Climate change

[jc456]

Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

'towards earth'. my position is it doesn't make it to the surface or the troposphere and therefore can't add heat to the surface or troposphere.

my position is it doesn't make it to the surface

What stops it?

or the troposphere

Why not?

Why not?
a colder body cannot heat a warmer body.

Who said it did?

The warmer body radiates more than the colder body.
So even though the cold air radiates toward the warmer ground, the warm ground is still losing more heat toward the atmosphere.

agree completely

Great.
That means your claim (and SSDD's) that back radiation does not exist is not backed up by the laws of thermodynamics.

So what stops the energy emitted by the CO2 in the atmosphere from hitting the ground?

thermal mixing and wind flow patterns

 

[The sheeple sea]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

From what I can gather I would say we know too little about the natural cycles. It was a lot colder in the 1700s after it was warmer for the previous few hundred....but how is it possible to measure it accurately?? So are we just really comparing the 1970s with today after a slightly warmer cycle??

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

Greg

We can take ice core samples from the poles that have records of year after year atmospheric conditions dating back hundreds of years, like tree rings for the environment. It's pretty basic science and shows a huge increase in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution. We know quite a bit about it

 

[flacaltenn]

yep, it's how convection on the planet works.

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?

it has to do with the word 'back,' 'downward'

So it's not, "all matter radiates", it's "all matter radiates, but it can't radiate downward"?
What's the logic behind that addition to physics?

not going to rehash hashed arguments, I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do. And again, unless you can prove that 'back' radiation actually happens in our atmosphere, always my claim, then you can't change my belief.

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Why are you bringing convection into a discussion about radiation?
because our atmosphere is not a vacuum.

I don't agree with you, and i have scientists who believe as I do.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

BTW, why the emphasis on 'back' radiation if all things radiate in all directions?

Well, the back radiation is the stuff that makes our planet about 60 F warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

Which scientists agree with your claim that back-radiation does not exist?

Credit Hockey Schitck:

"Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, has a blog for those interested in the mathematics & physics of the atmosphere, and has a new post today which also finds the conventional greenhouse gas theory of back radiation or reradiation causing global warming to be fictitious:"

Thanks for the link.

"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light"

Wow! He sounds like an idiot.


"Roger28 juni 2010 13:31
Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway.

Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:

1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this."

Here's a nice refutation of his silliness in the 4th post on the page.

Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth.

'towards earth'. my position is it doesn't make it to the surface or the troposphere and therefore can't add heat to the surface or troposphere.

It's LIGHT JC --- All that re-radiated infrared is just like a large lit up sky of a color that you can't see. It makes it back if NOT heavily blocked by water vapor or particulants.. Light is not affected by wind patterns or thermal mixing (the latter can actually effect the path, but not greatly) But you are correct in that it doesn't heat the surface. As the Toddster said -- The NET InfraRed flux is towards the sky. And the stuff coming back down from GHouse gases just reduces the LOSS to the sky by that amount.

Think insulation -- even though it's light and not truely heat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

my position is it doesn't make it to the surface

What stops it?

or the troposphere

Why not?

Why not?
a colder body cannot heat a warmer body.

Who said it did?

The warmer body radiates more than the colder body.
So even though the cold air radiates toward the warmer ground, the warm ground is still losing more heat toward the atmosphere.

agree completely

Great.
That means your claim (and SSDD's) that back radiation does not exist is not backed up by the laws of thermodynamics.

So what stops the energy emitted by the CO2 in the atmosphere from hitting the ground?

thermal mixing and wind flow patterns

thermal mixing and wind flow patterns

What are two things that can't prevent radiation from reaching the ground?

 

[jc456]

Credit CO2 Insanity web site:

Back Radiation Co2 Insanity

excerpt:
"Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Credit CO2 Insanity web site:

Back Radiation Co2 Insanity

excerpt:
"Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”"

Fine, call it radiation. It's still radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.

 

[jc456]

Credit CO2 Insanity web site:

Back Radiation Co2 Insanity

excerpt:
"Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”"

Fine, call it radiation. It's still radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.

and adding no heat to surface or troposphere temperatures.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Credit CO2 Insanity web site:

Back Radiation Co2 Insanity

excerpt:
"Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”"

Fine, call it radiation. It's still radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere toward the warmer surface.

and adding no heat to surface or troposphere temperatures.

All matter above 0K radiates all the time, in all directions.
Even if it's radiating toward warmer matter.

Are we clear on the basics yet?

 

[gtopa1]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

From what I can gather I would say we know too little about the natural cycles. It was a lot colder in the 1700s after it was warmer for the previous few hundred....but how is it possible to measure it accurately?? So are we just really comparing the 1970s with today after a slightly warmer cycle??

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

Greg

We can take ice core samples from the poles that have records of year after year atmospheric conditions dating back hundreds of years, like tree rings for the environment. It's pretty basic science and shows a huge increase in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution. We know quite a bit about it

Thank you for your response.

Antarctic Ice Cores The Sample Rate Problem Watts Up With That

Greg

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

From what I can gather I would say we know too little about the natural cycles. It was a lot colder in the 1700s after it was warmer for the previous few hundred....but how is it possible to measure it accurately?? So are we just really comparing the 1970s with today after a slightly warmer cycle??

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

Greg

Why are you interested in only the arguements against climate change? And why 'arguements". What about evidence for? And the scientific basis of?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That site is from the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on this planet.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

If you have been hearing about it since 1975 and are citing the 'imminent ice age' bullshit in the media of the time, you were not reading science then, and have not read science since then. If you are not going to do real research on your own, with the whole of the world's knowledge at your fingertips, why would you expect any rational person to take your opinions seriously?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

From what I can gather I would say we know too little about the natural cycles. It was a lot colder in the 1700s after it was warmer for the previous few hundred....but how is it possible to measure it accurately?? So are we just really comparing the 1970s with today after a slightly warmer cycle??

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

Greg

We can take ice core samples from the poles that have records of year after year atmospheric conditions dating back hundreds of years, like tree rings for the environment. It's pretty basic science and shows a huge increase in greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution. We know quite a bit about it

Thank you for your response.

Antarctic Ice Cores The Sample Rate Problem Watts Up With That

Greg

Look, you want to site un-degreed ex-TV weathermen, obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords, go ahead, just don't expect any credibility or respect. Go to Google Scholar, type in your question, and look at what real scientists have to say.

 

[gtopa1]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

From what I can gather I would say we know too little about the natural cycles. It was a lot colder in the 1700s after it was warmer for the previous few hundred....but how is it possible to measure it accurately?? So are we just really comparing the 1970s with today after a slightly warmer cycle??

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

Greg

Why are you interested in only the arguements against climate change? And why 'arguements". What about evidence for? And the scientific basis of?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That site is from the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on this planet.

I have no problems with the greenhouse effect. Without it Earth would be uninhabitable. What I am against is the Politicisation of Science by the usual Anti-America and Anti-West fakers. Really; where is the EVIDENCE that the catastrophe is about to occur?? You really believe that shit??No snow in Europe by 2000?? lmao

You can have millions of bits of evidence FOR a theory, but it only takes one piece of contrary evidence tyo rip it down. That is how Science works...or did when it was honest.

The Problem of Induction by Sir Karl Popper

The AGW Alarmist theory states that Temps will rise as CO2 levels go up and the increase will be like a "hockey stick". The results will be catastrophic to life on earth.

Where is the evidence? The current hiatus in Temperature shows that the link is not one that is as the AGW alarmists suggest. The model predictions are on the very high side and frankly are very questionable indeed. And it is still snowing in both Hemispheres...I was at the Snow a couple of weeks ago in Southern Australia.

Frankly, I see no reason to be alarmed. Careful of course, but the end of days scenarios are just ridiculous.

Now there are some AGW Scientists I think are worth listening to and I do. They are thoughtful if perhaps mistaken and also believe that the Science is NOT settled.

http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf

I like Richard Muller but I am still not convinced that we are heading to Catastrophe. Frankly I would suggest that neither does he.

Greg

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First they were screaming "Global cooling!!! New Ice Age!!" then it was "Global warming!!!", but after 2 decades of no Warming, in a few short years they told us it was:

• Climate Change
• Climate Disruption
• then, the ocean ate my global warming

They alter data, don't allow any dissenting opinion, there's still not one repeatable experiment that show how a wisp of CO2 can raise temperature and finally there's an 800,000 year data set that show CO2 lagging temperature on the increase and decrease

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

 

[gtopa1]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

If you have been hearing about it since 1975 and are citing the 'imminent ice age' bullshit in the media of the time, you were not reading science then, and have not read science since then. If you are not going to do real research on your own, with the whole of the world's knowledge at your fingertips, why would you expect any rational person to take your opinions seriously?

You know this how?? My Lecturers at the time were chaps who have of late been BIG in the AGW debate......and they suggested the main danger at the time was Global Cooling. They were Greenies of course and I give them as much cred now as I did then.

That you badger me with such crap as "I WAS NOT READING SCIENCE AT THE TIME" is idiotic. These were Environmental Scientists at the time and frankly they were as full of it as you are now. How can you be so dogmatic with ANY theory when the whole basis of Science is falsification...as per the Process described by Popper. You have based your opinions on the same as any "End of Days" nutjobs!!

Greg

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

Don't forget Guam tipping over. Imagine the loss!

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Greg, I gave you links to my sources, so how about links to where your 'scientists' were claiming an ice age was imminent in the 1970's.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Greg. That is a strawman on the denialists and your part. Very few scientists are screaming 'end of days'. What they are stating is that there is going to be severe costs associated with climate change. Costs from port cities having dock facilities ruined by sea level rise, storm surges causing far damage, as we saw with Sandy, for the same reason. Less available food from the sea because of the impact of ocean acidification on the base of the food chain. Less money available for the creation of new infrastructure because we are having more storms damaging the existing infrastructure.

Don't forget Guam tipping over. Imagine the loss!

Aren't there some rules about trolling?

 

[Dot Com]

That's a fudged and fabricated propaganda plot by paid professional arch-liar Steve Goddard.

That would be why every scienitst ignores such fakery. Scientists know deniers are lying their asses off about everything, so they can't be fooled by a cut-and-paste of a crazy lie. It does fool the denier cultists, of course. Their cult forbids them from looking at any data from outside the cult, so they simply have no idea that they're being spoonfed dishonest nonsense.

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

^ that CrusaderFrank

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk