Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[IanC]

Of course not, because you can actually measure the height of the tree to check against your trigonometric calculation...you can't actually measure energy moving in two directions because it doesn't happen...energy movement is a one way gross flow from warm to cool.

The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.

Mathematically true, and based in reality. For your version to work then the average temperature of the two objects would have to be able get inside of individual particles and change the internal conditions to block radiation. What is the mechanism by which the movement of molecules is stopped or slowed? Even though the temperature is maintained? Temperature IS the movement of molecules. You make no sense at all.

 

[IanC]

The experiment is not showing what you believe it to be showing...you claim that energy can not move from the outside of the sphere to the inside of the sphere when the very energy that is heating the inside came from the outside...and since neither the sphere nor the interior of the oven can ever be brought to perfect thermal equilibrium, there is going to be energy movement across those temperature gradients no matter how small they may be...the experiment doesn't demonstrate what you claim it demonstrates.

The oven conditions the air to stay at a specific temperature, the enclosure absorbs energy and passes it along until the whole enclosure is at a uniform temperature. This takes time to come to equilibrium and a specific amount of energy has been absorbed. Once at equilibrium the interior cavity surface can only lose energy the same way it came in, through the outside of the enclosure.(edit- there is no direct path from the cavity to the outside, the energy must flow there via temperature gradients). No small fluxuations of individual particles changes the temperature of the whole, or even smaller areas. A wide range of individual particle motion is expected in any substance, after all temperature is an average of a large number of constituent particles.

Your demand that every particle is equal right down to the atomic scale is foolish and unrealistic. No one claims that happens or that it is even possible.

 

[SSDD]

The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.

Mental masturbation ian.....nothing more... The SB equations for objects in the presence of other matter depict a one way gross flow of energy...why else do such bad math....complicating an equation that has already been reduced in an effort to convince someone other than yourself.

 

[SSDD]

The oven conditions the air to stay at a specific temperature, the enclosure absorbs energy and passes it along until the whole enclosure is at a uniform temperature. This takes time to come to equilibrium and a specific amount of energy has been absorbed. Once at equilibrium the interior cavity surface can only lose energy the same way it came in, through the outside of the enclosure.(edit- there is no direct path from the cavity to the outside, the energy must flow there via temperature gradients). No small fluxuations of individual particles changes the temperature of the whole, or even smaller areas. A wide range of individual particle motion is expected in any substance, after all temperature is an average of a large number of constituent particles.

Sorry ian...the system is not at perfect thermal equilibrium...no matter how much you wish it were true...there are temperature variations both within the sphere, within the material the sphere is made of, and within the oven the sphere resides in...we can not produce perfect thermal equilibrium.

Your demand that every particle is equal right down to the atomic scale is foolish and unrealistic. No one claims that happens or that it is even possible.

And yet, that is the only way that the experiment shows what you believe it to show...and by the way...at thermal equilibrium, no energy exchange is possible.

 

[IanC]

Okay, let's try yet another slightly different explanation that leads to the same conclusions.

Planck curves for two blackbodies 20C apart.

The shape of the curve is very common. A Bell curve with a fat tail. The range for both curves is almost identical, with just a very small increase in maximum energy wavelength for the warmer curve. At every point of the range the warmer blackbody produces more radiation than the cooler one. This is why the SLoT is immutable.

The radiation is created by molecular motion and collisions. Here is a graph on molecular speeds-

Another Normal (Bell) curve with a fat tail.

SSDD says thermal equilibrium is only possible if all molecules are exactly equal in speed, presumably the root mean square speed. That cannot happen. Physically impossible.

Apparently SSDD is claiming that radiation can only be created by a faster moving molecule that passes it over to a slower moving molecule. Even if that was true (it's not) how would that stop radiation from happening between two objects at the same temperature, or even a cooler object to a warmer one?

An average speed molecule can always find a slower moving molecule to radiate at, even if it is from a cooler object. Any temperature object has some has some molecules at close to zero speed.

TBC

 

[polarbear]

The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.

Mental masturbation ian.....nothing more... The SB equations for objects in the presence of other matter depict a one way gross flow of energy...why else do such bad math....complicating an equation that has already been reduced in an effort to convince someone other than yourself.

Yeah it`s back to the ideal black body and the Planck curve as if warm air over the earth`s surface would have anything in common with it. Even if you let him have the toys for the game he wants to play it would not jive.
Suppose you got a situation where T1 is at a level where most of the available oscillators are in the excited state at any given time. Then 100% of all the photons emitted by the colder body would have to be able to find the few % of the oscillators in the T1 body that can absorb them. Now that would take "intelligent" photons!
I already showed him what happens if you radiate a cathode ray light beam through a flame aspirated with a substance that can absorb the light ray. The hotter the flame the less light it absorbs from the cathode ray light source. That`s not an experiment but a well known effect that anyone who works in Spectroscopic Analysis knows. Like as if Perkin Elmer and all the other AA spec instrumentation designers & manufacturers would give a shit about IanC`s utterings how a hotter body absorbs energy from a colder one via photons and rewrite their user manuals because a consensus of climatologists says it is so. And from now on flame settings no longer matter.

 

[IanC]

The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.

Mental masturbation ian.....nothing more... The SB equations for objects in the presence of other matter depict a one way gross flow of energy...why else do such bad math....complicating an equation that has already been reduced in an effort to convince someone other than yourself.

Yeah it`s back to the ideal black body and the Planck curve as if warm air over the earth`s surface would have anything in common with it. Even if you let him have the toys for the game he wants to play it would not jive.
Suppose you got a situation where T1 is at a level where most of the available oscillators are in the excited state at any given time. Then 100% of all the photons emitted by the colder body would have to be able to find the few % of the oscillators in the T1 body that can absorb them. Now that would take "intelligent" photons!
I already showed him what happens if you radiate a cathode ray light beam through a flame aspirated with a substance that can absorb the light ray. The hotter the flame the less light it absorbs from the cathode ray light source. That`s not an experiment but a well known effect that anyone who works in Spectroscopic Analysis knows. Like as if Perkin Elmer and all the other AA spec instrumentation designers & manufacturers would give a shit about IanC`s utterings how a hotter body absorbs energy from a colder one via photons and rewrite their user manuals because a consensus of climatologists says it is so. And from now on flame settings no longer matter.

So you're back to this bullshit? We are talking about passive heat transfer at common terrestrial temperatures and temperature gradients.

You are talking about controlled experiments using an outside fuel source to artificially heat a substance until many of its orbitals and bonds are in an excited state.

Apples and oranges.

Why do you run away when realistic examples are being discussed, only to resurface weeks later with more off topic crap?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.

Mental masturbation ian.....nothing more... The SB equations for objects in the presence of other matter depict a one way gross flow of energy...why else do such bad math....complicating an equation that has already been reduced in an effort to convince someone other than yourself.

Yeah it`s back to the ideal black body and the Planck curve as if warm air over the earth`s surface would have anything in common with it. Even if you let him have the toys for the game he wants to play it would not jive.
Suppose you got a situation where T1 is at a level where most of the available oscillators are in the excited state at any given time. Then 100% of all the photons emitted by the colder body would have to be able to find the few % of the oscillators in the T1 body that can absorb them. Now that would take "intelligent" photons!
I already showed him what happens if you radiate a cathode ray light beam through a flame aspirated with a substance that can absorb the light ray. The hotter the flame the less light it absorbs from the cathode ray light source. That`s not an experiment but a well known effect that anyone who works in Spectroscopic Analysis knows. Like as if Perkin Elmer and all the other AA spec instrumentation designers & manufacturers would give a shit about IanC`s utterings how a hotter body absorbs energy from a colder one via photons and rewrite their user manuals because a consensus of climatologists says it is so. And from now on flame settings no longer matter.

Yeah it`s back to the ideal black body and the Planck curve as if warm air over the earth`s surface would have anything in common with it.

Air doesn't emit according to the Planck curve?

 

[IanC]

The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.

Mental masturbation ian.....nothing more... The SB equations for objects in the presence of other matter depict a one way gross flow of energy...why else do such bad math....complicating an equation that has already been reduced in an effort to convince someone other than yourself.

Yeah it`s back to the ideal black body and the Planck curve as if warm air over the earth`s surface would have anything in common with it. Even if you let him have the toys for the game he wants to play it would not jive.
Suppose you got a situation where T1 is at a level where most of the available oscillators are in the excited state at any given time. Then 100% of all the photons emitted by the colder body would have to be able to find the few % of the oscillators in the T1 body that can absorb them. Now that would take "intelligent" photons!
I already showed him what happens if you radiate a cathode ray light beam through a flame aspirated with a substance that can absorb the light ray. The hotter the flame the less light it absorbs from the cathode ray light source. That`s not an experiment but a well known effect that anyone who works in Spectroscopic Analysis knows. Like as if Perkin Elmer and all the other AA spec instrumentation designers & manufacturers would give a shit about IanC`s utterings how a hotter body absorbs energy from a colder one via photons and rewrite their user manuals because a consensus of climatologists says it is so. And from now on flame settings no longer matter.

Yeah it`s back to the ideal black body and the Planck curve as if warm air over the earth`s surface would have anything in common with it.

Air doesn't emit according to the Planck curve?

No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.

 

[SSDD]

The S-B equations calculate the power from one object and subtract it from the other, resulting in net power going from the warmer object to the cooler one.

Mental masturbation ian.....nothing more... The SB equations for objects in the presence of other matter depict a one way gross flow of energy...why else do such bad math....complicating an equation that has already been reduced in an effort to convince someone other than yourself.

Yeah it`s back to the ideal black body and the Planck curve as if warm air over the earth`s surface would have anything in common with it. Even if you let him have the toys for the game he wants to play it would not jive.
Suppose you got a situation where T1 is at a level where most of the available oscillators are in the excited state at any given time. Then 100% of all the photons emitted by the colder body would have to be able to find the few % of the oscillators in the T1 body that can absorb them. Now that would take "intelligent" photons!
I already showed him what happens if you radiate a cathode ray light beam through a flame aspirated with a substance that can absorb the light ray. The hotter the flame the less light it absorbs from the cathode ray light source. That`s not an experiment but a well known effect that anyone who works in Spectroscopic Analysis knows. Like as if Perkin Elmer and all the other AA spec instrumentation designers & manufacturers would give a shit about IanC`s utterings how a hotter body absorbs energy from a colder one via photons and rewrite their user manuals because a consensus of climatologists says it is so. And from now on flame settings no longer matter.

So you're back to this bullshit? We are talking about passive heat transfer at common terrestrial temperatures and temperature gradients.

You are talking about controlled experiments using an outside fuel source to artificially heat a substance until many of its orbitals and bonds are in an excited state.

Apples and oranges.

Why do you run away when realistic examples are being discussed, only to resurface weeks later with more off topic crap?

What you don't seem to grasp ian, is that the second law applies to everything...no exceptions... The experiment he references just proves the point...it doesn't point to some exception.

 

[SSDD]

No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.

Does that statement of fact now mean that you agree that the SB law is being wrongly applied to the atmosphere in order to fabricate a greenhouse effect, and with it, its bastard stepchild the AGW hypothesis?...because if you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere, then you can't have a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

 

[Old Rocks]

By sometime in February we should have a solid cost estimate of what the extreme weather events have cost us. I think that the label of CAGW will fit this year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By sometime in February we should have a solid cost estimate of what the extreme weather events have cost us. I think that the label of CAGW will fit this year.

What's the annual cost of baseline "extreme weather"?

 

[IanC]

No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.

Does that statement of fact now mean that you agree that the SB law is being wrongly applied to the atmosphere in order to fabricate a greenhouse effect, and with it, its bastard stepchild the AGW hypothesis?...because if you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere, then you can't have a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

There you go again. You make a bald statement with no explanation of what you mean, and then claim victory.

I am no fan of the consensus science version of AGW theory and the doomsday conclusions drawn from it. Get that straight in your head.

But I am a big fan of the notion that CO2 is a warming influence, directly on the atmosphere and indirectly on the surface by making the atmosphere warmer.

You are a big fan of the S-B equations but refuse to take into consideration any of the complexities in actually deriving real world answers from it. The area component is beyond your ken, as proven by past conversations, and is not of primary concern here anyways.

That leaves emmisivity, which is the primary concern here. A blackbody is a theoretical substance that perfectly absorbs and emits radiation at all wavelengths, over the range of all temperatures. Doesn't happen, impossible. But you can measure emmisivity for substances over narrow ranges of wavelengths and temperatures.

CO2 (in gaseous form) has a known emmisivity for the terrestrial range of wavelengths and temperatures, by measurement. It is close to zero for all wavelengths but three, with only the 15 micron radiation being of primary interest here. At 15 microns CO2 is a near blackbody, the atmosphere is opaque at this wavelength. The mean free path for a 15 micron photon emitted from the surface is a mere 2 metres before it is absorbed by CO2 at a concentration of less than one percent, and all of it is gone by 10 metres.

The surface 15 micron energy for the most part does not stay in the CO2 molecules or get reemited as 15 micron photons. It is converted by molecular collision into different forms of energy, kinetic and potential as part of the total energy of the atmosphere.

We could do the same type of exercise for water vapour but it is further complicated by the presence of liquid and solid forms as well for absorption, and latent heat from phase change for emission.


If you want to say CO2 has no warming influence then you have to explain away the surface energy being absorbed by CO2 in the first few metres of atmosphere. It can't just disappear and be forgotten. So far your only explanation is to say "absorption and emission do not equal warming". So go into detail. What absorption and where, what emission and where? Why do you think they are equal amounts if they predominantly happen in different locations with a large difference in temperature ?

Convince me. Stop making claims out of thin air and start making logical explanations with supporting evidence.

 

[SSDD]

But I am a big fan of the notion that CO2 is a warming influence, directly on the atmosphere and indirectly on the surface by making the atmosphere warmer.

And yet, none of the predicted fingerprints of CO2 having any warming influence at all are present. You believe based on a model...not any sort of actual evidence...so once again..you have nothing but your faith...and alas...that isn't science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.

Does that statement of fact now mean that you agree that the SB law is being wrongly applied to the atmosphere in order to fabricate a greenhouse effect, and with it, its bastard stepchild the AGW hypothesis?...because if you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere, then you can't have a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

There you go again. You make a bald statement with no explanation of what you mean, and then claim victory.

I am no fan of the consensus science version of AGW theory and the doomsday conclusions drawn from it. Get that straight in your head.

But I am a big fan of the notion that CO2 is a warming influence, directly on the atmosphere and indirectly on the surface by making the atmosphere warmer.

You are a big fan of the S-B equations but refuse to take into consideration any of the complexities in actually deriving real world answers from it. The area component is beyond your ken, as proven by past conversations, and is not of primary concern here anyways.

That leaves emmisivity, which is the primary concern here. A blackbody is a theoretical substance that perfectly absorbs and emits radiation at all wavelengths, over the range of all temperatures. Doesn't happen, impossible. But you can measure emmisivity for substances over narrow ranges of wavelengths and temperatures.

CO2 (in gaseous form) has a known emmisivity for the terrestrial range of wavelengths and temperatures, by measurement. It is close to zero for all wavelengths but three, with only the 15 micron radiation being of primary interest here. At 15 microns CO2 is a near blackbody, the atmosphere is opaque at this wavelength. The mean free path for a 15 micron photon emitted from the surface is a mere 2 metres before it is absorbed by CO2 at a concentration of less than one percent, and all of it is gone by 10 metres.

The surface 15 micron energy for the most part does not stay in the CO2 molecules or get reemited as 15 micron photons. It is converted by molecular collision into different forms of energy, kinetic and potential as part of the total energy of the atmosphere.

We could do the same type of exercise for water vapour but it is further complicated by the presence of liquid and solid forms as well for absorption, and latent heat from phase change for emission.


If you want to say CO2 has no warming influence then you have to explain away the surface energy being absorbed by CO2 in the first few metres of atmosphere. It can't just disappear and be forgotten. So far your only explanation is to say "absorption and emission do not equal warming". So go into detail. What absorption and where, what emission and where? Why do you think they are equal amounts if they predominantly happen in different locations with a large difference in temperature ?

Convince me. Stop making claims out of thin air and start making logical explanations with supporting evidence.

Come on Ian.. I just showed you why CO2 cant affect the earth like you think it can in the other thread. Without the functions you claim working, it can not do what you think it can.. The problem with modeling is, they never look out the window to evaluate if the model is paralleling reality.

 

[IanC]

And yet, none of the predicted fingerprints of CO2 having any warming influence at all are present. You believe based on a model...not any sort of actual evidence...so once again..you have nothing but your faith...and alas...that isn't science.

Your memory is getting as selective as Old Rocks'.

So, what is the fingerprint of CO2 warming? CO2 warms the lower atmosphere by absorbing surface radiation that would otherwise escape directly to space. The warmer lower atmosphere accepts less thermal contact energy from the surface because of the smaller temperature gradient. The surface warms up until the extra radiation escaping through the atmospheric window puts the energy budget back into equilibrium.

So what would we expect to find if we looked at graphs of TOA radiation for the same area, but separated by 20+ years of increasing CO2? A warmer surface temperature, more radiation escaping through the atmospheric window, and less CO2 specific radiation because the emission height has raised into a cooler part of the atmosphere.

What was found in the actual data? Exactly what was expected. Were the atmospheric radiation models accurate? Yes, amazingly so.

And where did I get this information? FROM YOU! Your link. Hahahaha

 

[IanC]

No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.

Does that statement of fact now mean that you agree that the SB law is being wrongly applied to the atmosphere in order to fabricate a greenhouse effect, and with it, its bastard stepchild the AGW hypothesis?...because if you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere, then you can't have a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

There you go again. You make a bald statement with no explanation of what you mean, and then claim victory.

I am no fan of the consensus science version of AGW theory and the doomsday conclusions drawn from it. Get that straight in your head.

But I am a big fan of the notion that CO2 is a warming influence, directly on the atmosphere and indirectly on the surface by making the atmosphere warmer.

You are a big fan of the S-B equations but refuse to take into consideration any of the complexities in actually deriving real world answers from it. The area component is beyond your ken, as proven by past conversations, and is not of primary concern here anyways.

That leaves emmisivity, which is the primary concern here. A blackbody is a theoretical substance that perfectly absorbs and emits radiation at all wavelengths, over the range of all temperatures. Doesn't happen, impossible. But you can measure emmisivity for substances over narrow ranges of wavelengths and temperatures.

CO2 (in gaseous form) has a known emmisivity for the terrestrial range of wavelengths and temperatures, by measurement. It is close to zero for all wavelengths but three, with only the 15 micron radiation being of primary interest here. At 15 microns CO2 is a near blackbody, the atmosphere is opaque at this wavelength. The mean free path for a 15 micron photon emitted from the surface is a mere 2 metres before it is absorbed by CO2 at a concentration of less than one percent, and all of it is gone by 10 metres.

The surface 15 micron energy for the most part does not stay in the CO2 molecules or get reemited as 15 micron photons. It is converted by molecular collision into different forms of energy, kinetic and potential as part of the total energy of the atmosphere.

We could do the same type of exercise for water vapour but it is further complicated by the presence of liquid and solid forms as well for absorption, and latent heat from phase change for emission.


If you want to say CO2 has no warming influence then you have to explain away the surface energy being absorbed by CO2 in the first few metres of atmosphere. It can't just disappear and be forgotten. So far your only explanation is to say "absorption and emission do not equal warming". So go into detail. What absorption and where, what emission and where? Why do you think they are equal amounts if they predominantly happen in different locations with a large difference in temperature ?

Convince me. Stop making claims out of thin air and start making logical explanations with supporting evidence.

Come on Ian.. I just showed you why CO2 cant affect the earth like you think it can in the other thread. Without the functions you claim working, it can not do what you think it can.. The problem with modeling is, they never look out the window to evaluate if the model is paralleling reality.

No, you have not disproven the CO2 warming influence. I even broke down the mechanism into its component parts and asked you which area you had a problem with. You declined to answer.

I am supporting the obvious and real CO2 warming influence. I am not supporting the feedback mechanisms because I think AGW theory has the physics wrong in many areas.

You keep putting up non sequiturs that have little or nothing to do with CO2, and you keep ducking the issues that are intrinsically tied to CO2.

 

[SSDD]

What was found in the actual data? Exactly what was expected. Were the atmospheric radiation models accurate? Yes, amazingly so.

Bullshit ian, the graphs show no difference between then and now...so once again...the real world data supports me...the only place a difference between outgoing LW then and now exists is in the models..

 

[IanC]

No. It doesn't absorb like a blackbody either.

Does that statement of fact now mean that you agree that the SB law is being wrongly applied to the atmosphere in order to fabricate a greenhouse effect, and with it, its bastard stepchild the AGW hypothesis?...because if you can't apply the SB law to the atmosphere, then you can't have a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Actually this is a great question. If you answer some of my questions directed at you I will gladly talk about this.