Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Chris]

 

[wirebender]

The Warmers cannot replicate their "theory" in a laboratory setting.

The "science" behind AGW is somewhere between Cold Fusion and Phrenology.

A young student proving global warming in a labortory setting...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]YouTube - ‪Global Warming in a Jar‬‏[/ame]

Your young student has proved nothing related to global warming. He has performed an experiment in a closed system which is in no way analogous to an open system. His "proof" only applies to earth if you can demonstrate a glass layer up in the sky somewhere which prevents conduction.

 

[wirebender]

Actually these simple aspects are the mechanisms at the core of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Well, they are at the core of the story that constitutes the hoax of the greenhouse effect.

This is the greenhouse effect. Visible light from the sun passes through our atmosphere that is largely transparent to visible wavelength light. This light is absorbed by the surface material of our planet. The surface material of our planet re-emits this energy in the form of IR light. The GHGs in our atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, CH4, NO, etc.,) are opaque to IR light, they absorb and then re-emit that IR light slowing its exit from our atmosphere. This delay from the multiple absorption and re-emission by the atmospheric GHGs represents the ambient thermal background warmth.

So now you are not claiming any warming at all but only a slowed cooling? There is a vast difference between warming and a slowing of cooling.

We haven't more than outlined the sketch and scratched the surface. There are the methods by which substances actually absorb photons all the way down to the energy state changes of electron orbitals and the relationship between such and quantum numbers and how this allows us to calculate the wavelengths of subsequently emitted photons as the electrons shift from unstable, high energy orbitals down to more stable, lower energy orbitals. Much, much, more,...but, it's best not to try and teach people how to swim by throwing them, fully clothed, off the deck of a cruise ship in 20 foot seas.

There is a great deal of talk, but there is nothing more.

Okay, exactly what do you understand "warmth" to be and in as precise and detailed a manner as possible, describe how you understand the process of how "an object" absorbs EM photons (as all EM energy is transferred via photons).

I understand warmth, or heat to be the electromagnetic energy that moves between two bodies at different temperatures via convective or conductive transfer such that the energy balance of one is increased and the other is decreased. This “transfer” of energy is heavily influenced by the relative size of the bodies that are transferring energy but the composition and density which determine heat capacity is the more important factor when calculating the capacity for energy transfer.

How (and why) are you distinguishing "passively warmed" from actively warmed, ...or just warmed?

A passively warmed object has no energy source of its own and therefore can not add to the overall energy balance in an equation. At best, it can reflect energy but reflected energy does not add to the total amount of energy within a system.

What are these "objects" and "sources" composed of?

Irrelevant. We are talking laws of nature, not laws of materials or laws of systems.

As precisely and detailed as you can, how is the energy generated, transmitted, and absorbed?

The vast bulk of the energy in question is generated by the sun. Do we really need to discuss how the sun works? A smaller portion of the energy in question comes from within the earth itself. Again, do we need to discuss what is going on at the core of the earth?

If you are talking about the energy being radiated from the earth to the atmosphere, then for the most part, we are talking about energy being radiated from the passively warmed surface of the earth into the atmosphere. The bulk of the energy the earth radiates gets to the earth (not stopped by the atmosphere) because it arrives in a wave length that is invisible to the atmosphere.

Nothing in the atmospheric greenhouse effect theory suggests, or implies, a multiplication of energy, the actual function is most similar to an insulation that retards the escape of the initially delivered solar energy.

Of course it does. If energy is being radiated back to the earth, providing additional warmth to the earth which it then radiates back into the atmosphere, then we are talking about multiplying energy. If you are merely talking about slowing down the escape of energy into space, then we aren’t talking about warming at all as warming a thing, and slowing the rate at which it cools are two entirely different things. If there is no warming, then there is no “crisis”.

Are these objects composed of discrete atoms? [/quote

Again, the question is meaningless as the second law of thermodynamics is a law of nature, not a law of materials or systems.

What is the difference between the radiations of an object at 50 Kelvin and an object at 500 Kelvin?

What do you perceive to be the difference as applied to the atmosphere of the earth?

What leads you to believe that an object must achieve equilibrium before it begins to emit any radiation?

Again, what difference does it make? I only made the comment because in my illustration, I introduced a new object into the universe. Is there anything going on in the earth’s atmosphere that represents a new, never before seen object in the universe?

No, if the only energy in the system is the original energy, no additional energy will be created, but when object A sheds energy it loses some of that original energy, and if some of the energy that B receives and re-emits is directed at A then A will receive that returned energy that it initially emitted. (to stick within the general guidelines of your model)

Again, you are talking about increasing the total energy in the system. If object A receives energy from object B and the radiation transfer doesn’t cancel, then the energy within the system increases.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers cannot replicate their "theory" in a laboratory setting.

The "science" behind AGW is somewhere between Cold Fusion and Phrenology.

A young student proving global warming in a labortory setting...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]YouTube - ‪Global Warming in a Jar‬‏[/ame]

Epic Fail

There's a difference between 60PPM and 600,000ppm of CO2. He replicated conditions on Venus.

Warmers allege that even a 4-5 PPM increase is enough to trigger record cyclones,tornadoes and Cat 5 hurricanes

 

[wirebender]

That's definitely my contention.

Then you are demonstrably wrong.

Think of B like a mirror. It's "bouncing" some of the energy from object A into universe C.

To prove to yourself that you are wrong, get yourself an electric heater with an output of say, 1000 watts per square meter. Turn it on and put as many reflectors, or mirrors, or any other passively warmed objects around it that you like and see if you ever get more than 1000 watts per square meter out of the heater. If you do, then you have found a means of extracting free energy from the ether and have effectively solved the energy problems of mankind forever

So C is being fed both directly by A and also indirectly by A via B. Ie more energy from A is reaching universe C because of the presence of object B.

B produces no energy of its own. Object A represents the sum of the energy within the system. There is no more. No matter how many times you reflect the energy from object A, it's output still represents the entirety of the energy within the system. Any increase of energy within the system, without an input of additional work is an impossibility. It is free energy, energy from nothing, perpetual motion.

An important thing to realize is that only a small faction of energy from A reaches C. That's because A casts energy in all directions and most of those directions go nowhere. So we aren't creating energy from nothing by adding B, we are taking some of the bulk of energy that is otherwise lost, capturing it with B and passing some of that to C.

Doesn't matter which direction it goes in. The output of A still represents all of the available energy within the system. You can't reflect it enough to create a single joule of excess energy beyond the output of A.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Bentwire is still intent on demostrating his obtuseness.

No, our atmosphere cannot get more energy than is supplied by the sun. No one has said that it does.

A significant part of the radiant energy recieved from the sun is reflected and reradiated back into space. When you add GHGs to the atmosphere, less energy is reflected or reradiated into space, more is absorbed and reradiated back to the earth, warming the atmosphere, land, and water.

By our burning of fossil fuels, we have significantly raised the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. And, as a result, significantly increased the amount of heat retained here on Earth. Which has consequences that we can see in our temperatures, glaciers, and ice caps. And, from periods like the Younger Dryas, can see the dangers to our agriculture when the climate hits a tipping point and there is a rapid change as there was at that time, and a number of previous similiar times.

 

[Trakar]

The Warmers cannot replicate their "theory" in a laboratory setting.

The "science" behind AGW is somewhere between Cold Fusion and Phrenology.

A young student proving global warming in a labortory setting...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]YouTube - ‪Global Warming in a Jar‬‏[/ame]

Your young student has proved nothing related to global warming. He has performed an experiment in a closed system which is in no way analogous to an open system. His "proof" only applies to earth if you can demonstrate a glass layer up in the sky somewhere which prevents conduction.

This is simply incorrect.

(and BTW, the vaccuum of space is a much better insulator against "conduction" than glass could ever be, which is why sealed vaccuum thermos systems are used to insulate liquids, and why thick glass coffee mugs actually tend to cool coffee more quickly than a styrofoam cup)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ol' Bentwire is still intent on demostrating his obtuseness.

No, our atmosphere cannot get more energy than is supplied by the sun. No one has said that it does.

A significant part of the radiant energy recieved from the sun is reflected and reradiated back into space. When you add GHGs to the atmosphere, less energy is reflected or reradiated into space, more is absorbed and reradiated back to the earth, warming the atmosphere, land, and water.

By our burning of fossil fuels, we have significantly raised the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. And, as a result, significantly increased the amount of heat retained here on Earth. Which has consequences that we can see in our temperatures, glaciers, and ice caps. And, from periods like the Younger Dryas, can see the dangers to our agriculture when the climate hits a tipping point and there is a rapid change as there was at that time, and a number of previous similiar times.

And you can never show us how this works in a lab because...?

 

[konradv]

Ol' Bentwire is still intent on demostrating his obtuseness.

No, our atmosphere cannot get more energy than is supplied by the sun. No one has said that it does.

A significant part of the radiant energy recieved from the sun is reflected and reradiated back into space. When you add GHGs to the atmosphere, less energy is reflected or reradiated into space, more is absorbed and reradiated back to the earth, warming the atmosphere, land, and water.

By our burning of fossil fuels, we have significantly raised the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. And, as a result, significantly increased the amount of heat retained here on Earth. Which has consequences that we can see in our temperatures, glaciers, and ice caps. And, from periods like the Younger Dryas, can see the dangers to our agriculture when the climate hits a tipping point and there is a rapid change as there was at that time, and a number of previous similiar times.

And you can never show us how this works in a lab because...?

... you can't create an entire environment in a lab. That's why we use logic and go out in the field to get answers, sometimes. After all, we know the properties of CO2 and that the levels are going up. Doesn't logic tell you, if more IR radiation is being trapped, a rise in temps will follow? In my world it does. I don't know where you're from, however.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ol' Bentwire is still intent on demostrating his obtuseness.

No, our atmosphere cannot get more energy than is supplied by the sun. No one has said that it does.

A significant part of the radiant energy recieved from the sun is reflected and reradiated back into space. When you add GHGs to the atmosphere, less energy is reflected or reradiated into space, more is absorbed and reradiated back to the earth, warming the atmosphere, land, and water.

By our burning of fossil fuels, we have significantly raised the level of GHGs in the atmosphere. And, as a result, significantly increased the amount of heat retained here on Earth. Which has consequences that we can see in our temperatures, glaciers, and ice caps. And, from periods like the Younger Dryas, can see the dangers to our agriculture when the climate hits a tipping point and there is a rapid change as there was at that time, and a number of previous similiar times.

And you can never show us how this works in a lab because...?

... you can't create an entire environment in a lab. That's why we use logic and go out in the field to get answers, sometimes. After all, we know the properties of CO2 and that the levels are going up. Doesn't logic tell you, if more IR radiation is being trapped, a rise in temps will follow? In my world it does. I don't know where you're from, however.

You're spouting total horseshit. If you can't show that you've eliminated all the variables except for the faintest wips of CO2 what you have is not even a theory; its a hunch, it's wishful thinking no matter how many other Warmer Cultists agree with you

I think the increase in CO2 come from Dark Matter and the "melting Glaciers" are caused by either cosmic rays or Dark Energy or Cold Fusion.

Sure, my theory sucks and can't be proven in a lab either, but if I throw government funding at enough people I can come to "Consensus" and have my "Science" declared Settled.

 

[RWatt]

And you can never show us how this works in a lab because...?

... you can't create an entire environment in a lab. That's why we use logic and go out in the field to get answers, sometimes. After all, we know the properties of CO2 and that the levels are going up. Doesn't logic tell you, if more IR radiation is being trapped, a rise in temps will follow? In my world it does. I don't know where you're from, however.

You're spouting total horseshit. If you can't show that you've eliminated all the variables except for the faintest wips of CO2 what you have is not even a theory; its a hunch, it's wishful thinking no matter how many other Warmer Cultists agree with you

I think the increase in CO2 come from Dark Matter and the "melting Glaciers" are caused by either cosmic rays or Dark Energy or Cold Fusion.

Sure, my theory sucks and can't be proven in a lab either, but if I throw government funding at enough people I can come to "Consensus" and have my "Science" declared Settled.

Prove evolution in the lab

Prove the big bang in the lab

Prove the dinosaurs existed...in the lab

good luck!

(ps, science isn't all done by fellers in white coats in labs)

 

[Trakar]

Actually these simple aspects are the mechanisms at the core of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Well, they are at the core of the story that constitutes the hoax of the greenhouse effect.

No, they constitute the understandings derived from and confirmed by observation and controlled experiment over the last 150 years.

This is the greenhouse effect. Visible light from the sun passes through our atmosphere that is largely transparent to visible wavelength light. This light is absorbed by the surface material of our planet. The surface material of our planet re-emits this energy in the form of IR light. The GHGs in our atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, CH4, NO, etc.,) are opaque to IR light, they absorb and then re-emit that IR light slowing its exit from our atmosphere. This delay from the multiple absorption and re-emission by the atmospheric GHGs represents the ambient thermal background warmth.

So now you are not claiming any warming at all but only a slowed cooling? There is a vast difference between warming and a slowing of cooling.

Quite true, but if you retard the emission of absorbed energy, while maintaining the constant flow of energy being absorbed, you raise the ambient energy level of the system. Ultimately, GHGs act as a biased insulation factor, in that they are generally transparent to visible wavelength photons allowing the energy from the Sun to pass through with very little degradation, while being extremely opaque to the IR energy being emitted by the surface of the Earth, dispersing and retarding that energy's escape back into the voids of space.

I understand warmth, or heat to be the electromagnetic energy that moves between two bodies at different temperatures via convective or conductive transfer such that the energy balance of one is increased and the other is decreased.

You do understand that photons are the carriers of EM energy, don't you?

It is very easy to confuse issues of heat, so perhaps we need to invoke some standardized definitions to make sure that we are both distinguishing and and clearly speaking of the same things:

Heat - a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation.

Conduction(or heat conduction) - is the transfer of thermal energy between neighboring molecules in a substance due to a temperature gradient.

Convection - The transmission of heat in a fluid or gas by the circulation of currents. In general, warm fluids and gases are less dense - due to greater molecular motion, and cooler fluids and gases are more dense - due to less molecular motion.

Radiation(or EM radiation) - the transference of energy via the emission or absorption of photons.

Using these simple definitions we can explore the manners in which heat energy can be transferred and manipulated.

In a hot cup of coffee, the various molecules that make up hot coffee are constantly bouncing into and transferring their thermal energy into the container holding the coffee. If the container is made out of a dense, rigid structure thermally conductive substance, the coffee conducts its energy to the cup (which radiates the energy into the environment) fairly rapidly, if the cup is made out of a low-density, porous stricture that is not a very good thermal conductor, the cuppa will stay hot a lot longer. - Conduction transfers

In a true, glass-predominant envelope, greenhouse, convection is the primary issue. The transparent envelope allows the solar energy (visible light) to warm the surfaces inside which then transfer that energy to the boundary air in contact with those surfaces. This warmed and less dense air then tries to rise. Absent the greenhouse envelope this air would quickly rise and mix with the rest of the atmosphere, but the structure of the greenhouse prevents this convection process allowing the gradual build up of heat within the convectively insulated structure during the day when heat builds up faster than it can be emitted. - Convection transfers

When we look at radiative-transfers is when we get into the realm that is predominantely involved in atmospheric GHG issues. This involves the absorption of visible light by the surface of the planet which then emits IR photons that are absorbed and re-emitted by atmospheric ghgs. The concentration of ghgs determines the mean free path of travel of IR photons before they are re-absorbed and re-emitted by other ghg molecules. The higher the concentration of ghgs, the shorter the mean free path and the longer it takes that energy to be transmitted to the top of our atmosphere and out of our planetary environment. The longer the mean free path from surface emission to TOA emission, the quicker the exit of the energy from our system. The shorter the free mean path the more the ambient energy builds up in our system. - Radiative transfers

This “transfer” of energy is heavily influenced by the relative size of the bodies that are transferring energy but the composition and density which determine heat capacity is the more important factor when calculating the capacity for energy transfer.

Actually, with regards to radiative transfer issues (which is the primary issue of concern with regards to atmospheric greenhouse effects), size and density of of the radiating/absorbing bodies really aren't of primary concern. What is important, is the amount and manner of energy being transferred, the absorption and emission characteristics of the various surfaces and substances doing the absorption and emission, and the mean free paths of the various frequencies of emitted radiations in a given system.

A passively warmed object has no energy source of its own and therefore can not add to the overall energy balance in an equation. At best, it can reflect energy but reflected energy does not add to the total amount of energy within a system.

every substance that is above absolute zero emits thermal energy. Some substances emit more energy than they absorb and are thus considered heat sources. Some substances absorb more heat than they emit and are thus considered heat sinks. Energy is never created or destroyed, merely shifted around, or altered in form.

Irrelevant. We are talking laws of nature, not laws of materials or laws of systems.

Actually, it is highly relevent, in many, if not most instances, of translating the idealized and highly qualified generalizations of established physical theory (laws) it is important to look at the details and specific interactions to properly understand what is actually occurring as these interactions are translated from theory into practical expression. In this sense the sun is not one homogenous object radiating energy. Neither is the surface of the Earth nor the gas envelope that makes up our atmosphere. When you looking at practical applications of these theories to actual physical substances, we have to take into acount where and how the energy interacts with the discrete elements that make up real world objects in order to get an accurate understainding of what is happening.

The vast bulk of the energy in question is generated by the sun. Do we really need to discuss how the sun works?

evidently, we do (back to that "scratching the surface"). The energy isn't transformed from potential to actual in the outer layers of the Sun. The potential energy realized and released from fusion, occurs in the core of the Sun and are absorbed and re-emitted in the various layers of the Sun over a period of 100,000 years or so until it is finally emitted by the outermost layers of the Sun and then spends about 8 minutes zipping from the surface of the sun to the surface of the Earth where it is absorbed by the surface and re-emitted as an IR photon.

A smaller portion of the energy in question comes from within the earth itself. Again, do we need to discuss what is going on at the core of the earth?

I'm not sure, at least you seem to be able to distinguish between the core of the Earth and the surface where such energies are eventually emitted into our atmosphere, and after an additional period of atmospheric absorption and re-emission, eventually emitted into the voids beyond our atmosphere.

If you are talking about the energy being radiated from the earth to the atmosphere, then for the most part, we are talking about energy being radiated from the passively warmed surface of the earth into the atmosphere. The bulk of the energy the earth radiates gets to the earth (not stopped by the atmosphere) because it arrives in a wave length that is invisible to the atmosphere.

No, the energy from the core of the earth is radiated in the same infrared wavelengths that the surface emits from absorbing the visible light emitted from the Sun. To the materials of the surface it matters not whether the energy they absorb comes from materials deeper in the crust of our planet, infrared backradiation from the atmospheric emissions of GHGs or the visible light emitted by the Sun. These surface materials absorb a broad range of wavelengths (visible and invisible), but they emit predominantly within a few fairly narrow ranges of the IR spectrum.

Of course it does. If energy is being radiated back to the earth, providing additional warmth to the earth which it then radiates back into the atmosphere, then we are talking about multiplying energy.

no, we are talking about an accumulation of energy during the day, as the system builds up energy faster than the it can shed it beyond the atmosphere.

If you are merely talking about slowing down the escape of energy into space, then we aren’t talking about warming at all as warming a thing, and slowing the rate at which it cools are two entirely different things. If there is no warming, then there is no “crisis”.

Our climate is warming because the increasing amounts of GHGs are decreasing the mean free path of IR in our atmosphere which slows the exit of energy from our system while the input stays the same. This leads to a gradual build up of ambient thermal energy in the surface and atmosphere of our planet.

 

[wirebender]

This is simply incorrect.

No experiment related to global warming that is performed within a closed system proves anything with regard to the open system that is our atmosphere.

 

[wirebender]

... you can't create an entire environment in a lab. That's why we use logic and go out in the field to get answers, sometimes. After all, we know the properties of CO2 and that the levels are going up. Doesn't logic tell you, if more IR radiation is being trapped, a rise in temps will follow? In my world it does. I don't know where you're from, however.

Isn't it convenient that it isn't possible to prove your faith? CO2 is not a driver of the climate and the fact remains that you can not prove that it is.

 

[wirebender]

No, they constitute the understandings derived from and confirmed by observation and controlled experiment over the last 150 years.

Which of those experiments might be analogous to an open system such as our atmosphere? Experiments performed under glass are meaningless as related to the atmosphere as they eliminate both convection and conduction.

Quite true, but if you retard the emission of absorbed energy, while maintaining the constant flow of energy being absorbed, you raise the ambient energy level of the system. Ultimately, GHGs act as a biased insulation factor, in that they are generally transparent to visible wavelength photons allowing the energy from the Sun to pass through with very little degradation, while being extremely opaque to the IR energy being emitted by the surface of the Earth, dispersing and retarding that energy's escape back into the voids of space.

A trace gas extremely opaque? CO2 does little more than scatter IR radiation whereas water vapor, a much more abundant gas actually has the capacity to absorb and hold heat. CO2 is meaningless within the climate system but since it would serve no purpose to demonize water vapor, CO2 gets to be the villan.

You do understand that photons are the carriers of EM energy, don't you?

Yes.

Heat - a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation.

Isn't that what I said?

In a hot cup of coffee, the various molecules that make up hot coffee are constantly bouncing into and transferring their thermal energy into the container holding the coffee. If the container is made out of a dense, rigid structure thermally conductive substance, the coffee conducts its energy to the cup (which radiates the energy into the environment) fairly rapidly, if the cup is made out of a low-density, porous stricture that is not a very good thermal conductor, the cuppa will stay hot a lot longer. - Conduction transfers

And no matter how good the insulator, the temperature is always dropping. No additional warmth can be added to the system without the input of some form of work.

The concentration of ghgs determines the mean free path of travel of IR photons before they are re-absorbed and re-emitted by other ghg molecules.

Actually, the concentration of "ghgs" other than water vapor determine the degree to which the IR emitted by the earth is scattered.

Actually, it is highly relevent, in many, if not most instances, of translating the idealized and highly qualified generalizations of established physical theory (laws) it is important to look at the details and specific interactions to properly understand what is actually occurring as these interactions are translated from theory into practical expression. In this sense the sun is not one homogenous object radiating energy. Neither is the surface of the Earth nor the gas envelope that makes up our atmosphere. When you looking at practical applications of these theories to actual physical substances, we have to take into acount where and how the energy interacts with the discrete elements that make up real world objects in order to get an accurate understainding of what is happening.

Again, the laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature, not laws of materials or systems. They apply down to the atomic level.

no, we are talking about an accumulation of energy during the day, as the system builds up energy faster than the it can shed it beyond the atmosphere.

Again, CO2 is meaningless in the context of the greater abundance of water vapor which actually can absorb and retain heat. CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses only serve to scatter the energy, not concentrate it.

Our climate is warming because the increasing amounts of GHGs are decreasing the mean free path of IR in our atmosphere which slows the exit of energy from our system while the input stays the same. This leads to a gradual build up of ambient thermal energy in the surface and atmosphere of our planet.

No, our climate is warming due to forces we, as of yet, do not understand. The idea that a beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere is causing warming is at best, an indefensible hypothesis. A recently published article in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics titled Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance suggests strongly that the albedo decrease could very well be responsible for a forcing of about 7 Wm2. Compare that to the claim that ghg forcing for the past 120 years is about 2.4 Wm2. It is this sort of findings by actual scientists that will drive CO2 back to the position of unimportance it deserves.

 

[Trakar]

This is simply incorrect.

No experiment related to global warming that is performed within a closed system proves anything with regard to the open system that is our atmosphere.

This assertion is unsupported.

If you wish to point out the differences in a laboratory experiment and discuss why these specific differences make the laboratory experiment inaccurate or unreliable in principle application to the atmosphere you might be making a more accurate and compelling argument.

 

[wirebender]

This is simply incorrect.

No experiment related to global warming that is performed within a closed system proves anything with regard to the open system that is our atmosphere.

This assertion is unsupported.

If you wish to point out the differences in a laboratory experiment and discuss why these specific differences make the laboratory experiment inaccurate or unreliable in principle application to the atmosphere you might be making a more accurate and compelling argument.

I thought it was obvious. Experiments "under glass" eliminate conduction and in turn convection. They use a material that is not part of the atmosphere to hold in energy to a degree that isn't even closely approximated in the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Bentwire, we have measurements of the outgoing infrared from satellites. They show a diminuation of energy at the wavelengths absorbed by the GHGs. A diminuation that is increasing as we increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

That is about as definitive of an experiment as you can get.

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present | Proceedings - SPIE Digital Library

 

[Trakar]

No, they constitute the understandings derived from and confirmed by observation and controlled experiment over the last 150 years.

Which of those experiments might be analogous to an open system such as our atmosphere? Experiments performed under glass are meaningless as related to the atmosphere as they eliminate both convection and conduction.

All of the open air measurements of absorption and emission spectra of the various atmospheric constituents, the measurements of surface emissions the TOA emission and impingement measurements, the night-time backradiation all of these definitively establish and quantify the basis of atmospheric ghg effects. Convection and conduction effects are appropriately integrated into all general climate studies and models but they play distinct and otherwise accounted for roles, it is the additional retained energy from ghg effects that provide the additional retained energies we see resulting in an increasingly warmer climate.

Quite true, but if you retard the emission of absorbed energy, while maintaining the constant flow of energy being absorbed, you raise the ambient energy level of the system. Ultimately, GHGs act as a biased insulation factor, in that they are generally transparent to visible wavelength photons allowing the energy from the Sun to pass through with very little degradation, while being extremely opaque to the IR energy being emitted by the surface of the Earth, dispersing and retarding that energy's escape back into the voids of space.

A trace gas extremely opaque?...

…”opaque to the IR energy”…
Opaque - A physical description of a material which attenuates electromagnetic radiation. - Glossary of Satellite Meteorolgy Terms
(and from same source – Attenuation - Any process in which the intensity of radiation decreases due to scattering or absorption.)

…CO2 does little more than scatter IR radiation whereas water vapor, a much more abundant gas actually has the capacity to absorb and hold heat. CO2 is meaningless within the climate system but since it would serve no purpose to demonize water vapor, CO2 gets to be the villan.

Water vapor is strongly included as the proportionally largest volume of the ghg gases, responsible for around 75W/m2(CO2 is currently responsible for less than ½ this amount of ambient energy increase at around 32W/m2). However, due to water vapor’s low persistence in the atmosphere (on average, about a week) water acts as a feedback, rather than a forcing element. Water vapor is very sensitive to temperature and pressure. As temperature and/or pressure varies within the normal ranges for the Earth’s thermosphere, a given volume of atmosphere will not be able to maintain stable levels of water vapor as the water vapor condenses out of air that cools and/or rarifies, and surface moistures evaporate into the atmosphere as the air warms and/or becomes denser. This is the mechanism of forming a thunderhead. As warm, moisture-laden air rises, cools, and expands through an overlying cold, dry air mass, we can witness the condensation of that air mass’s water vapor as it comes out of the warm moist air forming the storm clouds and raining back down onto the surface. Water vapor simply doesn’t stay in the atmosphere long enough to drive climate change on its own, though it is a very important positive feedback, in that the warmer the average atmospheric temperature gets, the more water the atmosphere can hold. Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 7% per degree warming of the lower atmosphere. The combination of CO2forcing (and strongly related CH4 forcing –which is currently very small) and the various positive feedbacks directly connected to CO2 forcing are the problems that make rising CO2 levels so dramatic in their impacts upon our climate. CO2 is not the only agency involved, but it is the primary forcing factor and its influence is what triggers the other positive, reinforcing feedback factors to their various levels of participation and interaction.

And no matter how good the insulator, the temperature is always dropping. No additional warmth can be added to the system without the input of some form of work.

The sun shines upon one half of the planet 24/7, the hemisphere facing the Sun is receiving steady input of additional energy.

Again, the laws of thermodynamics are laws of nature, not laws of materials or systems. They apply down to the atomic level.

Your asserted distinctions are without meaning or bearing on the issues being explained and described.

no, we are talking about an accumulation of energy during the day, as the system builds up energy faster than the it can shed it beyond the atmosphere.

Again, CO2 is meaningless in the context of the greater abundance of water vapor which actually can absorb and retain heat. CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses only serve to scatter the energy, not concentrate it.

As demonstrated through direct open-air measurement, water vapor content is responsible for the greatest percentage of all GHG forced warming at current STP (a little more than twice CO2’s direct warming), however, the largest single determinant of atmospheric content of H2O is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Soden_etal_727.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

Our climate is warming because the increasing amounts of GHGs are decreasing the mean free path of IR in our atmosphere which slows the exit of energy from our system while the input stays the same. This leads to a gradual build up of ambient thermal energy in the surface and atmosphere of our planet.

No, our climate is warming due to forces we, as of yet, do not understand.

I realize from the discussion some of you do not understand. Mainstream climate science, however, has a pretty good and comprehensive understanding of the primary big issues and factors and how they interact to produce the results we observe and measure. I am trying to help you to at least understand what the science indicates. I’m not expressing personal musings, I am explaining what is taught in all major variants of science classes from grade school through post-doc.

The idea that a beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere is causing warming is at best, an indefensible hypothesis. A recently published article in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics titled Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance suggests strongly that the albedo decrease could very well be responsible for a forcing of about 7 Wm2. Compare that to the claim that ghg forcing for the past 120 years is about 2.4 Wm2. It is this sort of findings by actual scientists that will drive CO2 back to the position of unimportance it deserves.

This assertions are a confused mixture of misunderstanding and error.

You appear to be referring to this paper?

http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Goode_Palle_JASTP_2007.pdf

if, however, you continue to follow these same authors, in 2009 (largely due to the challenges and findings discovered through the subsequent-to-publication peer-review interactions) revisited their earlier researches and produced:
Inter-annual variations in Earth's reflectance 1999-2007 - http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf

The overall reflectance of sunlight from Earth is a fundamental parameter for climate studies. Recently, measurements of earthshine were used to find large decadal variability in Earth's reflectance of sunlight. However, the results did not seem consistent with contemporaneous independent albedo measurements from the low Earth orbit satellite, Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES), which showed a weak, opposing trend. Now more data for both are available, all sets have been either reanalyzed (earthshine) or recalibrated (CERES), and they present consistent results. Albedo data are also available from the recently released International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project flux data (FD) product. Earthshine and FD analyses show contemporaneous and climatologically significant increases in the Earth's reflectance from the outset of our earthshine measurements beginning in late 1998 roughly until mid-2000. After that and to date, all three show a roughly constant terrestrial albedo, except for the FD data in the most recent years. Using satellite cloud data and Earth reflectance models, we also show that the decadal-scale changes in Earth's reflectance measured by earthshine are reliable and are caused by changes in the properties of clouds rather than any spurious signal, such as changes in the Sun-Earth-Moon geometry.

In case you don’t recognize it, that’s how field prominent scientists say “Ooops!”

But hey, I’m not trying to reveal to you that which “God Hisself writ in the stone with his own fiery digit,” merely, the best, most thoroughly tested and robustly supported understandings that science has at this point. The human signal is only strongly and significantly detected and measured in the last half century, but it is growing rapidly in strength. Beyond this, however, mainstream climate science recognizes and acknowledges the solar contributions to earth temperature variation during the past 1150 years. Until about the mid-1950s the solar variation component accounted for more than half of all external forcing factors for most of the preceding history of the planet, with the occasional episode of extraordinary event adding their contribution (excessive basaltic volcanism, major impact event, or biologic event). The problem right now isn’t the Sun’s (largely negative) contribution, but a biologic event causing an atmospheric composition change.
“How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006” - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

As referenced in other threads here are a few online climate science textbooks used by major universities around the world for those who would like to improve their understandings of the actual science involved I urge you to explore. You don’t have to give up your political beliefs to understand the science. Most people who have seriously explored and sought to understand the science support and agree with the science regardless of their political persuasion.(unfortunately the draft copy of Pierrehumbert’s text on planetary climates which really nicely lays out the processes is no longer freely available online but I encourage other’s to seek it out in their libraries or local booksellers)

AMS Climate Studies Textbook
Introduction to climate dynamics and climate modelling - Welcome Page
The Discovery of Global Warming - A History
Environmental Geoscience: Environmental Science in the 21st Century

 

[wirebender]

Now Bentwire, we have measurements of the outgoing infrared from satellites. They show a diminuation of energy at the wavelengths absorbed by the GHGs. A diminuation that is increasing as we increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Yeah, I have seen those "measurements" posted by your side. One graph that makes a comparison to nothing, claiming to prove a reduction in olr. But when you look at the graphs that your graph supposedly compares itself to, you see that there is no difference at all and the report itself talks about massaging the modern numbers while the original numbers must have been feeling fine as they needed no massaging at all.

That is about as definitive of an experiment as you can get.

Well, it is about as definitive example of pseudoscientific fraud as one might find. If you would like to see all the graphs, I will happily oblidge. You look at them and tell me where you see the claimed changes in OLR.

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

The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.