# OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?



## catatomic (Feb 28, 2018)

So if CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and our current model of climate change is correct (anthropomorphic climate change), how does it explain this?

I think I heard an answer to this a while ago but I forgot.


----------



## catatomic (Feb 28, 2018)

I found this quote:

"As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. "


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2018)

Can you show me any actual measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere?

Go to a couple of sites where pushing a climate agenda is not the mission and look at some actual science...go to, for example, a few technical sites where they are talking about how infrared heaters work...literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application have shown that infrared radiation can not, and does not warm the air...and if IR does not warm the air, what does that do to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis being pushed by climate science?

Infrared radiation warms objects...those objects can then warm the air via conduction...but infrared radiation?...no...it does not warm the air.  There is no data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere because there is no coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 28, 2018)

catatomic said:


> The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.



1. Earths tilt on its axis (eccentricity and solar angle of incidence ) is what causes ice ages. The amount of solar energy entering the earths atmosphere at a greater angle will lose energy hitting the surface. This is what causes earths oceans to warm and cool. Milankovitch cycles can fully cause glaciation despite the suns output or the level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

2. The solubility of CO2 does indeed decrease as temperature rises in H2O. The effect of warming is not fully known nor is the process of water churn in the oceans.

3. Their "analysis" that CO2 must be it, is so far off it isn't funny. Its so wrong that I cant describe just how wrong it is.  It is based on pure conjecture and modeling that fails without exception.

LWIR can not penetrate ocean water beyond its skin layer where it is immediately shed. In fact the water just below the skin is cooler than the water below it due to evaporation and the cooling it causes.

The CAGW theory has so many holes in it the boat will sink and has every time the model is placed in water...


----------



## catatomic (Feb 28, 2018)

Thank you for your help.  I have been waffling as of late.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 28, 2018)

catatomic said:


> Thank you for your help.  I have been waffling as of late.


The next time you waffle all you need to do is ask yourself how the earth entered and left a glacial cycle with CO2 levels at or above 7,000ppm..






And when we get to a resolution where you can see them.....



 

This pattern is right in line with Milankovitch cycles and lays waste to any credible CO2 fantasy.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Can you show me any actual measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere?
> 
> Go to a couple of sites where pushing a climate agenda is not the mission and look at some actual science...go to, for example, a few technical sites where they are talking about how infrared heaters work...literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application have shown that infrared radiation can not, and does not warm the air...and if IR does not warm the air, what does that do to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis being pushed by climate science?
> 
> Infrared radiation warms objects...those objects can then warm the air via conduction...but infrared radiation?...no...it does not warm the air.  There is no data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere because there is no coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


Exactly ! That`s the whole point of using infrared heaters in large buildings and you don`t want to waste most of the power to heat the air


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2018)

polarbear said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show me any actual measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere?
> ...



Ever stood on a ski slope on a sunny day...air temperatures close to or below freezing..surrounded by snow and ice and still comfortable in your shirt sleeves?  Radiation warming your body but not the air...the whole belief that CO2 can somehow warm the atmosphere is pure magical thinking...millions of hours of observation, measurement, industrial and residential application prove that IR doesn't warm the air and yet they believe...not based on scientific evidence, but on political ideology.


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2018)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hahahaha. The shallowness of your thinking never ceases to amaze me!

You take an out-of-context, or unrepresentative example, and generalize it across the board.

Sure, someone might be comfortable at 0C on a calm and sunny day receiving direct and indirect sunshine. The same person would be pretty unhappy at 10C on a cloudy, windy day.

Central heating became popular because of economy of scale and ease of use. Forced air is quick but inefficient because hot air leaks out. Hot water radiant is slower but more efficient. Both use a convection system to move heat from a central source to a distant location.

There has lately been a movement away from Central heating because wall or ceiling mounted electrical radiant panels have become more efficient and effective than old style electric baseboards at floor level on outside walls. Presumably the gap between the price of fossil fuels and electricity is now low enough to make it economically viable. At least until 'free' renewable energy jacks up the price up here as it already has in other parts of the world.

Yes, radiation is a poor and inefficient way of warming the air. It is also a very poor and inefficient way of cooling the air. The small amount of energy absorbed from the surface is still larger than the amount radiated to space from the cooler heights up in the atmosphere.

The Earth only cools by radiation loss to space. Conduction and convection are mediated by mass. There is no mass in space therefore no heat loss by conduction or convection. It does not matter that conduction and convection are efficient at moving energy from one area of mass to another if it can't escape. 

Most of the radiation lost by the Earth system is by wavelengths that pass through the atmosphere as if it wasn't there, it is transmitted rather than absorbed or reflected. That happens from the surface, and secondarily at the cloudtops where condensation releases latent heat via liquid or solid water precipitation. The clouds radiate in all directions so only roughly half escapes to space.

Anytime energy deviates from directly escaping from the surface to space there is less energy loss. The difference is stored in the atmosphere. That stored energy increases the temperature of the air, which then increases the temperature of the surface, which then increases the amount of directly escaping radiation until it matches the solar energy input.

There is no way around it. Still don't believe it? Fine, then explain why there is missing radiation from the top of the atmosphere in exactly the same wavelengths that GHGs are known to absorb. Don't believe that the energy is being stored in the atmosphere and returned to the surface? Fine, then explain how the surface is radiating at a higher output than the solar input.

I personally don't think CO2 is the control knob of the climate system but I certainly think it is one of the factors. Data proves it, science explains the mechanism. I disagree with the consensus climate science claims for the feedbacks because the data disagrees and the science doesn't come close to being able to explain the mechanics of the water cycle and clouds.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




Radiation is a poor way to warm the air because it doesn't warm air...It is inefficient because if you want to use radiation to warm the air, you have to heat the objects in a room and wait for the energy absorbed by the objects in the room and the walls to conduct that energy to the air.

Your belief that there is a radiative greenhouse effect is belief in magic ian...there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science..

And what data proves it ian?  Model data?  magical model data?   there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and there isn't the first piece of real data that suggests that CO2 has any effect on climate whatsoever.  But if you believe there is, by all means lets see it...my bet is that if you post something it will be little more than additional evidence of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.


----------



## IanC (Mar 2, 2018)

Here is a graph from 1970, zoomed in on the CO2 band. To be honest I haven't checked the provenance of Conrath1970. It comes from a time before the CAGW scare, yet the primitive satellite data and the atmospheric radiative modeling are practically indistinguishable from recent results.






The range between 13-10 microns is in the Atmospheric Window where radiation escapes freely, so this snapshot is from the tropics with a surface temperature in the mid 20's Celcius, or about 295 Kelvins.

CO2 absorbs all the surface radiation in the 14-16 micron band, and doesn't release it until the air about 220K, or -53C. More radiation is absorbed than emitted in the CO2 band. That difference in radiation energy must be accounted for.

Water is responsible for the missing radiation in the band from 18 microns upward. It is no coincidence that the H2O absorbed radiation is released at a height that corresponds to the freezing point of water, where water precipitates and returns to the surface. Again more surface energy is absorbed by H2O than is emitted at a higher, cooler level. That difference in energy must be accounted for.

I say the missing energy is stored in the atmosphere, warming it. The warmer atmosphere warms the surface, causing more radiation in the Atmospheric Window, which can escape to space and cause cooling.

Without CO2 in the air, the Atmospheric Window would be wider. More radiation would escape freely, and less energy would be stored in the atmosphere. Both the surface and the air would be cooler.

SSDD makes many claims but never backs them up with explanations. He says conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around than is radiation. That is true, but he refuses to acknowledge that radiation is the ONLY way to shed energy to space. 

The above graph shows a deficit of energy being shed in the GHG bands. If he has some alternate way of getting rid of the solar energy coming in then he should point it out.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Mar 2, 2018)

I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.


----------



## IanC (Mar 2, 2018)

iamwhatiseem said:


> I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
> Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.




Sure, there is some connections between temperature and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and convert it into different forms. But the anthropogenic addition is swamping that effect.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> Here is a graph from 1970, zoomed in on the CO2 band......


That is one of the best explanations that I have seen concerning what is happening at the TOA.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 2, 2018)

IanC said:


> CO2 absorbs all the surface radiation in the 14-16 micron band, and doesn't release it until the air about 220K, or -53C. *More radiation is absorbed than emitted in the CO2 band. *That difference in radiation energy must be accounted for.



CO2 does not warm except by conduction in our atmosphere. So it MUST collide in order to gain kinetic energy and warm.  This means it must have another molecule that can hold energy and warm in order for it to warm.

IF you remove water vapor from the atmosphere, cooling is more rapid with higher concentrations of CO2 as we have observed in earths desert regions. Warming is also quicker, of the solids,  which then heats the atmosphere above it quickly by conduction. Observed evidence shows that the air is not warming until it interacts with the warmed solids of earths surface. This is well document fact.

SO the question then becomes, can convection and air movement transfer the energy necessary to keep a "hot spot" from forming. That answer is a resounding YES, from all empirical observations to date.

When you consider that an Anvil cloud formation of 20,000 feet (top to bottom) can churn its top to bottom in a matter of about one minuet. It clearly demonstrates that there is sufficient churn in earths atmosphere at any given time to keep a mid to upper tropospheric hot spot from ever forming. Wind speeds within the cloud formation can reach 200-250 mph.

We know from observations that water vapor can hold energy for upwards of 6-9 seconds before it cools enough to be released at a longer wave length and outside of CO2's ability to slow. All of the current GCM's do not account for this shift in energy output. This is precisely where your "missing energy" is and it is not missing. Water vapor is an interesting thing to study, energy residency time is key to this issue.

All your graphing proves is the major regions of energy release  are outside of CO2's ability to affect it.


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 absorbs all the surface radiation in the 14-16 micron band, and doesn't release it until the air about 220K, or -53C. *More radiation is absorbed than emitted in the CO2 band. *That difference in radiation energy must be accounted for.
> ...



There you go again. Another spew of Cliff Clavin bafflegab. You make no sense, there are no coherent thoughts. Just sciencey words strung together.

I have been discussing the basics, radiation input and radiation output. If they are equal for the terrestrial system of Earth and atmosphere then no change happens in the stored energy, no change in the overall temperature.

I tend to focus more on the IR radiation out side of that equation because of the simple CO2 connection.

But we could certainly discuss the other side if you want. The basic Solar output is amazingly stable but even small changes such as the Maunder Minimum seemingly caused the Little Ice Age. Or because the reflected sunlight is also part of the terrestrial system output, we could discuss the effect of clouds on albedo. There doesn't even have to be more clouds, just changing the timing of cloud formation affects the amount of solar insolation absorbed by the surface.

There are many topics we could discuss but unless you couch them in terms of how they affect the radiation balance they are just factoids that have little meaning.

The first thing to get in your head is that no matter how much more efficient conduction and convection is in moving energy around compared to radiation, it is only radiation that can shed energy to space.

The second most important thing to remember is that any imbalance of radiation input and output leads to storage or release of energy, changing the total heat content of the system.

GHGs restricted radiation loss and caused energy to be stored in the system, warming it until the input and output returned to equilibrium.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 4, 2018)

IanC said:


> Here is a graph from 1970, zoomed in on the CO2 band. To be honest I haven't checked the provenance of Conrath1970. It comes from a time before the CAGW scare, yet the primitive satellite data and the atmospheric radiative modeling are practically indistinguishable from recent results.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hahaha so why don`t you use that graph and figure out how ridiculously small the watts per steradian for the center of that band ~ 675 cm^-1 is?
The entire sphere would be 4pi times that number and only 1/2 of that (1/2 the 4pi*r^2) gets radiated down!
Try heating something with a heat (radiation) source that radiates a "grand" total of 0.042 watts and I don`t care how close you move it to whatever you want to heat. That`s less power that the IR LED in a computer mouse.
Wow according to you my mouse pad should be a lot warmer where the mouse is parked.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 4, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 absorbs all the surface radiation in the 14-16 micron band, and doesn't release it until the air about 220K, or -53C. *More radiation is absorbed than emitted in the CO2 band. *That difference in radiation energy must be accounted for.
> ...


You wont even discuss the OBSERVATIONS and why they are and where the energy has moved...

Your so set on "consensus science" you will not look beyond your blinders. I cant fix Stupid..  Enjoy ignorance...


----------



## polarbear (Mar 4, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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


Yeah and none of them even want to consider how many watts from the sun the CO2 prevents from getting to the surface. According to the warmers that does not matter because you can make up for a power loss with back radiating a tiny fraction of what`s left over and a portion of the total # of watts the CO2 absorbed from the ground black body radiation. The cheat is to use the *entire # of watts* instead of the integral portion from 14 to 16 microns. My guess is that these "scientists" do that because none of them have a clue how to get the integral of a plotted function....and call all those who do know "science deniers".
Like for example Heinz Hug:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact




_We integrated from a value E = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (E = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line E=0.  IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm *[13]*. For the 15 µm band our result was:
The *radiative forcing for doubling* can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 *[14]* over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements *(Hanel et al., 1971)* and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
*This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.*_


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 4, 2018)

Ok here is little experiment for all you "consensus science" folks..

You have two tubes 10 meters long. One tube is 1.5 meters in diameter and the second is 1.65 meters in diameter.

IN the first tube you place earths atmospheric content WITHOUT WATER VAPOR (0 humidity) and you seal it.  The second tube is placed over the first and the space between them equalized, filled with nitrogen or argon gas. The tube as a whole is allowed to rise to room temperature and the room is controlled to within one degree temp.

Inside the inner tube you will place two sensors. 1 at 4meters and one at 9 meters from one end making sure they do not react (warm the sensor)to LWIR radiation. This means it will measure the conduction and the ambient air temp correctly.  The ends are opaque to LWIR in the bands of 12-20 um(full length of the CO2 atmospheric window). Verify that your narrow band energy source in the only input to the Tube and you will direct 200w/m^2 from the narrow band source through the tubes long axis.

The outer tube will act as a thermal blanket allowing any energy reaction to be measured inside the inner tube. Now turn on your LWIR energy source and measure the temp inside the tubing over time.

I've done this experiment several times and with up to 1200w/m^2.  The inner tube never warms.. there is no temperature differential between the two sensors.

Can you tell me why it does not warm? Can you tell me why there is no temperature differential? (distance from energy source)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 4, 2018)

polarbear said:


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


_"If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 *[14]* over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements *(Hanel et al., 1971)* and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, *the absorption is 0.054 W/m2* - and not 4.3 W/m2."
_
This can be wholly attributed to water vapor and land use changes. It can also be easily swamped by water vapor/conduction/convection and expelled to space.

Nice find..  I'm going to have to read this one closely.  Very clearly defines why there is no hot spot in our troposphere. I hadn't seen this one before.

ETA:  I just put the numbers to the experiment I explained above (here) when we held it at 40% humidity and he is right on the money.....  Thank you.. I just  listed it on my attributions page now.


----------



## IanC (Mar 4, 2018)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a graph from 1970, zoomed in on the CO2 band. To be honest I haven't checked the provenance of Conrath1970. It comes from a time before the CAGW scare, yet the primitive satellite data and the atmospheric radiative modeling are practically indistinguishable from recent results.
> ...



The blackbody curve for 295K would give a reading of about 13 irradiance units for the CO2 band. The bottom of the trough is 5 irradiance units, but increases as you move to the wings. Roughly half of the radiation is missing, compared to the amount that would escapes if CO2 was not there.

Solar insolation is 340w/m2. 100w is reflected, 240w is absorbed. That 240w is eventually converted into IR which escapes into space.

The CO2 band is roughly 10 percent of the total IR range. If you restrict the amount of radiation moving through the CO2 band then you must increase other bands to make up for the loss. The only way for this to happen is to increase the temperature of the surface and atmosphere.


As to your question. You have reframed our topic at hand into a discussion of how feeble the warming would be from the escaping terrestrial radiation. Of course it is practically useless! Who said differently?


----------



## IanC (Mar 4, 2018)

polarbear said:


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




What percentage of the Sun's output is in the CO2 band? A pittance. Much, much less than one percent of the total. I doubt that even one watt out of the 340 reaching the Earth is in that band. Besides, it is already accounted for in the amount of solar insolation absorbed by the atmosphere. 340 in, 100 reflected, 80 absorbed by the atmosphere, 160 absorbed by the surface.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD makes many claims but never backs them up with explanations. He says conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around than is radiation. That is true, but he refuses to acknowledge that radiation is the ONLY way to shed energy to space.



Sorry ian..it is you who makes the claims without backing them up...you are assuming that absorption and emission, equals warming...no one is arguing the fact that CO2 absorbs IR...it's is proven...now show me a single measurement that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...your assumption isn't good enough and there is no data which establishes that that link...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Mar 5, 2018)

catatomic said:


> I found this quote:
> 
> "As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).
> 
> The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. "



The biggest worry is that the oceans will die from too much CO2 in too short a time for life to adapt to it. This will then probably mean CO2 will get released into the atmosphere at an alarming rate and essential make life uninhabitable for us. Cockroaches will be fine though.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


You doubt that ? Oh really?
I don`t know how you got that idea. Maybe because all you are looking at are these useless Wikipedia graphs that deal with solar radiation and  are scaled so that the peak value fits into the graph. Consequently the far IR region has to be shrunk to a point where it looks like it`s "nothing".
The only way to show that accurately is to plot the radiance on the Y axis as the log value of radiance over wavelength...and people who make statements like you just did have no clue how to get the integral off a graph like that.




Check it out what you got on the Y axis for what is between the 2 black bars...You call that "nothing" but try and lecture me how much 0.05 watts/m^2 are "heating" the planet...like how much that "heats" 30 million cubic kilometers of ice, ocean water or land mass.
Get serious !
Btw the integrated value for that IR region what  the sun emits is 1.84 *KILOWATTS* per sr and m^2.
Good thing the earth`s orbit is what it is else just the IR region you consider minuscule would fry it to a crisp.
It turns out the CO2 in the air prevents way more IR in that band from heating the surface as your over hyped "back radiation" which in fact is only ~5/100 th of a watt/m^2


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Check it out what you got on the Y axis for what is between the 2 black bars...You call that "nothing" but try and lecture me how much 0.05 watts/m^2 are "heating" the planet...like how much that "heats" 30 million cubic kilometers of ice, ocean water or land mass.
> Get serious !
> Btw the integrated value for that IR region what  the sun emits is 1.84 *KILOWATTS* per sr and m^2.
> Good thing the earth`s orbit is what it...



Reality check. The y axis is logarithmic. In the visible spectrum the Sun is radiating at almost 10^8 Watts, in the Earth IR range it is radiating at only 10^4 Watts. Four orders of magnitude difference. 10,000 times as much energy in visible light compared to IR.

The solar insolation reaching the Earth is attenuated by distance but still keeps the same proportional qualities for wavelengths.

The maximum zenith amount is 1360 Watts, therefore the amount of solar IR reaching the Earth is less than 1360 divided by ten thousand. Something like a tenth of a watt.

Compared to the solar 80 Watts absorbed by the atmosphere I think we can safely consider the tenth of a watt of solar produced IR as negligible.

BTW, thanks for the graph.


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2018)

polarbear said:


> ..You call that "nothing" but try and lecture me how much 0.05 watts/m^2 are "heating" the planet...like how much that "heats" 30 million cubic kilometers of ice, ocean water or land mass.



I disagree with your claim that the effect of CO2 is 0.05 Watts. It is obviously ridiculous.

It is pointless to restate my position yet again so I will just leave it at that.


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD makes many claims but never backs them up with explanations. He says conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around than is radiation. That is true, but he refuses to acknowledge that radiation is the ONLY way to shed energy to space.
> ...



Your assumption that the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is equal to the amount of energy emitted to space by CO2 is demonstrably false. We have all seen the satellite measurements of outgoing radiation many times. 

In fact, you imply that CO2 actually emits more radiation than it absorbs, which cools the planet. You have given no evidence to support this claim, and indeed there is no evidence. The evidence is all in the other direction.

The surface sends more 15 micron radiation into the atmosphere than leaves the top of the atmosphere. A measured fact. 

That energy must still be in the atmosphere until it can find a way out. 

So far you have given no explanation as to where it goes. Will you now?

The obvious solution is that the missing energy is transferred to the atmosphere by molecular collision, warming the air. 

Warmer air allows the solar input to warm the surface to a higher temperature. Higher surface temperature produces more radiation. This continues until the amount of energy escaping to space equals the amount of solar input and equilibrium is restored.

There are many possible surface temperatures that can be present at equilibrium. It depends on how easily radiation can escape, and the amount of energy stored in the surface and atmosphere.

GHGs retard radiation loss and cause energy storage, increasing the temperature of both the surface and the air.

Conduction and convection move energy around within the system to allow maximum radiation loss but the limiting factor is radiation loss to space.

Your explanation, if you choose to give one, must address the pathways of radiation loss to space.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> Your assumption that the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 is equal to the amount of energy emitted to space by CO2 is demonstrably false. We have all seen the satellite measurements of outgoing radiation many times.



We both know, ian, that nearly all the IR absorbed by CO2 is lost to other molecules via collision...almost no energy actually gets radiated by CO2...you conveniently forget that glaring truth whenever you fantasize about a radiative greenhouse effect...there is none.

And so called GHG's retard nothing with the exception of water vapor...your hypothesis is bullshit and as I figured..you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...have you ever stopped to wonder why you can't provide such information since it is so fundamental to the greenhouse hypothesis?  Ever?


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> We both know, ian, that nearly all the IR absorbed by CO2 is lost to other molecules via collision...almost no energy actually gets radiated by CO2...you conveniently forget that glaring truth whenever you fantasize about a radiative greenhouse effect...there is none



You say the IR energy absorbed by CO2 is passed along to other air molecules. I agree.

That energy warms the air. It doesn't just disappear, it has to go somewhere. The atmosphere only radiates via GHGs. Those GHGs absorb more energy than they emit because it is cooler at emission height than it is at the surface.

If you want to bring the water cycle into the discussion, that is a pseudo surface which radiates in more wavelengths but also emits in all directions, so half is directed towards the surface. It is less efficient than water or ice at the surface because it is cooler.

Again, it is not the movement of energy that counts. It is the amount of energy that escapes to space.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We both know, ian, that nearly all the IR absorbed by CO2 is lost to other molecules via collision...almost no energy actually gets radiated by CO2...you conveniently forget that glaring truth whenever you fantasize about a radiative greenhouse effect...there is none
> ...




Nothing radiates toward the warmer ground ian....if you believe it does then show me a measurement made with an instrument at ambient temperature measuring a discrete wavelength coming from the cooler sky....and make it clear sky since incoming radiation from the sun can easily warm clouds to temperatures warmer than the surface.

And by the way...GHG's emit all that they absorb....none of them are capable of storing anything....again....you are living in a magical mystery fantasy world....it is all magic all the time with you..


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And by the way...GHG's emit all that they absorb....none of them are capable of storing anything....again....you are living in a magical mystery fantasy world....it is all magic all the time with you..



Why don't you try to keep your story straight?

First you say the radiation energy absorbed gets transferred to other molecules by collision. Now you are saying they emit all that they absorb. 

Which one is it?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And by the way...GHG's emit all that they absorb....none of them are capable of storing anything....again....you are living in a magical mystery fantasy world....it is all magic all the time with you..
> ...



It is both ian...you know you must be losing because you find that you must resort to dishonesty...either the energy is lost via collision, or in extremely rare instances, it is emitted....in either case, none is stored within the atmosphere by any molecule other than water vapor..and that is lost as soon as the vapor either changes phases either to ice or back to liquid...Face the truth Ian...CO2 doesn't do jack...climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It is both ian...you know you must be losing because you find that you must resort to dishonesty...either the energy is lost via collision, or in extremely rare instances, it is emitted..



Hahahaha, anytime I get you to actually say something I am winning.

You said the energy radiated from the surface is absorbed by GHGs and passed along to other air molecules by collision. Stored in the atmosphere. I agree, at least for the wavelengths that are reactive with GHGs.

The big question is where does that energy go?

Would you like to tell us where YOU think it goes? And how it gets there?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 5, 2018)

catatomic said:


> Thank you for your help.  I have been waffling as of late.


Have you ever seen one single lab experiment linking temperature to changes in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> You said the energy radiated from the surface is absorbed by GHGs and passed along to other air molecules by collision. Stored in the atmosphere. I agree, at least for the wavelengths that are reactive with GHGs.



Are you an idiot?  Conduction is not storage...it is a less efficient way of moving energy through the atmosphere..but not storage...if there were more CO2, then more energy could be radiated out of the atmosphere rather than taking the slow boat out via conduction to the upper atmosphere.



IanC said:


> The big question is where does that energy go?



Go find it...but you won't find it being "stored" in the atmosphere as evidenced by the glaring lack of a tropospheric hot spot...ask mr magic..maybe he can help you since you so obviously believe in magic.



IanC said:


> Would you like to tell us where YOU think it goes? And how it gets there?



No...knowing where it doesn't go is more important...it leads to science beginning to look in the right places rather than the wrong ones...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You said the energy radiated from the surface is absorbed by GHGs and passed along to other air molecules by collision. Stored in the atmosphere. I agree, at least for the wavelengths that are reactive with GHGs.
> ...



I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor  temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length...  but alas he dosent care..


----------



## polarbear (Mar 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > ..You call that "nothing" but try and lecture me how much 0.05 watts/m^2 are "heating" the planet...like how much that "heats" 30 million cubic kilometers of ice, ocean water or land mass.
> ...


Ridiculous? Write a letter to Dr.Heinz Hug at the Max Planck institute and debate your point with him.
Maybe you did a better analysis with a cellphone app from Google play than he did with a state of the art spectrophotometer. All you do is regurgitate the internet crap StB milk maid math version that has been published by an idiot consensus which has no need for any instrumentation that actually measures and integrates how much energy over ppm CO2 is absorbed....and keep using the entire amount under the 300 K curve instead of the portion which the CO2 actually absorbs:


----------



## IanC (Mar 6, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care



It's a waste of time responding to you but...

Where is the link showing residency time of more than 9 seconds for a photon that excites a water vapour molecule? What wavelength was it?

You say that a lower energy wavelengths is reemited. That can only happen if the molecule loses the energy in multiple steps, with several photons produced that add up to the same energy as the original photon that excited the molecule. Of course molecular collisions can disrupt the absorption/emission but then we are talking about a totally different process altogether.

Temperature is only a valid concept for large conglomerations of particles. The wet Atmospheric lapse rate is less than 10C per kilometre. So you are claiming that all water vapour molecules are rising at a minimum of two kilometres per 9 seconds. What's that work out to? 500 mph? I don't think even thunderstorms produce that speed of updraught.

I think you are full of shit, as usual.


----------



## IanC (Mar 6, 2018)

polarbear said:


> ....and keep using the entire amount under the 300 K curve instead of the portion which the CO2 actually absorbs:



It's not me who uses the total area under the curve. I specifically reference the different bands, some escape freely, some are retarded by water vapour, some by CO2. I wish you would directly quote any of my statements that you disagree with, rather than make a strawman caricature that you then attribute to me.

I notice you have not responded to the point I made about your graph. The energy output from the sun is four orders of magnitude greater in the visible light range than it is for the CO2 reactive IR band. 

The IR coming off the Sun is a large amount but not in comparison to the total amount.

By the time the Sun's radiation reaches the Earth it has been attenuated to just 1360w at the zenith. The proportions of the wavelengths remains the same but the flux has been reduced. So the maximum CO2 reactive radiation reaching the Earth is 1360 divided by 10^4. That is further reduced by a factor of 4 to compensate for the rotation of the Earth. In actuality it should be further reduced for the inefficiencies involved with uneven distribution because of the rotation but that is splitting hairs. The amount of 15 micron radiation reaching the Earth is real but negligible. And it has already been accounted for in the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere.

It is a clever idea to think about but in reality it doesn't make much of a difference.


----------



## IanC (Mar 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Are you an idiot? Conduction is not storage...it is a less efficient way of moving energy through the atmosphere..but not storage...if there were more CO2, then more energy could be radiated out of the atmosphere rather than taking the slow boat out via conduction to the upper atmosphere.



Like I said. Everytime you actually say something rather than just hurl insults, I win!

Radiation produced by Co2 only escapes to space when the density of CO2 is low enough that the 15 micron photons are no longer being reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule.

It does not matter how much CO2 is in the air, it only matters where the radiation escapes.

More CO2 raises the escape emission height, less CO2 would lower it.

The atmosphere cools with height, at least until you get up into the stratosphere. A cooler emission height therefore has less energy available to produce radiation. 

I think you probably have a naive idea that more CO2 produces more radiation that escapes, despite the actual satellite measurements. 

You also flip-flop on whether conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around. They are much more efficient but they run into the bottleneck caused by radiation being the only pathway for energy to escape to space.

I am also willing to discuss the more complex situation caused by the water cycle. But first we should come to some conclusion about the simple case of CO2 radiation in the atmosphere. Direct measurements of how much 15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface, compared to how much 15 micron radiation is emitted by the atmosphere, show a deficit that is stored in the atmosphere. You need to explain where that energy goes.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Like I said. Everytime you actually say something rather than just hurl insults, I win!



No ian.. you don't win...and the fact that you believe you do just goes to show how out of it you actually are...more GHG's increase the emissivity of the atmosphere...and once again..what happens to an object when you increase its emissivity?  Think you can manage to answer honestly?



IanC said:


> Radiation produced by Co2 only escapes to space when the density of CO2 is low enough that the 15 micron photons are no longer being reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule.



There is almost no radiation produced by CO2 molecules...one CO2 molecule per billion actually radiates the energy it absorbs...the rest lose the energy via collision with some other molecule.



IanC said:


> More CO2 raises the escape emission height, less CO2 would lower it.



No ian...more CO2 would mean that energy doesn't have to move as far via conduction...that would lower the escape emission height..



IanC said:


> You also flip-flop on whether conduction and convection are more efficient at moving energy around. They are much more efficient but they run into the bottleneck caused by radiation being the only pathway for energy to escape to space.



Lying again...but do feel free to bring forward a quote from me suggesting that conduction and convection are more efficient means of moving energy than radiation.



IanC said:


> I am also willing to discuss the more complex situation caused by the water cycle. But first we should come to some conclusion about the simple case of CO2 radiation in the atmosphere. Direct measurements of how much 15 micron radiation is emitted by the surface, compared to how much 15 micron radiation is emitted by the atmosphere, show a deficit that is stored in the atmosphere. You need to explain where that energy goes.



The sensitivity of the climate is zero or less...there is nothing to discuss unless you care to argue how much CO2 would need to be in the atmosphere for it to actually start causing cooling.

And ian, try to use your brain for just one second...if nine hundred and ninety nine million nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine molecules out of a billion are losing their energy via collision to be conducted to the top of the atmosphere..and most of that is eventually being carried aloft by water molecules  in the form of water vapor...what wavelength do you believe they are radiating the energ that the CO2 molecule lost via collision when the water vapor finally turns to ice?  Do you think a water molecule is going to radiate it at 15 microns just because some O2 or N2 molecule took it from a CO2 molecule way down in the atmosphere?

there is no magic ian...and CO2 has zero or less effect on the temperature of the air.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 6, 2018)

catatomic said:


> So if CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and our current model of climate change is correct (anthropomorphic climate change), how does it explain this?
> 
> I think I heard an answer to this a while ago but I forgot.


Why in the world would you come to  a clearinghouse for uneducated, ass-backwards climate science deniers to get a question answered about climate science?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 6, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I have shown Ian multiple times that water vapor holds energy upwards of 9 seconds. During this residency time the water vapor temperature decreases by 20 deg. emitting energy at a much longer wave length... but alas he dosent care
> ...


Alas it is you who is full of shit...






Several papers have shown the residency time of energy in water vapor. The graph above shows that residency time and the rate of wave length change.

The one above is: Residence Time and Heat Transfer When Water Droplets Hit a Scalding Surface | Journal of Heat Transfer | ASME DC

There are others which look specifically at atmospheric water vapor and estimate it as long as 9 min when the pressures are normalized in the atmospheric column.   IF energy can be kept out of the LWIR bands as it ascends then it will be emitted at a much longer wave length at TOA.

Why have you never asked yourself why the water vapor emissions band starts at 12um and doesn't end until it is over 120um?   its long for a very good reason..


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Ian spends his time angsting over that bit of 15 micron radiation that CO2 molecules absorb...and he just doesn't seem to understand that CO2 loses almost all of that energy via conduction with other molecules...then for some reason, he seems to believe that it when it eventually radiates out into space, that it is going to be radiated in that same 15 micron wavelength that it was originally absorbed in by that CO2 molecule way back down near the ground.  It appears that it never occurred to him that it is all just energy and isn't obligated to remain at the same wavelength as it moves about and is exchanged from one molecule to another...

To him the fact that it can be absorbed at 15 microns, then lost via a collision with another molecule then conducted and convected to the top of the troposphere, then radiated at a different wavelength by a different molecule is some sort of magic...and beyond his comprehension...his concern over 15 micron radiation at the top of the atmosphere might be justified if the troposphere were not so completely dominated by conduction...  Chalk it up to poor critical thinking skills...he believes and rational thought rarely enters the belief equation.


----------



## IanC (Mar 7, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



What a imbecile you are. We were talking about how long a molecule can remain in an excited state before it gives up that energy and returns to groundstate. 

And you post up a paper on bouncing water drops on a frying pan.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


Ever notice, every time he is confronted with facts that contradict his CO2 forcing he claims that it was just  a straw man which has been defeated...not him or this radiation budget "math" designed to be used by the kind of people who get their "facts" from web pages that peddle "consensus science" .
In addition to that he prefers to move the goal posts, like now.
_I notice you have not responded to the point I made about your graph. The energy output from the sun is four orders of magnitude greater in the visible light range than it is for the CO2 reactive IR band. 
The IR coming off the Sun is a large amount but not in comparison to the total amount._
Hard to say if he really believes that is relevant or if he is trying to troll me.
As if it mattered what the amount the CO2 prevents from reaching the surface is in comparison to how much visible light makes it through. It`s like saying that a coffee filter does not filter anything because most of the coffee makes it through. But on the other hand I can`t really blame him. The internet web pages that deal with the entire CO2 absorption spectrum don`t really show up if all you got as a resource is Google...which is known to censor dissent from the political views Google actively promotes.
Ian would look at a graph like this to come to his conclusion:




So of course if you look at what is under the "CO2" in the absorption bands (which does not even include the 15 micron band) one would say it is minuscule how much incoming IR the CO2 is preventing from reaching the surface. That graph is misleading because some of the other bands where CO2 absorbs also are labelled as *H2O absorption only*...instead of H20+CO2
Like this one does:




As you can see the CO2 *does *make a significant difference how much down dwelling IR is impeded at the 1400 nm band and the 2000 nm band...*not just at the 15 micrometer *( 15 000 nm) band .
Of course any of that is "denialism" as is anything that contradicts the easy to digest milk maid math AGW energy budget which comes up with over 1 watt/m^2 as opposed to just 0.05 watt/m^2 as determined by spectroscopic analysis. Even if you ignore the findings of Dr.Heinz Hug (The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact) who`s figure I quote you would come up with almost exactly the same number if you paste a CO2 IR absorption spec picture into a half decent CAD window and perform an integration.


----------



## IanC (Mar 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



SSDD is now saying that the energy absorbed by CO2 bounced around in the atmosphere and radiated out by a different molecule. 

That is a totally reasonable idea, and I am sure that if you could actually follow the energy through all the transformations in the atmosphere it would happen some of the time.

BUT there is a big problem there. The molecules that SSDD says are getting rid of the excess CO2 absorbed energy already have excess energy of their own that they cannot get rid of. 

By the same process as CO2, water vapour absorbs more energy from the warm surface than it can emit to space from the cool emission height.

If water vapour is getting rid of the CO2 energy, what is getting rid of the water vapour energy? If some unknown x molecule is getting rid of the water vapour energy, then what is getting rid of x's energy? SSDD is proposing a Ponzi scheme.


----------



## IanC (Mar 7, 2018)

polarbear said:


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




You still have not responded to my point.

Now you have changed the subject again. Absorption of high energy solar insolation is a one way street. Molecules in the atmosphere cannot reradiate high energy photons because the temperature is too low. Unlike the thermal transfers of IR in the terrestrial system where molecules can both absorb and emit the same wavelengths.


----------



## IanC (Mar 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No ian.. you don't win...and the fact that you believe you do just goes to show how out of it you actually are...more GHG's increase the emissivity of the atmosphere...and once again..what happens to an object when you increase its emissivity? Think you can manage to answer honestly?



Other than the ad homs, this is a wonderful question! It makes one think.

What are the basics? Emissivities of gases are tricky things at the best of times. A single gas, like CO2, acts like a blackbody at certain wavelengths but totally transmits other wavelengths. Can there really be an 'average' emissivity for a range of wavelengths?

Adding a new type of gas into a mixture of gases changes the emissivity but does simply adding more of an already present gas make a fundamental change? That is not so clear.

CO2 emits 15 micron radiation that escapes to space from an elevated cold emission height. It escapes because there are too few CO2 molecules to recapture it, not because CO2 has lost its ability to absorb.

My back of the envelope calculation suggests that half of the surface emitted 15 micron radiation would escape if the sea level concentration of CO2 was about 50 parts per billion. That is the same volumetric distribution of CO2 molecules as the emission height. The break even point. Anything less than that would end up radiating more 15 micron energy than it absorbed from the surface (the extra energy would come from molecular collision and the atmosphere would cool). Any concentration greater than 50 ppb would store energy in the atmosphere by molecular collision. The exact concentration doesn't matter. Just the idea that there is a break even point that is determined by geometry rather than emmisivity.

Of course I could be full of shit. This is a new idea, at least to me.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD is now saying that the energy absorbed by CO2 bounced around in the atmosphere and radiated out by a different molecule.



How could it possibly be any other way ian...sorry that you are just coming around to realizing what I have been saying all along...  Let me guess...never mind...who knows what the hell you think...



IanC said:


> That is a totally reasonable idea, and I am sure that if you could actually follow the energy through all the transformations in the atmosphere it would happen some of the time.



No ian...that happens damned near all the time...CO2 radiates almost no energy out of the troposphere...it all moves by conduction and convection....some wee bit is radiated by CO2 but the amount is vanishingly small.



IanC said:


> BUT there is a big problem there. The molecules that SSDD says are getting rid of the excess CO2 absorbed energy already have excess energy of their own that they cannot get rid of.



Again...not listening ian...how often have I said that eventually most of that conducted energy ends up in a water molecule...which is then convected on up to the upper atmosphere where it freezes and promptly emits all the energy that it took to cause it to change phases in the first place.



IanC said:


> By the same process as CO2, water vapour absorbs more energy from the warm surface than it can emit to space from the cool emission height.



No ian...not by the same process at all because CO2 doesn't change phases at atmospheric pressures and temperatures...



IanC said:


> If water vapour is getting rid of the CO2 energy, what is getting rid of the water vapour energy? If some unknown x molecule is getting rid of the water vapour energy, then what is getting rid of x's energy? SSDD is proposing a Ponzi scheme.



You really don't use your brain for much other than learning the dogma do you?  Ever notice how broad the H20 spectrum is...water is getting rid of most of the energy that makes it to the upper atmosphere...along with some CO2 that is up there and a few other so called greenhouse gasses...sometimes you come up with the stupidest ideas...

And it isn't CO2 energy..it is just energy...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> Of course I could be full of shit. This is a new idea, at least to me.



Well yes you are now that you mention it...but it is fun watching you squirm in an attempt to defend your dogma...and the magic.


----------



## IanC (Mar 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No ian...that happens damned near all the time...CO2 radiates almost no energy out of the troposphere...it all moves by conduction and convection....some wee bit is radiated by CO2 but the amount is vanishingly small.




Only radiation lost to space causes cooling. Period. You can move energy around all you want by matter-mediated convection and conduction but that causes zero energy loss.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 7, 2018)

IanC said:


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


Again you miss the forest for the trees.. A water molecule can hold energy as shown in that experiment for very long periods of time. As the energy level diminishes, as it is with LWIR, the energy can be held for much longer periods of time in water vapor, before the molecule returns to a ground state through phase change to water or ice.

You keep grasping at straws.. The article I posted up show the energy at 100 Deg C  is held in water vapor for upwards of 6-9 seconds. If we take this graphing out further, as it cools, the time gets real long in a normalized atmosphere pressure column.

I don't know how to get you to see this... Your so set on AGW that you refuse to see what empirical observations are telling us right in front of our eyes.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 7, 2018)

IanC said:


> BUT there is a big problem there. The molecules that SSDD says are getting rid of the excess CO2 absorbed energy already have excess energy of their own that they cannot get rid of.


Total BS...

There is no "extra energy"..  There is no hot spot, which would have to be present if it were true.

You fail to understand how water vapor actually moves energy.


----------



## jillian (Mar 7, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your help.  I have been waffling as of late.
> ...



in other words, none of the actual climate scientists agree with it


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 7, 2018)

jillian said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > catatomic said:
> ...


Poor silly jilly....

all you have left is personal attack...  priceless...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No ian...that happens damned near all the time...CO2 radiates almost no energy out of the troposphere...it all moves by conduction and convection....some wee bit is radiated by CO2 but the amount is vanishingly small.
> ...



Well its a good damned thing that water vapor is between 10,000 and 20,000ppm isn't it?
As I have said over and over but you don't seen to want to listen either because you are impervious to fact, or because it challenges your dogma or both...that convection completely dominates energy movement in the troposphere and radiation dominates once you are above the troposphere...get a grip on reality ian...there is no radiative greenhouse effect, and the effect of CO2 on the climate is zero or less.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



In addition to the energy it holds, there is the latent energy that resides there that caused its phase change...when, for example, water vapor freezes in the upper atmosphere, it releases exactly as much energy as it took to cause its phase change to vapor in the first place.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> I don't know how to get you to see this... Your so set on AGW that you refuse to see what empirical observations are telling us right in front of our eyes.



He won't see it for the same reason the heads of science of the time wouldn't see that the earth revolves around the sun...it challenges the dogma and he is driven by dogma.  Rather than thinking about how the dogma is wrong...he expends his intellectual wattage trying to get everything to fit within the dogma...just the way it has always been...history tells us that eventually a paradigm shift will happen and the dogma is replaced with something that closer resembles the truth...till such time as it becomes dogma as well.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2018)

jillian said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > catatomic said:
> ...



And you think that matters?  Look back through the history of science...everything that is accepted science (accepted through observation and measurement that is...not merely models as is the case with climate science) was at an earlier point contrary to what the "actual" scientists of the time believed...everything.

But if you like, feel free to point out a hypothesis which sprung forward complete and remained unchanged through the entire scientific process of moving forward from hypothesis...to theory....to law.

History tells us damned near all the time that if you are on board with the consensus in the early stages of a field of science,  then you are probably wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



When people make comments like that, they are just showing that not only do they NOT grasp the scientific method, and can't identify whether it is being followed or not, but they show you that they are ignorant of history as well...how may times has history tried to teach the lesson that if you are on board with the scientific consensus, then you are probably wrong?


----------



## cnm (Mar 8, 2018)

What a load.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 8, 2018)

cnm said:


> What a load.



Considering that IR can not warm the air..and you clearly believe it can, it would seem that you are the one who has accepted the load as truth.


----------



## IanC (Mar 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> You keep grasping at straws.. The article I posted up show the energy at 100 Deg C is held in water vapor for upwards of 6-9 seconds. If we take this graphing out further, as it cools, the time gets real long in a normalized atmosphere pressure column.



Your link goes to this abstract-



> .
> *Abstract*
> We study, using pump-probe optical methods with a time resolution of 1 ms, heat transfer when a series of water droplets impact a smooth surface whose temperature exceeds the boiling point. The volume of the individual water droplets is ≈10 nl, the time between droplets is ≈0.3 ms, and the number of water droplets in the series of droplets is 3, 20, or 100. In the temperature range 100 °C < T < 150 °C, our measurements of the heat transfer, and the residence time of water in contact with the surface, show that nearly all of the dispensed water vaporizes, but more rapidly, the higher the temperature. At higher temperatures, 150 °C < T < 220 °C, droplet shattering plays an increasingly important role in limiting heat transfer and, as a result, the volume of water evaporated and residence time decrease strongly with increasing temperature.



The water droplets vaporize quickly from 100C to 150C. Higher than 150C the water droplets are 'insulated' by explosive water vapour formation and the water droplet bounces.

This is the same way grandma tested the frying pan to see if it was hot enough to cook pancakes.

What the fuck does a 150+C flat smooth surface have to do with radiative atmospheric physics?[/QUOTE]


----------



## IanC (Mar 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You really don't use your brain for much other than learning the dogma do you? Ever notice how broad the H20 spectrum is...water is getting rid of most of the energy that makes it to the upper atmosphere...along with some CO2 that is up there and a few other so called greenhouse gasses...sometimes you come up with the stupidest ideas...
> 
> And it isn't CO2 energy..it is just energy...








There is the shape of radiation leaving the Earth and escaping to space. The red line is the amount of radiation leaving the surface.

For wavenumbers 800-1000 (roughly 10-13 microns), the radiation escapes freely with almost no interaction with the atmosphere. That is the maximum and most efficient way of losing energy by radiation.

You say water vapour is releasing almost all of the GHG absorbed energy. So where is it? Point out the wavenumber or wavelength band where you think it is coming out.

I see reduced output at every band that reacts with a GHG, without exception.

Are we being ''fooled by instrumentation" again? What experiments and data would you prefer to use? The brochure from a salesman selling radiant heat panels?


----------



## jillian (Mar 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Sorry, I don't pander to lying rabid loons. The climate scientists believe one thing. I'm not going to debate with a moron who wants to pretend that his lying idiots know something the climate scientists don't.

and science is sometimes shown to be wrong. but not by imbeciles who aren't using scientific method. the SCIENE is the best information we have available now. not what the loony hacks make up in their heads.

I hope that helps you

and if  you want to play with a moron like the one you just responded to, that's pretty much your problem. not mine.

nice guitar in your avi though.


----------



## IanC (Mar 8, 2018)

The water cycle that moves energy into the atmosphere does make a huge difference.

If it was not there the surface would be much hotter and the atmosphere would be much cooler.


----------



## IanC (Mar 8, 2018)

All of the white area under the red line is radiation that is absorbed by GHGs and cannot find a way out. 

If SSDD's explanation was correct then some bands would have to be greater than surface Blackbody radiation to make up for the missing radiation absorbed and stored in the atmosphere.

In a way that is almost correct. Energy from the atmosphere returns to the surface, adding to the 240w of solar insolation, allowing the surface to achieve a temperature that radiates at almost 400w.

You can't increase the radiation in specific bands but you can increase all the radiation in the whole range by increasing the temperature of the surface.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2018)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You keep grasping at straws.. The article I posted up show the energy at 100 Deg C is held in water vapor for upwards of 6-9 seconds. If we take this graphing out further, as it cools, the time gets real long in a normalized atmosphere pressure column.
> ...


[/QUOTE]
It is the way the energy is held and moved.  Your missing the whole point.  Your so fixated on CO2 you cant even see that the sliver of the bandwidth your so concerned about doesn't have the ability to do anything and in our atmosphere there are swamping factors that keep it from ever gaining that ability.   If you do the LOG, of retention time, as the temperature deceases the length of time water can hold that energy increases.

Your so fixated on CO2 your totally missing the reasons it can not do anything.


----------



## IanC (Mar 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



I am fixated on how radiation input and output control whether the planetary system is warming or cooling, and also controls the amount energy stored in the atmosphere and surface, which in turn defines the temperature at all the locations along the pathways of solar energy in, and IR energy out.

You have not made any significant attempts to explain the meaning of your water drop on a hot skillet paper. You didn't even link the paper, just the abstract. Why didn't you at least pull out a quote from the paper to illustrate what you wanted to show?

I am sick and tired of trying to decipher your meaningless bafflegab. You may even have an interesting point, but I am not willing to wade through the bullshit to find it.


----------



## IanC (Mar 8, 2018)

Trenberth's cartoon.

I wouldn't bet the farm on the numbers being exactly right, and I am somewhat uncomfortable calling all of the 333w returning to the surface as radiation, but overall I am reasonably satisfied that this graph is in the ballpark.

We know the average surface temperature so we know how much it radiates (bogus adjustments only change it by 5 or 10w at most)

We know the TOA solar input, and how much is reflected. We know how much reaches the surface so we also know how much is absorbed by the atmosphere.

The main mystery that I see is the radiation coming from the cloudtops through the Atmospheric Window. I don't know how much is supposed to be emitted by a surface temp of 396w. If it is only 40w as depicted then something is seriously wrong. If it is about 70w then the graph is misleading because it shows the cloudtops radiating almost as much as the surface.

The most interesting case is if 70w is the amount for surface radiation PLUS the (17+80)w for convection and phase change turned into radiation by ice and water in the clouds.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 8, 2018)

Why would any sane person even consider this "average everything" idiotic "energy budget"
First off none of the proponents ever got the "global average" temperature right....because they simply can`t and cheat on top of that. Second they also assume an average effective sky temperature to get to their 333 w/m^2 "back radiation". To get that is not even in the realm of what is possible with the methods they have been using.
So they simply fiddled with the number till they get one that does not knock down their closed CO2 radiation window to corroborate the temperature increases they want to forecast.
If you use some actual effective sky temperature vs. air temperature measurements you can see how often it is wrong:




The green line is for their +16C "average" global temperature and the red one for the effective sky temperature for 333 w/m^2. The only time their assumption works is for temperatures way above 16 C


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 8, 2018)

IanC said:


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



The meaning is simple. A flash to a changed state and then observing what happens after until it returns to that state..  AND YOU MISSED IT!


Water forced into a changed state.
Observe how the energy moves and how long it is held.
Make an assessment on how that would affect our atmosphere.
Then they assessed how long energy remains at much lower energy levels such as that of LWIR, how it is consumed and where the energy moves.

The Trenbreth Cartoon is so far from reality its laughable. You folks are so set on the "energy budget" that you miss how the energy actually moves.  Your so fixated on CO2 that you wont even consider the other routes.


----------



## IanC (Mar 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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




Link the paper, or at least quote the portion that supports your position.


----------



## IanC (Mar 8, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Why would any sane person even consider this "average everything" idiotic "energy budget"
> First off none of the proponents ever got the "global average" temperature right....because they simply can`t and cheat on top of that. Second they also assume an average effective sky temperature to get to their 333 w/m^2 "back radiation". To get that is not even in the realm of what is possible with the methods they have been using.
> So they simply fiddled with the number till they get one that does not knock down their closed CO2 radiation window to corroborate the temperature increases they want to forecast.
> If you use some actual effective sky temperature vs. air temperature measurements you can see how often it is wrong:
> ...



You're getting to be as bad as Billyboob. State your point, link your graph (no result from Google)

Explain how the surface supports a radiating temperature of nearly 400 w from solar insolation of only 160w (240 if you include what is absorbed by the atmosphere)

And why have you not responded to my point about your earlier graph? It showed four orders of magnitude (edit- 10,000 times) more visible light being produced by the Sun compared to solar IR. How much of that solar IR do you think reaches the Earth system?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 9, 2018)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Why would any sane person even consider this "average everything" idiotic "energy budget"
> ...


_*)You're getting to be as bad as Billyboob. State your point, link your graph (no result from Google)

1.)Explain how the surface supports a radiating temperature of nearly 400 w from solar insolation of only 160w (240 if you include what is absorbed by the atmosphere)

2.)And why have you not responded to my point about your earlier graph? It showed four orders of magnitude (edit- 10,000 times) more visible light being produced by the Sun compared to solar IR. 
3.)How much of that solar IR do you think reaches the Earth sy_st_em?_
For 2.) *What is the matter with you? I already replied to that !*




And what`s your point to ratio visible over IR ? That does not address how much down dwelling IR is absorbed.
Do you have a problem looking at a graph and understanding what it expresses?
If you want that as a number all you have to do is to integrate what is under the blue line in the CO2 bands and ratio it with the areas I marked in green...Oh I forgot I am supposed to do that for you because you either can`t be bothered or don`t know how.
and in 1.) at the same time you state that out of 400 w down dwelling only 160 w make it through the atmosphere. ...and expect me to come up with an answer that you won`t even bother to think through anyways.
The answer is simple. They got the 160 watts by using the 16 C average and StB converted it into watts.
No measurement whatsoever...as usual !
and to *)
No surprise that you can`t find it with Google. Are you insinuating I made up that graph like the bastards who peddle all this phony GW data do?
You can download this pdf and find the graph on page 3
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naouel_Daouas/post/How_to_find_effective_sky_temperature_knowing_only_ambient_air_temperature_and_the_solar_irradiance/attachment/59d61ddb79197b807797b09c/AS:273728288559106@1442273317322/download/sky+temperature+modelisation.pdf


----------



## polarbear (Mar 9, 2018)

Btw if the air temperature is below their 16 C average it gets even worse. You can check it with any off the shelf IR thermometer. You get effective sky temperatures of -25C and colder.


----------



## IanC (Mar 9, 2018)

polarbear said:


> For 2.) *What is the matter with you? I already replied to that !*
> 
> 
> 
> ...







I took the liberty of posting a graph with log scales on both axis so that the amount of radiation is easily read for both wavelengths and amounts.

The Earth's surface radiates in the range of 2.5-100+ microns at 300K, =27C, =80F. For the convenience of using the lines, let's use 10 micron radiation instead of the 15 micron CO2 radiation that we are actually interested in.

At 300K  there is about 30w of 10 micron radiation produced.

At 5777K (Sun) there is 10^4w produced (10,000w) of 10 micron radiation. 

At 5777K the Sun produces 10^8w of 0.5 micron (green)radiation. 100,000,000 Watts! Good thing we are so far away.

By the time sunlight has reached the Earth it is only 1360w total, but it still has the same proportions. For every watt of green radiation there is only 1/10^4 of 10 micron IR. A pittance.


The graph you posted as a response to me has a range of 200nm to 2500nm. 0.2 microns to 2.5 microns. Basically it doesn't even overlap the range of Earth produced IR. At the same scale it would have to be 4 times wider to reach 10 microns, six times wider to reach 15 microns. Etc. The interesting part is that you coloured in by hand the gap at 1.4 microns. Were you confusing it with 14 microns? Assuming it was the 15 micron CO2 notch, perhaps?

The absorption of solar insolation by H2O, CO2, etc, is already accounted for. Any wavelengths shorter than 2.5 microns cannot be reemited by the atmosphere because it is far too cold. 30% of sunlight is reflected for no change, a third of what's left is absorbed by the atmosphere, the rest warm the surface. The 160w reaching the surface is not enough to support a 400w radiating surface. Even if you add the 80w of sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere you are 160w short. Where does that energy come from if not by surface radiation being absorbed by GHGs and recycled to the surface?

I don't want or expect exact numbers. But they do have to explain why the surface is warmer than the sunshine reaching it.

Are you up for it? I have asked the same question at least a hundred times, and none of the greenhouse effect deniers have replaced it with a coherent answer. Awe us with your brilliance.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 9, 2018)

I'm not as smart as you guys but manmade global warming still makes sense to me.  After all there's that MIT slide I can still bring up where on 6 continents the natural+man-made graphs fit the temperature rise and the only natural ones all failed.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 9, 2018)

Pg. 6 of https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-s...and-policy-spring-2008/lecture-notes/lec4.pdf


----------



## IanC (Mar 9, 2018)

catatomic said:


> I'm not as smart as you guys but manmade global warming still makes sense to me.  After all there's that MIT slide I can still bring up where on 6 continents the natural+man-made graphs fit the temperature rise and the only natural ones all failed.



I agree that a small amount of warming from man-made increase of CO2 makes sense.

The graphs from AR4 do not. Climate models built around a large climate sensitivity to CO2 don't work very well when you remove the CO2 input.

Climate models can't do the MWP or LIA. They are even worse for the rise out of the last ice age into the Holocene. 

The large adjustments to pre-WWII ocean temperatures seemed to coincide with difficulties in back casting by climate models. Just sayin'


----------



## catatomic (Mar 9, 2018)

I assume AR4 are the graphs I pointed out and I don't know what MWP and LIA are.  I have a Master's Degree in Math but it's useless here.


----------



## IanC (Mar 10, 2018)

catatomic said:


> I assume AR4 are the graphs I pointed out and I don't know what MWP and LIA are.  I have a Master's Degree in Math but it's useless here.



Google is your friend.

And a degree in math is helpful in sorting the wheat from the chaff in consensus climate science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2018)

IanC said:


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


I already gave it to you and you brushed it off as insignificant because it doesn't fit your belief in a CO2 driven atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2018)

catatomic said:


> I assume AR4 are the graphs I pointed out and I don't know what MWP and LIA are.  I have a Master's Degree in Math but it's useless here.






Above are the three predictive ranges of the IPCC and Hansen. As you can see they all failed miserably because they placed energy in our system (within their broken modeling programs) that does not exist.

Now that it is becoming clear that water vapor is a NEGATIVE factor and CO2 has near zero impact a lot of folks wont give up their religious beliefs and keep praying to the Al Gore church of the wayward and far out Global Warmers...

Now lets look at the best of the models..




Modeling fails without exception and thus their understanding of our atmosphere function is shown lacking, severely.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Btw if the air temperature is below their 16 C average it gets even worse. You can check it with any off the shelf IR thermometer. You get effective sky temperatures of -25C and colder.


The internal ratios also change at the lower temperature. The change of about 35w/m^2 in both directions (atmosphere down absorbed and then emitted to space and surface to space) allows model runs to fall in line with current empirically observed trends. The model still misses the LIA and MEWP however... damn chaotic systems anyway!

70w/m^2 is the approximate energy that is being taken away by conduction and convection which current modeling fails to take into account. Residency time of the energy in water vapor is what throws the folks because they are not looking for it in the long waves of the H20 emissions band.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > For 2.) *What is the matter with you? I already replied to that !*
> ...


_Are you up for it? I have asked the same question at least a hundred times, and none of the greenhouse effect deniers have replaced it with a coherent answer._
I am supposed to answer more questions all at once than the poor gal at a WH press conference.
One at a time, because right now I also have to take care of my kids, + fix the electronic ignition system in my car etc etc. Let me start with how the 161 W incoming became 396 W on the ground.
All they did was adding 333 W "back radiation" to the 161, which brings them to 494 total on the ground.
Then they go on and say 17 W (=totally ridiculous see foot note #) is going up by convection (or thermals on the diagram) and 80W by evaporation (latent heat) . So it`s 494 -97= 397 W ( instead of 396 because only integers were used)
The short story is that`s how they got to 396 W total on the ground with only 161 W absorbed by the ground from incoming solar....Do you see now why the back radiation is their sacred cow?
And do you also see now why they downplay convection ?
Matter of fact they lied about convection in a big way.
#)In engineering it is a well known fact that a 1 kilowatt radiator *radiates *only 311 Watts and *transmits* the other 689 Watts by *convection* even in air that is still...no wind !
Heat Transfer Fundamentals: Radiant Vs Convection heat




I`ll answer the rest of your questions later when I get back from grocery shopping...gotta go my ride is here else if my car were running I`l stay and humor you right now


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2018)

polarbear said:


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


Essentially a 2.2/1 ratio..

SO they omit that which changes everything by pretending it doesn't exist.



Thank You for affirming the basic physics they want to make go away..  Now what in our atmosphere is capable of completing this task?


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 10, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Let me start with how the 161 W incoming became 396 W on the ground.
> All they did was adding 333 W "back radiation" to the 161, which brings them to 494 total on the ground.
> Then they go on and say 17 W (=totally ridiculous see foot note #) is going up by convection (or thermals on the diagram) and 80W by evaporation (latent heat) . So it`s 494 -97= 397 W ( instead of 396 because only integers were used)
> The short story is that`s how they got to 396 W total on the ground with only 161 W absorbed by the ground from incoming solar.


The 396 W is not a back calculation from other variables. It comes directly from the Stefan Boltzmann law. It's the fact that the average earth temperature is 16C that requires the earth to radiate 396 W/m².

To see this go to a SB calculator,
Stefan Boltzmann Law Calculator - Omni
Enter 1 for area to get the radiation per square meter.
Enter 16 for the temperature. The overall emissivity of the earth is close to 1. You will see the answer is 396 W/m².


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Let me start with how the 161 W incoming became 396 W on the ground.
> ...


That would be nice but the earth is not at a static 16 deg C.  So the calculations are but a statisticians wet dream.

That's the problem with a good majority of the issues which cause the modeling to fail.  They make assumptions which do not bear out reality.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 10, 2018)

Don't worry about me... I'm just not smart enough and yes I did try to google those things.

It seems at the moment that man-made global warming is not true, but I really am not worth convincing.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 10, 2018)

I remember in Graduate School some Professors were arguing and they didn't trust the double hockey sticks... they thought global warming wasn't man-made.


----------



## IanC (Mar 10, 2018)

Hahahaha. 

SSDD, Billyboob and Polarbear don't realize the ramifications of what they are saying. They don't follow through to the obvious consequences.

We know how much solar radiation reaches the surface, by measurement. We know how warm the surface is, and therefore how much it emit, again by measurement. There is a huge differential. Trenberth's cartoon puts it as 161-396 for a deficit of -235. That must be accounted for. I don't care what the exact numbers are, it is a huge amount that cannot be just measurement error, and the error is just as likely to make it larger than smaller.

Trenberth also has 100w of energy leaving the surface by convection and latent heat. Oh oh! The deficit just got larger! I am willing to accept entropy as the motivator that moves the energy but the energy must be there in the first place. Now the deficit is -235 plus -98 = -333

We know by measurement how much solar energy reaches the Earth, how much is reflected, how much gets to the surface, and infer how much is absorbed by the atmosphere. 340 minus 100 reflected minus 160 surface absorbed minus 80 atmosphere absorbed equals zero. All accounted for.

We know by measurement how much radiation leaves the Earth. 100 solar shortwave and 240 terrestrial infrared. Again all accounted for. Input equals output. But where does the infrared come from? Some from the surface, some from the atmosphere.

That just leaves the local surface deficit to be accounted for. The 333w deficit must be coming back from the atmosphere. There is no other available source. How does it get back? A combination of radiation and conduction.

If the three amigos are right and more energy is being moved into the atmosphere by convection and latent heat, what does that change? It simply makes the deficit larger and the returning energy larger. We are at equilibrium. Total input and output are equal, the system is in stasis. The amounts of energy going through the various pathways are tuned by Nature to provide the maximum heat loss.

Many factors can affect the equilibrium, some known and some unknown, but the surface temperature has remained the same for billions of years, give or take a handful of degrees. Absolutely amazing considering the huge changes that have happened.

The recent change of CO2 concentration is adding a warming influence of 1C per doubling, it is simple physics. Less radiation can escape through its bands, that energy is stored in the atmosphere and returns to the surface. But it is only one small factor and is very likely to be compensated for by other factors. The climate is not a boulder perched on a mountain top waiting to roll down. It is a boulder sitting in a valley with steep sides that can't be pushed very far up the hill.


----------



## IanC (Mar 10, 2018)

catatomic said:


> Don't worry about me... I'm just not smart enough and yes I did try to google those things.
> 
> It seems at the moment that man-made global warming is not true, but I really am not worth convincing.



AR4 is the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, the origin of your graph. You didn't look very hard. The MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, I will let you work out the LIA for yourself.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 10, 2018)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha.
> 
> SSDD, Billyboob and Polarbear don't realize the ramifications of what they are saying. They don't follow through to the obvious consequences.
> 
> ...


You keep asking me the same question over and over again. I just told you how they got to these numbers in my last post...and now I am asking you:
Every time that back radiation comes up you warmers claim whatever the CO2 absorbs it must re-emit. 1/2 goes up and the other 1/2 back down.
So please do tell the rest of us how come that "global energy flow" cartoon has it at *333 W down and only 239 up? *That is 1 1/2 times as much going down instead of just 1/2...(= 166.5 W)
*And the most blatant falsification is never questioned by any of you melt-down freaks which is the **fact  air convection out-paces radiation by a factor of of ~ 2.2 times*
While the diagram handed down by the doomsday prophets *has it only at ~ 0.25 times.*..(356 W radiating up + 40 through the "window")
Holy f-ck it that was true your face would fry faster than the hot dog on a stick above the fire.
That Wuwei or whatever handle he is using lately claims that the 396 watts calculated from the 16C is not a back calculation. It sure as F-ck is not a measurement.
For that you would have to IR scan the entire planet 24/7 365 days for 20 years and be able to tell the difference between reflected IR, ground emission and what came from the air above it...
I already stated earlier that they simply used the 16C average in the St.B to calculate that number...and here he is "telling" me "it is not a  back calculation"
First you claim that its "next to nothing" how much heat (W/m^2) the GHGs prevent from heating the ground and then demand I explain why* their *diagram only has it at 160 W getting to the ground. *Wtf can`t you read?...:*
_All they did was adding 333 W "back radiation" to the 161, which brings them to 494 total on the ground.Then they go on and say 17 W (=totally ridiculous see foot note #) is going up by convection (or thermals on the diagram) and 80W by evaporation (latent heat) . So it`s 494 -97= 397 W ( instead of 396 because only integers were used)
The short story is that`s how they got to 396 W total on the ground with only 161 W absorbed by the ground from incoming solar..._

I have better things to do that sit here and respond to idiots like that


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 10, 2018)

polarbear said:


> That Wuwei or whatever handle he is using lately claims that the 396 watts calculated from the 16C is not a back calculation. It sure as F-ck is not a measurement.
> For that you would have to IR scan the entire planet 24/7 365 days for 20 years and be able to tell the difference between reflected IR, ground emission and what came from the air above it...
> I already stated earlier that they simply used the 16C average in the St.B to calculate that number...and here he is "telling" me "it is not a back calculation"


I don't know what your problem is. But, to clarify, the 396 W/m² is not calculated from any atmospheric parameters. That's what I mean by it's not a back calculation. That number is a calculation. Period.  You don't have to bring in anything like convection into that calculation. Simply put, anything that's warm must radiate. The SB equation tells you how much.


----------



## IanC (Mar 11, 2018)

polarbear said:


> You keep asking me the same question over and over again. I just told you how they got to these numbers in my last post...and now I am asking you:
> Every time that back radiation comes up you warmers claim whatever the CO2 absorbs it must re-emit. 1/2 goes up and the other 1/2 back down.
> So please do tell the rest of us how come that "global energy flow" cartoon has it at *333 W down and only 239 up? *That is 1 1/2 times as much going down instead of just 1/2...(= 166.5 W)



The amount of radiation escaping to space is controlled by the height/temperature at which it is finally emitted.

A molecule that becomes excited and is given enough time to drop down to groundstate will emit a photon in a random direction. We are most interested in the up and down components, therefore, given the limitations of graphing a 3D action on to 2D paper, we ignore the side-to-side and back-to-front components. 

You are conflating the direction of radiation with the escape of radiation. They are not the same thing.


Now, will you explain why you think the amount of IR emitted from the Sun in the terrestrial range of 2-100 microns makes any significant difference?

I have shown that it is roughly 1/10,000th of the amount of visible light. The solar flux is 1360w divided by 4 (for the spherical shape and rotation). The IR is less than 340/10,000w. One thirtieth of a watt. Why do you think it is important?

I doubt that you will answer. You just run away when you are asked inconvenient questions.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 11, 2018)

IanC said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not as smart as you guys but manmade global warming still makes sense to me.  After all there's that MIT slide I can still bring up where on 6 continents the natural+man-made graphs fit the temperature rise and the only natural ones all failed.
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > I assume AR4 are the graphs I pointed out and I don't know what MWP and LIA are.  I have a Master's Degree in Math but it's useless here.
> ...


OK I get what you guys are saying now.  LIA little ice age.  I think AGW is still winning, but like I said don't mind me.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2018)

IanC said:


> You are conflating the direction of radiation with the escape of radiation. They are not the same thing.



Of course they are the same thing...since energy always moves from warm to cool.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 12, 2018)

catatomic said:


> OK I get what you guys are saying now.  LIA little ice age.  I think AGW is still winning, but like I said don't mind me.



You might start separating the wheat from the chaff by actively looking for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  I have been looking for close to 3 decades and have yet to find even a single scrap of real evidence that supports AGW over natural variability.  

There is absolutely nothing happening within our climate now that is even beginning to approach the boundaries of natural variability.  Manmade climate change is supposed to look, and act different from natural climate change...and there is nothing unusual or different happening now...so if manmade climate change is indistinguishable from natural climate change, exactly what is the hoo haa all about other than money and political power?


----------



## catatomic (Mar 12, 2018)

Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!

If not I have decided.


----------



## IanC (Mar 12, 2018)

catatomic said:


> Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
> Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!
> 
> If not I have decided.




Hahahaha. You're a math major, you are expecting either a right or wrong answer.

In climate science all you can expect is a less incorrect answer. Or perhaps a less incomplete answer.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 12, 2018)

catatomic said:


> So if CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and our current model of climate change is correct (anthropomorphic climate change), how does it explain this?
> 
> I think I heard an answer to this a while ago but I forgot.


Henry's law.

But don't expect Al Gore to mention Henry's law when he's on a scissor lift brainwashing and scaring the shit out of auditorium full of naive & impressionable schoolchildren.


The only thing scary about it is that those brainwashed kids are old enough to vote now.


----------



## Muhammed (Mar 12, 2018)

IanC said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
> ...


Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?


----------



## IanC (Mar 12, 2018)

On a clear summer evening when I am entertaining on the deck, I will put out the umbrella if it starts to turn chilly. This reduces the net radiation loss from your body because the umbrella is radiating more towards you than the clear sky.

On a sunny afternoon I would put it up for the opposite reason. It reduces the net radiation gain from the solar insolation.

Anytime you put a third object in between the original two objects, the radiation transfer rate will be reduced, as long as the third object can interact with at least some portion of the radiation.

People find it much easier to visualize why the umbrella reduces warming in daytime and have a harder time grasping the concept of how it reduces cooling at night.


----------



## IanC (Mar 12, 2018)

Muhammed said:


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



At a stable concentration of Atmospheric CO2, the amount that dissolves into the ocean is controlled by temperature and how fast other reactions remove it by turning it into inert substances. A naturally caused 1C temperature increase would expel some CO2 and that extra CO2 would cause a triffling amount of extra warming.

Burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 by an unnatural mechanism, and that has caused a small amount of warming. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature.

In the first case, natural stasis. In the second case, a change of conditions ends up with an opposite result. More CO2 going into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb.

We cannot compare our unnaturally caused CO2 level with similar historical levels because they were caused by natural factors.

The causation/correlation relationship does not work if you unnaturally change one side of the equation.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

catatomic said:


> Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
> Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!
> 
> If not I have decided.



Good luck getting a refutation here...I have been asking since I got here (2012) and a couple of people attempted the challenge, but all they managed to do was show what a low threshold they had for calling something "data"...I don't believe any of it was actually observed, or measured...it was, as I remember the output of failing computer models.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
> ...



Why not simply say that you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability?  Does it sting that badly to simply admit the truth?..if so, ask yourself why it should.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

Muhammed said:


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



I second that...Ian claims to be a luke warmer but he is sitting on the front row at the church of AGW every saturday afternoon.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> On a clear summer evening when I am entertaining on the deck, I will put out the umbrella if it starts to turn chilly. This reduces the net radiation loss from your body because the umbrella is radiating more towards you than the clear sky.



No ian...the umbrella blocks conduction on to the cooler regions of the atmosphere, which increases the air temperature...and according to the SB law, if you increase the temperature of a radiator's surroundings, the amount of energy it radiates decreases...the umbrella is not back radiating the energy your body lost to you..you believe in fairy dust and unicorn perspiration...and who knows what other magic...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

IanC said:


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



In which chapter of your climate change grimoire do you find that nonsense?  Tell me ian, do you believe other molecules, or substances are magical as well, or in your reality does CO2 hold all of the magic in the universe?

Reality:  the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than they are outgassing.

Another reality:  You get more ridiculous every day ian....


----------



## IanC (Mar 13, 2018)

Hahahaha. I can't figure out why you strawman my positions.

Is it an inability to comprehend? Are you really that stupid? I doubt it.

Or is it just some psychological need on your part to disagree with any and every thing I say? 

I think it is probably the latter.

I said- 





> . The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature.



You said- 





> Reality: the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than they are outgassing.



Yet, for some reason, you are reacting as if my statement is foolish fantasy and that yours is somehow different and the voice of reason.


----------



## IanC (Mar 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



You are making another strawman position and attributing it to me.

I have never said that increased CO2 is anything more than a small additional factor, a slight influence. It certainly doesn't overwhelm natural variability and stasis but it does make a contribution.

And there is a mountain of evidence showing that it does.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> .
> 
> I said. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature. {/quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> I have never said that increased CO2 is anything more than a small additional factor, a slight influence. It certainly doesn't overwhelm natural variability and stasis but it does make a contribution.



It is no factor...except for maybe some slight cooling...certainly not warming.



IanC said:


> And there is a mountain of evidence showing that it does.



And there isn't the first bit of actual observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...we have already been through this and all you showed was how easily you were fooled by instrumentation....claiming that instruments were measuring back radiation when in fact, they were measuring nothing more than temperature changes within their own internal thermopiles...


----------



## IanC (Mar 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I have never said that increased CO2 is anything more than a small additional factor, a slight influence. It certainly doesn't overwhelm natural variability and stasis but it does make a contribution.
> ...



STOP THE PRESS! Just in. SSDD discovers all electronic measuring devices are useless. No word yet whether they read high or low, or whether it it the accuracy or precision that is in doubt. 

News at eleven.


Hahahaha, what a dolt.


----------



## IanC (Mar 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Increasing the concentration on one side of the equation affects the concentration on the other side. 

Changing the temperature of the reaction also affects the equilibrium concentrations.

For the specific case of atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the oceans, the pCO2 is a larger factor than lower rate of absorption cause by a small temperature increase. The net result is more CO2 dissolved  in the ocean.

That CO2 is held as carbonic acid which partially dissociates, lowering the pH.

Didn't you take any chemistry classes? This is pretty elementary stuff.


----------



## IanC (Mar 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > On a clear summer evening when I am entertaining on the deck, I will put out the umbrella if it starts to turn chilly. This reduces the net radiation loss from your body because the umbrella is radiating more towards you than the clear sky.
> ...



Now it is conduction that is the Boogeyman? Ay Carumba! Why don't you get your stories straight.

Stand next to a brick wall that stored heat during the daytime. At night both you and the wall will be radiating. The warmth you feel is radiation coming from the wall. Not convection which pushes warm air upwards (if anything you might be in the  down draught of cooler air replacing the rising heated air). Not conduction which is slow in air, and easily overwhelmed by air flow.

It is radiation you feel. Both you and the wall will be radiating according to your temperature, whether you are close to the wall or not. However, if you are close to the wall, both you and the wall will be cooling off at a slower rate. Part of your exposure to the cooler environment is replaced with a warmer object and the net radiation loss is reduced.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 13, 2018)

Why does CO2 lag temperature?

"However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many."


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

IanC said:


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



So now you are down to logical fallacies?  When did I ever say that the instruments are useless?  When did I ever say that they were inaccurate?  What I have said, and what you have proven is that for people who want to believe, it is dammed easy to be fooled by instrumentation...you point to pyrogeometers as evidence of back radiation as if that were what they were measuring...it isn't and the sad thing is that you didn't know it...

The only way to measure back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the surface, is to cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than that of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> For the specific case of atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the oceans, the pCO2 is a larger factor than lower rate of absorption cause by a small temperature increase. The net result is more CO2 dissolved  in the ocean.



You have it backwards ian...a small temperature increase would result in more CO2 being outgassed...a temperature decrease results in more CO2 being absorbed.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 13, 2018)

IanC said:


> Now it is conduction that is the Boogeyman? Ay Carumba! Why don't you get your stories straight.
> 
> Stand next to a brick wall that stored heat during the daytime. At night both you and the wall will be radiating. The warmth you feel is radiation coming from the wall. Not convection which pushes warm air upwards (if anything you might be in the  down draught of cooler air replacing the rising heated air). Not conduction which is slow in air, and easily overwhelmed by air flow.



I am a solid object ian...of course radiation will warm me...and if I am feeling heat from the wall, then it is because the wall is a higher temperature than me and I am absorbing energy from it...otherwise, I would feel cool next to the wall because I am losing energy to it.

And radiation is a one way gross proposition..if you think otherwise, then lets see a measurement of two way energy happening..show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 13, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your help.  I have been waffling as of late.
> ...



*The next time you waffle all you need to do is ask yourself how the earth entered and left a glacial cycle with CO2 levels at or above 7,000ppm..
*
Was it covailent [sic] bonds?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 13, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Was it covailent [sic] bonds?


Dont ask him...he knows fuck all about this...ask a scientist!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 14, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Was it covailent [sic] bonds?
> ...




And you think climate science has an answer for that question?  Step on up to the plate then and bring it here...

Of course, we both know that you won't.  You will respond with some logical fallacy, an impotent attempt at bullying, or no response at all....what you won't have is anything resembling actual evidence supporting your statement.  So go ahead and prove me right...show us all just how predictable you are.


----------



## IanC (Mar 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And radiation is a one way gross proposition..if you think otherwise, then lets see a measurement of two way energy happening.



You keep saying that even though it defies cause and effect. The wall radiates because it has stored energy that causes its molecules to vibrate. Likewise for your body.  Both objects radiate according to their temperatures, their stored energy, all the time.

You are saying that the stored energy in one object controls the vibration in the other object. That is ridiculous. There is no possible mechanism for that to happen.

If I open my mouth to call to someone on the other side of the wall, that does not stop every molecule in line-of-sight of the newly exposed 37C area to stop vibrating, to stop radiating according to the temperature.

Radiation is produced in an amount that is commensurate with the internal stored energy, the temperature.

The amount of cooling in response to that radiation loss is dependent on the environment. 

If the environment is 25C, the wall 30C and your body 35C then when you move close to the wall you are losing less net radiation because the wall is replacing more radiation than the environment was. The wall is cooling more slowly because your body has replaced part of the area exposed to the environment. The energy that keeps both you and the nearby portion of the wall warmer comes from energy not lost to the environment.


----------



## 80zephyr (Mar 14, 2018)

catatomic said:


> I found this quote:
> 
> "As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).
> 
> The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. "



The problem is, is what causes the initial warming. This has happened throughout history, and we didn't have cars back then. Then the next question becomes, if the initial warming started the process, when did the initial warming stop, and CO2 took over?  

Mark


----------



## IanC (Mar 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > For the specific case of atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the oceans, the pCO2 is a larger factor than lower rate of absorption cause by a small temperature increase. The net result is more CO2 dissolved  in the ocean.
> ...



What do I have backwards? More CO2 in the air forces more CO2 into the ocean. That is one factor. Warming the ocean causes less CO2 to be dissolved. That is a separate factor. The two factors have different sizes. If the amount for increased atmospheric CO2 is three arbitrary units and the amount for reduced absorption is one arbitrary units in the opposite direction then the net result is 3-1 = 2 arbitrary units.  Two mechanisms, going in opposite directions, resulting in a net change. 

Are you saying I have the general magnitudes backwards and that more CO2 is leaving the oceans?


----------



## IanC (Mar 14, 2018)

80zephyr said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > I found this quote:
> ...



Shakun had a paper out roughly five years ago giving CO2 the top spot in bringing the Earth out of the last ice age. 

In typical climate science fashion he cut off the CO2 results for the last 6000years because it was inconvenient. The temperature has dropped since the Holocene maximum while CO2 continued to increase, the opposite of his theory.

Personally, I have no problem with CO2 being a factor that helps move the system from glacial to interglacial. But I do have a problem with his hiding the inconvenient data from the Holocene.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 14, 2018)

I am just an amateur scientist.  Biology neurology and climate science ought to be the most difficult sciences.  I am not dead sure, but since one of you told me to think in non-absolute I'm thinking I should probably just trust the president that there is some manmade climate change.  That can lead to conspiracy theories with politics, but if it's good enough for the President it's good enough for me.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2018)

IanC said:


> You keep saying that even though it defies cause and effect. The wall radiates because it has stored energy that causes its molecules to vibrate. Likewise for your body.  Both objects radiate according to their temperatures, their stored energy, all the time.



Sorry ian...SB says that if the object is not in a vacuum, or at absolute zero, then it radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...



IanC said:


> You are saying that the stored energy in one object controls the vibration in the other object. That is ridiculous. There is no possible mechanism for that to happen.



Really?  You know all the possible sub atomic mechanisms?  All of them and all that are possible?  Where did you get this knowledge?  More info from your magic grimoire?

You grow so tiresome spouting the proclamations of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models as if they were reality...  All you have to do is show some observed measured evidence of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...that would put the whole discussion to rest...but guess what?  There is none..not the first observation or measurement of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...it is all models and no reality...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2018)

catatomic said:


> I am just an amateur scientist.  Biology neurology and climate science ought to be the most difficult sciences.  I am not dead sure, but since one of you told me to think in non-absolute I'm thinking I should probably just trust the president that there is some manmade climate change.  That can lead to conspiracy theories with politics, but if it's good enough for the President it's good enough for me.



Climate science is a soft science...any chemistry, physics, or engineering grad with a masters could teach PhD level climate science while most PhD climate scientists would be hopelessly lost teaching 4000 level classes in the hard sciences...

You have had a couple of days to look now.. have you found a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  My bet is no...Ian doesn't like to think in terms of success or failure because when that sort of thinking is applied, his beliefs fail every time.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 15, 2018)

No I have not found a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW *that I can understand.  *Of course, I am making assumptions and trusting you on some things.  For instance, I was told that the medieval warming period and little ice age don't fit with AR4, but I am trusting you guys on that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You keep saying that even though it defies cause and effect. The wall radiates because it has stored energy that causes its molecules to vibrate. Likewise for your body.  Both objects radiate according to their temperatures, their stored energy, all the time.
> ...



*SB says that if the object is not in a vacuum, or at absolute zero, then it radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...
*
Of course, because dimmer switch. Seeing into the future. Measuring temperatures of targets without said targets radiating. Because photons don't experience time.

Did I leave anything out?

Weird that all your epicycles have no back up, eh?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *SB says that if the object is not in a vacuum, or at absolute zero, then it radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...
> *
> Of course, because dimmer switch. Seeing into the future. Measuring temperatures of targets without said targets radiating. Because photons don't experience time.
> 
> ...



Stefan-Boltzman doesn't say anything about a dimmer switch...that is just your weird interpretation of the equation.






As best as I can tell, the equation says that P (the amount of radiation being emitted by the radiator) is equal to the emissivity of the object (e) times the SB constant times the area of the object (A) times the difference between the temperature of the radiator to the 4th power T^4 minus the temperature of the radiator's surroundings to the 4th power (T^4 - Tc^4).

If you see something about a dimmer switch there, or simultaneous two way energy flow, or the radiator radiating simply according to its own temperature, or any of the other gross misconceptions you have about what that equation says, then feel free to point out the expressions that cause you to believe that the equation says anything other than what I just stated.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 15, 2018)

catatomic said:


> No I have not found a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW *that I can understand.  *Of course, I am making assumptions and trusting you on some things.  For instance, I was told that the medieval warming period and little ice age don't fit with AR4, but I am trusting you guys on that.



If you only look at the past 100 years and make a wheel barrow full of assumptions, then there are data that support the AGW hypothesis...scratch the assumptions and look at the larger picture...and the idea that the present climate is behaving in some new and unprecedented way becomes simply indefensible.

As to the MWP and the little ice age....the fingerprint of those events can be seen in gold standard temperature reconstructions derived from ice cores taken above the arctic circle, and above the antarctic circle.  I have asked but no one seems to be able to come up with a reason the same temperature fingerprints would be seen at both poles, but not apply to what was happening to all of the globe between those two circles.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> If you see something about a dimmer switch there, or simultaneous two way energy flow, or the radiator radiating simply according to its own temperature, or any of the other gross misconceptions you have about what that equation says, then feel free to point out the expressions that cause you to believe that the equation says anything other than what I just stated.


Here is your misconception that numerous people pointed out numerous times. Note that all scientists for the last 100 years have known that there is two way energy flow: emission and absorption.

This is the only thing that scientists have found that makes sense:

Rₑ = εσT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission.

Rₐ =εσT₂⁴, , . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption. 

The net rate is the difference;

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *SB says that if the object is not in a vacuum, or at absolute zero, then it radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...
> ...



*Stefan-Boltzman doesn't say anything about a dimmer switch...
*
I agree, the dimmer switch is all you.

*If you see something about a dimmer switch there, or simultaneous two way energy flow
*
Or if you ever find a source that agrees with your one-way only flow of energy........
It's only been years, still no back up? Weird.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 15, 2018)

OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.

Of course, AGW also includes nuclear bombs and I wonder about the magnetic poles shifting.  Maybe we can talk about them if you want to keep the thread going.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 15, 2018)

catatomic said:


> OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.
> 
> Of course, AGW also includes nuclear bombs and I wonder about the magnetic poles shifting. Maybe we can talk about them if you want to keep the thread going.



You should really keep an open mind. A lot of the posters here really stray away from science and get their "theorys" from blogs. This forum is not the place to form an opinion.

This is one of the best explanations of the green house effect that I've seen.
Simple Models of Climate

Current understanding begins at the paragraph next to Fourier's picture. It starts with
_How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation?_​
The article doesn't require much physics knowledge, but it is long and not an easy read.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 15, 2018)

catatomic said:


> OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.


Really? THAT is how you make up your mind about complicated scientific topics? How fucking ridiculous!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you see something about a dimmer switch there, or simultaneous two way energy flow, or the radiator radiating simply according to its own temperature, or any of the other gross misconceptions you have about what that equation says, then feel free to point out the expressions that cause you to believe that the equation says anything other than what I just stated.
> ...



It is not only incorrect in the field of physics to simply apply a mathematical property like the distributive property to an equation that is describing a physical phenomenon without justification for doing so, it is terrible math to apply a property like the distributive property to an already reduced equation for no other reason than to attempt to convince people that a thing that isn't happening is happening.

If you can justify the application of the distributive property to that equation by showing some actual observation and measurement of simultaneous two way energy flow, then lets see it.....I have only been asking for about 3 decades now and am still waiting for the evidence...do you have it?  Of course you don't.  What you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...and that is it.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.
> ...



the simple climate models...and the complex climate models are abject failures...why would someone want to wade through an essay on failed models of the earth's climate in an attempt to understand the earth's climate?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.
> ...




Considering that neither you, nor any other AGW believer can offer up the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...with all the pseudoscience that has been published and all the billions upon billions of dollars that have been flushed down the toilet on the hypothesis, what other conclusion could a rational individual reach.

If you have some actual evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, then by all means step on up to the plate and show us...

Of course we all know by now that you won't...because you can't...because no such evidence exists...but feel free to proceed with one of your litany of logical fallacies, or a bit of impotent bullying if you like, although it would be better for the local environment if you just shut the hell up and run away in the face of your inability to provide anything in the way of real data to counter my position.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It is not only incorrect in the field of physics to simply apply a mathematical property like the distributive property to an equation that is describing a physical phenomenon without justification for doing so, it is terrible math to apply a property like the distributive property to an already reduced equation for no other reason than to attempt to convince people that a thing that isn't happening is happening.


You have it totally backwards. The physics comes first with emission and absorption of photons, namely this. 

Rₑ = εσT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission.
Rₐ = εσT₂⁴, , . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption. 

All scientists for the past hundred years have known this. 

Then the net rate of emission is found by subtracting the absorption from the emission like this:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ

Now comes the arithmetic by substitution and simplification, like this:

Rnet = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

It is such simple physics. I don't understand why you can't get it. You are thinking valid arithmetic is changing physical law? That is impossible. Maybe you cling to your faith against science because you abhor AGW, or maybe you are just a troll.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > catatomic said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm not going to discount AGW without following what Wuwei has said, and Frankly Fort Fun Indiana you are just as fucking ridiculous.


----------



## IanC (Mar 16, 2018)

The difficulty for any physics problem is to find the basic law which controls majority of the solution, and then decide how many confounding factors to add in until you get an answer that is a reasonable approximation of reality.

Conversely, you can take reality and remove as many confounding factors as possible and find a good approximation of the basic physical law.

Stefan used a very clever experimental set-up and discovered the basic law that a Blackbody radiates proportional to the fourth power of its temperature in degrees Kelvin. The design removed most of the confounding factors and complexies that ordinarily make the calculations difficult.

Objects radiate according to T^4 and emmisivity, all the time. You cannot change the amount of radiation without changing the temperature. The temperature itself is just a symptom of the available stored energy. No change in radiation happens unless you add or subtract from the stored energy, unless you subscribe to SSDD's bizarre theory that radiation is somehow controlled by outside influences.

Radiation is an intrinsic property. Power is an extrinsic property. SSDD doesn't know the difference.


----------



## Wuwei (Mar 16, 2018)

catatomic said:


> Yeah, I'm not going to discount AGW without following what Wuwei has said, ....


If you haven't figured it out so far, the article consists of a lot of history starting over 100 years ago. The climate theory gets increasingly complex as you go through the history. That is why the article is so long. If you are able to wade through most of it, you will come out knowing more about the science of climate than most people on this environment forum.


----------



## catatomic (Mar 16, 2018)

I'm sorry I am a busy person in case you haven't guessed and have to get around to these things.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I'm not going to discount AGW without following what Wuwei has said, ....
> ...



Yes, when you try to resurrect failed science for political gain, it pretty much has to get more complex doesn't it...complex enough, at least, so that most people don't bother to look back at the fundamental failure of the hypothesis.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 19, 2018)

New here in the forum, but not to the "global warming" debate.

I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.

I wonder why so many fall for the unverified modeling construct with already well accounted prediction/projection failures to brag about.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 19, 2018)

I learned long ago to mainly stay out the argument that was commonly applied in this thread because it has too many assumptions, guesses and poor understanding of energy flows. It is a field littered with a lot of logical failures in it since it is hard to convince anyone on why the AGW conjecture is junk using the atmosphere transfer arguments. It is all over the map and not well understood.

I usually argue on what is real and provable that should be easy to see for even the layman. Example,

there are many alarmists talk of warmest year on record being brought up over and over (almost yearly now) making clear they say this is proof of global warming based on the trace gas with a trace IR absorption effect in a big IR window.

The problem with that kind of thinking is that it doesn't address what the IPCC (prominent AGW conjecture supporter) predicted/projected on the RATE of warming, not about the peak of a temperature level alarmists wail about. It doesn't prove anything in support of the AGW because it doesn't say anything about how much of the warming is natural or CO2 caused at all, it is just a number of the moment is all it is.

How come alarmists don't talk about the *PER DECADE* warming rate, which is a base prediction/projection from day one of the 1990 IPCC report?  the 1990 IPCC report made a PREDICTION that was based on the emission scenarios with CO2 effect, yes an actual prediction, which was on average of .30C per decade and warm by 1C in year 2025.

Have you looked at the Satellite data recently?  It is not even close since it is about HALF that rate of about .15C per decade. Epic Fail!


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> New here in the forum, but not to the "global warming" debate.
> 
> I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.



My request will never be answered...I can make it in perfect confidence that it won't be answered because the observed, measured data I ask for does not exist...nor will it ever exist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 19, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.


Of course, it has been answered by the global scientific community, as SSDD knows less than nothing about any of this compared to any of them, and they thought of it on day one. But you deniers are here and not on university campuses in scoe tifoc societies or publishing in journals, because you are all frauds.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 19, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.
> ...



So you and the rest of the warmer wack jobs keep saying....and yet, you can't manage to bring a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability to slap me down with...This is it..your big chance to shut me up...slap me down...make me your bitch...all you need to do is bring a single shred of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...

And what will you do with this big chance?  A big fat nothing...you may call some names...offer up a logical fallacy, or simply run away....what you won't do is bring any of that evidence that you and yours claims exists in such abundance here...and why?...because it doesn't exist...anywhere.

When you first came here you were laughable...now you are just pitiful.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 19, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.
> ...



I notice you didn't answer it. 

Your name calling is beneath a good debate, since that is your signature I can't take you seriously.

Try better next time.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 19, 2018)

I notice that Fort Fun Indiana, completely ignored my Per Decade comment.

Carry on.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



He is just one more bullshit dupe among the herd of bullshit dupes that hang around here.  He believes that the evidence exists even though he has never seen it...He believes that anyone who can tack a couple of letters behind his name is inherently smarter than he is and therefore not to be questioned...he simply accepts whatever he is told so long as it agrees with his political leanings.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 20, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> I notice that Fort Fun Indiana, completely ignored my Per Decade comment.
> 
> Carry on.



Don't expect him to actually engage in the conversation....he showed up here pretending to be some hot shot who knew it all...bullying people, calling names, etc..  It didn't take long for a pattern to emerge though...a pattern of never engaging in the conversation...a pattern of never presenting any actual science that supports his position...a pattern of argument by logical fallacy, his favorite being the favorite of all duped warmers...the appeal to authority.  

What he doesn't seem to get is that if you are going to appeal to an authority, then you need to be prepared to bring forth the evidence upon which the "authority" has based its claims...and so far, for all the billions upon billions that the "authority" has squandered, they don't have a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.


----------



## Crick (Apr 8, 2018)

Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!!  Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Crick said:


> Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!!  Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......



That's right....so lets show everyone how you have no observed, measured data to support your position...Show us all that you can not provide a single bit of observed measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...the very cornerstone of your magical belief...lets see a single piece of observed measured data....we both know that you can't produce because there is no such observation or measurement.

Or show us a single piece of observed, measured data that supports AGW over natural variability..

Step on up hot shot....show us what you don't have.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!!  Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......
> ...



His numerous comments today demonstrate that he is all babble and no substance.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> His numerous comments today demonstrate that he is all babble and no substance.


Yes, he said he disagrees with four Nobel Prize winners on thermodynamics in a different thread.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 8, 2018)

Here is a comment from WUWT that shows the futility of CO2 effects drives climates arguments:

"Bill Illis
 April 7, 2018 at 10:23 am 


The last Snowball Earth happened when CO2 was 12,000 ppm.

It happened because super-continent Pannotia was centred over the South Pole.

The Earth’s climate is strictly driven by how much sunlight can be absorbed by molecules on the planet. When you have a bunch of glaciers and sea ice at the poles or lower latitudes, it gets colder. If clouds increase and reflect more sunlight, it gets colder. Put all the continents at the equator and you get no glaciers and very little sea ice and it gets warmer.

This alone results in +15C to -25C temperatures, which is all that the Earth’s temperature has varied by. A simple 100% control then and no role for “non-condensing gas”.

Speaking of that, if there is a Carbon cycle, then CO2 acts as though it is a condensing gas."


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > His numerous comments today demonstrate that he is all babble and no substance.
> ...



How many nobel prize winners turned out to be wrong?    Figures that a weak, and demonstrably wrong logical fallacy would be your defense...Lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one...lets see it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



*How many nobel prize winners turned out to be wrong?
*
How many ever said radiation only flows one way?
How many ever said matter has a dimmer switch?
How many ever said matter above 0K stops emitting near warmer matter?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 8, 2018)

catatomic said:


> So if CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and our current model of climate change is correct (anthropomorphic climate change), how does it explain this?
> 
> I think I heard an answer to this a while ago but I forgot.


The model is wrong


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 8, 2018)

Crick said:


> Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!!  Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......



Not for nothing s0n
 but what do you contribute to this forum except the same tired retread narrative we've been hearing for 10 years.....the same AGW stuff that has been rejected by the public has goofball fodder.

Where exactly has the elitist mentality gotten you in the last 10 years? We would like to see some evidence. A link or two would be nice. Please do show us where the consensus science is mattering in the real world in 2018? 



Don't forget those links s0n


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 8, 2018)

Crick said:


> Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!!  Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......



Hey s0n.... you disappeared for months unable to handle the heat.

Nobody takes FORTFUN seriously in here.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!!  Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......
> ...



Maybe fort fun is a crick puppet.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> How many nobel prize winners turned out to be wrong?


I can't think of any off hand, but of course you have already indicated that Nobel Prize winners Einstein, Plank, Bohr, Maxwell, Wein, Kirchhoff, and many other scientist are idiots.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 8, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How many nobel prize winners turned out to be wrong?
> ...



Really?  There are quite a number.....from all branches of science. including the hard sciences...hell just think how many nobel prizes have been handed out over the years and how much science has changed...being wrong is inevitable...typical that you would not even be able to think that deeply into the topic..

Got any observed, measured evidence that the theories were correct?  Didn't think so.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Really? There are quite a number.....from all branches of science. including the hard sciences...hell just think how many nobel prizes have been handed out over the years and how much science has changed...being wrong is inevitable...typical that you would not even be able to think that deeply into the topic..
> 
> Got any observed, measured evidence that the theories were correct?


Oh? Which Nobel Prizes in physics turned out to be false? And which of the winners to you think are, as you say, "idiots"?


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!!  Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......
> ...



Thousands of pages of evidence that supports AGW over natural variability.  www.ipcc.ch.  God, are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 16, 2018)

Crick said:


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



So you say..and so all warmers say, but when asked for a SINGLE piece of observed measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or a single piece of observed, measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...both foundational principles in the AGW hypothesis, you don't seem to be able to produce...a whole hypothesis concerning an observable, measurable entity like the atmosphere based entirely on models without the first piece of observed, measured, physical evidence that supports that hypothesis over the null hypothesis...and you believe in it with all your heart...god, are you that stupid...

And I have asked repeatedly for you to bring that SINGLE piece of data from that steaming pile of IPCC bullshit and over and over, you have failed to produce...you just keep posting the link...and by your own words, people who just post links, and don't bring the data forth for examination are just talking out of their asses...nothing new for you skidmark...


----------



## Crick (Apr 16, 2018)

So you believe the IPCC's AR contain no observations? No empirical evidence?

I guess we can then assume you either have never looked at it or that you choose to lie through your teeth.


----------



## Crick (Apr 17, 2018)

And... silence


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 18, 2018)

Crick said:


> So you believe the IPCC's AR contain no observations? No empirical evidence?
> 
> I guess we can then assume you either have never looked at it or that you choose to lie through your teeth.



Ha ha ha, you are full of hot air, who REFUSES to answer a simple question. He has posted quotes from the IPCC before, you forget that easily?

A real debate too hard for YOU to do?


----------



## catatomic (Apr 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.
> ...


Once again this article never got around to putting a sound mathematical footing on Climate Change and explains how people like the IPCC might have fooled around with the data.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> So you believe the IPCC's AR contain no observations? No empirical evidence?
> 
> I guess we can then assume you either have never looked at it or that you choose to lie through your teeth.



Still as dishonest, or stupid as the day is long I see.  Guess we know that your long absence hasn't been spent on a vision quest of self improvement.  

I didn't ask for simple observations and measurements did I?  I asked for a single bit of observed, measured data THAT SUPPORTS THE AGW HYPOTHESIS OVER NATURAL VARIABILITY....OR A SINGLE OBSERVED MEASUREMENT THAT ESTABLISHES A COHERENT LINK BETWEEN THE ABSORPTION OF IR BY A GAS AND WARMING THE THE ATMOSPHERE.

So here we are again...you dodging...pretending...sidestepping....lying your ass off rather than simply admitting that you just can't find any such data.

Or maybe you are so stupid that you actually believe that because they have actual observed, measured data there, that it must support the AGW hypothesis...maybe you believe that observations of air temperature support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...maybe you believe that simple observations of sea surface temperatures support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...could it be that you believe that observations of melting ice support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  Are you really stupid enough to believe that simple observations of that sort support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Are you one of those idiots who just believes what he is told because he isn't smart enough to do even rudimentary thinking on his own?  You think that because someone can tack on a couple of letters behind his name that he is inherently more intelligent than you?   Someone with a couple of letters behind his name told you that this temperature observation is proof of AGW and you just said OK..and then went about spreading the word as it was handed down to you?  Are you the sort of dim bulb who is easily fooled by instrumentation and simply assumes that because the dial indicates a number, it means just what you were told that it means? 

You are......aren't you?

So take your lying ass back to that steaming pile of IPCC bullshit and bring back a single bit of observed, measured data THAT SUPPORTS THE AGW HYPOTHESIS OVER NATURAL VAEIBILITY or simply admit that there is nothing like that over there...admit that there isn't a single thing in all those thousands of pages which you claim to have been through that would support AGW over natural variability......

Or you could skip that part and tell some more lies...that is what comes most natural to you and requires the least effort after all....isn't it?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> And... silence



The silence is you inability to produce even one piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or a single measured observation that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

catatomic said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > catatomic said:
> ...



You won't get anything like real information from warmers...they walk around in a daze believing that the science is settled when the fact is that they wouldn't recognize science if it bit them on the ass.  The fact is that there are literally millions of hours of design, observation, measurement, and commercial application that demonstrate very clearly that infrared radiation (which is the basis of the AGW hypothesis) does not, and can not warm the air.  Visit the web site of any engineering firm in the business of producing infrared heaters for residential, or commercial applications...they point out that their product, which produces infrared radiation does not waste energy warming air, which is very inefficient...it only warms solid objects which in turn warm the air via conduction.  So unless there are some solid objects up there in the atmosphere that we are unaware of, the infrared radiation leaving the surface of the earth is not warming the atmosphere.  

The atmosphere is warmed due to a combination of pressure, conduction, and convection.  Most CO2 molecules that absorb a bit of infrared radiation lose that energy via a collision with another molecule, usually O2 or N2 before they can move that bit of infrared energy on in the form of radiation.  Conduction is how the energy warms the atmosphere...not radiation...it is absurd to claim that the earth is warmed by a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere that is completely dominated by conduction.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2018)

Facts hard for you?  The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW.  That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that).  Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> Facts hard for you?  The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW.  That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that).  Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.



Lets see if you will ignore this failure from the1990 IPCC report:

"Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.."

 It was PREDICTION made in 1990 that it would warm on average of .30C per decade, but the Satellite data shows that it was HALF that rate:






It has warmed .40C total in 27 full years, and well short of 1C predicted by 2025,just 6 1/2 years from now.

You going to ignore it fella?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> Facts hard for you?  The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW.  That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that).  Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.



Do you think that you are fooling anyone at all with that claim?  I have asked repeatedly for a single piece of observed, measured data which supports AGW over natural variability...or a single observed measured piece of data that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and you can not deliver.  All you can do is talk out of your ass and make excuses for why you can't deliver.

The last time you tried bringing a piece of data here, it turned out to be model output...and maybe you brought something that showed nothing more than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...what you haven't...and can't bring here is what I asked for because it doesn't exist...

Lets see it skidmark.....lets see how low you set your own bar for what constitutes evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...I am sure it will be entertaining if you aren't to embarrassed to cut and paste it here...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Facts hard for you?  The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW.  That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that).  Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.
> ...



In crick's world, model output like that you just posted is observed, measured data....someone observed the paper coming out of the computer and I suppose it was a measurement of sorts...and it purports to show warming at an unprecedented rate so long as you don't look any further back in history than 1900.....so to him, that constitutes observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...his bar for evidence supporting AGW is so low that a sugar ant couldn't walk under it...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Facts hard for you?  The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW.  That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that).  Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.
> ...



He will NEVER answer your reasonable request, since he doesn't know.

I see this a lot at another blog where similar question is asked of a certain warmist loon, who NEVER answer it.


----------



## catatomic (Apr 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> Facts hard for you?  The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW.  That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that).  Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.


Right, but we have no data even telling when those experiments were done, and they may have noticed a starting trend and doubled down on it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2018)

catatomic said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Facts hard for you?  The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW.  That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that).  Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.
> ...



Oh, there is data.  Warmers just choose to ignore it.  Tyndall, one of the so called "fathers" of the greenhouse hypothesis had this to say regarding carbonic acid gas...or as we know it  CO2..  "Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources"  That was in reference to experiments where he passed "calorific rays"  (infrared radiation) through copper tubes filled with various gasses to see how they reacted.....how much they absorbed and how much they radiated...and he was working with concentrations in the range of 80,000ppm...  He characterized CO2 as one of the feeblest absorbers of infrared radiation but warmers simply ignore that inconvenient bit of scientific history.

He further noted, in reference to the behavior of CO2 in his experiments..."   Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays".       Meaning that even when he cranked up the heat, the temperature of CO2 didn't change in any significant way.


----------



## Crick (Apr 22, 2018)

"Feeble"?  Just how do you quantify that term?  Are you suggesting that the absorption spectra below, measured slightly more recently than John Tyndall's 1859 publication or Eunice Foote's 1856 publication, is incorrect?  

Do you really think it Tyndall's use of the term (despite the fact that he concluded CO2 was warming the planet) merits throwing out all the research conducted and measurements made (with better and better and better instrumentation) in the 158 years since?  Really?  God are you stupid.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> "Feeble"?  Just how do you quantify that term?  Are you suggesting that the absorption spectra below, measured slightly more recently than John Tyndall's 1859 publication or Eunice Foote's 1856 publication, is incorrect?
> 
> Do you really think it Tyndall's use of the term (despite the fact that he concluded CO2 was warming the planet) merits throwing out all the research conducted and measurements made (with better and better and better instrumentation) in the 158 years since?  Really?  God are you stupid.



*Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
*
You just destroyed your own argument with that chart, which clearly shows how little of the IR spectrum it absorbs in and how little it absorbs OUTGOING Terrestrial IR. Water Vapor partially competes with CO2's main band The other two CO2 bands are in the very low energy part of the IR, that it is negligible.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 22, 2018)

Crick said:


> "Feeble"?  Just how do you quantify that term?  Are you suggesting that the absorption spectra below, measured slightly more recently than John Tyndall's 1859 publication or Eunice Foote's 1856 publication, is incorrect?
> 
> Do you really think it Tyndall's use of the term (despite the fact that he concluded CO2 was warming the planet) merits throwing out all the research conducted and measurements made (with better and better and better instrumentation) in the 158 years since?  Really?  God are you stupid.


You never learn..... No matter how many times you are shown...





Do you know how to calculate the energy involve in a wave length of specific bandwidth? The longer the wave the less energy it contains. Of the four regions of the spectrum only 2 are capable of interacting with water vapor. The other two are released to space.  SO were really dealing with the energy contained in just two very narrow spectrum which is calculated to be less than 0.3w/m^2 (2.3um in the down welling band) and 0.34 w/m^2 (12-16um in the up-welling band). Up-welling energy is  essentially 1/24 of the down welling energy.

IT is the interaction of energy with water vapor that was supposed to be the key in CAGW. Recent papers show there is ZERO positive interaction with increased water vapor and that  water vapor is absorbing the heat and rising above the cloud boundary, releasing that energy at much longer wave lengths.  Thus it is having a dampening or NEGATIVE forcing impact. The cooling is seen in the satellite records..  No hot spot is present.

Your whole hypothesis is laid waste by the 490 papers this last year alone..

"feeble"...  Is the correct term to use.

You not only do not understand how our atmosphere works you refuse to learn.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> catatomic said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


We (as in I and others) replicated these experiments this year in the lab. We confirmed his findings.  We were amazed to find that the atmosphere failed to warm at all with water vapor concentrations below 10%. After three days of narrow LWIR energy pass nothing warmed.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 22, 2018)

Warmists fails to understand the law of diminishing returns, as this CO2 logarithmic chart shows:





LINK


----------



## Crick (Apr 22, 2018)

Your reliance on a simple equation to accurately describe a complex process is a mistake.  Radiation from the atmosphere takes place at its upper limits.  The air temperature there is cold and the air is dry.  As you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you raise the altitude at which radiant energy can escape to space.  Increased altitude means colder air and thus less radiation.

From How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?





_Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001)._

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have _decreased_ through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they _increased_ for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

*The Empirical Evidence*
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments. 

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

*These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.*

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne


----------



## Crick (Apr 22, 2018)

The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship.  And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 23, 2018)

Crick said:


> The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship.  And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.



Ha ha ha,

Yet the ONLY time it warms since 1979 is when an El-Nino come along, otherwise flat to a cooling in its absence.

Where is the CO2 warming?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2018)

Crick said:


> These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.


Your prediction failed to produce.  Thus the theory fails..


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.
> ...



They keep ignoring the AGW based modeling failures over and over.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2018)

Crick said:


> greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Th


Prove it! 

Recent papers show this number a total farce and deception. One states "the effect of CO2 can not be determined due to natural variations and noise in the climactic system". Holmes Et Al.

Its effect can not be differentiated from NOISE.......


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 23, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Th
> ...



It is a lie since it only warms when there is an El-Nino ongoing. That has been the story since 1979.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2018)

Crick said:


> "



Can you read?  Look at the top of your graphic... Radiation "Transmitted" by the Atmosphere.  Do you have any idea what transmit means?  Here, let me help you out.  According to the science dictionary, in the field of physics, this is how the word is applied.  Transmit - 1. to cause (light, heat, sound, etc.) to pass through a medium.  2. to convey or pass along (an impulse, force, motion, etc.).  3.to permit (light, heat, etc.) to pass through.

Do you need help with the term "pass through" also.  Note that it doesn't say radiation "ABSORBED" by the atmosphere...which would imply the possibility of warming...it says transmitted meaning that they aid IR in passing through the atmosphere.  The stupid just never stops with you.

I ask for a bit of evidence establishing a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere and you provide me with a graphic that shows how the gasses in question aid IR in passing through the atmosphere rather than being absorbed by the atmosphere.

This is what I have been talking about all along crick...what passes for evidence in your mind isn't...you wouldn't know what evidence that supports AGW...or evidence that establishes a link between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere would even look like...You simply accept what you are told and parrot it to whoever will listen even when it the clear and explicit labelling says that it is not showing anything like an ability to warm the atmosphere...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > catatomic said:
> ...




All you had to do was ask any engineering firm involved with design and application of infrared heating...they could have provided you with a million hours of testing, observation, and commercial application showing definitively that IR can not warm the air.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2018)

Crick said:


> Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.



Sorry crick....but outgoing long wave is increasing...has been for quite some time....as your chart shows...so called greenhouse gasses transmit IR through the atmosphere...more greenhouse gasses, more IR is transmitted through the atmosphere...














Like I said..you just accept whatever you are told by people whom you perceive as more intelligent than yourself without feeling the need to check it out for yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship.  And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.
> ...



See what a low threshold he has placed for "evidence supporting AGW over natural variability".....could one possibly set the bar lower..   His evidence takes a bit of observation and then tacks on a very large tail of assumption without the first piece of real evidence to back it up.  If "evidence" this feeble was was passed for overwhelming evidence in my mind, I would be hesitant to bring it forward for public examination also.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2018)

When you push them hard enough, you can embarrass them into providing some of the "evidence" that has convinced them that AGW is real....without fail, it is this sort of weak correlation...with no mention of the climate of the past, and not the first hint of observed, measured evidence that supports the enormous assumptions one must make to accept such weak correlation as the cause of anything...  That is what passes in his mind for observed, measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and observed, measured evidence establishing a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

He shows a graph of how efficiently some gasses transmit IR through the atmosphere and claims that is evidence that absorption and emission equals warming...guess he never considered the fact that if he wanted to show evidence of warming, he would need a graph showing how efficiently the gas in question absorbs energy rather than how efficiently it transmits energy....you might think that he would at least take the time to learn what the word transmit means when used in the field of physics.

It is just as sad as the people who are so easily fooled by instrumentation...claiming that instruments are observing and measuring all manner of things when in reality, the only thing they are observing and measuring is the amount and rate at which their own internal sensors are changing temperature...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.
> ...



Your first chart show that the INCREASED outflow is much greater than what CO2 is postulated to cause warm forcing. It is a net loss of energy from the system.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


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



Like his chart showed and as I have stated for a very long time...so called greenhouse gasses...with the exception of water vapor assist in transmitting IR out of the atmosphere...the climate sensitivity to them is zero or less meaning that they could well have a cooling effect.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



This the main reason why Global Warming is impossible when using CO2 as the cause, since it fails to prevent the big increase of energy leaving the system, the extent of the increase surpasses the amount of warm forcing given to CO2.

Here is a post made a while back by John Kehr at, The inconvenient skeptic:

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

May 14th, 2012

Excerpt:

"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space.  That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference.  It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984.  If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear.  The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.  The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

Charts are in the link.


----------



## Crick (Apr 24, 2018)

Idiots.  There is an increase in total OLWR because the fucking temperature of the planet is increasing. The effect of greenhouse gases is demonstrated precisely as postulated by these satellite observations and observations from the ground.  The greenhouse effect is doing precisely what it is theorized to do: warming the planet by slowing the release of IR.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 24, 2018)

Crick said:


> Idiots.  There is an increase in total OLWR because the fucking temperature of the planet is increasing. The effect of greenhouse gases is demonstrated precisely as postulated by these satellite observations and observations from the ground.  The greenhouse effect is doing precisely what it is theorized to do: warming the planet by slowing the release of IR.



The data doesn't support your contention.


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2018)

Emission spectra of the planet Earth taken by the Michelson interferometer on the Nimbus 4 satellite.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2018)

Crick said:


> Idiots.  There is an increase in total OLWR because the fucking temperature of the planet is increasing. The effect of greenhouse gases is demonstrated precisely as postulated by these satellite observations and observations from the ground.  The greenhouse effect is doing precisely what it is theorized to do: warming the planet by slowing the release of IR.




Haven't heard about the pause huh skidmark..."record" temperatures by tiny fractions of a degree have been achieved through blatant homogenization, manipulation, infilling, and plain old making it up if the narrative requires it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2018)

Crick said:


> Emission spectra of the planet Earth taken by the Michelson interferometer on the Nimbus 4 satellite.



Compared to when?  A single snapshot with no context whatsoever now reaches the bar of evidence supporting AGW in your mind?  You get worse all the time crick.  Doesn't it embarrass you?


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2018)

Compared to when?  Compared to when the Earth had no atmosphere and radiated more like the ideal black body in the background of that graphic.  And if you're not embarrassed by spouting your insane conceptions about radiative heat transfer in the face of EVERY single educated person to have ever heard you, I don't think I should have any problem putting out basic, mainstream science.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 25, 2018)

Crick said:


> Emission spectra of the planet Earth taken by the Michelson interferometer on the Nimbus 4 satellite.



Where is the link?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2018)

Crick said:


> Compared to when?  Compared to when the Earth had no atmosphere and radiated more like the ideal black body in the background of that graphic.  And if you're not embarrassed by spouting your insane conceptions about radiative heat transfer in the face of EVERY single educated person to have ever heard you, I don't think I should have any problem putting out basic, mainstream science.



Still waiting for that bit of observed measured data that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...any luck finding that yet?  Got anything suggesting that absorption and emission equals warming?  Anything?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2018)

Crick said:


> The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship.  And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.



Let me guess, that's because 97% of people paid to believe in Manmade Global Climate Warming Change say so


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2018)

Crick said:


> The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship.  And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.



Can you provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports that wild assed claim?  Of course you can't...just more talking out of your ass.  Doesn't it make you feel foolish to constantly be making claims that you can't support with any evidence at all?


----------



## Crick (Apr 26, 2018)

I just did Brainiac. The mensurable spectrum of the Earth's radiation, taken from the ground and from space, fully support that the greenhouse effect is taking place precisely as postulated.


----------



## Crick (Apr 26, 2018)

CATATOMIC
I'm writing this on a phone w/o wifi, so forgive me for not reading this thread's 23 pages.
CO2 trails temperature increases because, as I think you've heard, gas solubility in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. Just picture the difference between opening a coke from your refrigerator and one thar's been sitting in a hot car. When Earth's temperatures rise, co2 comes out of solution in the oceans. CO2 can also lead a temperature increase because it is an effective green house gas that slows the escape of portions of the infrared spectrum to space. The leading and the lagging are caused by two different physical phenomena. The implication that some deniers will try to push on you, that both cannot be true, is nonsense. The arguments you got from SSDD, Billy Bob and Westwall are ignorant tripe.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2018)

Crick said:


> I just did Brainiac. The mensurable spectrum of the Earth's radiation, taken from the ground and from space, fully support that the greenhouse effect is taking place precisely as postulated.



Sorry skidmark...you don't seem to know the difference between actual evidence and assumptions...you are assuming that absorption and emission equals warming...got any evidence of that?  A million hours of experiment, and commercial application say that infrared can not warm the air...Visit any engineering firm involved in the production of infrared heating systems...they go to great pains to point out that their product does not waste energy heating the air...it heats solid objects...

So lets see your evidence that all those engineers are wrong and that there is a coherent relationship between the  absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....your assumption isn't good enough....neither is your belief.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2018)

Crick said:


> CATATOMIC
> I'm writing this on a phone w/o wifi, so forgive me for not reading this thread's 23 pages.
> CO2 trails temperature increases because, as I think you've heard, gas solubility in liquids decreases with increasing temperature. Just picture the difference between opening a coke from your refrigerator and one thar's been sitting in a hot car. When Earth's temperatures rise, co2 comes out of solution in the oceans. CO2 can also lead a temperature increase because it is an effective green house gas that slows the escape of portions of the infrared spectrum to space. The leading and the lagging are caused by two different physical phenomena. The implication that some deniers will try to push on you, that both cannot be true, is nonsense. The arguments you got from SSDD, Billy Bob and Westwall are ignorant tripe.



Again...you are just assuming that CO2 is causing warming...you can't show any actual evidence to support that claim...the best you have done so far is to show that you can produce a graph and a great big assumption to go along with that graph...you apparently wouldn't know what evidence looked like if it bit you on the ass.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 26, 2018)

Crick said:


> I just did Brainiac. The mensurable spectrum of the Earth's radiation, taken from the ground and from space, fully support that the greenhouse effect is taking place precisely as postulated.



Gee, no one disputes that CO2 absorbs some IR, it is easy to see in the chart. But it doesn't support the contention that it is a driver of the climate when that IR absorption capability is actually VERY small as compared to the rest of the IR window it doesn't absorb in.

I have showed what the IPCC wrote and their demonstrated failures says about it, which you and your fellow cultists ignore over and over. It makes clear it doesn't have the warm forcing power as claimed because there is so little of it, with so little absorption range, while Water Vapor dominates the evaporation system, that draws up a lot of energy from the surface into the upper atmosphere.

Convection DOMINATES the cooling process from the surface to the atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Apr 26, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I just did Brainiac. The mensurable spectrum of the Earth's radiation, taken from the ground and from space, fully support that the greenhouse effect is taking place precisely as postulated.
> ...









The red line is the spectrum of solar radiation above the Earth's atmosphere.  The black line is the spectrum of solar radiation at the bottom of the Earth's atmosphere.  The difference is the energy absorbed by the atmosphere.  That energy increases the atmosphere's temperature.

God are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2018)

Crick said:


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



Radiation does not warm the air...conduction warms the air...You are as easily fooled by graphs as you are by instrumentation.  If the graph represented what you think it represents, then the unavoidable, inevitable, inescapable result would be a pronounced hot spot in the upper troposphere...alas, no hot spot of any sort in the upper troposphere...therefore, it is obvious that the graph doesn't represent what you believe it to represent..

Let me guess...you think it represents energy trapped in the atmosphere by so called greenhouse gasses?  Right?  I am right aren't I?  What an idiot you are skidmark.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Radiation does not warm the air.


GHGs can absorb the energy of radiation. Where does that energy go?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*Radiation does not warm the air.
*
JFC!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 27, 2018)

Crick said:


> The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship.  And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.



Meanwhile you keep ignoring the proven IPCC prediction/projection failure at post # 186


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 27, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation does not warm the air.
> ...


As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly. The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere. 

An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.  Deserts and the poles are excellent empirical proof of this. 

There are only three results now possible.

1)  The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary where renucliation is occurring.  Or,

2) The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. Then conduction and convection warm the atmosphere. Or,

3) That energy is being released to space.

As there is no hot spot, its not option 1

As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening.  Its not option 2

Satellites record a correlated gradient of energy in vs energy out. Option three it is!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



T*he residency time of energy in these molecules is so short it is incapable of warming the atmosphere. 
*
How short? Where does it go next?

*An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.
*
Venus manages to hold energy with little or no water.

*The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.
*
Radiation moving from the atmosphere to the surface?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 27, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers..  The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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


*
Had you understood my post, you would have discerned the answers..
*
If your post made sense, I wouldn't have had to ask the questions to discern your meaning.

*The energy in the LWIR bands escapes to space.
*
How quickly?

*An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.
*
No comment on Venus?

*The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body.
*
You just said it escapes to space, did you mean to say it can go in either direction?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Radiation does not warm the air.
> ...



They absorb the radiation and in some few instances, they actually radiate it on, most of the time...999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction...usually O2 or N2.  If they radiate it, it moves on to the upper atmosphere at a much faster clip than via conduction...Energy movement in the troposphere is dominated by conduction..radiation is barely a bit player...which makes the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect idiocy on its face...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



I suppose at some point he his point to try to argue that conduction and radiation are the same thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Nope.
Not even a little.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


*
 most of the time...999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction..
*
Warming other molecules with energy that would have otherwise instantly escaped into space.
Sounds like that greenhouse effect is keeping the atmosphere warm.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*.999,999 million out of a billion, they lose the energy via collisions with other molecules via conduction...usually O2 or N2.*

If they randomly lose energy to air (mostly O2 and N2,) then the air gains energy. Since that gain is random, that means the air heats up. So radiation does warm the air.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 28, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I gave three options and empirical observations that show two were not plausible by empirically observed facts ( no hot spot and no increase of lWIR at cloud top). The observations also show the 4/1 gradient release is occurring in the earths atmosphere and because it is observed, no heat is being retained beyond the MASS retention of the atmosphere.  

IE:  Not warming the ground and not warming the atmosphere. So where is it going?  As the 4/1 gradient is intact it is being lost to space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Nice mumbo jumbo.

​*IE:  Not warming the ground and not warming the atmosphere*​
You just said it was. 
​*As those GHG's in the atmosphere, other than water, have rigid bonds, they do not resonate and expel their energy very quickly.*​
Expel it where? 
​* The residency time of energy in these molecules is so short*​
How short?​​*The energy is being absorbed by water and released above cloud boundary *​
What about the energy absorbed by O2 and N2?
​*The energy is being redirected to the surface and warming the black body. *​
Is that allowed? 
​*As there is no hot spot, its not option 1*​
That doesn't constitute proof.
​*As near ground temperatures and temperatures at altitude are equal in gradient, Since the gradient near surface is not steeper than at altitude,this is not happening.  Its not option 2*​
Wow! Mumbo jumbo is not proof that GHG photons can't travel toward the ground.
​*An atmosphere with little or no water can not hold energy in either direction.*​
Why are you ignoring Venus......again?​


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



So you are going to try to make radiation out of conduction...do you understand the difference between radiation and conduction?  I'm not going to explain it to you, but suffice it to say that if you don't know that difference, you really are behind the curve...here is a clue though...if energy movement in the troposphere is overwhelmingly dominated by conduction, then the idea of climate being controlled by a radiative greenhouse effect is just plain stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Alas...he did exactly what I predicted...he is trying to make radiation out of conduction...air is warmed by conduction..he is claiming that it is due to radiation...in his brain radiation and conduction are the same thing...and it would appear, they are the same in your brain as well.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



You are talking about conduction but ascribing the climate to a radiative greenhouse effect...sounds like you really don't grasp the problem with that relationship.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



Alas. You're wrong, again. Just as I predicted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


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



*You are talking about conduction but ascribing the climate to a radiative greenhouse effect
*
IR escaping into space in the absence of GHGs is conduction?

Tell me more!!!


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you are going to try to make radiation out of conduction...do you understand the difference between radiation and conduction?


No to the first statement. That is a strawman. Yes to the second statement. 

These are my statements further broken down.

Near earth, thermal radiation is absorbed by GHGs at their resonant frequencies.
The GHGs randomly quickly lose that vibratory energy to air (mostly O2 and N2.)
The transfer of vibratory energy to air through that kinetic process is called conduction. 
Thereby the air gains kinetic energy.
That energy gain is randomly spread throughout the air near earth.
That random gain of kinetic energy means the air heats up. 
Therefore, through this several step process, radiation does lead to a warming of the air.
Please tell me at which step you disagree with the physics. 

The various steps have various names. But in no way is that an attempt "_to make radiation out of conduction_."


----------



## SSDD (Apr 30, 2018)

Poor try...there is no radiative greenhouse effect.. there is an atmospheric thermal effect driven by gravity and conduction...radiation is at best, a bit player in the process through the troposphere....

All you have is bullshit upon bullshit, upon bullshit...do point out the part in any definition of the radiative greenhouse effect as promoted by climate science where conduction is acknowledged as the major pathway for energy to reach the upper atmosphere...and while you are at it, point out the major role of conduction in any of the GCM's...

I can hardly wait to hear what bullshit answer you have next rather than providing evidence to support your claim.  You are laughable..I will hand you that.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Poor try...there is no radiative greenhouse effect.. there is an atmospheric thermal effect driven by gravity and conduction...radiation is at best, a bit player in the process through the troposphere....
> 
> All you have is bullshit upon bullshit, upon bullshit...do point out the part in any definition of the radiative greenhouse effect as promoted by climate science where conduction is acknowledged as the major pathway for energy to reach the upper atmosphere...and while you are at it, point out the major role of conduction in any of the GCM's...
> 
> I can hardly wait to hear what bullshit answer you have next rather than providing evidence to support your claim. You are laughable..I will hand you that.


More insults. Is that all you got at this point. Which of the following steps do you think is bullshit and why?

Near earth, thermal radiation is absorbed by GHGs at their resonant frequencies.
The GHGs randomly quickly lose that vibratory energy to air (mostly O2 and N2.)
The transfer of vibratory energy to air through that kinetic process is called conduction.
Thereby the air gains kinetic energy.
That energy gain is randomly spread throughout the air near earth.
That random gain of kinetic energy means the air heats up.
Therefore, through this several step process, radiation does lead to a warming of the air.


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> More insults. Is that all you got at this point. Which of the following steps do you think is bullshit and why?



So you can't provide a single explanation of the radiative greenhouse effect that states that conduction is the primary, and overwhelmingly dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere.  Can you even find one that gives honorable mention to conduction?  Didn't think so.  But as always, it is fun to watch you thrash about trying to defend the indefensible.  There is no radiative greenhouse effect.


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you can't provide a single explanation of the radiative greenhouse effect that states that conduction is the primary, and overwhelmingly dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere. Can you even find one that gives honorable mention to conduction? Didn't think so. But as always, it is fun to watch you thrash about trying to defend the indefensible. There is no radiative greenhouse effect.


I provided a physics explanation of how GHGs cause the atmosphere to heat. Conduction is mentioned in step 3. You can't deny the 7 points I made, so you come back with your usual dogma with no physics.


----------



## Crick (May 2, 2018)

First, the dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere is not conduction.  It is FORCED CONVECTION.

Second, the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect are obviously radiative and wouldn't involve a discussion of conduction [written as WuWei was posting his note above].  A discussion of heat transfer in the atmosphere would certainly include all modes: radiation, conduction, convection and forced convection.

Third, YOU are the one who demonstrates the fallacy of your own arguments by failing to answer questions. Not surprising given every one of your major positions stand in violation of basic and fundamental physical laws.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> First, the dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere is not conduction.  It is FORCED CONVECTION.
> 
> Second, the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect are obviously radiative and wouldn't involve a discussion of conduction [written as WuWei was posting his note above].  A discussion of heat transfer in the atmosphere would certainly include all modes: radiation, conduction, convection and forced convection.
> 
> Third, YOU are the one who demonstrates the fallacy of your own arguments by failing to answer questions. Not surprising given every one of your major positions stand in violation of basic and fundamental physical laws.



He's actually getting dumber with his epicycles.


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's actually getting dumber with his epicycles.


Yes, and more frantic with his "logic". It seems the true science he faces and his dogmatic anti-science stance are at odds in his brain and it is boiling over or short circuiting. So the outcome is pure dumb.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I provided a physics explanation of how GHGs cause the atmosphere to heat. Conduction is mentioned in step 3. You can't deny the 7 points I made, so you come back with your usual dogma with no physics.



You provided me your unique version of how a radiative greenhouse effect works...That isn't what I asked for unless of course, your version is that being promoted by mainstream science...is it?     Didn't think so.

I asked you for a description of the greenhouse effect as described by cliamte science which acknowledges that radiation movement in the troposphere is mainly accomplished by conduction....and as crick said, convection via air current moving those molecules that are so busy conducting energy around...

You can't because no such acknowledgement has ever been made by mainstream climate science...both climate science and climate models assume that radiation rules energy movement from the troposphere to the edge of space...which is why climate models fail.  Were they to acknowledge that energy movement in the troposphere is dominated overwhelmingly by conduction..and why that is the case, and then reflect those facts in the climate models..which of course would reduce CO2 to its actual level of importance (which is zero or less) then said models would certainly be more accurate. 

 Of course that would necessitate a public acknowledgement that they have been wrong in assuming that the quaint 19th century science was wrong and that there is, in fact, no radiative greenhouse effect.  Don't see that happening anytime soon...  Science has a long history of being wrong until the facts became so blatantly obvious that even kindergarteners could see their error before they were wiling to admit that they were wrong.  Who knows how far our potential knowledge has been set back by such behavior?


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Second, the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect are obviously radiative and wouldn't involve a discussion of conduction [written as WuWei was posting his note above].  A discussion of heat transfer in the atmosphere would certainly include all modes: radiation, conduction, convection and forced convection.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (May 3, 2018)

Still having trouble with quotes I see.

Measurements of greenhouse re-radiation have been made from the surface (ie, at the bottom of the troposphere looking up).  I just posted links to an article about a study and that study.  Let's see if they're still in my clipboard.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

and

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO<sub>2</sub> from 2000 to 2010

There you go.

And, again, the dominant mode of heat transfer in the troposphere is NOT conduction, it is forced convection; ie, the movement of air masses


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I asked you for a description of the greenhouse effect as described by cliamte science which acknowledges that radiation movement in the troposphere is mainly accomplished by conduction



What climate scientists publish may be your concern, but I was answering your post 228 where you said:


SSDD said:


> Radiation does not warm the air.



I am saying radiation does warm the air. I gave you seven points in the process where step 3 acknowledges conduction. If you disagree with any of the seven points, what is it. If you agree with all, then the conclusion is that radiation causes the air to warm near earth.


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2018)

Crick said:


> Still having trouble with quotes I see.
> 
> Measurements of greenhouse re-radiation have been made from the surface (ie, at the bottom of the troposphere looking up).  I just posted links to an article about a study and that study.  Let's see if they're still in my clipboard.
> 
> ...



And, skidmark, if you bother to look, you will note that there is no mention of what sort of instrumentation was used...if you dig deeper, you will find that the measurements, if they are of a discrete frequency of radiation, were made with instruments cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...once more...you are being fooled by instrumentation..all that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer sky to the cooler instrument. 



Crick said:


> And, again, the dominant mode of heat transfer in the troposphere is NOT conduction, it is forced convection; ie, the movement of air masses



Sorry crick...not true...the air molecules being moved around on air currents are still conducting energy....what you are claiming is that if you heat a pot of water and then pick up the pot of water and take it to another room, the main mode of heat transfer is you picking up the water and carrying it to another room.  Air currents are merely moving around the energy transfer work horses as they go about conducting energy.


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> What climate scientists publish may be your concern, but I was answering your post 228 where you said:



So what science says regarding climate change is not your concern..and why?  Because you know f'ing well that the radiative greenhouse hypothesis discounts conduction entirely and if you acknowledge that, you will being going against your faith.




Wuwei said:


> I am saying radiation does warm the air. I gave you seven points in the process where step 3 acknowledges conduction.



You say all sorts of things...almost none of which are backed up by any sort of evidence...your argument is about as credible as that of a TV evangelist...you say what you believe and you use your belief as evidence to support that belief...circular reasoning of the worst sort...  What you claim is irrelevant...can you, or can you not show me a mainstream description of the radiative greenhouse effect which states that conduction is the main mode of energy transfer in the troposphere?  We both know the answer is no...because only a top shelf idiot would attempt to support a radiative greenhouse hypothesis with the fact that conduction is the main mode of energy transport in the troposphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Still having trouble with quotes I see.
> ...



*all that is being measured is energy moving from the warmer sky to the cooler instrument. *

Of course, because the sky knows it can't emit downward until the instrument is cooled.
Smart emitters magically measure the temperature of surrounding matter.....magically!


----------



## Wuwei (May 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What climate scientists publish may be your concern, but I was answering your post 228 where you said:
> ...


It is commonly known that air is a very poor conductor of heat.


----------



## Crick (May 6, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Still having trouble with quotes I see.
> ...



Why does the energy moving from the sky to the instrument show a spectrum that matches the absorption/transmission spectra of the atmosphere's constituents?

And

If I take a boiling pot of water from the kitchen to the living room, the primary means of heat transfer has been the relocation of that water.  That you seem to think that doesn't constitute heat transfer shows that you've never had a class in thermodynamics or heat transfer.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2018)

Crick said:


> Why does the energy moving from the sky to the instrument show a spectrum that matches the absorption/transmission spectra of the atmosphere's constituents?



The more interesting question skidmark, is why does the instrument have to be colder than the atmosphere in order to see the spectrum?  Answer that question and you answer the other.



Crick said:


> If I take a boiling pot of water from the kitchen to the living room, the primary means of heat transfer has been the relocation of that water.  That you seem to think that doesn't constitute heat transfer shows that you've never had a class in thermodynamics or heat transfer.



What an idiot you are...you think carrying the water to another room altered mode of energy transfer from the water to its surroundings?  The topic is energy transfer...not toting hot things from room to room.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> It is commonly known that air is a very poor conductor of heat.



That being the case, why then, do you believe in a radiative greenhouse effect?


----------



## Crick (May 10, 2018)

Eh?  Care to explain why you think poor conduction would effect a radiative effect?


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2018)

Right. You have to explain that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why does the energy moving from the sky to the instrument show a spectrum that matches the absorption/transmission spectra of the atmosphere's constituents?
> ...



*The more interesting question skidmark, is why does the instrument have to be colder than the atmosphere in order to see the spectrum? 
*
Because smart photons only travel toward space, until they "sense" an instrument being cooled. Magic!!!


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2018)

I am done explaining to you wack jobs...show me the observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...or don't and continue to live in model land...the observed, measured evidence supports my position and when the rubber meets the road, that is what matters.  Model all you like...it isn't real.


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I am done explaining to you wack jobs...show me the observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...or don't and continue to live in model land...the observed, measured evidence supports my position and when the rubber meets the road, that is what matters.  Model all you like...it isn't real.


You are “done” explaining? You didn't even start explaining. So you are “done” before you start? What it looks like is that you have no explanation for your own statement -- why would one believe in radiative greenhouse effect if air is a poor conductor of heat.

Since air is a poor conductor, then the only thing left to give warmth to the air near earth is radiation. It's that simple.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I am done explaining to you wack jobs...show me the observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...or don't and continue to live in model land...the observed, measured evidence supports my position and when the rubber meets the road, that is what matters.  Model all you like...it isn't real.



Still no back up for your one-way claims? Weird.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are “done” explaining? You didn't even start explaining. So you are “done” before you start? What it looks like is that you have no explanation for your own statement -- why would one believe in radiative greenhouse effect if air is a poor conductor of heat.
> 
> Since air is a poor conductor, then the only thing left to give warmth to the air near earth is radiation. It's that simple.



Clearly, this whole topic confuses you to no end...little wonder you believe you see the emperor's clothes.  A good conductor, by definition moves heat rapidly...the more rapidly a medium moves heat, the faster it cools....if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here...add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...

And since radiation can not warm the air...your whole premise is bullshit.  Once more...try to read for comprehension...

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

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

*“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.” *

So...repeatable, replicable, experimental data by a true top shelf physicist and decades of application data that demonstrates conclusively that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Lets step back to the 19th century just a second and refer to John Tyndal again...regarding his experiments..

*“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”*

It doesn't take much looking through the infrared heating industry literature to see that they state explicitly that their product only warms objects...not the air. That is one of their selling points..being that no energy is wasted heating the air in a room which is an inefficient means of keeping warm.

How infrared panels work

*"Infrared heaters, on the other hand, do not warm the air but instead use direct heat, warming the walls as well as all bodies and objects within a room."*

Give the Gift of Infrared Comfort to the Hobbyist in Your Family - Mast Heating & Cooling

*"The infrared works on the same principle as any other form of radiant heat. The infrared waves warm objects, which in turn give off heat to the surrounding air. It does not warm the air directly."
*

Infrared heater - Wikipedia

*"Because far infrared technology does not heat the air of the room directly, it is important to maximize the exposure of available surfaces"*


Radient Heat Explained

*"The speed of the heat rays is 186,000 miles per second. These rays do not heat the air directly. The infrared heat rays strike an object such as a person, a building, a table, or the ground and are absorbed by that object, increasing its temperature. The increased temperature of the object will heat air in contact with the object by convection, i.e., by the intimate contact of a thin layer of air to the heated object."*


Why Radiant Infrared Tube Heaters in High Bay Aircraft Hangers and Warehouses

"More importantly, by not having to heat the air in order to warm people and objects, heating costs are dramatically reduced."


You Asked: Are Infrared Saunas Healthy?

"Infrared saunas, by contrast, do not heat the air around you. Using electromagnetic radiation, infrared lamps warm your body directly. That may sound freaky or even unsafe, but neonatal beds for newborns have long utilized infrared heating elements to ensure babies are kept warm without being stifled."

http://ag.udel.edu/rec/poultryextension/proceedings2005/Radiant Tube Heaters_ Valco.pdf

"The tube when heated emits infrared rays. These rays travel through the air without heating the air. When these rays strike an object, they agitate the molecules of the object, generating heat. The air is then warmed by conduction and convection from the heated surfaces. "

And on and on and on it goes. Millions of hours of observed evidence that infrared radiation does not warm the air but instead warms solid objects.

Literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application prove conclusively that your faith is misplaced...radiation does not warm the air...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are “done” explaining? You didn't even start explaining. So you are “done” before you start? What it looks like is that you have no explanation for your own statement -- why would one believe in radiative greenhouse effect if air is a poor conductor of heat.
> ...



*if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here...add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...
*
Ummm.....which gases are we adding that are good conductors? Link?

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

Your "scientific source" is a company that sells infrared heaters? WTF?
Do you suspect the "negligible amount" they're referencing is influenced by the 
short path between the heater and the walls of the fucking house they're heating?

And not the entire depth of the Earth's atmosphere? Damn.......you're unique alright.

*"Infrared heaters, on the other hand, do not warm the air but instead use direct heat, warming the walls as well as all bodies and objects within a room."*

What good does heating the walls do? Your heater heats the walls, but the walls aren't "allowed" 
to radiate at the people in the room, because radiation only flows one way. Hotter to cooler.

The money you just spent on your infrared heater was wasted, the heat is trapped in your walls.
It won't heat the people and you've just shown it can't heat the air.

​


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here...add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...
> *
> Ummm.....which gases are we adding that are good conductors? Link?



Not very quick on the uptake are you?  Any gas that absorbs and emits radiation is a better conductor than a gas that does not...radiation being a far more efficient means of moving energy than conduction.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your "scientific source" is a company that sells infrared heaters? WTF?



You think climate scientists know more about the movement of energy than environmental engineers?  really?​


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do you suspect the "negligible amount" they're referencing is influenced by the
> short path between the heater and the walls of the fucking house they're heating?



Nope....a longer path is not going to change anything...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> What good does heating the walls do? Your heater heats the walls, but the walls aren't "allowed"
> to radiate at the people in the room, because radiation only flows one way. Hotter to cooler.



The radiation from the heater warms the people and objects in the room...not the air...then the walls and objects in the room conduct energy to the air...you really don't get this at all do you?  That is because you are operating on intuition....This whole topic is counterintuitive to someone who started off with a whole wheelbarrow full of misconceptions about energy movement in the first place.  It is far more efficient, and economical to only heat the people in the room than to try and heat all the air space in the room.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The money you just spent on your infrared heater was wasted, the heat is trapped in your walls.
> It won't heat the people and you've just shown it can't heat the air.



Again....you are only showing how much you don't know on the topic....do you really think the engineers who design spaces and recommend radiant heating don't know what they are doing?  You are so wrapped up in your misconceptions about radiation that you completely ignore the only means of actually warming air...conduction. Heaters that warm air do it by conduction and they waste a good deal of energy...it is very inefficient to try to warm air and then pump it into a room...right off the bat it starts to move towards the top of the room.   Try and use your brain for just a second...which is more cost effective?  Continuously trying to heat all the air in a room or only heating the people in the room?​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here...add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...
> ...



*Not very quick on the uptake are you?
*
Not very quick to answer, are you? Which gases are we adding that are good conductors?

*Any gas that absorbs and emits radiation is a better conductor than a gas that does not...*

So you meant to say.....
*
add gases to the air that are good radiators, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself...
*
Or are you just so confused you don't know what you're saying?
*
You think climate scientists know more about the movement of energy than environmental engineers? 
*
Nope. I think engineers talking about absorption over 20 feet in your house are not talking about absorption over 20 miles in the atmosphere. Get a source that says ....

"the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air from the surface to the TOA typically is negligible.” 

and I'll be interested.

*Nope....a longer path is not going to change anything...
*
Hilarious!!

*The radiation from the heater warms the people and objects in the room...not the air...then the walls and objects in the room conduct energy to the air..
*
Do the walls and objects also radiate?


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Clearly, this whole topic confuses you to no end...little wonder you believe you see the emperor's clothes. A good conductor, by definition moves heat rapidly...the more rapidly a medium moves heat, the faster it cools....if air were a great conductor, it would be very cold here..



Your ad hominem does not help your cause.

Todd answered your most ignorant points. _He also asked,
 "Which gases are we adding that are good conductors?"_

Here are thermal conductivities of common gases in the air given in units of W/(m K)

Thermal Conductivity of common Materials and Gases
CO2 (gas)    0.0146 W/(m K)
Oxygen (gas)    0.024
Nitrogen (gas)    0.024
Water, vapor    0.0267
Methane (gas)    0.030
Argon (gas)    0.016​


SSDD said:


> add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself



Notice that CO2 is a worse conductor of heat than all the other common gases in the atmosphere. So Todds question still stands. What gas are you talking about?

A second misunderstanding you have is related to all your references to domestic heating engineers. There is a great deal of difference in IR spectrum from the 60 F earth, and from a 1000 F heater. The GHGs only absorb the very long IR wave radiation prevalent from the earth. The radiation from the shorter wave IR from a heater swamps measurement of that absorbed by the air. An engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is unmeasurably small, or negligible.

I hope this clarifies the physics for you.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 11, 2018)

This thread has long left the argument about CO2 trailing temperature change into a thread that is a mirror copy of THIS THREAD.

Maybe it is time to close this thread?


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> This thread has long left the argument about CO2 trailing temperature change into a thread that is a mirror copy of THIS THREAD.
> 
> Maybe it is time to close this thread?



No. It is not time to close any thread. You probably haven't been following the physics arguments of each thread carefully. The threads are not mirror copies.

This thread is focused on the nature of energy transfer in air and is an argument that air is a very poor conductor.

The thread you cited focuses on the nature of the net exchange of radiation between objects at different temperatures.

They are quite different subject matters.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > This thread has long left the argument about CO2 trailing temperature change into a thread that is a mirror copy of THIS THREAD.
> ...



The TITLE of this thread is:

*OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?*


----------



## abu afak (May 11, 2018)

*Why does CO2 lag temperature?*
*January 2010 by John Cook*
Why does CO2 lag temperature?

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. *Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is Both.*





_Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003)._

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).





_Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis._

The combined effect of these orbital cycles cause long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, around 18,000 years ago, there was an increase in the amount of sunlight hitting the Southern Hemisphere during the southern spring. This lead to retreating Antarctic sea iceand melting glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere.(Shemesh 2002). The ice loss had a positive feedback effect with less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo). This enhanced the warming.

As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

*To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles**.* A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
*CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
*CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet*
``


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> The TITLE of this thread is:
> 
> *OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?*



I have no idea what is bugging you. Even you are talking about the nature of energy transfer in air in this thread:


Sunsettommy said:


> ...Water Vapor dominates the evaporation system, that draws up a lot of energy from the surface into the upper atmosphere.
> 
> Convection DOMINATES the cooling process from the surface to the atmosphere.


There is no reason to close this thread.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Here are thermal conductivities of common gases in the air given in units of W/(m K)



Ask yourself which is the more rapid means of moving energy....radiation or conduction...



Wuwei said:


> A second misunderstanding you have is related to all your references to domestic heating engineers. There is a great deal of difference in IR spectrum from the 60 F earth, and from a 1000 F heater. The GHGs only absorb the very long IR wave radiation prevalent from the earth. The radiation from the shorter wave IR from a heater swamps measurement of that absorbed by the air. An engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is unmeasurably small, or negligible.



Every time you reply..you just further acknowledge that you just don't know jack...

Here...from the industry...

Types of Infrared Heater: Near, Middlewave and Far IR

“Far infrared”, “IRC”, “Long wave” or “Dark Radiators” operate in the wavelengths above 3 microns.  Far Infrared elements emit much lower temperatures, typically  around the 100°C mark and no visible light.  Human and animal skin absorbs Far infrared specifically well, because of its 80% water composition, making Far Infrared a biologically significant heating wavelength for humans and animals.

Far Infrared heaters use a number of different elements, with popular ones being nickel or fecralloy wiring or more recently carbon fibre.

*Because of their lower temperatures, applications of “Far Infrared” heating include Domestic, Commercial and Public “comfort” heating applications.  It is also also used extensively in modern saunas.
*
And I could go on and on with references stating that far infrared is the primary type in use where humans and animals are the target of the warmth...do you ever bother to look up anything?  Far infrared can not and does not warm the air...




Wuwei said:


> I hope this clarifies the physics for you.



I got the physics...all you clarified was how ignorant you are on the topic.


----------



## Crick (May 11, 2018)

God are you stupid.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here are thermal conductivities of common gases in the air given in units of W/(m K)
> ...



None of that matters. Even a 100C heater has 3 times the LWIR radiation as room temperature. On top of that, the size of the room is too small for any measurable effect because the absorption length for atmospheric CO2 is around 25 meters (82 feet). According to Beer's Law a room size of 15 feet will reduce the IR absorption of CO2 further down to 0.13 %.

That amount of absorption is negligible compared to what a solid object would receive. So again, an engineer would rightly say there is no absorption in the air, a physicist would say it is immeasurably small, or negligible.

You said, “_..add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself... “_

CO2 is a worse conductor of heat than all the other common gases in the atmosphere. So Todds question still stands. What gas are you talking about?


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2018)

Wuwei said:


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



So where is the tropospheric hot spot?  If your belief is true, then a marked tropospheric hot spot would be the inescapable, inevitable, indisputable result.  Where is it?




Wuwei said:


> You said, “_..add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself... “_




CO2 is a worse conductor of heat than all the other common gases in the atmosphere. So Todds question still stands. What gas are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

I suppose I should have broke out the crayons and wrote in big colorful letters that radiation is a more efficient, and more rapid means of moving energy than conduction and if you add radiative gasses to the atmosphere, then energy moves on through the atmosphere more rapidly than if you depend on conduction.  I should have figured that in your desperation to support your indefensible position that sooner or later you would start picking the fly specks out of the pepper...pick all the nits you like...it doesn't change the fact that you can't produce a single shred of evidence to support your position while all the known evidence in the universe supports mine.  What's next....pointing out grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes in an effort to feel a bit better about yourself?  What a loser with a great big* L*


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2018)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.



And you can't provide the first piece of measured, observed evidence to support your position while every observation and measurement ever made supports mine...it would appear, skidmark, that the truly stupid one is you...you sure do love the emperors new clothes don't you?  Bet you are asking everyone who is his tailor.

I am leading you goof balls on a merry chase, and have you running in circles, chasing your tails, claiming that the models provide the data necessary to prove the models and you call me stupid....

I am laughing my ass off at you clowns.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 12, 2018)

And the mechanism for the movement of the energy of the GHGs is what? Maybe absorption and re-emission of a photon. And what direction is that photon emitted in? Maybe a random direction? Which means that 50% of that radiation is now headed back toward the Earth, when previously 100% was headed out into space. You think that perhaps this might warm things up a bit? LOL SSoDDumb, you are a hoot.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > God are you stupid.
> ...


LOL  laugh like the fool you are. For those of us that have had a least three classes of college level physics and chemistry, you are a clown. The physics of GHGs has been demonstrated on many levels now, from absorption spectra to the measurement of incoming energy and out going energy of our planet by the satellites. And not a single measurement supports your demented physics.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> And the mechanism for the movement of the energy of the GHGs is what? Maybe absorption and re-emission of a photon. And what direction is that photon emitted in? Maybe a random direction? Which means that 50% of that radiation is now headed back toward the Earth, when previously 100% was headed out into space. You think that perhaps this might warm things up a bit? LOL SSoDDumb, you are a hoot.



No idea...tell you what rocks...how about you describe the actual underlying mechanism for energy movement from a warm object to a cool object....explain precisely how a vibration from a molecule is transformed into a massless particle/wave that travels at the speed of light..then explain the mechanism by which it escapes the molecule and goes forth.  There should be a nobel in it for you.

You are absolutely ridiculous asking me for mechanisms for phenomena that we won't even begin to understand for a very long time...Observation and measurement tells us that energy only moves spontaneously from warm objects to cool objects...if you have an observation of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object, by all means show it...and then I can point out to you how you have been fooled by the instrument that supposedly measured that which does not happen.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> And the mechanism for the movement of the energy of the GHGs is what? Maybe absorption and re-emission of a photon. And what direction is that photon emitted in? Maybe a random direction? Which means that 50% of that radiation is now headed back toward the Earth, when previously 100% was headed out into space. You think that perhaps this might warm things up a bit? LOL SSoDDumb, you are a hoot.



Newsflash for you rocks...GHG's almost never emit a photon....999 million 999 thousand 99 times out of a billion, they lose the energy they absorb to another molecule...usually oxygen or nitrogen...and when they do emit a photon, the second law tells us that energy only moves from warm to cool, so the photon would be emitted on towards cooler pastures....not back towards the earth.

If in fact, your beliefs were true, the inevitable, indisputable result would be a marked hot spot in the upper troposphere.  Where is it?  If it isn't there, then what you believe to be true and happening, isn't.  Simple as that.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


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



Actually rocks...I have had a lot more than that..which is why I constantly and continuously ask you for the very evidence which we all know that you can't produce to support your beliefs.  Do you believe that it is just coincidence that I happen to always be asking for something that doesn't exist?  Do you believe it is coincidence that I just happen to always be probing along that line between modeling and reality?  Do you think it is coincidence that I always seem to know upon which side of that fine line the actual observed, measured evidence happens to lie?

You are even stupider than I thought.  You guys are so stupid that you don't even know when you are being led around by your collective noses?  What a gaggle of geese.  Scratch that..it is an insult to geese...even geese know when they are being led.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> radiation is a more efficient, and more rapid means of moving energy than conduction



Yes radiation is more rapid than conduction for gases. I told you that. 



SSDD said:


> and if you add radiative gasses to the atmosphere, then energy moves on through the atmosphere more rapidly than if you depend on conduction.



Yes radiation is more rapid than conduction for gases. I told you that. 
Why did you say essentially the same thing twice in the same sentence

You are still skirting the question. You said, “_..add gases to the air that are good conductors, and you increase the ability of the air to cool itself... “
_
You still didn't say what gases you add to the air that you think are good conductors. You also didn't say why you think air would cool itself more rapidly.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> No idea...tell you what rocks...how about you describe the actual underlying mechanism for energy movement from a warm object to a cool object....explain precisely how a vibration from a molecule is transformed into a massless particle/wave that travels at the speed of light..then explain the mechanism by which it escapes the molecule and goes forth. There should be a nobel in it for you.


You are trying the same crap on Old Rocks.  You know that has no bearing on how physics can predict and verify everything there is to know about electromagnetic energy. Your appeal to the philosophy of physics is a non-sequitur.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You are even stupider than I thought. You guys are so stupid that you don't even know when you are being led around by your collective noses? What a gaggle of geese. Scratch that..it is an insult to geese...even geese know when they are being led.


That is another one of your trollish ill tempered remarks. It doesn't convince anyone that you know what you are talking about.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> you sure do love the emperors new clothes don't you? Bet you are asking everyone who is his tailor.
> 
> I am leading you goof balls on a merry chase, and have you running in circles, chasing your tails, claiming that the models provide the data necessary to prove the models and you call me stupid....
> 
> I am laughing my ass off at you clowns.


It looks like troll remarks are all that you have left.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


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


*
I suppose I should have broke out the crayons and wrote in big colorful letters that radiation is a more efficient, and more rapid means of moving energy than conduction and if you add radiative gasses to the atmosphere, 
*
Radiative gases? So when you said good conductors were added, you were wrong.
You should have just admitted your error....in crayon.


----------



## Crick (May 12, 2018)

SSDD said:


> ...and when they do emit a photon, the second law tells us that energy only moves from warm to cool, so the photon would be emitted on towards cooler pastures....not back towards the earth.



Still waiting for an actual expert to verify your claim here.

But, since you aren't going to find one, YOU can explain how matter can know the temperature of all other matter in its view. For starters.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 13, 2018)

*Done to death. Too many times. If the denier of Radiative Physics wants to starts their own thread on this AGAIN -- I'll make a sticky and it will live forever. But we're not gonna turn EVERY thread into the same fillibuster.. *


----------

