cycle. LWIR is 999,999,996 times more likely to release its energy to water vapor than it is to strike another CO2 molecule.

Tell me Ian,  Why does the lOG of CO2 expect just 1.2 deg C of warming per doubling, yet we have seen just 0.2 deg C that can be attributed to it and not to other processes?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2017)

IanC said:


> Prove that there is not enough CO2 specific radiation emitted by the surface, or that CO2 doesn't absorb it, or that CO2 emits the same amount at the TOA, or that the atmosphere doesn't warm by absorbing surface radiation, or that conduction isn't reduced by a smaller temperature gradient, or that the ability to lose energy isn't just as important to equilibrium temperature when something is being actively warmed by an outside power source.


How about you prove that it does...  Empirical evidence says that it does not.  Only your modeling says that it does and that has been shown wrong over 179 times with current GCM's.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> You clearly still don't know what the greenhouse effect is.



And neither do you...Unlike you, however, I do know what it isn't....it isn't anything like the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science....and the observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that.

Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that this isn't happening.






Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses would invariably lead to a tropospheric hot spot.  More than a million radiosondes sent up through the troposphere, and two satellites which were put there to measure the temperature of the troposphere tell us that it is conspicously absent.  The observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that it is not there.






Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would invariably result in more evaporation from the oceans and in turn, more water vapor in the atmosphere.  Once again, the observed, measured, quantified data tell us that this simply is not happening.






Three major predictive failures....in real science, a single predictive failure whether it is major or not is enough to get a hypothesis tossed into the dust bin and initiate work on a new hypothesis that has better predictive value.  The fact that the radiative greenhouse hypothesis has not..and that it is has been co opted by politics tells us that it is pseudoscience and not worthy of any serious thought beyond how to finally put it out of its misery and begin working on a new hypothesis...which, just happens to already be out there and which can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...unlike the radiative greenhouse hypothesis which doesn't even work here without an ad hoc fudge factor.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Because that's obvious to normal people, given that the stratosphere is not transparent to IR.


Where did you get this voodoo science bull shit from?

The stratosphere contains ozone, which is totally transparent to any transmissions in the 12um to 60um wave lengths..  Ozone only blocks downwelling radiation.  Gawd your a total dupe...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...or_Aura_Ozone_Measuring_Instrument_validation


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> *"CO2 absorbs more surface radiation than it eventually releases in the upper atmosphere."
> *
> ....... CO2 does in fact radiate the same amount that it absorbs at both altitudes when you consider the mass reduction at the top of the troposphere.



Awkward phrasing, do you mean lower density when you say mass reduction?

I think I get your point. Equipartition Theorum states that a gas will emit the same amount of energy as it absorbs, if it is at a constant temperature. So if you examine a thin enough slice of the atmosphere, which is not undergoing convective currents, that should be approximately true.

Unfortunately that is seldom the case. The 'average' scenario is that the Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the lowest part of the atmosphere, then the atmosphere passes the heat to the next later of atmosphere, and so on, until you reach the tropopause where different radiative effects take over in the stratosphere and above.

CO2 absorbs ALL the surface 15 micron IR within the first 10 metres, although it doesn't matter for the principal if that height was 100 or 1000 metres. Absorption is not temperature dependant, it only requires CO2 to be present. If more CO2 is present then the height for total absorbance of surface 15 micron IR goes down. Putting the same amount of energy into a smaller volume must increase the temperature of that smaller volume.

Once absorbed the surface 15 micron IR is added to the total energy of the atmosphere by molecular collision. CO2 emission of 15 micron IS dependent on temperature. CO2 molecules are constantly getting excited and de-excited by molecular collision. If they remain in the excited state long enough they emit. Any 15 micron IR produced is immediately reabsorbed, and the cycle repeats.

This continues until the air is rarified enough that 15 micron IR is no longer fully recaptured but escapes to space. The atmospheric energy available to be converted into radiation is less here because the temperature is cooler than near the surface. All the 15 micron IR goes in, only the amount produced at roughly -50C goes out. As can easily be seen on the Planck style measured radiation graph of TOA outbound radiation.






The big CO2 chunk is reduced because none comes from the surface, the radiation produced is from higher up in the cold atmosphere. NB, the 15 micron band is in most radiant part of the curve.


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that this isn't happening




I know this wasn't directed at me but I would like to respond.

I am only interested in CO2, the climate models fuck up water vapour and feedbacks. As I have stated multiple times in the past.

Your graphs that originally came from the AmericanThinker article confirm that radiation from CO2 decreased from 1970, even though the ocean temperature went up slightly.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Where did you get this voodoo science bull shit from?
> 
> The stratosphere contains ozone, which is totally transparent to any transmissions in the 12um to 60um wave lengths..



HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Billy thinks the stratosphere is 100% ozone.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...



No, that's absolutely not the case. The science says LW at the top of the atmosphere should be going up as temperature increases, just like your graphs said.



> Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses would invariably lead to a tropospheric hot spot



And it's there. Only the most desperately dishonest cult liars still try to pretend otherwise. Stop it with the data faking, will you? It's not fooling anyone.
.


> Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would invariably result in more evaporation from the oceans and in turn, more water vapor in the atmosphere.



And that's been measured over and over.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

There's just one source. I show you many more. What's the source of your fraud? You never want to tell us where you get your fraud pieces.



> ..which, just happens to already be out there and which can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere..



Except when it doesn't. And one exception disproves the kook loser theory.

The conclusion? Your mentors -- Stalin, Goebbels, and Alinksy -- have trained you well, little commie.


----------



## 12icer (Jul 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...
> ...




A liberal calling ANYONE a commie or a nazi is the biggest joke of the decade on this forum!  Global warming is a HOAX designed to steal money from the general fund. Funny that liberals at so stupid to believe something that even a smart child knows is wrong. Breathe in there and hold it till you all pass out liberals that will save the world and give us time to put a plastic bag over your heads to make a permanent change in co2 production. The last one that told ne about the greenhouse gas said it was co, not co2 at least he had the right major emission for an internal combustion engine.


----------



## westwall (Jul 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you get this voodoo science bull shit from?
> ...







You know hairball, when you resort to lying about another persons post you are losing your ass big time.  Maybe you should stop lying about what people are saying.  Just a thought.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you get this voodoo science bull shit from?
> ...


Where did I say it was 100% ozone?  Are you makin shit up again?

I wonder if you can tell me how that gas is supposed to warm up from LWIR when it is unaffected by its passage..?  Is it magic?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> CO2 absorbs ALL the surface 15 micron IR within the first 10 metres,





So your saying that the other 99.996% of the atmosphere near surface doesn't matter and has no effect?  That's one wild ass assumption that has no basis in fact.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Were there a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science, additional so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in decreased LW at the top of the atmosphere...observed, measured, quantified evidence tells us that this isn't happening
> ...



That question is easily answered..  When the water vapor decreases, LWIR escapes faster unimpeded.  Thus that which CO2 could be responsible for diminishes...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2017)

westwall said:


> You know hairball, when you resort to lying about another persons post you are losing your ass big time.  Maybe you should stop lying about what people are saying.  Just a thought.



So, do you agree with Billy's claim that the stratosphere is transparent to IR?

Do you agree with Billy's claim that sonar is being used to map the ice sheets?

Do you agree with Billy's claim that every ice-measuring satellite in the world is out of calibration, and that the ice is really growing fast?

Maybe you shouldn't have come to Billy's rescue, because that opened you up to questions about how stupid you were willing to get in service of your cult.

So how stupid are you willing to get? Is there any level of stupidity you won't embrace out of fanatical loyalty to your Stalinist cult?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Where did I say it was 100% ozone?  Are you makin shit up again?



You implied it, beign that you think no other gas in the stratosphere needs to be accounted for.



> I wonder if you can tell me how that gas is supposed to warm up from LWIR when it is unaffected by its passage..?  Is it magic?



O3 _is_ a greenhouse gas, so it does warm up. As do all the other greenhouse gases in the stratosphere.


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 absorbs ALL the surface 15 micron IR within the first 10 metres,
> ...




Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. CO2 is the only strong absorber of 15 micron IR.

If there was no CO2 then the 15 micron band would be added the range of wavelengths commonly referred to as the atmospheric window. The reason it is called that is because radiation in that range escapes directly to space without interacting with the atmosphere.

If CO2 did not absorb 15 micron IR, then the surface would cool in two ways. No 15 micron IR would be returning to the surface because it leaves at the speed of light. And more importantly, the energy captured and passed along to the atmosphere would no longer be there, which would cool the atmosphere, which in turn would cool the surface because of increased conduction caused by the larger temperature difference between surface and atmosphere.

It's all rather simple. I don't know why you are having such a hard time comprehending it.


----------



## westwall (Jul 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You know hairball, when you resort to lying about another persons post you are losing your ass big time.  Maybe you should stop lying about what people are saying.  Just a thought.
> ...







Why do you lie about what people say?


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2017)

The blue area is the atmospheric window. Without CO2 it would widen to the right to roughly 16 microns. More energy would directly escape, the surface would cool.






This is a graph of the atmospheric window, and the difference between 1970 and 2006. The y axis is somewhat changed because it gives the implied temperature of the radiating origin rather than the actual amount of radiation.

Notice that the CO2 band at 667 is mostly missing but the small piece at 700 shows a decrease in brightness, corresponding to a lower temperature higher up in the atmosphere. Most of the atmospheric window is slightly higher, indicating that the surface temperature increased slightly over the 36 years.


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2017)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




It amuses him. I am assuming you are talking about the poo flinging monkey because I can't see his quote. I have him on ignore for obvious reasons.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2017)

IanC said:


> It amuses him. I am assuming you are talking about the poo flinging monkey because I can't see his quote. I have him on ignore for obvious reasons.



None of the deniers here even pretends they're capable of an honest discussion with me. They all just power-pout at me now.

Ian, he's admitted that the temperature adjustments make the warming look smaller. But even after admitting that his conspiracy theory is kind of stupid, does that deter him from pushing it anyways? No. He has faith that it must be correct, so he keeps trying to pound his square conspiracy peg into the round hole of reality. Needless to say, that makes reality scream.


----------



## IanC (Jul 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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




You do realize ozone is a GHG, right? It does absorb incoming UV but it is also reactive with IR at wavenumber 1040. Triple bonds usually do because they can 'vibrate'.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2017)

mamooth said:


> None of the deniers here even pretends they're capable of an honest discussion with me. They all just power-pout at me now.



Being a bald faced liar, of course it isn't possible to have an honest discussion with you...our side is honest, but you will say anything if you think you can get away with it....like your claim that the greenhouse hypothesis claimed that there would be an increase in outgoing long wave radiation...you are a liar and an honest discussion is not possible with a liar.


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2017)

Your comment here indicates you've never made use of any sort of system approach to problem solving.  Two planets, one warmer than the other.  Which is radiating more energy?  You could use SB here since you claim to be an expert in its use.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2017)

Crick said:


> Your comment here indicates you've never made use of any sort of system approach to problem solving.  Two planets, one warmer than the other.  Which is radiating more energy?  You could use SB here since you claim to be an expert in its use.



Another one who hasn't read the literature, despite your repeated claims that you have.  If you had, you would have found claim after claim after claim of reduced outgoing LW as a result of increased so called greenhouse gasses. 

I didn't make the claims...your wack job pseudoscientists did...and alas, they were wrong which falsifies their hypothesis.

Guess you didn't read the literature I provided...not surprising..I guess reading isn't your best thing....but here, I will post it again.

_Here: from Arctic Alpine Ecosystems and People in a Changing Environment 

Clip:  The greenhouse energy trapping effect in the tropospere is accompanied by less outgoing long wave radiation to the lower stratosphere_

_Here: from Nonlinear Climate Dynamics By Henk A. Dijkstra 

He is discussing climate models...

Clip:  When the temperature increase, y(T) decreases, mimicking the reduced outgoing longewave radiation due to the presence of greenhouse gasses and clouds.

Here..__ACT-RPR-ESS-2013-IAC-ClimateEngineeringWhichRoleForSpace.pdf_
_
This is pulled from a crazy discussion of geoengineering in an attempt to alter the effects of the greenhouse effect and increased CO2.

Clip:  _
Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques, by at- tempting to directly influence the solar radiation balance of the Earth system. This second approach includes compensating the
*reduced outgoing, long-wave radiation due to higher levels of greenhouse gases*_ by either increas- ing the amount of generally short-wave radiation that is reflected back into space or by directly reducing the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s atmosphere.

Here: https://epic.awi.de/33874/1/BzPM_0669_2013.pdf_

_In a review of how CO2 is the control knob for Earth's climate.

Clip:  As a re_*sult of the reduced outgoing long-wave radiation, the Earth’s temperature is higher*_ than that of a black body with the same size and energy supply but no greenhouse gases, at thermal equilibrium (Planck function). The natural greenhouse effect raises the ac- tual average surface temperature on Earth from -18_◦_C to roughly +15_◦_C (Pierrehumbert, 2011)._

_
Here from the European Space Policy 

Institutehttp://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/ESPI_Report_41.pdf_

_From another discussion of possible geoengineering projects:

Clip:  _3.2 Basic Physics of Climate Engineering

Climate engineering concepts can be put into two broad categories: (1) those approaches trying to reduce the CO2 content in the at- mosphere by actively removing it, and thus increasing the level of outgoing, long-wave radiation leading to overall cooling;

Little wonder you guys don't have a clue...you don't read the literature..hell, you don't even know what the claimed greenhouse effect is..or what it is supposed to do...you just regurgitate what you are told to regurgitate whether it meshes with the actual claims and statements made in the literature or not...you are just a parrot...nothing more...do you want a cracker?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2017)

mamooth said:


> No, that's absolutely not the case. The science says LW at the top of the atmosphere should be going up as temperature increases, just like your graphs said.



_You poor f'ing idiot.....have you ever been right about anything? The whole greenhouse effect is about reducing the amount of energy escaping the system. Sorry hairball, but once again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Here, let me provide some of the pseudoscience for you._

_Here: from Arctic Alpine Ecosystems and People in a Changing Environment Its a book....I'm sure you never read one, but they are out there if you ever do._



			
				page 229 said:
			
		

> _The greenhouse energy trapping effect in the tropospere is accompanied by less outgoing long wave radiation to the lower stratosphere_



_Now perhaps you might like to explain how there could be less radiation reaching the stratosphere but more radiation reaching the top of the atmosphere...does it get magically multiplied in some manner?

Here: from Nonlinear Climate Dynamics By Henk A. Dijkstra_

_He is discussing climate models...._



			
				page275 said:
			
		

> _When the temperature increase, y(T) decreases, mimicking the reduced outgoing longewave radiation due to the presence of greenhouse gasses and clouds._



_Here..__ACT-RPR-ESS-2013-IAC-ClimateEngineeringWhichRoleForSpace.pdf_

_This is pulled from a crazy discussion of geoengineering in an attempt to alter the effects of the greenhouse effect and increased CO2._

_


			
				page 2 said:
			
		


			Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques, by at- tempting to directly influence the solar radiation balance of the Earth system. This second approach includes compensating the
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				page 2 said:
			
		

> *reduced outgoing, long-wave radiation due to higher levels of greenhouse gases*_ by either increas- ing the amount of generally short-wave radiation that is reflected back into space or by directly reducing the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s atmosphere._



_Here: https://epic.awi.de/33874/1/BzPM_0669_2013.pdf
In a review of how CO2 is the control knob for Earth's climate._

_


			
				page 7 said:
			
		


			As a r
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				page 7 said:
			
		

> *esult of the reduced outgoing long-wave radiation, the Earth’s temperature is higher*_ than that of a black body with the same size and energy supply but no greenhouse gases, at thermal equilibrium (Planck function). The natural greenhouse effect raises the ac- tual average surface temperature on Earth from -18_◦_C to roughly +15_◦_C (Pierrehumbert, 2011)._



_Here from the European Space Policy

Institutehttp://www.hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/ESPI_Report_41.pdf_

_From another discussion of possible geoengineering projects:_

_


			
				page 21 said:
			
		


			3.2 Basic Physics of Climate Engineering
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				page 21 said:
			
		

> _Climate engineering concepts can be put into two broad categories: (1) those approaches trying to reduce the CO2 content in the at- mosphere by actively removing it, and thus increasing the level of outgoing, long-wave radiation leading to overall cooling;_



_Here they are talking about trying to increase the level of outgoing long wave to try and cool the earth...you would think a space agency would already know that the level of outgoing LW is already on the increase..._

_And I could go on and on since practically every in depth article on the greenhouse effect states that increased so called greenhouse gasses will reduce the amount of outgoing long wave at the top of the atmosphere. You really don't have a clue do you? Of course, that is what you have been taught...when your hypothesis fails, simply say that the failed prediction was actually a successful prediction._




mamooth said:


> And it's there. Only the most desperately dishonest cult liars still try to pretend otherwise. Stop it with the data faking, will you? It's not fooling anyone.



_Right...a hot spot that can not be measured by thermometer, but only by increased wind. The greenhouse effect didn't predict a windy spot...it predicted a hot spot..and any hot spot can be measured by thermometer. Just one more patently ridiculous attempt to save a dead hypothesis. More than a million thermometers sent through that region state categorically that the temperature has not increased..._




mamooth said:


> And that's been measured over and over.



Sorry hairball...I know you wish it were true..but it just isn't.




mamooth said:


> Except when it doesn't. And one exception disproves the kook loser theory.



_Sorry hairball, but there isn't a case where it doesn't...but it is good to know that at least you recognize that failure of a hypothesis results in its falsification..so you should, if you weren't a complete idiot recognize that the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can't even get close to the temperatures of the other planets in the solar system..and doesn't work here either without an ad hoc fudge factor falsifies it completely._





mamooth said:


> The conclusion? Your mentors -- Stalin, Goebbels, and Alinksy -- have trained you well, little commie.



_Sorry hairball...but the observed evidence proves you wrong...and what do you do..you claim to be right...or claim that the failed predictions were never made...or claim that they hypothesis claims something other than what it predicts will happen...just as the above socialists taught you._


_And the fact that you would think that I learned anything from socialists is just one more piece of evidence proving that you don't have a clue about anything. Imagine, calling a staunch conservative like me a radical liberal trained by socialists...you really are a f'ing idiot._


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2017)

SSDD- you are purposely ignoring the context of those statements. 

When one pathway of energy loss is reduced, the system warms up to push more energy out of the unaffected pathways. The energy required to raise the temperature comes from energy not lost to space while the system moves back to equilibrium.

An analogy for this is a bucket with several holes in it. When you start filling it with a hose the water level will rise until as much water is leaving by the holes as entering by the hose. Equilibrium.

If you plug one of the holes then the water level will rise until the increased pressure from the weight of the extra water forces more water out of the remaining holes and a new equilibrium water level will be established.

At the new equilibrium level the water loss still matches the water input, even though we initially reduced the water loss by plugging one of the holes.

CO2 plugs one of the holes for energy loss. The resultant temperature increase forces more energy through the remaining holes. Equilibrium is reinstated. The energy required to raise the temperature is equal to the amount not lost to space while the system moved towards the new equilibrium.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD- you are purposely ignoring the context of those statements.
> \.



I am only pointing out what the failed greenhouse hypothesis predicted...since there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science, the rest is moot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 23, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Pulling a Michael Mann and ignoring water-vapor near surface is like ignoring 17 of the 18 tree proxies that tells you the one your favoring is wrong but you publish it anyway because it fits your preconceived conclusion.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 23, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD- you are purposely ignoring the context of those statements.
> 
> When one pathway of energy loss is reduced, the system warms up to push more energy out of the unaffected pathways. The energy required to raise the temperature comes from energy not lost to space while the system moves back to equilibrium.
> 
> ...


Yet you ignore the empirical evidence that shows its not occurring and continue to believe.. No "Hot spot" has shown up which would have to occur if your hypothesis were true.

Water vapor does indeed absorb 12um-90um very well.  At TOT it becomes LWIR after renunciation of the water to its liquid state. Tell me again how your differentiating this from CO2 emitted LWIR?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> _You poor f'ing idiot.....have you ever been right about anything?_


Ooh, italic font now. That must mean you're right. Oh wait, no, it doesn't. Bizarre font use just means the writer is losing it.

_



			The whole greenhouse effect is about reducing the amount of energy escaping the system. Sorry hairball, but once again, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Here, let me provide some of the pseudoscience for you.
		
Click to expand...

_No, dumbass. Energy has to come back to equilibrium eventually, or the earth heats up to infinity.

Longwave IR going out drops in the GHG emission bands.

Longwave IR going out increases in the other bands, because the earth's temperature went up.

So, I'm glad we've settled that. You don't understand how the greenhouse effect works. On to your next failure ...
_



			Right...a hot spot that can not be measured by thermometer, but only by increased wind. The greenhouse effect didn't predict a windy spot...it predicted a hot spot..and any hot spot can be measured by thermometer. Just one more patently ridiculous attempt to save a dead hypothesis. More than a million thermometers sent through that region state categorically that the temperature has not increased...
		
Click to expand...

_Once you go into your "All the science that contradicts me is fraudulent" hysterics, I carve another notch in my cultist-spanking stick.
_



			And the fact that you would think that I learned anything from socialists is just one more piece of evidence proving that you don't have a clue about anything. Imagine, calling a staunch conservative like me a radical liberal trained by socialists...you really are a f'ing idiot.
		
Click to expand...

_Modern hardcore conservatives are commies. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



I talk about CO2 because it is a simple and obvious case at 15 microns. I don't talk about the two other wavelengths of CO2 vibrations because they don't interact in a portion of the spectrum where there is a lot of irradiance by Sun or surface.






I am not talking about water vapour because it reacts at many wavelengths. It also has more complexities added because of latent heat of phase change and convection caused by it's lower molecular weight. 

The simple example of CO2 is not made redundant by the complex case of H2O. They affect different wavelengths.


----------



## IanC (Jul 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD- you are purposely ignoring the context of those statements.
> ...




The Hotspot is caused by CO2? Since when, what is the mechanism?

Water vapour has specific wavelengths it favours, just like any other molecule. It has peaks at 1.5, 2, 2.75, a big one at 6, and everything past 20.






Anything less than 100% absorbance means some transmission, or perhaps just scattering.

Looking at this graph, I don't understand why methane is considered a strong GHG.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 23, 2017)

IanC said:


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


Ian;

CO2 as a molecule can not hold heat.  Its molecular structure will not allow it to hold anything and it immediately re-emits any photon that it receives.  CO2 requires another atom with which to collide or receive the energy from.

Now lets look closely at the spectrum graph;




CO2 does in-fact absorb anything in this band that hits it but it also emits it immediately. Water vapor also absorbs in this band and having roughly a 400,000-600,000 % chance of the radiated energy hitting it rather than another CO2 molecule, there simply isn't enough CO2 to create an energy loop. Water vapor, conduction, and convection simply lays any potential energy slowing, waste.  IE; no atmospheric hot spot.

IN a desert, where water vapor is 5-10% or less on average, the temps soar in day time (nothing in the atmosphere to block or redirect incoming energy) and at night it cools rapidly to near freezing in just a few hours (again due to the lack of water vapor mass).  CO2 levels do nothing to hold in heat because they are incapable of it.  Without water vapor, CO2 is incapable of anything.

This is a double edged sword as where there is water vapor it is the water vapor which is capable of holding or slowing heat release.  The water vapor is unimpeded by CO2 through conduction and convection in the air column. The shear mass of the air column lays waste to what little effect CO2 might cause. While CO2 can not hold energy or heat, water vapor can and it can hold it for long periods of time. (this is why there should be a hot spot if there is an energy loop-'positive feedback').  The fact that no hot spot is present indicates that no loop is present. There is NO POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP.  It simply does not exist.

Convection and conduction are removing the heat unimpeded by CO2.  A Total AWG hypothesis failure.

Empirical evidence shows us that CO2 ALONE should have caused 0.8 deg C in the last 180 years. Yet we haven't seen but 0.6 deg C (in unadjusted data sets) and all of that rise can be attributed to clouds and albedo change. None of it can be attributed to CO2.  The IPCC models say we should have seen over 3.2 deg C rise and we have not.

Putting it simply, Water vapor is shown a negative forcing (by empirically observed evidence) not a positive one as the AGW hypothesis proposes. Water is shown a dampening effect on CO2.  And not one GCM has it right to date, they all fail without exception.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 24, 2017)

IanC said:


> I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



CO2 has never controlled climate, never will.

Any correlation is meaningless, especially since trillions have been spent on proving man is the cause verse the few hundred million trying to actually understand how the climate engine actually works.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Longwave IR going out drops in the GHG emission bands.



Except that isn't happening either hairball...deny till you drop but it just isn't happening.



mamooth said:


> Once you go into your "All the science that contradicts me is fraudulent" hysterics, I carve another notch in my cultist-spanking stick.



So what else is new...you carve a notch in your cultist belt every time someone mops the floor with you...you are in denial hairball..and that is what deniers do.  You are just like the AGW hypothesis...everything is a win for you...even when it isn't.



mamooth said:


> Modern hardcore conservatives are commies. They've gone so far right, they've come back around on the left.



And you just keep on proving that you don't have a clue...modern conservatives, think that the government is the answer to nothing...modern conservatives still wan't a very small, very unintrusive government.  Now do feel free to explain how small unobtrusive government bears any resemblance to socialism in any form.

You, like most liberals don't have the first clue regarding political philosophy.  Your right and left are both wings in the same house...the socialist house....both sides of that house have little respect for individual rights, favor big government, and are fine with applying force...they differ slightly in their national goals until they reach their logical ends then there is little difference between them...conservativism favors small government, respect for individual rights and a live and let live lifestyle...not possible on either side of the socialist house.


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2 as a molecule can not hold heat. Its molecular structure will not allow it to hold anything and it immediately re-emits any photon that it receives.



(That old tune is rattling around in the back of my head, clowns to the left of me...jokers to the right...)

You say a CO2 molecular re-emits immediately, SSDD says it is a one in a billion chance. 

I say there is an average time that a CO2 molecule stays in the excited vibrational mode before it expels a photon and returns to groundstate. There is also an average time between molecular collisions in the air, which is dependent on the pressure and temperature. If the time to re-emit is greater than the time between collisions then the average interaction is to lose the energy by collision rather than emission but there is always a chance of emission because both time properties are normal curves and they overlap.

At sea level the time between collisions is much shorter but by the time you reach the stratosphere the time has lengthened dramatically because of lower pressure and temperature.


You say WV structure can hold 'heat' and CO2 can't. What a bunch of poppycock! First off, heat is a macroscopic property that describes bulk energy flow. So you should be saying energy instead of heat. WV does interact with more wavelengths of IR and that is why it's thermal conductivity is greater than CO2's, almost double, if I remember correctly from SSDD'S fiasco with the double pane window 'proof'. (SSDD never did own up to misreading the chart)


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IN a desert, where water vapor is 5-10% or less on average, the temps soar in day time (nothing in the atmosphere to block or redirect incoming energy) and at night it cools rapidly to near freezing in just a few hours (again due to the lack of water vapor mass). CO2 levels do nothing to hold in heat because they are incapable of it. Without water vapor, CO2 is incapable of anything.




You are describing the effect of both the presence of an atmosphere, and the added effect of GHGs. I assure you that the temperature swings would be even more pronounced without one or both.

Why do you think that just because H2O has an effect that CO2 doesn't? I am having a hard time following your (so called) logic.


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Empirical evidence shows us that CO2 ALONE should have caused 0.8 deg C in the last 180 years. Yet we haven't seen but 0.6 deg C (in unadjusted data sets) and all of that rise can be attributed to clouds and albedo change. None of it can be attributed to CO2. The IPCC models say we should have seen over 3.2 deg C rise and we have not.




CO2 has a warming influence. log 120/280 times roughly 1C/2xCO2. So something in the neighborhood of half a degree.

My OP correlation graph shows more time spent in the positive region than negative region. So it is likely that CO2 adds to the warming, but obviously is not the only or even most important factor.

I would spend more time poking holes in the consensus science case if I didn't have to correct the antiscience BS you bozos spew out.

You guys embarrass my side. I am skeptical, not stupid. You waste your time denying the real but exaggerated effect of CO2 when you could be attacking the real problems of the faulty AGW and CAGW theories.

I have a problem with any lies, from either side. Stop denying the reality of CO2 warming influence and focus on the exaggerations and misdirections being put up by the other side.

You bozos expect me to defend the obvious flaws of the IPCC when in fact I was one of the first to expose them. The OP was intended to show the misdirection of using separate graphs overlaid and compared by time to imply correlation and causation. The actual correlation is much less certain.

Instead we bog down into the same stupid arguments where you guys lie, and I point out your mistakes.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2017)

Kosh said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I quite like this graph. It is much better than simply overlaying two graphs versus time for the variables of temperature and CO2. eg-
> ...


we just had a weekend full of rain here in Chicago, and I know CO2 didn't have anything to do with it.  Humidity did. An increase in humidity made the atmosphere unstable and we had record rain here for the month of July.  All due to humidity.  H2O in the atmosphere, not due to CO2.  And then yesterday, when the last storm grew and dumped, then left, it got cool?  Why? the humidity left.  CO2 did not keep the temperature at 90 degrees, the temps fell by 20 degrees after the early evening about six. Why didn't CO2 keep the temps up there at 90 after the storm left? Observations will demonstrate over and over how CO2 has nothing to do with temps. But CO2 is a good plant food.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2017)

IanC said:


> I say there is an average time that a CO2 molecule stays in the excited vibrational mode before it expels a photon and returns to groundstate.



About 1 second



IanC said:


> There is also an average time between molecular collisions in the air



About a nanosecond...a billion times shorter than the time it takes to emit a photon.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2017)

IanC said:


> CO2 has a warming influence. log 120/280 times roughly 1C/2xCO2. So something in the neighborhood of half a degree.



CO2 has no influence beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere...billions upon billions have been spent on the climate scam...you would think that if CO2 did what you claim, there would be some evidence outside of failed computer models...got any?  Got any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting your claim?...any at all?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 24, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Empirical evidence shows us that CO2 ALONE should have caused 0.8 deg C in the last 180 years. Yet we haven't seen but 0.6 deg C (in unadjusted data sets) and all of that rise can be attributed to clouds and albedo change. None of it can be attributed to CO2. The IPCC models say we should have seen over 3.2 deg C rise and we have not.
> ...


Keep on believing Ian....

Until you can generate a model that can be empirically verified I will keep my well founded opinions..  You have forgotten the very basics of how and why physics functions.


----------



## IanC (Jul 24, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I say there is an average time that a CO2 molecule stays in the excited vibrational mode before it expels a photon and returns to groundstate.
> ...




I hadn't realized there was more to that conversation between Burton and Happer. Here is part of RGBrown's response-

"

Dear Prof. Brown,
I think you might find the discussion below interesting. Prof. Happer's
reply to me is in *[BLUE]* below.

Yeah, I already know most of that stuff, and I'm pretty sure I have his
powerpoint presentation slides as well. I wasn't aware that there were
levels with lifetimes as long as 1 second -- that's actually pretty long
as atomic/molecular lifetimes go -- but those particular levels are then
going to be very sharp and not terribly responsive to non-resonant IR.
Either way, CO_2 doesn't "scatter" LWIR radiation, it absorbs it
(typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric
concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the
surrounding air.

That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their
radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it
isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by
e.g. a collision with an air molecule.

That's why the greenhouse effect is basically logarithmic at this point.
It is long ago and overwhelmingly saturated. The atmosphere is
basically totally opaque in the CO_2 aborptive bands from sea level up
to maybe 8 or 9 km. Somewhere up there, where the air is much colder,
the molecules get far enough apart that LWIR emitted from the colder air
have a good chance of escaping without being reabsorbed. Increasing
CO_2 basically causes a very small variation of the average height and
-- due to the adiabatic lapse rate, which has little that is directly
due to the GHE itself -- therefore the temperature at which the
atmosphere becomes effectively transparent. The rate at which the
energy in this band emerges from the atmosphere is hence much less than
the rate at which it was originally emitted at the surface in this band.
Given constant average SWV (visible) delivery of radiation into the
system from the Sun, the ground temperature has to warm a tiny bit in
order to compensate for the loss of outgoing power in the CO_2 band.

Here is a curve indicating just how much explanatory power CO_2 has as
far as the temperatures over the last 164 years are concerned. Quite a
lot, actually. Happer might be interested in this curve. I think he
passed on the reference to Wilson and Gea-Banacloche in AJP (2012) which
reviews the CO_2-only no-feedback GHE and ends up concluding that the
no-feedback total climate sensitivity on doubling CO_2 ought to be
around 0.9 to 1.1C. I get an excellent fit to all of HadCRUT4 with TCS
around 1.8C,
"

That sounds exactly like what I have been saying.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 25, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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


LOL  You said what?!!  LOL


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Sounds like just another model...got any actual evidence?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


He's having a hard time with the laws of distribution and how mass can affect potential effects...How the temperature of the mass defines the length of the wave (photon) emitted..  He just cant figure it out and believes that CO2 has some magical property that defies physics.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> He's having a hard time with the laws of distribution and how mass can affect potential effects...How the temperature of the mass defines the length of the wave (photon) emitted..  He just cant figure it out and believes that CO2 has some magical property that defies physics.



The key word there is "believes"...and at least he admits that his is a position of faith...although I don't know how he can rationally claim to be pro science having taken a position of faith.  Maybe it is because he has deified science to the point that it is his religion and he simply accepts because "science" said it.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> He's having a hard time with the laws of distribution and how mass can affect potential effects...How the temperature of the mass defines the length of the wave (photon) emitted.. He just cant figure it out and believes that CO2 has some magical property that defies physics




What a bunch of gibberish. I see some words but they make no sense.

You say I believe CO2 has a magic property...what is it? You say this magic property defies physics...what law or laws of physics are being broken?

Be specific. ie. A mistaken claim by the IPCC dealing with water vapour has nothing to do with my explanation of the radiative effect of CO2, so stay on topic.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2017)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > He's having a hard time with the laws of distribution and how mass can affect potential effects...How the temperature of the mass defines the length of the wave (photon) emitted.. He just cant figure it out and believes that CO2 has some magical property that defies physics
> ...



The second law of thermodynamics for one...unless of course you can show me some observed, measured examples of two way energy flow....got any that weren't made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the emitter?...and that aren't simply based on a mathematical model?

In short...do you have any that aren't either pie in the sky models or examples of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation?


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> The second law of thermodynamics for one...unless of course you can show me some observed, measured examples of two way energy flow....got any that weren't made with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the emitter?...and that aren't simply based on a mathematical model?



Ahhhhhh.... The SLoT. 

SSDD believes the crude measurements done by unsophisticated instruments 150 years ago that led to such unrealistic results that quantum theory had to be invented to remove the inconsistencies, is far superior to the technology now. Hahahaha.

Entropy is the mechanism behind the SLoT but SSDD doesn't believe in that because it is just a model. If he did believe in entropy then he would have to abandon his peculiar interpretation of physics. 

SSDD wants direct measurements of photons. How could we do that? Photons can only be inferred by their impact on the matter that emits or absorbs them. If you place a detector between the emitter and the absorber then the instrument becomes the absorber and SSDD claims 'fooled by instrumentation'. Does the radiation really not exist before you attempted to measure it? Seems overly complicated to me but it is possible, especially if you consider and compare the virtual photons that transfer the electric and magnetic forces. I think they are two different things with the same name but it is above my pay scale to decide. What colour is the electric force if it finds a suitable partner to swap energy with? Is it the same colour for both repulsive and attractive force?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD believes the crude measurements done by unsophisticated instruments 150 years ago that led to such unrealistic results that quantum theory had to be invented to remove the inconsistencies, is far superior to the technology now. Hahahaha.



And I can't help but notice that you are not providing any measurements made with the much more sophisticated instruments we have today...and why might that be?...because energy flow is a one way street, no matter how sophisticated your instruments are...but you believe...you believe...you believe...we all know that you believe...

And as far as your claim that I want "direct" measurements of photons goes...get a grip...hell, I would be satisfied with something that takes them out of the realm of being a theoretical particle and moves them into reality.  You talk about them as if they were real and not just a place holder that we use until such time as we learn a hell of a lot more about light and energy than we know now.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2017)

I assume that you're not denying the existence of light, just the name of it and the billions of hours spent studying it with instruments that give consistent and repeatable results. It's odd that every instrument, no matter how diverse the methodology, fools us in exactly the same way.

SSDD thinks the walls in a room stop radiating because they are all at the same temperature. If you put something cooler inside then they start radiating again BUT only at specific angles that point at the new object.

I think the walls always radiate, according to their temperature and emmisivity. No temperature change happens because the radiation emitted is equal to the radiation absorbed. No stopping and starting of radiation, no forbidden radiation, and perhaps most importantly, no exceptions to the law of entropy.

People can decide for themselves which scenario is closer to the truth. A 150 year old guess that didn't actually describe reality except in a very general macroscopic fashion. Or the new version built up from the reason (entropy), that has been verified by every experiment conceived so far.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 25, 2017)

IanC said:


> I assume that you're not denying the existence of light, just the name of it and the billions of hours spent studying it with instruments that give consistent and repeatable results. It's odd that every instrument, no matter how diverse the methodology, fools us in exactly the same way.



No...I am just reminding you that photons are theoretical particles and when you talk about them as if they actually exist...or that you know what the hell they may be doing...you aren't actually speaking fact...you are speaking model...and model and reality are two very different things.

And you can go on and on as much as you like about what SSDD thinks...but you should mention...just for the sake of honesty...that every observation and measurement ever made supports what SSDD thinks...and that is why SSDD thinks it...and Ian believes because there are no actual observations or measurements that support what Ian believes.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> ...that every observation and measurement ever made supports what SSDD thinks...




That is a debatable point. 

Let's digress. Newton was a genius. F=ma. Changed the world of physics. Then another genius came along, Einstein. Now mass isn't quite so simple, mass of an object increases as it approaches the speed of light. Was Newton wrong, or just incomplete? Under normal circumstances both Newton and Einstein give the same answers.

Every observation and measurement that you claim supports your version also supports my version. There is no difference under normal circumstances. My version gives the underlying reasons and more information than your version. Actually your version is even corrupted from the incomplete old fashioned version it is based on.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> No...I am just reminding you that photons are theoretical particles and when you talk about them as if they actually exist...or that you know what the hell they may be doing...you aren't actually speaking fact...you are speaking model...and model and reality are two very different things.



Sure, I'll admit there are some things we don't know about light, and the entities we call photons. So what? What we do know is solid and replicable. Any esoteric inconsistencies you may be talking about are not affecting the mundane world of terrestrial atmospheric physics to any significant degree, if at all.


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...that every observation and measurement ever made supports what SSDD thinks...
> ...









The problem is non scientists, and bad scientists think that science is an absolute.  It isn't.  Whenever I hear a scientist make a claim "based on this study we know "X"" it makes me cringe.  The fact is we don't know much.  A far better way of stating a scientific position is "based on information that we currently have, and with the instruments at our disposal, we can tell you "X".  

So, no, Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the instruments at his disposal that Einstein did, just as Feynman had to fix other parts of Newtons theorem to make it usable for space travel.  Knowledge and observation allow for more detailed observations, which then leads to new discovery's and the cycle continues.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2017)

westwall said:


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




And your comment doesn't even include those who look at a set of data and come to a conclusion opposite of what a reasonable person would. Santer deciding to use wind shear as a proxy for temperature and tossing out the actual temperature data comes to mind. 

Although I guess that is more a case of having a preformed conclusion, and then searching out any evidence that could be distorted to purpose.


----------



## westwall (Jul 25, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






That's because the example you give is outright scientific fraud.  There is no defense for that.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Depends on how stringent your standards of fraud are. 

Climate science is rife with papers that come perilously close to fraud no matter how you define it. Unfortunately the prosecution of said frauds is close to non-existent. I can only think of one, Phil Jones's 1990 UHI paper. Even there they only went after underlings. Hard to believe some of Mann's tricks haven't been officially called out.


----------



## IanC (Jul 25, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And you can go on and on as much as you like about what SSDD thinks..



Was I accurate in my prediction of what you would say in that scenario?

I certainly don't want to strawman your position like you and polarbear do to me. Was it accurate or not. If not, what did I get wrong?

"SSDD thinks the walls in a room stop radiating because they are all at the same temperature. If you put something cooler inside then they start radiating again BUT only at specific angles that point at the new object."


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2017)

IanC said:


> That is a debatable point.



No...it isn't...not unless you are once again going to pit musing about what might be against hard observation and measurement....which is par for the course where you are concerned....as evidenced by the rest of your post where you claim that observations which are nothing like what you believe actually support what you believe....if you hold your head at just the right angle....squint your eyes....and eat a big old handful of quaaludes.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > That is a debatable point.
> ...




My method and your method give exactly the same final answer with respect to energy transfer. So how can you say the macroscopic data support only you, and not me?

Your method ignores entropy, and violates it's principles. Instead you call upon some unknown process that no physicist agrees with and has no literature to back it up. 

You even deny basic mathematics. The distributive law says that k(T^4-Tc^4)= kT^4-kTc^4. It gives the same answer. Yet you vehemently deny it.

People have shown you hundreds of links to textbooks and notable physicists stating that radiation energy transfer is a net result of competing flows in either direction. You simply claim they are all wrong and that only you are right.

What is your proof? The wording of a 150 year old statement that only dealt with macroscopic results, and made no mention of atomic scale interactions because they were unknown at the time.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2017)

IanC said:


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


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2017)

Energy has a pecking order. A joule of sunlight can accomplish work that a joule of IR cannot. What is the difference between the two equal amounts of energy? Entropy. Order/disorder. Even quantum jumps within an atom consume order while flipping back and forth between perfectly equal energy states. Entropy is always taking its vigorish. Energy may not be created or destroyed but the order of the universe is go


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2017)

IanC said:


> Energy has a pecking order. A joule of sunlight can accomplish work that a joule of IR cannot. What is the difference between the two equal amounts of energy? Entropy. Order/disorder. Even quantum jumps within an atom consume order while flipping back and forth between perfectly equal energy states. Entropy is always taking its vigorish. Energy may not be created or destroyed but the order of the universe is go




Go on with your musing...and mental masturbation....and mind experiments till your hearts content...don't bother me with it....let me know when you have some actual observation, and measurement to support your belief in magic.

If you want me to get on board with you over how beautiful the emperor's new clothes are...stop telling me about them and show me his f'ing new clothes.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


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


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Energy has a pecking order. A joule of sunlight can accomplish work that a joule of IR cannot. What is the difference between the two equal amounts of energy? Entropy. Order/disorder. Even quantum jumps within an atom consume order while flipping back and forth between perfectly equal energy states. Entropy is always taking its vigorish. Energy may not be created or destroyed but the order of the universe is go
> ...




The SLoT

The *second law of thermodynamics* states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. Statistical thermodynamics, classical or quantum, explains the microscopic origin of the law


----------



## SSDD (Jul 26, 2017)

IanC said:


> The SLoT
> 
> The *second law of thermodynamics* states that the total entropy of an isolated systemcan only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.
> 
> Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory. Statistical thermodynamics, classical or quantum, explains the microscopic origin of the law



All natural processes are irreversible...just more mind models without the first piece of actual evidence in support.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2017)

SSDD is one of those people who has a talking point, and then refuses to deviate, who is unwilling to discuss the matter at a deeper level.

He is also unwilling to apply the same standards for the burden of proof to the things he believes, as opposed to ideas he doesn't like. When he likes the measurements and data then it is proof, if he doesn't then it means we are being 'fooled by instrumentation'. When he likes a model, no matter how shabby or incomplete, it is proof. If a better model more accurately accounts for the measured data, and describes the reason behind the process, but disagrees with his model, well then it is mental masturbation.

Entropy is a real concept. It is the principle behind thermodynamics. SSDD'S bizarre interpretation of physics and the SLoT is incompatible with the process of entropy, therefore SSDD is wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2017)

By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.

Bad analogy warning. 100kg rock, 10 10kg stones, or a 100kg of sand. Which causes more damage falling off a roof?


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2017)

IanC said:


> By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.
> 
> Bad analogy warning. 100kg rock, 10 10kg stones, or a 100kg of sand. Which causes more damage falling off a roof?










The reason why the models are wrong is because they are shit.  They take few variables into the equation, and those they do use are wrong in almost all cases.  They are not using CFD models and instead every model they use are self described as "simple".  How on earth anyone thinks you can get useful results from simple models, that are trying to model the most complex engine in the world, is beyond me.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.
> ...




Yup. They focus on the simple (CO2) because they can't model the local effects of water. Even though water with it's multiple pathways swamps the effect of CO2.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







They can't even model the local effect of CO2!  Every model they have created, has failed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2017)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The O-C-O satellite results certainly didn't match up to CO2 concentration their models predicted for specific locations.

The global models for a specific level of CO2 seem to give pretty reasonable results though, judging from the graphs in the AmericanThinker article.


----------



## IanC (Jul 26, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That implies that my position has changed on the importance of water. It hasn't.

I can and do learn though.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2017)

IanC said:


> I can and do learn though.



You don't seem to be able to learn the difference between what is real and what isn't.


----------



## IanC (Jul 27, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I can and do learn though.
> ...



Hahahaha, that's funny coming from someone who believes the macroscopic property of temperature (average kinetic speed) controls the internal conditions of a distant molecule, allowing or prohibiting emission of radiation. You have no proposed mechanism for how this happens, you have no answers for the criticisms that show this cannot happen as you claim. 

When people quote the best explanations for how atomic scale interactions happen, based on years of experiments, you just hand wave it away as 'fooled by instrumentation'.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2017)

IanC said:


> [
> Hahahaha, that's funny coming from someone who believes the macroscopic property of temperature (average kinetic speed) controls the internal conditions of a distant molecule, allowing or prohibiting emission of radiation. You have no proposed mechanism for how this happens, you have no answers for the criticisms that show this cannot happen as you claim.



No ian...what is funny is you believing that you know what goes on in a molecule based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.  And unlike you, I have every observation and measurement ever made in support of my position, while all you have are models.


----------



## IanC (Jul 30, 2017)

SSDD said:


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




SSDD believes a 150 year old statement, made before atomic structure was investigated, is the final word on everything.

I know that experiments based on measurements and models done since then have opened up new vistas that explain what is happening on the atomic scale, and explain why we see what we do on the macroscopic scale.

Here is just a taste of how molecular geometry is performed. Molecular geometry - Wikipedia

Follow the links or Google the individual methods to get deeper and deeper into the vast store of knowledge mankind has produced related to the microscopic world.

Or you could just close your eyes and chant 'fooled by instrumentation' like SSDD.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 31, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Whaddyaknow.....more models...and from these models you believe that you know exactly what is happening inside a molecule....not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation...you believe models are reality.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2017)

IanC said:


> SSDD is one of those people who has a talking point, and then refuses to deviate, who is unwilling to discuss the matter at a deeper level.
> 
> He is also unwilling to apply the same standards for the burden of proof to the things he believes, as opposed to ideas he doesn't like. When he likes the measurements and data then it is proof, if he doesn't then it means we are being 'fooled by instrumentation'. When he likes a model, no matter how shabby or incomplete, it is proof. If a better model more accurately accounts for the measured data, and describes the reason behind the process, but disagrees with his model, well then it is mental masturbation.
> 
> Entropy is a real concept. It is the principle behind thermodynamics. SSDD'S bizarre interpretation of physics and the SLoT is incompatible with the process of entropy, therefore SSDD is wrong.


Well since you invited comments on this one, I will add but one observation.  SSDD has asked you so many times I can't count them, for one observation of the ideas you stand behind with your models.  In other words, observation that proves them.  To date, which I believe for my time in here  is five years now, you've not provided that observation evidence.  He has maintained that one level of query to which you've failed.  And you call him out.  funny. Every response is through a model.  To which he calls you out for. And instead of providing the supported observation, you pull out, wait for it, another model/ mathematical response.  It seems you are stuck in a continual loop of modeling.  you want him to change his position, provide what he's asked for and stop beating the model approach.

the model/ observation rhythm has been going on too long. I can vehemently say, that unless you provide an observed source of information, his position will most likely remain the same. yada yada, yada.


----------



## IanC (Jul 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



So you honestly believe that all the discoveries in molecular geometry are just bunkum? All just an illusion made up in the minds of chemists and physicists?


----------



## IanC (Jul 31, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD is one of those people who has a talking point, and then refuses to deviate, who is unwilling to discuss the matter at a deeper level.
> ...




Where do you draw the line when it comes to models? SSDD even discounts mathematics as just a model. Are you in the same camp as him?

F=ma is just a suggestion, right? How about 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed'? Just models, right?

You guys pick and choose which model you like, under certain circumstances, and discard the rest. Until the circumstances change and then you pick a different model and discard the rest. It must be very convenient for you to have to be consistent over all circumstances.

You, especially, do not understand the concepts of Thermodynamics. Entropy is beyond your ability to comprehend.


----------



## IanC (Jul 31, 2017)

Sorry, my phone is acting up. I'll have to leave it there.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I draw the line at observed vs models.  modeling is not an observation, again, the issue is and has been observed vs modeling.  SSDD, I and others have asked for observation.  What we get in response are models. Period. The fact is you don't have it, and you could just make that statement.  Instead you dick and dunk and post more models.  Now you've moved to mathematical equations.

Do you have observation data to support your arguments within this discussion, if not, be honest and say it.  Why are you afraid to admit it?

BTW, you know I'm no physics major, I don't contend to be.  I can read and I can observe.  And all I'm asking is if you want me to believe something show the evidence of that something.  It can't be that difficult to do, since there are so many consensus stories.


----------



## IanC (Jul 31, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




There is exquisite observed evidence for all the links in my chain of logic.

Do we know the emissivity of the surface, yes or no. Water, sea water, rock, soil, grass, trees, etc, etc.

Do we know the absorption bands for CO2? Yes or no?

Do we know that absorption is not dependent on temperature of CO2 but emission is (for normal terrestrial range)? Yes or no?

Do we have detailed measurements of the radiation coming off the top of the atmosphere? Yes or no?

Here is the chain of logic. The surface gives off radiation, commensurate with the emissivity and temperature of its components. The CO2 absorbs this energy and adds it to the total energy of the atmosphere. Once the air is rarified enough the CO2 turns energy from the atmosphere into escaping radiation. We know that the amount of CO2 specific energy going into the atmosphere at the bottom is less than the CO2 specific energy leaving at the top. Therefore CO2 is a warming influence.

You call this a model. I call it addition and subtraction of known energy amounts.


----------



## IanC (Jul 31, 2017)

There are a lot of factoids in climate science. Snippets of information lacking context, but sometimes actually distorted to give misdirection as to the mechanism.

Everyone has seen the animation of the CO2 molecule absorbing and then emitting a photon. Misdirection, that almost never happens. 

What about 'longwave IR can only penetrate one millimetre into water'? It is usually said in a fashion as to say IR can't heat water. 

Water is a fantastic absorber of IR!!!!!! Every bit absorbed within one millimetre! All the IR energy goes into a, relatively, small volume. Of course any material that is a good absorber is an equally good emitter. Luckily water doesn't absorb visible and UV light as well as it does IR. The skin of the ocean would do a lot more evaporating, clouds and weather would be different. 

This factoid is not an outright lie, all radiation that goes into the oceans gets absorbed eventually (internally reflected light is insignificant). Some might see this as higher quality heating because it directly effects a larger volume but it is still the same amount of energy.

This is distraction, making it difficult to come to the realistic conclusion that water is very reactive to LWIR. Calling it 'heating' is more complicated. If it is nighttime and the air is warmer than the water then it is heating(very poorly), otherwise it is just reducing heat loss by replacing the same amount of IR being given off the surface.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 1, 2017)

IanC said:


> This is distraction, making it difficult to come to the realistic conclusion that water is very reactive to LWIR.


And this assumption has been proven demonstrably wrong in sea water by observed and quantified evidence.  You "Believe" without fact.  Show me demonstrable evidence that LWIR has any effect on a grey body of water, where its energy is released in the first 10 microns and results in surface cooling.  I'll wait.


----------



## IanC (Aug 1, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > This is distraction, making it difficult to come to the realistic conclusion that water is very reactive to LWIR.
> ...




First off, are you acknowledging that the atmosphere does give off LWIR in all directions, some of which reaches the surface? You have never openly disagreed with SSDD'S weird dimmer switch theory of radiation, so I thought you might be in his camp.

There are three possibilities for the atmospheric LWIR. Absorption, transmission or reflection. Your point is based on LWIR not penetrating sea water so that option is off the table. Absorption or reflection? 

Claes Johnson is a slightly loopy physicist over at PSI that has a convoluted theory of harmonic reflection, that the incoming LWIR is not actually absorbed but the same amount of radiation is not emitted from the water. He freely admits that the numbers are identical to classical physics so I don't see the point of adding in an epicycle.

So what was your point exactly? Are you saying that LWIR is absorbed but because the energy is positioned so close to the boundary that it will be re-radiated quickly? So what? That is what thermodynamics is all about, redistribution of energy.

Perhaps you are confused because other processes are going on at the same time. Evaporation removes a lot of energy from the skin of the ocean. High speed (high 'temperature') molecules leave the ocean taking their energy with them. This predominantly happens when the Sun is actively heating the surface. Conduction is also happening at the skin. Air molecules bounce off the surface and either subtract or add to the energy of the skin, depending on the size and direction of the temperature differential between the atmosphere and surface at the boundary. 

All these things are happening at the same time. Just because there are many pathways that does not mean that LWIR being absorbed by water doesn't count. It just means it is difficult to separate out and measure directly.


----------



## IanC (Aug 1, 2017)

jc456 said:


> BTW, you know I'm no physics major, I don't contend to be. I can read and I can observe. And all I'm asking is if you want me to believe something show the evidence of that something. It can't be that difficult to do, since there are so many consensus stories




You do realize I am a skeptic, right? That I agree with ideas that make sense, disagree with the nonsense, and am agnostic in the areas with too little information?

I have given you overwhelming evidence that CO2 is a warming influence. I am not willing or able to give a precise number for the total warming so far, or the extra amount added with increasing CO2 concentration. I think it is probably in the range of 1C/2xCO2. Most of the prominent skeptics also agree with this. You have to deny the field of physics to deny that CO2 has a warming influence. But there is still lots of room to debate the size of that influence.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, you know I'm no physics major, I don't contend to be. I can read and I can observe. And all I'm asking is if you want me to believe something show the evidence of that something. It can't be that difficult to do, since there are so many consensus stories
> ...


you have shared many models with me.  nothing observed.  I even asked you once if CO2 was ever tested in a lab trial where it absorbed and made anything warmer?  Nothing that I can remember at the moment.  

I know you state you are a warmer, but your logic to me, doesn't fit the skeptic warming mold.  You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun?  Or something like that from the models you've posted.  I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion!  I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.  Not one, and there isn't any observed evidence that man's CO2 does anything or is a main player in the CO2 numbers that exist.  I'm still waiting.

I commend you on your efforts, but you've failed to post any observable data to back your theories of CO2 and man CO2 doing anything to temperatures of this planet or any other planet.


----------



## IanC (Aug 1, 2017)

jc456 said:


> You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.




You don't seem to be capable of catching on to concepts. Should I really bother explaining it all again when you will just ask the same questions next time?

The surface and the atmosphere both have stored energy. At night (no incoming energy from the Sun) they both cool by radiation. The surface feeds energy into the atmosphere and some escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window. The atmosphere radiates its stored energy in all directions, some returns towards the surface. This returned energy balances out some of the radiation loss from the surface therefore the surface doesn't cool as fast as it would if there was no atmosphere. But both are cooling by passive diffusion of energy THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

The sun actively adds energy to the system. New energy, that gets stored. The surface temperature goes up, chasing the equilibrium temperature where input equals output. This is active heating, not passive redistribution, although that is still happening as well.

You made a comment on energy coming back from the atmosphere being twice the amount being received by the Sun. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.
> ...


*That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time*.

Now the question is, has this been measured?

from three different scientists:
*“[T]he absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts.”  – Allmendinger, 2017*
*“[G]lobal warming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory.  The varying solar irradiation constitutes the sole input driving the changes in the system’s energy transfers.”  – Blaauw, 2017*
*“The down-welling LW radiation is not a global driver of surface warming as hypothesized for over 100 years but a product of the near-surface air temperature controlled by solar heating and atmospheric pressure.”  -Nikolov and Zeller, 2017*

*CO2 Coalition |   17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change*


----------



## IanC (Aug 1, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Yes. And you've seen the data, seen photos of the instruments taking the readings, seen the manufacturer's documentation of the accuracy of the instruments, etc.

And here you are again. Asking for the same information. If I dredge up the old thread, or refind the information you will ignore it one more time, only to ask the same question in the future. You and Old Rocks are similar in that way. You can't remember things that you didn't want to actually see.


----------



## IanC (Aug 1, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I see you have added to your post.

I have no problem with those three quotes. They are factoids, devoid of context. I can easily imagine the context where they are trivially true but misleading anyways.

Why don't you try to explain them? Or at least link up to their origin? 

The atmosphere doesn't directly heat the surface except when there is an inversion. It indirectly warms the surface by reducing energy loss which allows the sun to raise it to a higher temperature. 

I know you are incapable of understanding the difference. Both of us are wasting our time until you can see this fundamental point.


----------



## IanC (Aug 1, 2017)

Of the list of papers in your link I can highly recommend Evans 2016. It points out the location of many flaws in the IPCC modeling.

But it also shows the warming influence of CO2, so maybe you wouldn't like it after all.

N&Z would be much better if they only claimed it to be scaffolding to hang other radiative effects on, rather than the whole picture. Their method of determining the energy storage in the atmosphere is an exercise in circular reasoning. There are many right answers to their equation, not just one.

I haven't read the others, that I can remember, so I can't give an opinion on them. Ones that involve TSI are highly dependent on which data set you use, so should be taken with a grain of salt. Orbital position of the gas giants needs the whole salt shaker.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> Yes. And you've seen the data, seen photos of the instruments taking the readings, seen the manufacturer's documentation of the accuracy of the instruments, etc.
> 
> And here you are again. Asking for the same information. If I dredge up the old thread, or refind the information you will ignore it one more time, only to ask the same question in the future. You and Old Rocks are similar in that way. You can't remember things that you didn't want to actually see.


 All the instruments you have shown were either cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere or they were only measuring changes in temperature of internal thermopiles....just you being fooled by instrumentation


----------



## SSDD (Aug 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> Of the list of papers in your link I can highly recommend Evans 2016. It points out the location of many flaws in the IPCC modeling.
> 
> But it also shows the warming influence of CO2, so maybe you wouldn't like it after all.
> 
> ...



The idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere dominated by convection is laughable...believing in a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere dominated by convection is just sad.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


couple of questions....If I heated a pan on a stove, the heat above the pan is hot because of IR or convection?  And is the heat off the pan's side more, less, or the same as directly above it?


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Of the list of papers in your link I can highly recommend Evans 2016. It points out the location of many flaws in the IPCC modeling.
> ...



That logic is stupid. It's like saying the monthly mortgage payment is the biggest expense, so the car payment doesn't exist.


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Both. Radiation and convection play a part, plus you seemed to have forgotten about conduction.

Gravity is the mechanism behind the macroscopic movement of mass that carries the energy in convection. Radiation and conduction are microscopic processes, one that doesn't need close physical proximity and one that does.

I have a feeling that you are over estimating the amount of temperature differential between the top and the sides of the pan. Where you actually thinking of a pan of boiling water? In that case it is the steam which carries the energy to the heat receptors in your hand.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


no, just the hot pan.  no water.


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. And you've seen the data, seen photos of the instruments taking the readings, seen the manufacturer's documentation of the accuracy of the instruments, etc.
> ...



Can you elaborate a bit on this 'fooled by instrumentation' idea? In what way are we being fooled? Where does the cause and effect relationship break down? The measurements seem to be precise and repeatable.


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




In that case I would suggest using a sphere of some sort so that physical shape does not interfere with your perception. A pan has more surface area facing upwards than to the side. Are you talking about a pan that is actively being heated, or one that has been warmed and is now cooling by the three mechanisms in a passive fashion? If it is actively being heated, by what kind of of source. Gas flame, electric element, or electric induction?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


let's say it was heated on a gas stove, and now you suspend it flat in normal temperature air, does the pan evenly warm the air around it.  If I took two thermometers, placed one two inches from the top surface and one two inches from the bottom surface, would they all read the same temperatures as the pan cools down?


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I think you should put the pan (or better yet a cannonball) in an oven so that there is no uneven heat distribution. Once preheated all of the mechanisms will come into play in short order. 

Not that I disagree with your premise.

Conduction is the most efficient means of heat transfer, then convection, then radiation. But it does depend on local conditions as well. Conduction needs contact, convection need a medium to carry the energy plus gravity to move it, radiation needs nothing but a molecule not in ground state.


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




The volume of air inside pan would heat the quickest because it has the most exposure to conduction and radiation. That would initiate convection. The air above the pan would be warmer than the air below because warm air is less dense and gravity replaces it with cooler air, pushing the warm air up.

Two inches below the pan, air would only be warmed by radiation. The air in direct contact with the bottom would rise before much energy could diffuse downward. The sides would be somewhat warmer because the energy would have a better chance to diffuse outwards.

It would be interesting to see the convection pattern of air flow. I bet the pan would cool more unevenly that its shape would suggest.

I still think a cannonball would give cleaner results with less complications due to shape and convoluted air flows.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 2, 2017)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


now, I agree with this write up!  

We could turn the pan upside down suspended.  Again, the heat would still be greater on the top.  

I could do the cannon ball as well.  then you could put four thermometers and read four points.  I don't think again, they would be equal in temperature reading.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2017)

IanC said:


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


You simply will not give up on the almighty model.. All while ignoring the physical evidence..  I don't know what to tell you.  Your faith is unmovable even when the physical evidence shows your models a failure.


----------



## IanC (Aug 2, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


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



I hadn't realized it was a model that said LWIR was fully absorbed in the first millimetre of water. I thought it was measured.

Are you now saying it's not true? Or are you just pissed because it means water is a great absorber (and emitter) of IR?


----------



## IanC (Aug 3, 2017)

I think there is an important point to be learned in this discussion about LWIR and the skin of the ocean.

Transmission of radiation has two effects depending on the location and direction. Radiation transmitted into the ocean is eventually absorbed to extinction, and is considered a good form of heating because it put the energy farther down where it cannot easily escape again.

Going in the other direction, transmission of surface radiation through the atmosphere is considered a good form of cooling because any energy not absorbed quickly in the dense lower atmosphere usually completes its escape to space.

Most people know and understand the ocean concept. Few people know or even consider the atmospheric concept. It is quite possible that they even automatically think the concept is the same for both directions unless it is specifically pointed out to them.

When one science concept is inculcated it becomes the default position. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 4, 2017)

IanC said:


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


----------



## IanC (Aug 4, 2017)

IanC said:


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



Any example would be fine. Just go into detail on how the measurements are wrong, and in which direction. Then perhaps how these mistaken results have led to a faulty conclusion.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 4, 2017)

IanC said:


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



You believe an internal thermopile can determine from which direction it is being warmed or cooled or for that matter what is warming or cooling it?

It reacts to temperature changes...period.  they warm and they cool and a mathematical model takes the amount and rate of change and makes a determination based on the model.  To try and claim that you know that you are measuring down dwelling radiation with such an instrument is to fool oneself with radiation.


----------



## IanC (Aug 4, 2017)

SSDD said:


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



The instruments are tested against known amounts of radiation and give precise and consistent results.

You say we are being fooled by them. How are we being fooled? Are they reading too high, too low, what? 

Are you upset because they don't directly measure the property that you are interested in? ie you can measure the height of a tree by the shadow it casts. Is that type of measurement not valid to you?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 4, 2017)

IanC said:


> The instruments are tested against known amounts of radiation and give precise and consistent results.



I didn't say that they aren't accurate...I said that they can't tell where the energy that is warming them comes from.. you are making an assumption that backradiation is being measured based on a flawed mathematical model.


----------



## IanC (Aug 5, 2017)

I see you finally came up with a PSI paper on another thread about instrumentation and backradiation.

It claims that back radiation exists. Are you modifying your position? And that instruments can measure it. Are you modifying your position?

It also uses vague terminology to conclude back radiation does not 'warm' the surface. But my position is that back radiation impairs heat loss, indirectly raising surface temps. I only skimmed the article but the nighttime results seem to support that.

The instrument range is cut off before the main CO2 band at 15 microns, so we can't make any inferences about CO2.

Back to measurements of atmospheric radiation.






Caption from Petty: _Fig. 6.6: Example of an actual infrared emission spectrum observed by the Nimbus 4 satellite over a point in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Dashed curves represent blackbody radiances at the indicated temperatures in Kelvin_
_





Caption from Petty: Fig. 8.1 Two examples of measured atmospheric emission spectra as seen from ground level looking up. Planck function curves corresponding to the approximate surface temperature in each case are superimposed (dashed lines). 






[Fig. 8.2 from Petty] (a) Top of the Atmosphere from 20km and (b) Bottom of the Atmosphere from surface in the Arctic. Note that this is similar to the Tropical Pacific, at temperatures that are about 30ºK to 40ºK cooler. The CO2 bite is more well-defined. Also, the bite in the 9.5μ to 10μ area is more apparent. That bite is due to O2 and O3 absorption spectra
_

These are actual measurements. They match up very well with modeled results but that is besides the point. They actually include the CO2 specific portion of the range, unlike your PSI or American Thinker graphs.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 6, 2017)

IanC said:


> I see you finally came up with a PSI paper on another thread about instrumentation and backradiation.
> 
> It claims that back radiation exists. [/quote
> 
> ...


----------



## IanC (Aug 10, 2017)

These are important graphs if you want to understand what is going on.

The top graph is a variation of the commonly seen TOA (top of atmosphere) except it is for a cooler, dryer Arctic location. The 8-14 atmospheric window that is comprised of freely escaping radiation except for the ozone notch, the deep CO2 notch, and the varigated H2O bands on either side.

The bottom graph is less well known and poorly understood. There is very little radiation in the 8-14 atmospheric window because it has to be created in the atmosphere itself and directed at the surface, none is scattered surface radiation because that all escapes freely. The CO2 band is very strong because it is coming from just above the instrument. The water bands are also strong because they are close to the surface, although some wavelengths are somewhat transmitted, giving a sawtooth pattern.

The PSI experiment uses a radiometer and IR temperature gun that are only reactive up to 14 microns, cutting off much of the back radiation. These are cheap instruments that were created for a different purpose than measuring back radiation, it is not the fault of the instruments that they give incomplete results here. The IR gun is calibrated to calculate temperature, which would be impossible if it was 'blinded' by CO2 specific radiation, it needs to 'see' through the atmosphere so it uses atmospheric window wavelengths. I couldn't easily find the specs for the French made radiometer but it also cuts off after the AW.

The experiment itself is a travesty, the known unknowns are ignored, the truncated measurements are considered to give the whole picture. 

In both graphs you can see that the surface temperature is almost 270K. The area under the line is the amount of radiation. The top graph shows most of the radiation escapes through the atmospheric window, the bottom graph shows that the back radiation is in the wavelengths NOT in the atmospheric window. The experiment used data only in the AW, so you can see how their conclusions are skewed.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Aug 10, 2017)

2016 confirmed as planet's hottest year
The report is the most comprehensive assessment of climate change released by the Trump administration.





*Neil deGrasse Tyson slaps dimwits: 'Odd no one denies the eclipse -- like climate change, science predicts it' *


----------



## SSDD (Aug 10, 2017)

IanC said:


> These are important graphs if you want to understand what is going on.
> 
> .



They are not important in the least...They show that so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit...so what?  If they restricted the exit of IR from the atmosphere in any way, there would be a hot spot...clearly, there isn't...and I just read an article this morning where NASA acknowledged that their measurements of outgoing LW at the TOA is off by as much as 5 wm2....there is no radiative greenhouse effect...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the global climate.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Aug 10, 2017)

*2016 was hottest year on record, international report confirms*
Source: *The Hill*

A report compiled by scientists around the world confirmed Thursday that 2016 was the hottest year since tracking began. 

The State of the Climate in 2016 report, led by the United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with the help of scientists from 60 nations, found that “the major indicators of climate change continued to reflect trends consistent with a warming planet.” 

The comprehensive report came days after The New York Times publicized a draft of a separate major climate change report that is awaiting Trump administration approval. 

The Times reported that scientists working on that quadrennial report feared the administration would try to bury some or all of its conclusions, since Trump and much of his Cabinet are skeptical about global warming. The report is congressionally mandated every four years. A final version hasn’t been released, so it remains to be seen if anything will be changed or removed. 

<more>

Read more: 2016 was hottest year on record, international report confirms


----------



## SSDD (Aug 11, 2017)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *2016 was hottest year on record, international report confirms*
> Source: *The Hill*
> 
> A report compiled by scientists around the world confirmed Thursday that 2016 was the hottest year since tracking began.
> ...



Even if it were true that 2016 was the hottest year evah in the instrumental record and not merely the result of data manipulation as is the case....exactly what do you think that proves?  How do you suppose that makes the temperatures our responsibility?...and what do you think we could possibly do about it.

Look for a second, if your eyes can stand it, at the longer view and tell me what the proclamation that 2016 was the hottest year evah actually means...hint...look to the far right of the graph at the red line to see where we are today relative to the past 10,000 years.


----------



## Slash (Aug 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> .hint...look to the far right of the graph at the red line to see where we are today relative to the past 10,000 years.



Seeing as your graph ends at 95 years before 2000, or 1905, it's kind of tough to see where we are today.  Your data pre-dates the titanic.  Why do you need to hide that and try to make it seem like it is showing current dates?  

But interesting way of using a graph that conveniently forgets to show the man made global warming years to disprove man made global warming.   

Also.  That graph came from someone who's stage name is Joanne Nova.  She has a bachelors in Microbiology and worked in DNA.  Then she got a job as a TV personality for the Shell Questacon Science Circus (As in Shell oil).   Now granted she used to say CO2 had no impact on temperatures, and also that the temperatures haven't changed.   Since Shell oil changed it's corporate stance on that, she's softened to CO2 has a limited impact on the temperatures and the temperature increases we have had due to CO2 are likely all that we will get.   

And of course you are showing ONE location.  They've taken core samples all over the world and put together composite graphs... Why not combine them all to get a representative sample?  We know temperatures can be higher in one place, but lower in another.   Oh that's right.  That Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change. Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in certain regions, like Greenland, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.  That peak on the Minoan period... That's when temperatures were about where they are today.  

When you have to omit major facts, take a sharpie and cross out 90% of the information and just find the one little location that sells the story you want to see, when you have to lie and pretend that 1905 is recent especially when talking about climate change that humans effect.   When you have to find the person who was on Shell Oil's payroll to make your point... It really just takes away anything you are trying to say.


----------



## IanC (Aug 11, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > These are important graphs if you want to understand what is going on.
> ...



Hahahaha. You have your eyes firmly shut, hands over your ears, and you're chanting soothing talking points to placate your fears. Like a child who doesn't want to acknowledge an unwanted truth. Hahahaha.


There is a hot spot for every wavelength that is being absorbed. And every one is different. For the broad range of CO2 specific radiation the average free path is about 2 metres and the extinction height at sea level is about 10 metres, so the hot spot is 0-10 metres above the surface. But for the most favoured wavelength at 666.7 the mean free path is shorter. That is why there is a spike, the emission height is higher up in the stratosphere where the temperature is higher and more energy is available to be converted into radiation.

Water has many wavelengths that it interacts with, some much stronger than others, even when they are very close in the spectrum. Are we looking for the hot spot of each and every wavelength? Hahahaha.

The problem of measuring the absolute amount of radiation at the TOA has been around since satellites first went up. The gap has always been artificially imposed, the changes and trends are much more reliable. The measurements are precise not accurate, depending on your definitions of those words.

There is an obvious radiative greenhouse effect. Our weather patterns are a direct response to it. CO2 is not the biggest player but it certainly does have a constant background effect by adding energy to the atmospheric total, where it is redistributed into many pathways.

Without CO2 the atmospheric window would be wider. More energy would escape directly to space, less energy would go into the atmosphere. Both the surface and the atmosphere would be cooler. I don't understand how you can ignore these effects, or the obvious conclusions drawn from them.


----------



## IanC (Aug 11, 2017)

Slash said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .hint...look to the far right of the graph at the red line to see where we are today relative to the past 10,000 years.
> ...




What a load of self serving crap.


----------



## Slash (Aug 11, 2017)

IanC said:


> What a load of self serving crap.




And what didn't you like?  

That the graph didn't come from anyone who studied anything about climates, but a paid worker for Shell oil?
That while it claims today, it clearly ends in 1905?
That the poster couldn't find anything better than a chart made nearly 2 decades ago to support science?
That is only uses one point for the ice core temperatures, even though we have dozens that could have been combined when talking about the mean earth temperature (which is normal procedure)?
Do you dislike that the author on that has changed her position multiple times and contradicted her own writings?  

You started this thread on the importance of using real data.   Granted when you use your real data you have there and use the ice samples, you see a nearly identical trend of CO2 and temperature variations.  But those charts we shouldn't talk about right?  I mean the exact same groups that came up with your chart you like came up with the one you are saying is bunk.   But whatever.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 12, 2017)

Slash said:


> Seeing as your graph ends at 95 years before 2000, or 1905, it's kind of tough to see where we are today.  Your data pre-dates the titanic.  Why do you need to hide that and try to make it seem like it is showing current dates?



The claim is that temperatures have risen 1.2 degrees in the past 150 years...even if that were true, which it isn't, go ahead and add 1.2 degrees to the end of the map...now were does the present temperature stand relative to most of the past 10,000 years?  Hint, still cooler than most of the past 10,00 years.



Slash said:


> But interesting way of using a graph that conveniently forgets to show the man made global warming years to disprove man made global warming.



Guess you are unaware that most of the 1.2 degrees of temperature increase claimed over the past 150 years happened before the mid 20th century...so the graph covers a good deal of the so called manmade warming.  Aside from that, the claims are simply untrue.  Most of the claimed temperature increase is the result of ,warm bias in the temperature gathering network, urban heat island effect, and plain old data manipulation.  Here is some peer reviewed science looking at the problems with the global temperature record.

Remote sensing of the urban heat island effect across biomes in the continental USA - ScienceDirect



> *On a yearly average, urban areas are substantially warmer than the non-urban fringe by 2.9°C *


*
*
Mapping urban heat islands of arctic cities using combined data on field measurements and satellite images based on the example of the city of Apatity (Murmansk Oblast)



> _*This article presents the results of a study of the urban heat island (UHI) in the city of Apatity [Russian Arctic] during winter* that were obtained according to the data of field meteorological measurements and satellite images. Calculations of the surface layer temperature have been made based on the surface temperature data obtained from satellite images. …  *As a result of the analysis of temperature fields, an intensive heat island (up to 3.2°C) has been identified*_


_*
*_
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431169208904271



> _The results indicate that *urban heating is attributable to a large excess in heat from the rapidly heating urban surfaces consisting of buildings, asphalt, bare-soil and short grasses*. In summer, the symptoms of diurnal heating begin to appear by mid-morning and can be about *10°C warmer than nearby woodlands*._


_
_
Climate change in fact and in theory: Are we collecting the facts?



> _(Karl et al., 1988) has shown that at some ‘sun belt’ cities in the West,* the rise of temperature that can be attributed to the urban heat island is as much as 0.3 to 0.4°C per decade*. In the East, the rise is *over 0.1°C per decade*. … The *artificial warming* in the primary station network, relative to the climate division data, *is nearly 0.17°C over the past 34 years *[1950s]. *Such trends are at least as large as any of the observed trends over the United States* (Karl, 1988) *or the globe* (Jones and Wigley, 1987). _


_
_
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1989)070<0265:UBIAAS>2.0.CO;2

_



			Results indicate that in the United States *the two global land-based temperature data sets have an urban bias between +0.1°C and +0.4°C over the twentieth century (1901-84).  … The magnitude of this urban bias in two global, land-based data sets was found to be a substantial portion of the overall trend of global and regional temperatures*.
		
Click to expand...

_
Estimated influence of urbanization on surface warming in Eastern China using time‐varying land use data




> _*We examine the urban effect on surface warming in Eastern China, where a substantial portion of the land area has undergone rapid urbanization in the last few decades*. Daily surface air temperature records during the period *1971–2010* at 277 meteorological stations are used to investigate temperature changes. *Owing to urban expansion, some of the stations formerly located in rural areas are becoming increasingly influenced by urban environments*. To estimate the effect of this urbanization on observed surface warming, the stations are dynamically classified into urban and rural types based on the land use data for four periods, i.e. 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010. After eliminating the temperature trend bias induced by time-varying latitudinal distributions of urban and rural stations, the *estimated urban-induced trends in the daily minimum and mean temperature are 0.167 and 0.085 °C decade−1, accounting for 33.6 and 22.4% of total surface warming, respectively. The temperature difference between urban and rural stations indicates that urban heat island intensity has dramatically increased owing to rapid urbanization*, and is highly correlated with the difference in fractional coverage of artificial surfaces between these two types of stations. This study highlights the importance of dynamic station classification in estimating the contribution of urbanization to long-term surface warming over large areas._


_
_
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/quageo.2017.36.issue-1/quageo-2017-0006/quageo-2017-0006.pdf



> *The global reconstructions as GISS (Hansen et al. 2010, GISTEMP Team 2017) are artificially biased upwards to reproduce the carbon dioxide emission trend, but the strong natural oscillation signal prevails. The very likely overrated warming rate since 1880 is 0.00654°C/year or 0.654°C/century. This rate increases to 0.00851°C/year or 0.851°C/century by considering the data only since 1910. The warming rate cleared of the oscillations is about constant since the 1940s.
> 
> As there is no way to perform a better measurement going back in the past, there is no legitimate way to correct recorded data of the past. Therefore, we should stick to the raw data.*


*
*
Removing the relocation bias from the 155‐year Haparanda temperature record in Northern Europe



> _* We here assess these influences and demonstrate that even in villages urban heat island biases might affect the temperature readings*. … *Due to the station movement from the village centre to the outskirts, the net correction results in an additional warming trend over the past 155 years*. The trend increase is most substantial for minimum temperatures (*+0.03 °C /10 years*−1) [*+0.47°C over 155 years*] . … An increase in trend is even more severe if the 20th century is regarded exclusively, displaying a rise in annual mean temperature trend by +0.03 °C /10 years−1 and +0.07 °C /10 years−1 in annual minimum temperatures, respectively.  … *The adjustment of the Haparanda station record results in an increased warming trend*._


_
_
The increasing trend of the urban heat island intensity - ScienceDirect



> _*The urban heat island intensity in Manchester has a highly significant rising trend which by the end of the century could add 2.4 K to the average annual urban temperature*, on top of the predicted climate change increase. An analysis of the urban morphology showed that *the urban site had indeed become more urban over 9 years of the study, losing green spaces which mitigate against the UHII *[urban heat island intensity]._


_

_
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...zu&s=b57486fda9766b98d75e3980e046e1810d971f2c



> * [E]xtraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data*_. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. *We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half*._


_
_
Implications of temporal change in urban heat island intensity observed at Beijing and Wuhan stations



> _* The annual urban warming at the city stations can account for about 65∼80% of the overall warming in 1961∼2000*, and about 40∼61% of the overall warming in 1981∼2000._


_
_
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809515000988



> *UHI [the Urban Heat Island effect] accounts for almost half of Athens’ warming.
> 
> The study explores the interdecadal and seasonal variability of the urban heat island (UHI) intensity in the city of Athens. Daily air temperature data from a set of urban and surrounding non urban stations over the period 1970–2004 were used. Nighttime and daytime heat island revealed different characteristics as regards the mean amplitude, seasonal variability and temporal variation and trends. The difference of the annual mean air temperature between urban and rural stations exhibited a progressive statistically significant increase over the studied period, with rates equal to +0.2 °C/decade. A gradual and constant increase of the daytime UHI intensity was detected, in contrast to the nighttime UHI intensity which increases only in summer, after the mid 1980s*


*
*
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062803/abstract



> *Artificial Amplification of Warming Trends …Western United States     *_Observations from the main mountain climate station network in the western United States (US) suggest that higher elevations are warming faster than lower elevations. This has led to the assumption that elevation-dependent warming is prevalent throughout the region with impacts to water resources and ecosystem services. Here, *we critically evaluate this network’s temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic conditions. With artifacts removed, the network’s 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16 °C decade−1 to +0.106 °C decade*−1 and is statistically indistinguishable from lower elevation trends. Moreover, *longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western US elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%*. In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western US._


_

_
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...99608)16:8<935::AID-JOC64>3.0.CO;2-V/abstract



> _The long-term mean annual temperature record (1885 –1993) shows warming over the past century, with much of the warming occurring in the most recent three decades. However, our analyses show that *half or more of this recent warming may be related to urban growth, and not to any widespread regional temperature increase*._


_

_
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015452/abstract



> _[R]apid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. *Overall, UHI [urban heat island] effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends*. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding *contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming*, respectively. *The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade*−1. The most substantial UHI effect occurred after the early 2000s, implying a significant effect of rapid urbanization on surface air temperature change during this period._


_

_
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10666-014-9429-z



> _New Zealand’s national record for the period 1909 to 2009 is analysed and the data homogenized. *Current New Zealand century-long climatology based on 1981 methods produces a trend of 0.91 °C per century. Our analysis, which uses updated measurement techniques and corrects for shelter-contaminated data, produces a trend of 0.28 °C per century.*_


_*
*_




Slash said:


> Also.  That graph came from someone who's stage name is Joanne Nova.  She has a bachelors in Microbiology and worked in DNA.  Then she got a job as a TV personality for the Shell Questacon Science Circus (As in Shell oil).   Now granted she used to say CO2 had no impact on temperatures, and also that the temperatures haven't changed.   Since Shell oil changed it's corporate stance on that, she's softened to CO2 has a limited impact on the temperatures and the temperature increases we have had due to CO2 are likely all that we will get.



Actually the graph "came from"  The Journal of Quarternary Science Reviews.  Joanne Nova simply provided the graphic I used....and the graph resulting from the GISP2 Ice Core is considered one of the "gold standard" temperature reconstructions.

It was obliging of you to demonstrate how shallow your knowledge on the topic actually is....as is the case with most warmers.  Most of you lack the education to even begin to understand the topic so you simply parrot what your political peers tell you to say.  Those who are educated tend to be political activists who are pursuing a political agenda where the climate change scare is simply a means to an end.

But back to the graph and your lack of knowledge on the topic.  If you had ever done even the most cursory actual research on the topic, you would have found that the Vostok ice core studies, also considered gold standard ice core studies done at the south pole show the same temperature fingerprint as those reflected in the graph above from the Greenland GISP2 ice core.






Now perhaps you might like to try to explain how it is that gold standard ice core studies from both poles would show the same temperature signatures but leave out the rest of the world?  Don't bother, here is a link to a world map showing proxy studies from all over the world that have found the same sort of temperature fingerprint as shown in the two ice core studies...demonstrating that the warm periods that came before today were warmer than the present without the benefit of the internal combustion engine.  If you want to know what makes the climate change, you need to look somewhere besides CO2 because the climate has been changing all along with warmer temperatures and more rapid changes when CO2 levels were lower.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...=-3.81666561775622e-14,38.038184000000115&z=1

A degree in biology huh...biology is one of the hard sciences as opposed to climate science which is a soft science.  Here degree in biology means that she has far more education in chemistry, math, and physics than most of the climate scientists working out there.  Climate science is where people go who wish they could be scientists but can't cut it in the hard science programs.  



Slash said:


> And of course you are showing ONE location.  They've taken core samples all over the world and put together composite graphs... Why not combine them all to get a representative sample?



Look above...  I have provided you with locations, and studies worldwide...all supporting the two graphs I have provided you from opposite poles.  Sorry guy, actual science does't support your belief.



Slash said:


> We know temperatures can be higher in one place, but lower in another.   Oh that's right.  That Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change. Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in certain regions, like Greenland, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.  That peak on the Minoan period... That's when temperatures were about where they are today.



Take a look at the map...it provides locations, studies, authors and findings.  It clearly demonstrates that the medieval warm period was both warmer than the present and global in nature.    Note how few blue flags there are on the world map indicating temperatures that are lower than the present.  The red flags represent studies that found that the period was warmer than the present...blue flags represent findings of cooler temperatures...yellow represents findings of drier climate which tends to be the case with warmer temperatures...the green and grey represent no trend, or an unclear trend.

Those findings pretty much mirror the present.  I started a thread titled "if the globe isn't warming, why is it called global warming"  It provides temperature records from individual regions of the earth.  A couple of places show some small bit of warming...the rest either show little change if any, or cooling.  Warming on a "global" scale only shows up in the heavily manipulated, and homogenized global record....meaning it is an artifact of the methods used....not real....fabricated.



Slash said:


> When you have to omit major facts, take a sharpie and cross out 90% of the information and just find the one little location that sells the story you want to see, when you have to lie and pretend that 1905 is recent especially when talking about climate change that humans effect.   When you have to find the person who was on Shell Oil's payroll to make your point... It really just takes away anything you are trying to say.



Alas, that is precisely what warmers do in an attempt to make the present appear to be warming at an unprecedented rate...and appear to be warmer than it has ever been...and make it appear as if we have anything whatsoever to do with it.  You are just one more top shelf, first class dupe playing the part of useful idiot arguing in favor of pseudoscience that you simply aren't equipped to understand.  Your position is based on your politics, not actual science...but just to prove my claim I will ask you, as I ask all warmers to please provide a single piece...that is just one....a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one...and will you be able to provide it?...of course not because no such evidence exists.


----------



## IanC (Aug 12, 2017)

Slash said:


> That the graph didn't come from anyone who studied anything about climates, but a paid worker for Shell oil?



That graph was not put together by her. It is a set of data that anyone can use to illustrate their points. Why didn't you search out the original source of the information? Is that data now tainted forever because it was used by a skeptic, or will you use it yourself if it becomes convenient to your purpose?

Most climate scientists have accepted funding from Big Oil at some point in their careers, are they all to be dismissed out of hand? Or is it different when your guys take the money?


----------



## IanC (Aug 12, 2017)

Slash said:


> That is only uses one point for the ice core temperatures, even though we have dozens that could have been combined when talking about the mean earth temperature (which is normal procedure)



I have both contributed to and started many threads on proxy reconstructions.

I couldn't be bothered to rehash everything again but I would like to point out that using many proxies removes most of the variation.

Marcott was the last famous hockey stick. Interestingly enough it showed a stronger MWP signal in all the areas where it wasn't supposed to be, and only a faint signal in the places it was supposed to show up. 

The MWP was real and global. No amount of cherrypicking proxies and distorting methodologies will make it disappear for good. It happened.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 12, 2017)

IanC said:


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


LWIR was measured. It can not be absorbed beyond the skin layer. The instrumentation used was cooled and a base line was determined before adding LWIR. As the instrument was lowered into sea water, the above surface measurement was taken and then monitored. At just 10 microns of water depth the LWIR 16-20um  measured at surface was gone. Water temp was 46 degrees F.  Room temp was 46 Degrees F and was allowed to cool all objects prior to the measurements which were done remotely to remove any chance of secondary sources of LWIR.

That is Empirically Observed Evidence...  WE know by repeatable verified experiments that it does this..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2017)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Easy, the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence is that CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR. That single fact is sufficient to prove that CO2 is a warming influence. Quantifying the amount is more difficult to discern but it is certainly enough to prove the direction.
> ...



*look at the other side of that CO2 molecule and you will see that if it didn't lose it immediately due to a collision with another molecule, then it emitted it on to cooler pastures.*

Or warmer pastures. Or pastures of the same temperature.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 12, 2017)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


If you did this in a vacuum the temps would be the same.


----------



## IanC (Aug 14, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> LWIR was measured. It can not be absorbed beyond the skin layer



Here is the problem in a nutshell. I say the LWIR is totally absorbed in less a millimetre, you say it cannot be absorbed past the skin layer.

Is there something special about the LWIR or the water that changes at the skin layer? Do you have some crazy interpretation of physics like SSDD and his magic photons?

Or are you just confused like him?

Visible light is partially transmitted into the oceans, so it penetrates farther. Do you think that this makes it a more efficient heater of water? If you do, give your reasoning. What would happen if visible light was absorbed to extinction in the first millimetre like LWIR?


----------

