AGW: atmospheric physics

[polarbear]

(1)I dont know if the effect of CO2 is vanishingly small but I certainly agree with you that it is impossible to separate out from the noise of natural variability.

(2)back to the shell problem...equilibrium will converge to 235W/m2 outside radiation just like before the shell was in place. until equilibrium is reached the deficit of outside radiation will charge the heat sink in the planet.

let me ask you a question. would the inside of the planet be warmer if the planet was made out of asbestos or out of steel? Joe wants to argue the question as a strawman mathematical problem but it is really just an insulated heat sink. the surface has been moved out to the shell, which must radiate 235 out but because it is separated by a vacuum that defeats conduction it is also radiating 235 in. therefore it needs a 470 source.


Joe, and others, have mangled the problem by not including the energy needed to charge the heat sink. in the beginning almost all of the source will be used to warm the planet, only as the planet starts to get much warmer does the shell receive enough radiation to be able to shed anywheres close to 235W/m2. if the energy source from the core stopped it would take a long time for the radiation to space to decrease as the heat sink would be giving up its energy.

1.) In any scientific trace analysis the detection limit standard is set at 2 X the background "noise"
2.) Don`t forget that a warmer body also radiates heat at a higher rate.
Heat Transfer, Heat Transfer Coefficient | [email protected]

Stefan Boltzmann Law




The emissive power of a (black) body is proportional to the forth power of the absolute temperature

There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!


Even building contractors are aware of that:
5-Step Heat Loss Calculation

Assuming that T1 is 72F and T2 is –5F, Delta T = 72F - (-5F) = 72F + 5F = 77F




Follow the steps 1 through 4 to calculate heat loss separately for windows, doors, and ceiling.


Door Heat Loss = 0.49 x 24sq ft x 77F = 906 BTUH
(U-value is based on assuming a solid wood door)


Window Heat Loss = 0.65 x 14sq ft x 77F = 701 BTUH
(U-value is based on assuming a double-panel window)


Ceiling Heat Loss = 0.05 x 352sq ft x 77F = 1355 BTUH
(U-value is based on assuming a 6” fiberglass insulation. Ceiling surface is 22ft x 16ft)

In this example the "greenhouse" was at 72 F and "outer space" was only 5 F cooler. Even though you can see how much higher the heat loss is if you increase the "greenhouse" temperature by only 1 F while leaving the "outer space" the same...but now it`s 6 F lower than the "greenhouse"
Note
The above online calculator is for house wives and works in the normal room temperature range when it is expressed in deg Fahrenheit...by numbers coincidence .
That`s why the web site says

For actual calculations, contact your contractor or system designer.

And they do it using (T1)^4 - (T2)^4 in degrees Kelvin where T1 is ALWAYS the HIGHER temperature
and add this:

Heat loss through roofs should be added 15% extra because of radiation to space. (2) can be modified to:
H = 1.15 A U (ti - to)

Or measure it using thermal imaging...
There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!

But according to Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment" where he has a colder body warming a hotter one , the hotter one looses even less heat after it got warmer.
There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!

The only way that could happen if Roy manages to heat outer space to get a lower (T1)^4 - (T2)^4 temperature differential
It works both ways...not just from air+CO2 back down, but up an out also.
Up and out outpaces the air+CO2 even without using convection
because there is a temperature gradient of 2 F (drop) per 1000 feet...called the "standard lapse rate".
I`ve been around this bend with the AGW fanatics in this forum before,...

It never occurred to Boltzmann that some day there would be people who are too dumb to realize that in his equation T1^4 - T2^4 T1 was always the higher temperature.
Now we got "climatologists" who put the lower Temperature where T1 is and generate "back radiation energy".
I explained all that over a year ago and even plotted the function T1^4 - T2^2 showing the direction of heat transfer if T1 < T2 = blue line
and if T1 > T2 = green line

http://www.onlinefunctiongrapher.com/?f=-1*x^4|x^4&xMin=-10.03603&xMax=10.03603&yMin=-15723.02&yMax=16343.02

There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!

The red roof thermal image from the outside follows the green function and looks red
The same roof would look blue with thermal imaging because on the inside it follows the blue function

These pictures are hard to find because nobody wants to crawl in the attic lay on his back in a bunch of fiberglass and point a camera at the inside of a roof.
Before Christmas I uploaded a video showing what a thermistor, well insulated from the ambient inside a 6 inch reflector telescope registers at the focal point when you point it at something cold...because I did not have a thermal imaging cam at hand.




There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!
Poophead, RollUnder and Saigon replied "Lolololoh"


but in this video you can see what a surface looks like with thermal imaging when it`s loosing heat....blue
The same area would look red outside



Obeying the direction of heat transfer from hot to cold just like in the graph above when T1 is either higher or lower than T2
There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!
Check out the video at 4:19
To see the effect of moisture evaporative cooling
The thermal imaging shows a temperature drop between 2 and 5 degrees Celsius..!!!.Something climatologists prefer not to discuss
SSDD and I mentioned this many times...
Poophead the fake physicist who kept spelling it "physisist" finally shut up, but Saigon and UndertheRoll replied: "Lolololoh"
If a building contractor/engineer would do math like climatologists do it he would be out of business or loose his license in no time.
This is why we got over 31 000 and counting engineers and scientists signing this petition:
Global Warming Petition Project

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

There is no heat to be gained by "backradiation" from a colder body...period !!!
If you got a degree in science I urge you to sign as well

 

[whitehall]

.
Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate


SETH BORENSTEIN
02/18/2013



WASHINGTON (AP) — With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.

Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming.

How can that be? It's been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.
But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that's likely to continue with man-made global warming.

Consider:
<More Here>
.

Warmies have the issue surrounded. It's a freaking religion to them. They even label people who offer legitimate opposing arguments "deniers" as in "heretics". The Lexus driving "scientists" who rely on government grants are paid to come to the conclusion that American decadence is responsible for droughts in Africa. Could it be that the unusually cold weather we have been experiencing in the last few months is an indication of global cooling? Geological evidence indicates the sun is not a constant source of energy. Unfortunately Ice Ages are far more common and far, far more devastating to humanity and they are not reversible.

 

[polarbear]

.
Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate


SETH BORENSTEIN
02/18/2013



WASHINGTON (AP) &#8212; With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.

Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming.

How can that be? It's been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.
But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that's likely to continue with man-made global warming.

Consider:
<More Here>
.

Warmies have the issue surrounded. It's a freaking religion to them. They even label people who offer legitimate opposing arguments "deniers" as in "heretics". The Lexus driving "scientists" who rely on government grants are paid to come to the conclusion that American decadence is responsible for droughts in Africa. Could it be that the unusually cold weather we have been experiencing in the last few months is an indication of global cooling? Geological evidence indicates the sun is not a constant source of energy. Unfortunately Ice Ages are far more common and far, far more devastating to humanity and they are not reversible.

It`s the "warmies" who are REALITY DENIERS.
See what I mean:

So what? Worse things have happened in earth's history, like super-volcanos, asteroid hits... and Mother Nature always restores the balance. So just chill out, move to higher ground (I'm there) and relax.

Mann's hokey stick? really? hahahaha

I`m not sure how to interpret your comment.
Mann`s custom hockey stick tailored to fit the CO2 monster has already been replaced by Met-offices around the world with this one:

Every major news media in Europe had it since January.
It was inevitable because it was obvious to the public anyways, graph or no graph..
record cold winters over the entire European Continent and North America....for over a decade now it`s been like this
Winter Weather Hits German Airports and Roads - SPIEGEL ONLINE


Cold days keep spring away from Manitoba - Manitoba - CBC News
Flights in Europe cancelled after heavy snowfall - Telegraph

Flights in Europe cancelled after heavy snowfall


Heavy snow has fallen in several European cities, with Amsterdam one of the worst affected.

As well as the Netherlands, Northern France, Belgium and Germany have also been hit by the snow.

BA has been forced to cancel several services this morning going to the Dutch capital. According to the latest update, flights should resume at 11.45 today. However, flights from Heathrow to Paris, Munich, Geneva and Stockholm were cancelled earlier today, and delays are still affecting those routes.

The Dutch carrier KLM has cancelled all flights until noon today, although passengers who were scheduled to fly short-haul services to Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and Paris are being offered replacement ground transportation.

http://iceagenow.info/2012/10/surprise-october-snow-hits-central-germany-suspected-record/

Surprise October snow hits central Germany &#8211; Suspected record

By Robert On October 28, 2012 · 13 Comments

The severe drop in temperature &#8211; by 20 degrees within a week &#8211; also occurs &#8220;very, very seldom,&#8221; he added.
With winter&#8217;s first onslaught, fallen trees blocked train lines between Leipzig and Munich, causing delays and diversions to the ICE high speed rail network.
A further 10-15 cm of snow is expected overnight in the Alps and in the Ore Mountains in Saxony, where DWD said temperatures could fall as low as minus ten.

It was just too obvious, that`s why most of the media jumped off the band wagon and many climatologists are now critics that don`t want to be associated any more with this ridiculous "science"
The only ones who still insist on Mann`s hockey stick are the reality deniers

Now we got "snow experts" that are claiming all that is "evidence of global warming"

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit

Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning the ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with the ongoing lack of global temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing an even worse global warming crisis than they have been predicting.

This is why we got over 31 000 and counting, REAL scientists signing this petition:
Global Warming Petition Project

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
If you have a degree in REAL science please get the form and join us

Of the 2,500 Scientists who have submitted papers to the IPCC, only 600 looked at the science involving CO2.
Of that 600, only 308 were a part of the second review process.

Of that 308, only 62 reviewed the last chapter which looked at what to attribute the
cause of Climate change to.
Of that 62 only 7 reviewers were independent; and of the 7, 2 did not agree with the final
statement saying they believed there was a 90% certainty CO2 caused climate
change.
So the major statement of the review saying what climate change can be attributed to was supported by
just 5 independent scientists - that`s quite a few less than 2,500..!!!!
On the other hand there are over 31,000 independent US scientists who have signed a petition saying there is no conclusive evidence CO2 causes global warming

 

[jon_berzerk]

.
Climate Change And Blizzards May Be Connected, Global Warming Studies Demonstrate


SETH BORENSTEIN
02/18/2013



WASHINGTON (AP) — With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.

Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming.

How can that be? It's been a joke among skeptics, pointing to what seems to be a brazen contradiction.
But the answer lies in atmospheric physics. A warmer atmosphere can hold, and dump, more moisture, snow experts say. And two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections are that that's likely to continue with man-made global warming.

Consider:
<More Here>
.

Warmies have the issue surrounded. It's a freaking religion to them. They even label people who offer legitimate opposing arguments "deniers" as in "heretics". The Lexus driving "scientists" who rely on government grants are paid to come to the conclusion that American decadence is responsible for droughts in Africa. Could it be that the unusually cold weather we have been experiencing in the last few months is an indication of global cooling? Geological evidence indicates the sun is not a constant source of energy. Unfortunately Ice Ages are far more common and far, far more devastating to humanity and they are not reversible.

it works off of daylight savings time

when the clocks spring ahead it is global warming

when they fall back it is climate change

those two things are consistent

at one time 99.9 percent of the scientists agreed that the earth was flat

others knew that the sun circled the earth

it was a consensus

they also warned that if you sailed too far west

you would simply fall of the planet

--LOL

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

He may well be an excellent physicist as well - but this is EXACTLY the kind of cherry picking Westwall is complaining about, and he is right.

When you have a community of hundreds of excellent physicists - why focus on the one person who disagrees with the scientific consensus?

He may be right, be may be brilliant and I respect his stand - but why not be honest enough to admit that another hundred brilliant scientists think that he is wrong?

He has shown the mathematical justification for disregarding the claimed greenhouse effect. How about you show the mathematical justification for accepting it. Good luck with that because after all this time, and the billions of dollars that have gone down the AGW drain, no mathematical description for the greenhouse effect has ever been put forward.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Please don't post nonsense. If the leadership adopted postions contrary to the wishes of the members, they wouldn't have any members. I am not sure if they actually voted on the issue, but given this organisation is one of literally dozens to make similar statements, only child would suggest this is done without the views of members being considered.

That was westwall's post, but I agree with him. The leadership is concerned with money...namely a continuation of funding. The membership does not get to vote on the public stance the leadership takes and it is true that the bulk of the membership does not hold the same position.

And the public position was taken without regard to the members postion on the issue.

 

[SSDD]

let me ask you a question. would the inside of the planet be warmer if the planet was made out of asbestos or out of steel?

Heat isn't the issue....temperature isn't the issue. Radiation output is the issue and you can not recyle energy within a system to increase radiative output without doing some work. You simply can't make a power source radiate more energy than it has available by reflecting its own expended energy back towards it.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Well, obviously you know the thing with funding is just a joke, but I'm curious to see your proof that the majority of physicists do not support climate change science.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Well, obviously you know the thing with funding is just a joke, but I'm curious to see your proof that the majority of physicists do not support climate change science.

Give me the names of 100 who don't depend on grant money in any way whatsoever who are onboard the AGW bandwagon.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Please try and post with a little common sense. Really.

I must have explained 20 times that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for climate research to be based on funding because very little climate science is funded on a 'per-project' basis. Universities use bulk funding for most research precisely because it makes fraud impossible.

It's also worth keeping in mind that where research is funded on a 'per-project' basis, much of it is sold to private companies who are hardly likely to be spending millions of dollars to buy bogus research. This is also true where public institutions do buy research - they are doing so because they need the results of the research - not because they have any political stake in what it says.

You do actually know this, because I have explained it all before, and I am happy to answer questions about it. My wife is a professional researcher at a university, so I have a fairly good source!

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Please try and post with a little common sense. Really.

I must have explained 20 times that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for climate research to be based on funding because very little climate science is funded on a 'per-project' basis. Universities use bulk funding for most research precisely because it makes fraud impossible.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it...it isn't going to become true. You are a proven liar and will say whatever you feel is necessary to make your point.

And if you believe fraud isn't possible in the funding system, then you are even less intelligent than the sort of idiot who would post mann's hockey stick and claim that mann is one of the foremost scientists on earth.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Your entire argument appears to be based on something which is not true, which could not be true, which you know not to be true and which is, in fact, impossible.

By all means explained to me how bulk-funded universities could produce fake research results.

You know they can't. The only question is - are you going to be honest about this?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Your entire argument appears to be based on something which is not true, which could not be true, which you know not to be true and which is, in fact, impossible.

By all means explained to me how bulk-funded universities could produce fake research results.

You know they can't. The only question is - are you going to be honest about this?

Funding bias is not possible? If you believe that then you truely are a blithering idiot.

Here, from wiki which all you warmists seem to believe.

Funding bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms funding bias, sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, or funding publication bias refer to an observed tendency of the conclusion of a scientific research study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias is an instance of experimenter's bias.

Note: even wiki acknowledges that it is an observational fact.

Funding bias is well known and observed across all fields of research.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Bulk-funded does not mean, necessarily, what the words would suggest.

And there is no reason to doubt that some "scientists" will alter the designs of their studies or their findings in order to curry favor with those who provide the money for the "research."

A 2005 study in the journal Nature[11] surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the National Institutes of Health). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.

See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

One study of the effects of funding suggests, "The highest ratings were received by nations using large-scale research assessment exercises. Bulk funding and indicator-driven models received substantially lower ratings." -- from the abstract found at: Models and Mechanisms for Evaluating Government-Funded Research

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I can see you are going to work very, very hard to hold the house of cards in place, but I don't think for a moment you believe what you are posting.

To answer your silly post here - yes, there is bias is paid research. No question. That is why most climate research undertaken around the world is not funded on a per-project basis.

If you have any questions about how funding works, ask me, and I will explain it in detail.

This is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a very simple matter in which any HONEST person who understands the way it works will agree.

 

[Saigon]

Ilar -

Yes, again, when research is paid for, perhaps 15% of researchers would skew results. (We have seen that in climate science with some of the 'studies' the oil industry funded in the past, before realising they had no case.)

This is why the majority of research is NOT funded on a per-project basis., so that manipulation of results is simply not possible.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ilar -

Yes, again, when research is paid for, perhaps 15% of researchers would skew results. (We have seen that in climate science with some of the 'studies' the oil industry funded in the past, before realising they had no case.)

This is why the majority of research is NOT funded on a per-project basis., so that manipulation of results is simply not possible.

WTF? Of course it's possible.

What a ridiculous thing for you to say.

If you know that your funding comes from "the" government which has some goddamn interest in furthering the fantasy of AGW, then you are far more likely to skew your methodologies and "findings" to suit your "masters." Well, at least if you want more of that bulk-funding from "the" government next time around.

 

[SSDD]

WTF? Of course it's possible.

What a ridiculous thing for you to say.

If you know that your funding comes from "the" government which has some goddamn interest in furthering the fantasy of AGW, then you are far more likely to skew your methodologies and "findings" to suit your "masters." Well, at least if you want more of that bulk-funding from "the" government next time around.

When the conversation gets down to nuts and bolts, it is easy to see who the real deniers are. How stupid must one be in order to actually believe that funding bias or outright fraud can't happen in academia.

At least the medical community is grown up enough to acknowledge that it has serious problems in this area. Maybe when climate science grows up a bit and gets over its magical thinking, they too will see the forest. My bet is that when the AGW hoax becomes competely unsustainable that funding bias will become the whipping boy and suddenly be found to blame for all sorts of shortcomings in the research....like the latest bogus hockey stick for example. Their data didn't even meet their own criteria...but funding is the life blood so you do what you can to get more. What do you want to bet that the very people who just finised that joke of a hockey stick don't have any problem getting funding for their next project even though they have proven themselves to be incompetent.

 

[IanC]

SSDD - it is not recycling. The energy is going from the source to outer space. Radiation is fundementally different from macroscopic events because nothing can interrupt the process. Once created the photon exists until it interacts with matter.
Two objects, same temperature, still radiate to each other. No work can be accomplished because there is no net flow.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD - it is not recycling. The energy is going from the source to outer space. Radiation is fundementally different from macroscopic events because

And of course it is recycling. That planet radiating 235 wm2 can only radiate 235...period. Nothing short of magic bumps it up to 470 wm2 and nothing short of magic stops it from going on to radiate 705 wm2, and then 1057.5 wm2, and then 1586.25 wm2 and on and on ad infinitum.

nothing can interrupt the process. Once created the photon exists until it interacts with matter.

So you say. Lets see the proof. We are never going to agree on this. The 2nd law says that energy won't move from cool to warm. I am sure that cool objects radiate but they don't radiate towards warm objects. And don't ask me to describe how that happens because I can't any more than I (or you, or anyone else) can describe the mechanism by which gravity works. There is no law that says that radiation must go in every direction but there is a law that says it can't go from cool objects to warmer objects.

Two objects, same temperature, still radiate to each other. No work can be accomplished because there is no net flow.

Again, no proof other than questionable mathematical models. They both radiate. The warm object radiates toward the cool object but the cool object doesn't radiate towards the warm object.

I am afraid that I find the methods of post modern science less than unconvincing. Computer models, which are the only "proof" of much of post modern science are no better than the program which is in and of itself questionable.