COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

[westwall]

As I understand it, technically speaking, the earth is in energy-balance, meaning that all the incoming solar energy gets absorbed and re-radiated back out into space. The key to the greenhouse effect is that the level in the atmosphere at which the IR photons re-radiate back out into space gets higher and higher and less efficient. This winds up trapping more heat at the surface but ultimately those IR photons will make it back out into space.

Earth is an open system. The theory doesn't work unless it is a closed system.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As I understand it, technically speaking, the earth is in energy-balance, meaning that all the incoming solar energy gets absorbed and re-radiated back out into space. The key to the greenhouse effect is that the level in the atmosphere at which the IR photons re-radiate back out into space gets higher and higher and less efficient. This winds up trapping more heat at the surface but ultimately those IR photons will make it back out into space.

IF this were a CLOSED system, the earth is an OPEN system.

The length of the longwave radiation, of any particle of matter or molecule, is dependent on its temperature. The cooler it becomes, the longer the wave it emits becomes. Once the gases in the atmosphere cool, they emit outside of the ability of a molecules ability to absorb, they are lost to space. This is called ENTROPY.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Earth is an open system. The theory doesn't work unless it is a closed system.

Why does that make a difference to AGW?

(I've heard it when Creationists try to invoke the Second Law of Thermo and entropy but it doesn't really apply to global warming as far as I can tell.)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

IF this were a CLOSED system, the earth is an OPEN system.

Once again, what does that have to do with AGW.

The length of the longwave radiation, of any particle of matter or molecule, is dependent on its temperature. The cooler it becomes, the longer the wave it emits becomes. Once the gases in the atmosphere cool, they emit outside of the ability of a molecules ability to absorb, they are lost to space. This is called ENTROPY.

That isn't what entropy is.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why does that make a difference to AGW?

(I've heard it when Creationists try to invoke the Second Law of Thermo and entropy but it doesn't really apply to global warming as far as I can tell.)

Here is why it matters.

IN a greenhouse the glass closes the system, so heat accumulates.

The earth is an open system, (no glass) so the heat never accumulates. The atmospheric gas cools as they rise and the emitted energy is not stopped. The higher they go the cooler they become and the longer the emitted wave length of the energy. This is why the "hot spot" above the equatorial regions never materialized.

The lack of this self-reenforcing loop will not allow a runaway temperature rise to form, ever.. The AGW hypothesis is falsified by this simple physical attribute of our atmosphere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Once again, what does that have to do with AGW.




That isn't what entropy is.

LOL the work ability of the energy is diminished..

Entropy is also "lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder:"

 

[Orangecat]

global

climate

DISRUPTION!!!1!!!

 

[MisterBeale]

They could easily have stopped covid in about a month, but deliberately decided not only not to, but with "flattening the curve", deliberately preventing it from ending through herd immunity as well.

But no one has ever asked anyone to pay more in taxes, over global warming.
It cost LESS to simply conserve fossil fuels and burn less.

We continually use, more and more energy. NOT LESS.

We are purposely constructing societies that USE MORE energy, not less, and it is BIG GOVERNMENT, and BIG GLOBAL CORPORATIONS that are doing this. Not the little people. The elites are doing it so they can live like kings and queens.

Data centers are one of the largest consumers of energy. With each iteration of technology, the consumption of energy for the smart grid of data processing centers for the complete automation of society, to enable the use of AI and robotics becomes exponential.

LIES, it is complete lies, that we are trying to conserve energy, and not use more.

And it is axiomatic, that besides nuclear, fossil fuels are the most efficient and highest producing source of energy to meet the ever increasing demands of energy for society. Renewable, as it stands, will never meet the demands needed.

If the global oligarchs and ruling elites of world society were serious about this. . . "problem?" Instead of moving all of civilization closer to 6G smart grid technology, the would be encouraging folks to strip technology from their homes, stop using all technology, and instead of encouraging folks to buy electric cars, they would be encouraging them to buy horses and buggies, like the Amish.

Don't try to gas-light me, I know this whole "AGW," thing is a bullshit reason to re-engineer the economy for more profits for global cap. It is a ruse.

The only way to consume LESS energy? Is to move toward living like the natives or the Amish. But they don't want that. . . why not? If this really IS an existential, ELE, why would they not be moving us in the reverse direction?

WHY? Because it is all bullshit.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Here is why it matters.

IN a greenhouse the glass closes the system, so heat accumulates.

The earth is an open system, (no glass) so the heat never accumulates.

Did you read my post? I noted that the IR photons re-radiate back out into space because the earth is in general energy balance. Incoming ~ outgoing.

The lack of this self-reenforcing loop will not allow a runaway temperature rise to form, ever.. The AGW hypothesis is falsified by this simple physical attribute of our atmosphere.

AGW is NOT defined as being a "runaway greenhouse".

Your "interpretation" of the science does not "falsify" anything. Sorry.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

LOL the work ability of the energy is diminished..

Entropy is also "lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder:"

Yes, I know what entropy is. I'm a chemist. What I'm struggling with is your claim that since the earth is an open system it somehow matters to the concept of AGW.

 

[jc456]

Points awarded for such imaginitive insanity there. It takes creativity to make up something that cuckoobananas.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Greenland is still losing mass.

NASA Scientific Visualization Studio | Greenland Ice Mass Loss 2002-2023

The mass of the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving. Research based on observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites (2002-2017) and GRACE Follow-On (since 2018 - ) indicates that between...

svs.gsfc.nasa.gov

you still haven't learned the globe is 75% ocean/ water.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Did you read my post? I noted that the IR photons re-radiate back out into space because the earth is in general energy balance. Incoming ~ outgoing.



AGW is NOT defined as being a "runaway greenhouse".

Your "interpretation" of the science does not "falsify" anything. Sorry.

The AGW theory requires the formation of a self-reenforcing area of energy above the equator. Without this area of increased temperature, the earth cannot climb in temperature.,,

Very little of the AGW theory is in dispute, only the action/reaction relationship is in dispute. The Climate sensitivity number to CO2, currently sitting at 0.3/1 (actual temp rise/LOG temp rise), indicates that the atmosphere is acting as a dampener and is not enhancing heat retention. We are seeing about 30% of the expected rise from CO2 alone.

IF CO2 were 'trapping' the energy, the "hot spot" would manifest itself above our equator. The problem is, it is not. CO2's narrow area of absorption is defeated as the molecules rise and cool in the atmosphere and emit at longer wave length. That is why the CAGW hypothesis is falsified. Every model using this hypothesis fails, without exception.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Did you read my post? I noted that the IR photons re-radiate back out into space because the earth is in general energy balance. Incoming ~ outgoing.

That is the basic definition of an OPEN system...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The AGW theory requires the formation of a self-reenforcing area of energy above the equator. Without this area of increased temperature, the earth cannot climb in temperature.,,

I don't believe that AGW requires any such thing.

Very little of the AGW theory is in dispute, only the action/reaction relationship is in dispute. The Climate sensitivity number to CO2, currently sitting at 0.3/1 (actual temp rise/LOG temp rise),

what do you mean "actual temp rise/log temp rise"? I mean we all know that CO2 sensitivity is logarithmic with regards to CONCENTRATION, not temperature. And in fact that current estimate of climate sensitivity of CO2 is about 3degC for a doubling of the concentration.

Maybe you can explain your strange mathematics here.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That is the basic definition of an OPEN system...

Yeah, and why does it matter to this conversation?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yeah, and why does it matter to this conversation?

It matters as the "greenhouse" effect is an improper term. Words mean things in science. IF you cannot correctly identify the process, how can you discuss it?

 

[westwall]

Why does that make a difference to AGW?

(I've heard it when Creationists try to invoke the Second Law of Thermo and entropy but it doesn't really apply to global warming as far as I can tell.)

Because a open system allows the transfer of energy to and fro. A closed system doesn't.

AGW CAN'T work with an open system.

 

[westwall]

Yes, I know what entropy is. I'm a chemist. What I'm struggling with is your claim that since the earth is an open system it somehow matters to the concept of AGW.

Wow, just a few weeks ago you were a geologist.

What will you be next week, a Vegas show girl?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Wow, just a few weeks ago you were a geologist.

Geochemist you moron.

Look, it's plenty clear you have no technical background so just STFU.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't believe that AGW requires any such thing.



what do you mean "actual temp rise/log temp rise"? I mean we all know that CO2 sensitivity is logarithmic with regards to CONCENTRATION, not temperature. And in fact that current estimate of climate sensitivity of CO2 is about 3degC for a doubling of the concentration.

Maybe you can explain your strange mathematics here.

Actually, it is, in regard to temperature..



The temperature affect diminishes with higher concentrations. The actual rise in temp now is just 1.8 deg C per doubling of concentration. At the next doubling it drops to about 0.8 deg C.